canadian federal elections and the variables affecting voter turnout

Canadian Federal Canadian Federal Elections and the Elections and the

Variables Affecting Variables Affecting Voter TurnoutVoter Turnout

A Presentation by Shaun BankeA Presentation by Shaun Banke

Question to Be AnalyzedQuestion to Be Analyzed

Considering Canadian federal elections Considering Canadian federal elections between 1980 and 2004, how have between 1980 and 2004, how have national economics, socio-economics, national economics, socio-economics, weather conditions on vote day, the length weather conditions on vote day, the length of time the governing party has been in of time the governing party has been in power, and the number of parties power, and the number of parties registered in the election affected voter registered in the election affected voter turnout?turnout?

General Voter Turnout DataGeneral Voter Turnout Data

To make an accurate analysis of variables, To make an accurate analysis of variables, must first have raw voter turnout datamust first have raw voter turnout data

Voter turnout:Voter turnout:– Determined by comparing list of registered Determined by comparing list of registered

electors to actual number of votes castelectors to actual number of votes cast– Precise measure of participation rate in federal Precise measure of participation rate in federal

electionselections

National Voter Turnout from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Range:Range: 60.3% (2004) to 75.3% (1984 and 60.3% (2004) to 75.3% (1984 and 1988)1988)

Mean:Mean: 68.9% 68.9% Standard Deviation:Standard Deviation: 5.2% 5.2%

Turnout on a decline since 1988Turnout on a decline since 1988 Turnout on a declining curve since 1980Turnout on a declining curve since 1980 National analysis gives good idea of trend, National analysis gives good idea of trend,

but provincial is better:but provincial is better:– National groups entire population of Canada National groups entire population of Canada

into one sampleinto one sample– Provincial divides population into ten groups, Provincial divides population into ten groups,

defined by geographic locationdefined by geographic location– This gives ten trends to compare, instead of This gives ten trends to compare, instead of

only oneonly one

Newfoundland and Labrador from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Prince Edward Island from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Nova Scotia from 1980-2004

010

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

New Brunswick from 1980-2004

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Quebec from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Ontario from 1980-2004

0

1020

30

40

5060

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Manitoba from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Saskatchewan from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Alberta from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

All provinces show same trendAll provinces show same trend– Only a few exceptions, including Ontario’s 2004 Only a few exceptions, including Ontario’s 2004

increase and Québec’s 1993 increaseincrease and Québec’s 1993 increase This verifies that Canada’s voter turnout is on This verifies that Canada’s voter turnout is on

a declining trend, especially in recent yearsa declining trend, especially in recent years Considering elections shape Canada’s future, Considering elections shape Canada’s future,

it is concerning that such a trend is developingit is concerning that such a trend is developing What contributes to this decline?What contributes to this decline?

British Columbia from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Political Variables:Political Variables:Length of Previous Government’s Length of Previous Government’s

TermTerm Length of term:Length of term:

– Time between returning of writs and dissolution of Time between returning of writs and dissolution of government, in daysgovernment, in days Writ is written order from each riding sent to Chief Electoral Writ is written order from each riding sent to Chief Electoral

Officer of Canada that states winning candidate in that ridingOfficer of Canada that states winning candidate in that riding Dissolution of government is the date that the Governor Dissolution of government is the date that the Governor

General officially ends parliament and calls for an electionGeneral officially ends parliament and calls for an election

Hypothesis: As the length of the previous Hypothesis: As the length of the previous government’s term increases, so does voter government’s term increases, so does voter turnoutturnout– If the government stays in power longer, then people If the government stays in power longer, then people

may be more anxious to votemay be more anxious to vote– May be ready for a change in governmentMay be ready for a change in government

Length of Previous Term vs. National Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Length of Term (days)

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.6553 0.6553– Strong positive correlationStrong positive correlation

Coefficient of Determination:Coefficient of Determination: 0.4294 0.4294– 42.94% variation in y-value caused by x-value42.94% variation in y-value caused by x-value

Hypothesis is proven, as voter turnout Hypothesis is proven, as voter turnout increases as length of term increasesincreases as length of term increases

Possible reasons why:Possible reasons why:– Voters might be eager to re-exercise their right Voters might be eager to re-exercise their right

to vote after a long timeto vote after a long time– Might be prepared to reward a government with Might be prepared to reward a government with

a vote or punish by not voting for them after a a vote or punish by not voting for them after a long termlong term

