Getting young Canadians to vote
Most young Canadians are not participating in the democratic process.
Reforming electoral laws is not a complete answer, but it could represent an important step towards reversing the trend.
Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (Political Financing), was passed on June 11, 2003, moving the federal government into the business of funding Canada's political parties.
This was the federal government's most dramatic foray into political financing since the 1974 Election Expenses Act, which created Canada's regime for the financing of federal elections. Then Government House leader Don Boudria stated that Bill C-24 would "strengthen the connection between Canadians and their political institutions."
This goal was to be achieved by replacing the largely laissez-faire financing approach with public financing. Doing so, it was argued, would remove the perception that big money begets big political favours. Specifically, the legislation limits the amount corporations and unions can donate to $1,000 and compensates that loss with a $1.75 taxpayer subsidy for each vote received.
Given that one of the main objectives of Bill C-24 was to strengthen the connection between Canadians and their government, it must have been designed, in part, to stem the tide of an alarming trend within Canadian politics: apathy.
The statistics clearly show that Canadians are increasingly opting out of the political process. Nowhere is this downturn more apparent than within the ranks of Canada's youth.
According to statistics published in a report commissioned by Elections Canada, turnout among 18 to 20 year-olds in the 2000 federal election was a mere 22 per cent, compared with an 80 per cent turnout rate for 58 to 67 year-olds.
Many academics once took solace in the "life cycle" argument, maintaining that voter turnout would increase as the young matured and were faced with the financial and social burdens associated with adult life.
This prediction has not come to fruition.
Indeed, Elections Canada stated unequivocally in a recent pronouncement on youth electoral participation that "today's young people are not showing signs of becoming more likely to vote as they age."
Because young Canadians seem more under-engaged than apathetic, there is reason for optimism. In a recent examination of declining electoral turnout among Canada's youth, Prof. Brenda O'Neill of the University of Manitoba, found that 18 to 27 year-olds were much less likely than their older counterparts to agree to statements such as: "people like me do not have much say over what the government does."
Her conclusion is cautiously optimistic: "Although younger Canadians appear to be less politically engaged, this disengagement appears less a conscious decision to turn away from politics than a failure to see the importance of political participation."
And therein lies an ugly truth in Canadian politics: Young people are largely ignored. Political parties, by necessity, are rational, calculating creatures. As such, a vicious cycle has formed as political parties do not want to "throw good money after bad" by courting a youth vote that is unreliable at best. The new legislation may be able to combat this dangerous cycle of increasingly low levels of political participation within the ranks of Canada's youth.
If the state is in the business of funding political parties, earmarking a proportional amount of money that each political party receives to develop youth oriented policy initiatives and campaign materials that target the youth vote may begin the process of engaging young Canadians. Ensuring the implementation of these youth-based policies and promotional materials could be achieved with the "carrot" of increased funding or with the "stick" of a financial penalty for not reaching out to young Canadians in accordance with the amended Act.
Bill C-24 may prove to be (in the words of former Liberal Party president Stephen LeDrew) "as dumb as a sack of hammers"— only time will tell. In the meantime, it certainly is an opportunity to re-engage Canada's youth in our democratic process. Ultimately, what is required is a broad-based attitudinal change; politicians, and citizens of all ages have to take responsibility for our collective future. This new electoral reform initiative, if styled appropriately, may go a long way in facilitating youth empowerment and a more vibrant democracy.
With a voter turnout of 22 per cent among 18 to 20 year-olds, one might ask: How much worse can it get? Without some political capital spent on this issue, we may all just find out.
Most young Canadians are not participating in the democratic process.
Reforming electoral laws is not a complete answer, but it could represent an important step towards reversing the trend.
Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (Political Financing), was passed on June 11, 2003, moving the federal government into the business of funding Canada's political parties.
This was the federal government's most dramatic foray into political financing since the 1974 Election Expenses Act, which created Canada's regime for the financing of federal elections. Then Government House leader Don Boudria stated that Bill C-24 would "strengthen the connection between Canadians and their political institutions."
This goal was to be achieved by replacing the largely laissez-faire financing approach with public financing. Doing so, it was argued, would remove the perception that big money begets big political favours. Specifically, the legislation limits the amount corporations and unions can donate to $1,000 and compensates that loss with a $1.75 taxpayer subsidy for each vote received.
Given that one of the main objectives of Bill C-24 was to strengthen the connection between Canadians and their government, it must have been designed, in part, to stem the tide of an alarming trend within Canadian politics: apathy.
The statistics clearly show that Canadians are increasingly opting out of the political process. Nowhere is this downturn more apparent than within the ranks of Canada's youth.
According to statistics published in a report commissioned by Elections Canada, turnout among 18 to 20 year-olds in the 2000 federal election was a mere 22 per cent, compared with an 80 per cent turnout rate for 58 to 67 year-olds.
Many academics once took solace in the "life cycle" argument, maintaining that voter turnout would increase as the young matured and were faced with the financial and social burdens associated with adult life.
This prediction has not come to fruition.
Indeed, Elections Canada stated unequivocally in a recent pronouncement on youth electoral participation that "today's young people are not showing signs of becoming more likely to vote as they age."
Because young Canadians seem more under-engaged than apathetic, there is reason for optimism. In a recent examination of declining electoral turnout among Canada's youth, Prof. Brenda O'Neill of the University of Manitoba, found that 18 to 27 year-olds were much less likely than their older counterparts to agree to statements such as: "people like me do not have much say over what the government does."
Her conclusion is cautiously optimistic: "Although younger Canadians appear to be less politically engaged, this disengagement appears less a conscious decision to turn away from politics than a failure to see the importance of political participation."
And therein lies an ugly truth in Canadian politics: Young people are largely ignored. Political parties, by necessity, are rational, calculating creatures. As such, a vicious cycle has formed as political parties do not want to "throw good money after bad" by courting a youth vote that is unreliable at best. The new legislation may be able to combat this dangerous cycle of increasingly low levels of political participation within the ranks of Canada's youth.
If the state is in the business of funding political parties, earmarking a proportional amount of money that each political party receives to develop youth oriented policy initiatives and campaign materials that target the youth vote may begin the process of engaging young Canadians. Ensuring the implementation of these youth-based policies and promotional materials could be achieved with the "carrot" of increased funding or with the "stick" of a financial penalty for not reaching out to young Canadians in accordance with the amended Act.
Bill C-24 may prove to be (in the words of former Liberal Party president Stephen LeDrew) "as dumb as a sack of hammers"— only time will tell. In the meantime, it certainly is an opportunity to re-engage Canada's youth in our democratic process. Ultimately, what is required is a broad-based attitudinal change; politicians, and citizens of all ages have to take responsibility for our collective future. This new electoral reform initiative, if styled appropriately, may go a long way in facilitating youth empowerment and a more vibrant democracy.
With a voter turnout of 22 per cent among 18 to 20 year-olds, one might ask: How much worse can it get? Without some political capital spent on this issue, we may all just find out.
