A Civic Duty? Why is Canada’s Voter Turnout Low?A Report to Elections Canada

Stephen Thompson301074493

POL201December 14, 2012

Abstract

This research paper looks at data consisting of voter turnout from 76 democracies for election years ranging from 1997 to 2003. It consists of a set of five hypothesis that are tested in order to achieve an understanding on the global voter turnout rate and how Canada compares. These hypotheses are then tested using a range of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. The results show a positive relationship between education and voter turnout. The paper concludes that more education is required in order to support voter turnout rates in Canada.

Introduction

For many new Canadians the first election they participate in is a treasured moment. It is a moment when a citizen is able to cast their vote without fear of reprisal, intimidation or fear of violence and feel that they are able to have a voice in choosing the government of Canada. Yet the current trend of Canadian voter turnout fails to meet our own expectations as a country with 145 years of uninterrupted democracy. The 2000 election saw a voter turnout rate of 61.18%; many of our neighbours and friends have rates that easily surpass Canada’s. The question we are researching is that if voting is considered one of our sacred civic duties, why is voter turnout relatively low in Canada? Only by understanding this question can Canadians’ as a society address what issues may exist in order to increase the participation in our democracy.

The dataset used for our analysis contains 76 democratic nations. All have their unique story of how they came to be a democracy. Canada along with many others has enjoyed a long history of democracy. Our first null hypothesis is that Canada’s turnout is no different from any other democratic country. Therefore our alternative will be that Canada’s turnout is different from other countries. Our next set of hypotheses focus on voter turnout and other variables in the attempt to find relationships that explain what has an effect on voter turnout rates.

Our second hypothesis is one based on the relationship between voter turnout rates and the type of democracy a country has, being either parliamentary, presidential, or a semi-presidential system – where both the president and the prime minister are active members of government. Our second null hypothesis then is that there is no relationship between the voter turnout rate and the type of democratic government a country has. Our

1

alternative is that there is a relationship between voter turnout and the type of democratic government.

Our third hypothesis is based on countries with bicameral or unicameral governments. Unicameral governments tend to exist in smaller countries. This gives us the opportunity to compare voter turnout of countries that are larger with a bicameral system of government to smaller unicameral governments. It is then our third null hypothesis that countries with unicameral systems of government have the same voter turnout as countries that have bicameral systems of government. Our alternative hypothesis then is that unicameral systems have a higher voter turnout.

Our fourth hypothesis draws from the belief that citizens who are well educated understand the importance of the political system and are more likely to go and vote. Many non-voters state that they are non-interested in politics or that they do not know who to vote for. An educated citizen would have a broader understanding of politics through exposure to such mediums as the media, the Internet, or local politics, such as campus politics if they undertook post-secondary studies. It is then our fourth null hypothesis that higher education has no relationship to voter turnout. Our alternative hypothesis is that there is a relationship between higher education and voter turnout.

The next area of study consists of using a multivariate analysis to find relationships between more than two variables. Our fifth hypothesis includes the consideration of how long a country has been a democracy for. It is then our null hypothesis that there is no relationship between education level, voter turnout, and years a country has been a democracy. Our alternative hypothesis is that there is a relationship between the three variables. In the election of 2000 Canada had a voter turnout rate of 61.18%. As we can see from Figure 1., this puts Canada within range of the bottom 30% of voter turnout rates for the 76 from our dataset.

Voter Turnout in Percentage

Frequency Percent of Total

Under 60.32 20 26.461.18 – 69.95 20 26.470.36 – 79.52 12 15.8480.11 – 89.28 16 21.1290.03 – 98.04 8 10.6

Valid Cases: 76Missing Cases: 0

Figure 1. Frequency of Voter Turnout

Canada falls well below both the mean and median averages found within the dataset. (See Figure 1.1) Canada is 8.98% below the mean, and 8.34% below the median. We then must fail to reject the hypothesis proposed and accept the alternative: Canada’s turnout is in fact not normal among democratic countries. There are 55 countries that have a better voter turnout rate than Canada from the dataset alone.

2

Mean 70.12Median 69.525Minimum 21.58Maximum 98.04Range 21.58 - 98.04Standard Deviation 15.52596Interquartile Range 21.105

Figure 1.1 Summary Statistics for Voter Turnout

In the period from 1997 to 2003 all 76 countries carried out an election. This gives an ample opportunity to consider other factors that affect voter turnout rates. Our second hypothesis was created in the hopes of understanding whether a voter would be more likely to vote in a system where they could directly choose the president of the country as opposed to electing a member of parliament whose leader would become prime minister, or a semi-presidential system where the voter picks both a prime minister and a president.

