Column: Voter turnout trouble in the Arctic
Canadians aren't bothering to vote, and the North is no different. In the last election, only 43.9 per cent of Nunavut voters, and 47.3 per cent of voters in the Northwest Territories took time to cast a ballot. Those bearded Yukoners were the only one of our three territories to best the Canadian average of 60.5 per cent, and even then, only by about one per cent.
For most of our short history, between 70 and 80 per cent of those eligible to tick their chosen candidate's box did so on the big day. Then in 1997, with a country divided and Quebec sovereignty a big enough issue to cause the Sponsorship Scandal, 67 per cent showed up at the polls. And by 2004, with no clear options to the rule of the Liberal party for those oft-ignorant, but still crucial Ontario voters, just more than 60 per cent of the electorate came out.
It seems clear we've got a problem here, but it's worse, or nearly as bad, in other rich, democratic nations. Given the trend of absenteeism, three years ago Elections Canada commissioned a survey of non-voters to help explain the great decline.
In answer to an open-ended question, people said they just aren't interested in voting (22.7 %), and that they felt their participation was meaningless (15.7 %) or that they just have a negative view of politicians or government in general (26.2 %, and 13 %, respectively).
But as Hunter S. Thompson once wrote:
"Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World ... or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower: That is when it matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had voted."
Maybe we need a realistic threat of military conflict to get people interested in who governs.
After all, the highest election turnout in Canadian history came in 1917, where a nearly unbelievable 90 per cent of voters cast their ballots shortly after former prime minister Robert Borden began forcing kids to enlist in the army in the middle of World War I.
Give people a chance to lose their children and they'll MAKE time to vote. But this didn't seem to work in the U.S. or the U.K the last time around, though there was no talk of conscription and the number of dead soldiers was still in the hundreds at the time.
Now let's get back to Canada, and the North more specifically. Why are people here, with the exception of those in the Yukon, voting less frequently than anywhere else in the country?
After all, the North is very political. In fact, it's really the only thing we have up here. Outside of a few mineral extraction operations, there's really no economy to speak of. But every year, the federal government cuts a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars, and our territorially elected officials - many of whom needed but a few hundred votes to earn their more-than-$90,000 a year job - bicker over how best to spend it. Local band and community councils sessions also seem to receive passionate participation.
Even in Nunavut - where not even 44 per cent of people voted federally last time around - voter turnout in the 2003 territorial election was reported to be more than 80 per cent.
So people up here definitely seem interested in politics, just not of the federal variety.
In the past, I'm not sure the issues which dominate the national media resonated with Northern voters. I mean, does someone who doesn't have full-time access to a nurse care really care about or understand a discussion of MRI waiting times? Even myself, a nearly addicted news junkie, often resists picking up the Globe and Mail because the front page doesn't say much to me.
Last week, Northern issues such as sovereignty and military investment in the Arctic hit the headlines. I'm not sure longterm residents here really care whether the Canadian military is getting ready to put some meat on its tundra bones, but let's count the discussion as that of an issue which originates geographically in the North, if not culturally.
And Jack Layton came to Yellowknife last week hoping to bolster support for a candidate who lost the closest race in the country last time around.
That was nice to see, but is it really worth the investment to come up here?
I mean, let's get a hold of ourselves: there about 100,000 people living in our three territories, two-thirds of whom are eligible to vote. Considering the thousands of dollars required to fly around and campaign in free-your-face-off weather, do the three seats available provide a large enough potential return on your investment?
I wish I knew what we could do to get all Canadians to care about federal politics, at least to the point where they would take the 15 minutes to get out and vote on Jan. 23.
I don't.
Zai jian
For most of our short history, between 70 and 80 per cent of those eligible to tick their chosen candidate's box did so on the big day. Then in 1997, with a country divided and Quebec sovereignty a big enough issue to cause the Sponsorship Scandal, 67 per cent showed up at the polls. And by 2004, with no clear options to the rule of the Liberal party for those oft-ignorant, but still crucial Ontario voters, just more than 60 per cent of the electorate came out.
It seems clear we've got a problem here, but it's worse, or nearly as bad, in other rich, democratic nations. Given the trend of absenteeism, three years ago Elections Canada commissioned a survey of non-voters to help explain the great decline.
In answer to an open-ended question, people said they just aren't interested in voting (22.7 %), and that they felt their participation was meaningless (15.7 %) or that they just have a negative view of politicians or government in general (26.2 %, and 13 %, respectively).
But as Hunter S. Thompson once wrote:
"Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World ... or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower: That is when it matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had voted."
Maybe we need a realistic threat of military conflict to get people interested in who governs.
After all, the highest election turnout in Canadian history came in 1917, where a nearly unbelievable 90 per cent of voters cast their ballots shortly after former prime minister Robert Borden began forcing kids to enlist in the army in the middle of World War I.
Give people a chance to lose their children and they'll MAKE time to vote. But this didn't seem to work in the U.S. or the U.K the last time around, though there was no talk of conscription and the number of dead soldiers was still in the hundreds at the time.
Now let's get back to Canada, and the North more specifically. Why are people here, with the exception of those in the Yukon, voting less frequently than anywhere else in the country?
After all, the North is very political. In fact, it's really the only thing we have up here. Outside of a few mineral extraction operations, there's really no economy to speak of. But every year, the federal government cuts a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars, and our territorially elected officials - many of whom needed but a few hundred votes to earn their more-than-$90,000 a year job - bicker over how best to spend it. Local band and community councils sessions also seem to receive passionate participation.
Even in Nunavut - where not even 44 per cent of people voted federally last time around - voter turnout in the 2003 territorial election was reported to be more than 80 per cent.
So people up here definitely seem interested in politics, just not of the federal variety.
In the past, I'm not sure the issues which dominate the national media resonated with Northern voters. I mean, does someone who doesn't have full-time access to a nurse care really care about or understand a discussion of MRI waiting times? Even myself, a nearly addicted news junkie, often resists picking up the Globe and Mail because the front page doesn't say much to me.
Last week, Northern issues such as sovereignty and military investment in the Arctic hit the headlines. I'm not sure longterm residents here really care whether the Canadian military is getting ready to put some meat on its tundra bones, but let's count the discussion as that of an issue which originates geographically in the North, if not culturally.
And Jack Layton came to Yellowknife last week hoping to bolster support for a candidate who lost the closest race in the country last time around.
That was nice to see, but is it really worth the investment to come up here?
I mean, let's get a hold of ourselves: there about 100,000 people living in our three territories, two-thirds of whom are eligible to vote. Considering the thousands of dollars required to fly around and campaign in free-your-face-off weather, do the three seats available provide a large enough potential return on your investment?
I wish I knew what we could do to get all Canadians to care about federal politics, at least to the point where they would take the 15 minutes to get out and vote on Jan. 23.
I don't.
Zai jian
posted by Brent Reaney at 1:28 PM
2 comments
