Making Voting Mandatory

A mandatory voting law would change the nature of Canada’s political conversation, forcing parties to look beyond their bases.

There is a perverse disconnect between the passionate attitude of critics of the Canadian government and their propensity to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

Simply put, Canada’s university-aged youth, its poor, and others considered to have been marginalized by the free market ideology of the Conservative Party don’t vote in sufficiently large numbers to make a significant difference during federal elections.

Some of the reasons that these groups are under-represented among the voting public are legitimate. There are accessibility and logistical challenges that undoubtedly prevent many Canadians who would like to vote from actually casting a ballot.

Other potential voters, however, have simply given up hope. Having lost faith in all of their political options – be it on account of the available candidates or a feeing that their vote will not affect the outcome in their riding – they stay home on election day, resigned to a fate that seems beyond their control. (Whether they are aware of the political subsidy that would accrue to the party of their choosing regardless of the results of the election is unclear.)

The irony does not end here. While they do not vote in significant numbers, leading critics of the current government have proven exceptionally committed to mobilizing their supporters to speak out against the alleged inequities brought about by Conservative rule.

Peace groups, university students, and anti-poverty activists are, in their own way, campaign veterans: experts at attracting significant media coverage of rallies and protests. When the government ignores their calls for change, they become even more strident.

Should the Harper Conservatives be blamed for their apparent unwillingness to listen? Certainly, one could argue that Ottawa has an obligation to represent every Canadian, to hear all sides, and to make policy that adequately represents the views and intentions of as many as possible.

But at the political level, the situation is different. Sure, the federal government is technically accountable to the Canadian people, but it is difficult for elected officials not to act as if they owe their loyalty, first and foremost, to the individuals who voted for them.

By extension, everyone else, at home and abroad, becomes – at best – a secondary priority.

It follows logically that the first austerity measures enacted by the current federal government have targeted Canada’s international commitments, and particularly its budget for development assistance. Citizens of foreign countries do not vote in Canadian elections, and poor ones in particular have no leverage to protest meaningfully against the government in Ottawa.

If future Conservatives budget cuts target the domestically less fortunate, no one should be particularly surprised. So long as they do not vote, these Canadians are vulnerable.

Political strategists have typically responded to the importance of the “voting” public in two ways.

Some have focused on mobilizing the base. Under the guidance of Karl Rove, U.S. Republicans demonstrated that if party loyalists are inspired, they can vote in sufficient numbers to carry a tight election. Canada’s Conservative Party has at times used a similar strategy to great success.

In the most recent U.S. presidential primaries and subsequent election campaign, Barack Obama’s team took a sharply different approach: it sought, successfully, to mobilize new voters – largely first-timers who had rarely shown an inclination for politics – and thus negated the impact of the Rove strategy.

No political party in Canada has taken Obama’s path. While activists of all political stripes have encouraged Canadians, and particularly Canada’s youth, to "get out the vote," few have done so in a partisan manner.

Moreover, get-out-the-vote campaigns in Canada have largely failed. Voter turn-out in the last federal election reached a record low, and youth numbers were particularly worrisome.

Assuming, as most analysts do, that the majority of Canada’s non-voters lean to the left of the current government, "progressive" critics have only themselves to blame for not advocating the one policy that might well level the electoral playing field: mandatory voting.

Not only would increasing voter turn-out likely improve the results of the government’s critics, it would also obligate Ottawa to make a greater effort to accommodate those citizens who have historically faced legitimate challenges to casting their ballots.

A rigorously enforced mandatory voting law could potentially change the nature of Canada’s political conversation during elections. Issues that had previously been downplayed or ignored because of their lack of resonance with the “voting public” might all of a sudden become important.

Mandatory voting could be Canada’s game-changer. Even if it isn’t – even if the non-voting public is more conservative than many suspect – requiring citizens to vote would be far more helpful to Canadian democracy than endless protests that fall largely on deaf ears.

This article first appeared in The Hill Times on April 12, 2010.