Figure 1.2 Voter Turnout by Democracy Type

If we consult Figure 1.2 we can see in the bottom light blue box that countries with a parliamentary system of government have a slightly higher mean voter turnout rate than other countries with a presidential or semi-presidential system of government. The range of voter turnout in parliamentary systems appears higher than both other systems. To test our second hypothesis an analysis of variance or ANOVA test was carried out between voter turnout and democracy type. Reaching a p-value of 0.1298 we did not reach the 95% confidence interval of 0.05 and must conclude that there is not enough support that voter turnout is affected by the type of democratic government. We fail to reject our null hypothesis. We can then state that Canada’s parliamentary system and the voters’ inability to directly choose the leader of government offers no hindrance to Canada’s voter turnout rate.

3

Figure 1.3 ANOVA Variance Test between Voter Turnout and Democracy Type

Canada is a country with a Westminster style parliamentary system and as such has both an upper and lower house to its parliament. This type of system is called bicameral and is found in many democracies. The alternative one house government is called unicameral. This system is more often found in smaller countries. This gives us the opportunity to test whether smaller countries with unicameral systems have more involved voters.

As we can see in Figure 1.4 the differences between voter turnout in bicameral and unicameral types of government is quite close. Pictures alone are not proof so the relationship was put to a Welch Two Sample t-test.

Figure 1.4 Voter Turnout by Type of Government

The results of our t-test, as seen in Figure 1.5 and high p-value of 0.3632 means that we must fail to reject our null hypothesis. Voter turnout for unicameral systems is the same as bicameral systems. This means that bicameral systems have no impact on voter turnout. Canada’s upper and lower house parliamentary system is not a factor in causing our low voter turnout rate.

Data: Turnout and Democracy TypeF value =2.2323 Numerator Degree of

Freedom = 2.000Denominator Degree of Freedom = 23.247

P-Value = 0.1298

4

Data:Turnout and Bicameral or notT = 0.1728 Degrees of Freedom =

73.767P-Value = 0.3632

Alternative hypothesis: The true difference in means is not equal to 095 percent Confidendce internval: -6.515733 7.753455Mean in group Bicameral 70.4511Mean in group Unicamera 69.83225

Figure 1.5 Welch Two Sample T-Test – Voter turnout and Bicameral or not

Our analysis continues by comparing the relationship between education and its impact on voter turnout. So far in our research we have not discovered any impact of the physical system of government on voter turnout. By moving into more human factors we can attempt to understand what makes people more likely to vote. Looking at Figure 6 we can gain a visual understanding of how this relationship of education and voter turnout works.

Figure 1.6 Voter Turnout by Years of Education Our model in Figure 1.6 allows us to appreciate the relationship visually. Here we can see that as education increases so too does voter turnout. Canada is listed as having an education level of 11.617 from our dataset.

Data: Education and Turnout

5

T = 2.6152 Degrees of Freedom = 47 P-Value = 0.01195Alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 095 percent confidence interval: 0.08359762 0.57953020Sample Estimates: Cor 0.3564158

Figure 1.7 Pearson’s Correlation Test – Education and Voter Turnout After conducting a Pearson’s correlation test and reaching a p-value of 0.01195 we have discovered a relationship between education and voter turnout. We therefore must reject our null hypothesis. (See Figure 1.7) We can reject this at the 99% confidence level and state that we have found a positive relationship. As the level of education increases so too does the voter turnout. This means that while Canada’s education is high it has still has not improved its voter turnout where other countries have.

Our research up to this point has looked at the frequency of voter turnout among our dataset, and found Canada’s below the mean. We have concluded that there is no relationship between voter turnout and democratic system of government; between voter turnout and whether or not the government has two houses; but it has established a positive relationship between education and turnout. But what else can increase voter turnout?

In order to answer this question our research expanded into the area of multivariate analyses. The bivariate approach yielded us with one positive relationship that could help explain voter turnout. We then looked at variables we had not yet considered. The next area considered is how long a country has been a democracy for. Countries with a long experience of democracy may have a high voter turnout because its democratic values have been instilled in its citizens for several generations in the case of some countries.