– Elector might feel frustration if the term is short, Elector might feel frustration if the term is short, as their last vote appears to have been pointlessas their last vote appears to have been pointless

– Shorter terms allow less time for controversial Shorter terms allow less time for controversial issues to come up, and may not allow for issues issues to come up, and may not allow for issues to arise that affect more votersto arise that affect more voters

Political Variables:Political Variables:Registered Federal PartiesRegistered Federal Parties

Registered parties:Registered parties:– As an election is called, all federal parties wishing to run As an election is called, all federal parties wishing to run

must register with Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by must register with Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by specified timespecified time

– The parties must meet requirements outlined in the The parties must meet requirements outlined in the Canada Elections ActCanada Elections Act Example is nominating at least 50 candidates to runExample is nominating at least 50 candidates to run

– Federal parties that meet the requirements are added to Federal parties that meet the requirements are added to the official registerthe official register

Hypothesis: As the number of registered federal Hypothesis: As the number of registered federal parties increases, so will voter turnoutparties increases, so will voter turnout– More parties allow for more choice that might appeal to More parties allow for more choice that might appeal to

more votersmore voters

Registered Federal Parties vs. National Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of Registered Parties

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.0917 0.0917– Negligible correlationNegligible correlation

Coefficient of Determination:Coefficient of Determination: 0.0084 0.0084– Only 0.84% of variation in y-value caused by x-Only 0.84% of variation in y-value caused by x-

valuevalue

Hypothesis is disproven, as voter turnout and Hypothesis is disproven, as voter turnout and the amount of registered parties have no the amount of registered parties have no correlationcorrelation– Also proven by the nine parties of 1980 and the Also proven by the nine parties of 1980 and the

14 parties of 1993 having values of 69.3% and 14 parties of 1993 having values of 69.3% and 70.9%70.9%

Possible reasons why:Possible reasons why:– Even with more choice, some people still cannot Even with more choice, some people still cannot

find their political matchfind their political match– Same lack of affiliation occurs with less partiesSame lack of affiliation occurs with less parties– Some electors might not care to sift through the Some electors might not care to sift through the

vast platforms of many partiesvast platforms of many parties– Other electors won’t take the time to look at any Other electors won’t take the time to look at any

platforms, even when there are fewer partiesplatforms, even when there are fewer parties

Socio-Economic Variables:Socio-Economic Variables: Unemployment RateUnemployment Rate

Unemployment rate:Unemployment rate:– Key indicator of economic healthKey indicator of economic health– Low rate = ample jobs being created/strong Low rate = ample jobs being created/strong

economyeconomy– High rate = not enough jobs/weak economyHigh rate = not enough jobs/weak economy– Mathematically, percentage of the labour force Mathematically, percentage of the labour force

that is unemployedthat is unemployed Hypothesis: A high unemployment rate will Hypothesis: A high unemployment rate will

yield a high voter turnoutyield a high voter turnout– Voters might blame the government for letting Voters might blame the government for letting

the economy falterthe economy falter

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.5703 0.5703– Moderate positive correlationModerate positive correlation

Coefficient of Determination:Coefficient of Determination: 0.3253 0.3253– 32.53% of variation in y-value caused by x-value32.53% of variation in y-value caused by x-value

National Unemployment Rate vs. National Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Unemployment Rate (% of workforce)

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Hypothesis appears to be proven, as high Hypothesis appears to be proven, as high unemployment rate yields high voter unemployment rate yields high voter turnoutturnout

However, unemployment rate should not However, unemployment rate should not be looked at nationallybe looked at nationally– Unemployment rates vary between provinces, Unemployment rates vary between provinces,

sometimes by large amountssometimes by large amounts– This can affect voter turnouts individually by This can affect voter turnouts individually by

provinceprovince– To get an accurate picture of the To get an accurate picture of the

unemployment rate’s effect on voter turnout, it unemployment rate’s effect on voter turnout, it must be studied provinciallymust be studied provincially

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.0959 0.0959– Negligible correlationNegligible correlation


valuevalue

Provincial Unemployment Rate vs. Provincial Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Unemployment Rate (% of workforce)

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Hypothesis is disproven, as high Hypothesis is disproven, as high unemployment rate does not affect voter unemployment rate does not affect voter turnoutturnout– Nationally it appears to affect voter turnout, Nationally it appears to affect voter turnout,

but measuring this rate nationally is not but measuring this rate nationally is not accurateaccurate

