Voter Turnout will the politics in play affect if people vote?

There is a great deal of research into what gets people out to vote and what does not get people out to vote. Here is some research from George Washington University in the US and Elections Canada that I found interesting.

 Election Canada in its reports says "Important attitudinal and behavioural factors in voting/not voting include: feelings of inefficacy; civic duty and political interest; and perception of the effectiveness of the vote.

People are less likely to cast a ballot if they feel they have no influence over government actions, do not feel voting is an essential civic act, or do not feel the election is competitive enough to make their votes matter to the outcome, either at the national or the local constituency level."

Elections Canada goes on to say, "Much of the data explored in this report leads to the conclusion that voting rates will likely continue to decline in Canada. The voting rates of generations entering the electorate in the last two decades, and particularly since 1993, are substantially lower than those of previous generations. While “life cycle” effects help to increase the initial low participation rate of all generations, they have not brought those who became eligible during the 1980s or later up to the participation levels of earlier entrants. There has been, according to the authors, a long-term secular decline in the electoral participation of successive generations of Canadians. An effective response to this trend will require more than short-term, small-scale reform measures."

With all of the problems in the Senate and with the perception that the government cannot be trusted, the majority of Canadians attribute the turnout decline to negative public attitudes toward the performance of the politicians and political institutions involved in federal politics. 

The Elections Canada report goes on to say, The objects of perceived public displeasure run the complete gamut of personnel and institutions, but the most prominently mentioned were “politicians” and “the government”, general terms which indicate the broad nature of the attitudes people ascribe to others.  

The lodestones of discontent are politicians and the government. There is a widespread perception that politicians are untrustworthy, selfish, unaccountable, lack credibility, are not true to their word, etc. Similarly, the government, sometimes with a capital “G” and sometimes without, betrays the people’s trust, and accomplishes little. Candidates are mentioned frequently, because the question asked specifically about the turnout decline, thereby raising the election context. As one might expect, they are perceived to have the same faults as “politicians”. Political parties are singled out as well, because some attributed the lowered voting rate to the difficulties people might have in finding any good choices, or in distinguishing between the parties that do exist. And some said that potential voters have difficulty in relating to the issues brought forward by the parties at election time, or sometimes that the proposed policies are  misguided.

Other reasons for not voting are:

Personal/administrative. The first two components of this issue are: lack of information about the polling and not being on the list of electors, are clearly administrative in nature. 

The third, illness, and the fourth, absence from home, are connected in the sense that, had it been convenient for such people to cast their ballots under the circumstances of being confined by sickness or being away from the place they would normally be expected to vote, they might well have voted. Saying this is not to imply that Elections Canada is at fault for not collecting their votes; it simply means that under ideal administrative arrangements, they might have voted.

A lack of interest. Many of those who did not vote because they felt the election was uninteresting, their vote unimportant, and the parties, candidates and issues unengaging. 

Name not on the voters list. Another predictive factor of importance is the one measuring administrative effects, namely the respondent having his/her name on the list of electors in 2000. . This factor is fourth in importance in explaining voter turnout in the 2000 election, but also seems to be measuring effects that were important in previous elections. It is actually the second strongest predictor of not voting in the previous election of 1997, as well as third in predicting voting frequency in the three elections.

Having a lower income: Higher income is associated with higher voting frequency.

Being new to Canada. as measured by whether respondents were born in this country or not, is associated with lower turnout. 

Geographical mobility. as measured by the length of residence in one’s current neighbourhood or community. 

Not being contacted by the parties or candidates. People who were contacted by the parties or the candidate had higher voter turnout then those who were not contacted.

The University of  George Washington shows how to reengage people in the voting process. Their research shows some of the effective ways to win voters back to the voting booth. Here are some of the results of their research:

The lesson learned is that today’s adults  are engaged and they will vote in higher numbers if they are asked.

Actual votes per contact will be higher when the contact is more personalized
and interactive. The research shows that the most effective method of generating a new voter
is an in-person door knock by a peer. The next greatest impact was seen by phone banks with longer, chattier phone scripts or volunteers making the calls. Also, recent survey data by Young Voter Strategies shows that the online tools that are most effective are the ones where the young voter either opts-in to the conversation or gets to interact in some way.

People need nuts-and-bolts practical information about how to vote.And efforts that make voting more convenient are quite effective. So those measures such as restricting voters or in Canada using Robo Calls to mislead voters are very effective in turning people into non-voters.

The medium matters more than the message. To date, the growing body of experimental research has not found that any type of message works better than another. It is more about making a quality contact. Several studies have varied the message to compare partisan versus
nonpartisan or negative versus positive content. None of these studies have shown a significant impact difference between messages


Young people are easy to incorporate into your lists and turnout programs. Excluding young voters from your turnout efforts is a mistake. The research findings all demonstrate that young people are just as responsive to voter contact as older voters. While voters under 30 respond to turnout tactics at the same rates as older voters, in some communities they are more difficult to reach, so targeting must take this into consideration. Efforts in ethnic communities found young people as easy to reach as older voters, and student areas and apartment building have dense residences that lead to very high contact rates.