Estimate Standard Error T-value Pr (>|t|)(Intercept) 3.12992 1.29822 2.411 0.0200 *Turnout 0.03787 0.01814 2.088 0.0424 *Years.democ 0.05393 0.01239 4.352 7.45e-05 ***Residual Standard Error

2.055 on 46 Degrees of Freedom

Multiple R2 0.3816Adjusted R2 0.3547F-Statistic 14.19 on 2 and 46 Degrees of FreedomP-Value 1.582e-05

Note: 27 observations have been removed due to missingness Note: * = p < 0.05 *** = p < 0.001

Figure 1.8 Coefficients: Education, Turnout, and Years of Democracy By running an analysis on the relationship of education’s effect on turnout with the consideration of years of democracy we have found a relationship among its coefficients. We can therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that

6

there is a relationship between years of education, voter turnout, and years of democracy. The result is a positive relationship, which has a 95% confidence level. The R-Squared gives us a 0.3816 variation in dependent variable of voter turnout. We do notice that the years of democracy variable seems to have the large impact on our numbers. With 27 missing observations out of 76, a robustness check can to see how much of an impact any outliers may have had.

By conducting a Cooks Distance test we are able to identify an influential observation that is having a higher than normal effect on our data (See Figure 1.9). Consulting our database and the corresponding number we see that country 41 is Mali. Mali has voter turnout out of 21.58, an education level of 0.876, and has been a democratic country for 8 years. Mali is therefore considered an influential observation. In order to make sure the relationship between education, turnout, and years of democracy is not affected, the relationship will be run again.

Figure 1.9 Cooks Distance Test - Education, Voter Turnout, and Years of Democracy

When we remove Mali from our observations we see that the relationship has changed in several ways. The t-value for education (the intercept) has increased, because it has removed the effect of Mali’s low education level. However, we can see our t-values for both turnout and years of democracy have decreased, as Mali’s small voter turnout and just 8 years of democracy have had an impact on the original relationship. We now have an overall p-value of 0.0001729 and with a 99% confidence interval but it is not significant for voter turnout. (See Figure 2.0) We must therefore make a decision on the robustness of the values. Knowing that we have 27 missing observations in both the variables of education and years of democracy – do we accept Mali as part of our observations even if it represents an influential observation?

Our decision is no, we cannot accept Mali as part our observation. Its influence, as shown in Figure 1.9 is too great to be ignored. While we have a low p-value that surpasses the 99% confidence interval we have a p-value for voter turnout, the very nature of what this

7

paper is researching, which cannot surpass the minimum requirement of a 95% confidence interval. We therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis: there is no relationship between education, voter turnout, and years of democracy.

Estimate Standard Error T-value Pr (>|t|)(Intercept) 4.39103 1.41215 3.109 0.003247 **Turnout 0.02279 0.01918 1.188 0.241020 Years.democ 0.05111 0.01211 4.222 0.000116 ***Residual Standard Error

1.993 on 45 Degrees of Freedom

Multiple R2 0.3196Adjusted R2 0.2893F-Statistic 10.57 on 2 and 45 Degrees of FreedomP-Value 0.0001729

Note: 27 observations have been removed due to missingness Note: ** = p < 0.01 *** = p < 0.001

Figure 2.0 Coefficients: Education, Turnout, and Years of Democracy – Mali Removed

Conclusions Voter turnout in Canada may never reach the levels that other countries enjoy – it is fairly low in comparison to many. We have discovered in our research that there is no relationship between voter turnout and democracy type, and voter turnout and type of government. We did discover a positive relationship between voter turnout and education. As a country’s education level increases so does its voter turnout. This relationship was put to a further test by adding years of democracy. We discovered that while Canada is educated and years democracy, that the addition of the latter variable has no impact.

This means for Canada that a long-standing tradition of democracy has created a myth of a sacred civil duty that many Canadian citizens are uninterested in answering. While this research paper is limited in its depth and overall scope there is one recommendation we can make to Elections Canada and the government of Canada. Education is the key to improving voter turnout. This paper proposes the need for teaching civic nationalism to both Canadians born here and new immigrants. If voting is a civic duty the lesson must be renewed in Canadian high schools before our students are able to vote and be reminded before elections occur for older citizens. It is necessary to remind and teach citizens that voting is part of their voice and does have an impact and can lead to change.

The government must also take steps to hear the concerns of citizens in what deters them from keeping away from the polling stations. Events such as the recent Robocall scandal from the previous federal election greatly hurt our democracy by undermining peoples’ confidence in the system. This is an opportunity for both Elections Canada and our government to take positive steps to stamp out voter apathy. While all

8

reforms may not be feasible all should be considered in how the voting system in Canada can be improved. Finally, it should be noted that while government can take the steps to improve education in the hopes of increasing voter turnout out there is one final democratic option that we cannot and should never deny Canadians, and that is the freedom to not vote.

9

Appendix 1: R Commands

This paper has used the dataset VOTE available from http://www.sfu.ca/~sweldon/VOTE.csv

Univartiate analysis

1) > frequencies(VOTE[c("turnout","country")] , r.digits = 2)$turnout

> mean(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 70.12539> median(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 69.525> min(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 21.58> max(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 98.04> range(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 21.58 98.04> sd(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 15.52596> IQR(turnout, na.rm=T)[1] 21.105

Bivariate Analysis

2) > dev.new()> ggplot() ++ geom_boxplot(aes(y = turnout,x = democ.type, fill=democ.type),data=VOTE)+xlab("Democracy Type")+ylab("Voter Turnout by Percent") ++ coord_flip() +opts(title="Voter Turnout by Democracy Type") +scale_fill_brewer(name="Democracy Type")

> oneway.test(turnout~democ.type)

One-way analysis of means (not assuming equal variances)

data: turnout and democ.type F = 2.2323, num df = 2.000, denom df = 23.247, p-value = 0.1298

3) > dev.new()> ggplot() ++ geom_boxplot(aes(y = turnout,x = bicameral),data=VOTE, col="red")+xlab("Type of Government") +ylab("Voter Turnout by Percent")+

10

+ coord_flip() +opts(title="Voter Turnout by Type of Government")t.test(turnout~bicameral)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data: turnout by bicameral t = 0.1728, df = 73.767, p-value = 0.8632alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval: -6.515733 7.753455 sample estimates: mean in group Bicameral mean in group Unicameral 70.45111 69.83225

4) > dev.new()> ggplot() ++ geom_point(aes(x = turnout,y = DM),data=VOTE[VOTE$DM <100,])+xlab("Voter Turnout by Percent")+ylab("District Magnitude")+opts(title="Voter Turnout by District Magnitude")

> plot(educ~turnout,type="p", col="black", pch=16, data=VOTE, xlab=("Voter Turnout"), ylab=("Years of Education over Age 15"), main="Voter Turnout by Years of Education")> reg1=lm(educ~turnout, data=VOTE)> abline(reg1)

> with(VOTE, cor.test(educ,turnout))

Pearson's product-moment correlation

data: educ and turnout t = 2.6152, df = 47, p-value = 0.01195alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval: 0.08359762 0.57953020 sample estimates: cor 0.3564158

5) > summary(lm(educ~turnout + years.democ))

Call:lm(formula = educ ~ turnout + years.democ)

Residuals:

11

Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -4.1481 -1.0886 0.0923 1.2959 4.5160

Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 3.12992 1.29822 2.411 0.0200 * turnout 0.03787 0.01814 2.088 0.0424 * years.democ 0.05393 0.01239 4.352 7.45e-05 ***---Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 2.055 on 46 degrees of freedom (27 observations deleted due to missingness)Multiple R-squared: 0.3816, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3547 F-statistic: 14.19 on 2 and 46 DF, p-value: 1.582e-05

6) > reg.lm = lm(educ~turnout + years.democ)> barplot(cooks, col="green", main= "Cook’s Distance Test", xlab=("Country Number"), ylab=("Residuals"))

7) > summary(lm(educ~turnout + years.democ, data=VOTE[country !="Mali",]))

Call:lm(formula = educ ~ turnout + years.democ, data = VOTE[country != "Mali", ])

Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -4.3422 -1.2232 0.1277 1.2798 4.1710

Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 4.39103 1.41215 3.109 0.003247 ** turnout 0.02279 0.01918 1.188 0.241020 years.democ 0.05111 0.01211 4.222 0.000116 ***---Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 1.993 on 45 degrees of freedom (27 observations deleted due to missingness)Multiple R-squared: 0.3196, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2893 F-statistic: 10.57 on 2 and 45 DF, p-value: 0.0001729

12