Ethnic and immigrant youth are cost-effective targets. When targeting ethnic or immigrant communities, it is cost-effective to target young voters, particularly because there is less need to translate materials into languages other than English. When working in ethnic or immigrant communities, be sure to ask all voters you contact to volunteer to reach out to their neighbors: research also indicates that in ethnic and immigrant communities the most trusted messenger is someone who looks like the potential voter. (Michelson 2004) This is the case with most voters, but even more so in these communities

The good news is that initial mobilization makes for repeat voters. Successful mobilization in one election raises people's propensity to vote in subsequent elections. Parties, candidates and interest groups should expect long-term benefits from mobilizing voters today.
In one study, the authors found that 50 percent of the effect of canvassing during the 1998 New Haven election persisted in 1999, even though there were no additional efforts to get out the vote. (Gerber, Green, and Shachar 2003) 

Another influential study (based on survey research, not experiments) found that once people begin to vote, their propensity to participate in future elections rises. (Plutzer 2002) 

Finally, a new study that tracked 10 canvassing experiments over time indicate that voting is habit- forming. The study found that if you get a person to vote in one election, they will be e 29 percentage points more likely to vote in the next election. (Nickerson 2004)

How do Canada and the US rank in the world?

Our politicians like to tell us in Canada that we  have a great country and we are one of the best places on earth, I believe the American politicians lie to their people as well. I came across an interesting website called the Legatum Prosperity Index which ranks the worlds countries by various factors. If you look at all of the factors, Canada in 2012 came out 6th in the world and the United States came in 12th. Not bad,, but Canada has remained static since 2010 and the  US has slipped from 10th to 12th. The trend is not looking good. We in Canada are not on the correct path, and I suggest our neighbours to the south need to rethink their path as well. 

What countries are ahead of us, while to the chagrin of our conservative politicians they are countries that have a socialist view. Number one in the world since 2009 is Norway, Number 2 in the world is Denmark, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand make out the rest of the top five and have since 2009. They must be doing something right.

Some of the factors and our rankings when compared to other countries in the world
Economy 
Canada is ranked 8th, United States 20th, Number one is Norway

Entrepreneurial Opportunity
Canada is ranked 16th, United States ranks 10th, Denmark is ranked #1

Governance
Canada is ranked 6th, United States ranks 12th, Switzerland is ranked #1

Educational Opportunity
Canada is ranked 3rd, United States ranks 5th, New Zealand is ranked #1

Health
Canada is ranked 15th, United States ranks 2nd, Luxembourg is ranked #1

Safety and Security
Canada is ranked 9th, United States ranks 27th, Iceland is ranked #1

Personal Freedom
Canada is ranked #1, United States ranks 14th

Social Capital
Canada is ranked 8th, United States ranks 10th, Norway is ranked  #1

It would appear we in Canada are doing ok, yet if you compare the numbers from 2010 in almost every category above we have fallen in the rankings, so we are not heading in the right direction, while our American friends have fallen in some and risen in other. 

We cannot afford to be complacent when we listen to our politicians, they do not like facts and believe that if they lie to us enough we will believe them. There is an old saying which is still true today. How can you tell if a politician is lying? They are talking.  We have to keep our politicians accountable.

Climbing down from the mountain

When I was younger back in the very early 1970's I went off to a academic retreat for a week as part of my training to become a teacher. When I returned back home, I noticed that I thought I had changed, but I noticed that the people around me had not. Live goes on as normal, even when we are away and having life changing or just wonderful experiences that force us to look at what we do differently. Talking it over with my professor (Maurice Gibbons), I think he called it the "Climbing down from the mountain" syndrome (The idea is a variation of the Mountain Top Experience that comes from religious experiences, which gave you a deep sense of your own worth and/or the beauty of life). 

This idea struck me as interesting and important and I have used the concept as a way to help my Masters of Education students think about how that experience changed them and how they had a responsibility to others around us to help them understand our journey. In brief the idea is that we find it hard to adjust to life when we have experienced a new adventure or experience that we think has changed us or our view on our world. 

The reason for bringing this up is that we have just returned from a seven week trip to Australia a few days ago. After jet lag I  immediately came down with one of the two types of flu making the rounds in my area of the country. As a result I have not had a chance to comment or catch up on the goings on in North America, but I will over the next few days and weeks get caught up on my reading and discussions with friends and family to catch up and to try to settle back into the routine of being at home so I can reconcile my experience with the routine of being at home.

One of the interesting things about being a Canadian abroad is that Canada is the realization that Canada is not a player on the world stage. In Australia, the only news of importance about Canada that I recall seeing over the seven weeks was about the Hockey lockout; this was because one of our hosts is a real hockey enthusiast, otherwise Canada was not mentioned at all in the mainstream media that I looked at over the time I was visiting.

At one point Canada may have had some influence but I suspect that Steven Harper and his government foreign affairs policies have made Canada redundant on the world stage. So without any news of Canada I missed out on the birth of the "Idle no more" movement, the hunger strike of  Attiwapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, the backlash and the support of the movement from the public the return of the ugly face of racism (for more on this check out Montreal Simon's always interesting blog,)  to the mainstream of Canadian consciousness and much more I suspect. 

As I was in an area of Australia that had no broadband, I was also not able to link to Canada with the Internet or email or Facebook, which was a bit of a shock as I think I am an information addict, and the loss of connection was hard, but after a week or two I was over the shock and getting on with the holiday.

Canadians are well received in Australia, but we are often confused with Americans and I learned to laugh and gently correct the misconception, I guess my West Coast Canadian accent must to the Australian ear sound American. Just as to my ear, the New Zealand and Australian accents sound very similar. While in Australia I had the time to write down some ideas that I will share over the next few months. 

In BC we are coming up to an election and I agree with the thoughts at "Keeping it Real" that the blogging community will play an important part in the upcoming election.

It is good to be back and I look forward on getting caught up with the life, and to my brother, whose Retirement party I missed,  as you start the second month of your retirement, best wishes and enjoy the time as you have earned it.

More on the logic behind self delusion

Disavowal and Backfire: One and the Same

In an article by psychoanalyst Rex Butler, Butler independently comes to the same conclusion as the Michigan Study researchers. In regards to facts and their relationship to belief systems (or ideologies), Butler says that:

there is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization … Our descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but … things in retrospect begin to resemble their description. Thus, in the analysis of ideology, it is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best matches the ‘facts’, with the one that is closest being the least biased and therefore the best. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already – whether we know it or not – made our choice; we are already within one ideological system or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on.

This places the field of psychoanalysis on the same footing as that of cognitive science, in regards to this matter. But where cognitive studies end, with Nyhan’s question about the cause of backfire, psychoanalysis picks up and provides a possible answer. In fact, psychoanalysts have been publishing work on backfire for decades; only psychoanalysis refers to backfire by another name: “disavowal”. Indeed, these two terms refer to one and the same phenomena.

The basic explanation for the underlying cause of disavowal/backfire goes as follows.

“Liberals” and “conservatives” espouse antithetical belief systems, both of which are based on different non-rational “moral values.” This is a fact that cognitive linguist George Lakoff has often discussed, which incidentally brings in yet another field of study that supports the existence of the disavowal/backfire mechanism.

In accordance with these different non-rational belief systems, any individual’s ideology tends to function also as a ‘filtering system’, accepting facts that seamlessly fit into the framework of that ideology, while dismissing facts that do not fit.

When an individual—whether a “liberal”, “conservative”, or any other potential ideology—is challenged with facts that conflict with his/her ideology, the tendency is for that individual to experience feelings of anxiety, dread, and frustration. This is because our ideologies function, like a lynch pin, to hold our psychologies together, in order to avoid, as Nyhan puts it, “cognitive dissonance”. In other words, when our lynch pins are disturbed, our psychologies are shaken.

Psychoanalysts explain that, when this cognitive dissonance does occur, the result is to ‘externalize’ the sudden negative feelings outward, in the form of anger or resentment, and then to ‘project’ this anger onto the person that initially presented the set of backfired facts to begin with. (Although, sometimes this anger is ‘introjected’ inward, in the form of self-punishment or self-loathing.)

This non-rational eruption of anger or resentment is what psychoanalysts call “de-sublimation”. And it is at the point of de-sublimation, when the disavowal/backfire mechanism is triggered as a defense against the cognitive dissonance.

Hence, here is what mentally occurs next, in a matter of seconds:

In order to regain psychological equilibrium, the mind disavows the toxic facts that initially clashed with the individuals own ideology, non-rationally deeming the facts to be false—without assessing the validity of the facts.

The final step occurs when the person, who offered the toxic facts, is then non-rationally demonized. The person, here, becomes tainted as a ‘phobic object’ in the mind of the de-sublimated individual. Hence, the other person also becomes perceived to be as toxic as the disavowed facts, themselves.

At this point, ad hominem attacks are often fired at the source of the toxic facts. For example: ‘stupid liberal’ or ‘stupid conservative’, if in a political context. Or, ‘blasphemer’ or ‘heretic’, if in a religious context. At this point, according to psychoanalysis, psychological equilibrium is regained. The status quo of the individual’s ideology is reinforced to guard against future experiences of de-sublimation.

Article originally appeared on Seismologik (http://www.seismologik.com/ ).