Possible reasons why:Possible reasons why:– Electors might not blame the government for Electors might not blame the government for

high unemployment rateshigh unemployment rates– They may think it is the fault of individual They may think it is the fault of individual

companies for not stimulating the economycompanies for not stimulating the economy– May not think it is a federally-solved issueMay not think it is a federally-solved issue

Socio-Economic Variables:Socio-Economic Variables:Rate of InflationRate of Inflation

Rate of inflation:Rate of inflation:– Another key factor in determining the health of the Another key factor in determining the health of the

economyeconomy– Measured as the percent change of the consumer Measured as the percent change of the consumer

price index (CPI) over a specified time intervalprice index (CPI) over a specified time interval CPI is the fluctuating cost of a set basket of common goodsCPI is the fluctuating cost of a set basket of common goods

– Defined as the average rate of increase in pricesDefined as the average rate of increase in prices Hypothesis: A high rate of inflation will produce Hypothesis: A high rate of inflation will produce

a high voter turnouta high voter turnout– Electors might blame the government for failing to Electors might blame the government for failing to

keep prices under control, and avidly vote for the keep prices under control, and avidly vote for the party that proposes the best way to fix the problemparty that proposes the best way to fix the problem

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.2877 0.2877– Weak positive correlationWeak positive correlation


valuevalue

National Rate of Inflation vs. National Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rate of Inflation (% increase)

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Hypothesis seems to be disproven, as rate Hypothesis seems to be disproven, as rate of inflation has little effect on voter turnoutof inflation has little effect on voter turnout

Data is skewed by an outlierData is skewed by an outlier– 1980 has inflation rates approximately two 1980 has inflation rates approximately two

times those of the following yearstimes those of the following years Caused by a rapid climb in pricesCaused by a rapid climb in prices Effectively dealt with through the implementation of Effectively dealt with through the implementation of

restrictive monetary policy, or high interest ratesrestrictive monetary policy, or high interest rates Prompted the federal government and the Bank of Prompted the federal government and the Bank of

Canada to eventually create a target to keep the Canada to eventually create a target to keep the inflation rate between 1% and 3%, which they have inflation rate between 1% and 3%, which they have done since the early 1990’sdone since the early 1990’s

– Outlier must be removed to better see the Outlier must be removed to better see the recent trendrecent trend

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.7171 0.7171– Strong positive correlationStrong positive correlation


National Rate of Inflation vs. National Voter Turnout (1980 Removed)

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

The hypothesis seems to be proven, as The hypothesis seems to be proven, as high rate of inflation yields high voter high rate of inflation yields high voter turnoutturnout

1980 is definitely an outlier1980 is definitely an outlier– Correlation coefficient and coefficient of Correlation coefficient and coefficient of

determination both make significant jumpsdetermination both make significant jumps However, rate of inflation should be However, rate of inflation should be

measured provinciallymeasured provincially– As with unemployment rates, rates of inflation As with unemployment rates, rates of inflation

vary between provinces, often by large vary between provinces, often by large amountsamounts

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.2291 0.2291– Weak positive correlationWeak positive correlation


valuevalue

Provincial Rate of Inflation vs. Provincial Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Hypothesis seems to be disproven, but is Hypothesis seems to be disproven, but is once again altered by the 1980 outlieronce again altered by the 1980 outlier– As with national rate of inflation, provincial As with national rate of inflation, provincial

rates in 1980 are about 2 times those of later rates in 1980 are about 2 times those of later yearsyears

– 1980 must be removed on the provincial graph 1980 must be removed on the provincial graph to better see the developing trendto better see the developing trend

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: 0.5382 0.5382– Moderate positive correlationModerate positive correlation


Provincial Rate of Inflation vs. Provincial Voter Turnout (1980 Removed)

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

The hypothesis is proven, as a high rate of The hypothesis is proven, as a high rate of inflation definitely causes high voter inflation definitely causes high voter turnoutturnout

1980 is definitely an outlier1980 is definitely an outlier– Values change significantly with its removalValues change significantly with its removal– Shows the more recent trendShows the more recent trend

Possible reasons why:Possible reasons why:– Electors can blame government for not keeping Electors can blame government for not keeping

a steady hold on economya steady hold on economy– Will avidly vote to bring in a new government Will avidly vote to bring in a new government

that will better deal with the problemthat will better deal with the problem

Special Case Variables:Special Case Variables:Age of ElectorAge of Elector

Age of elector:Age of elector:– Important variable in analyzing voter turnoutImportant variable in analyzing voter turnout– Different age groups will have different generalized Different age groups will have different generalized

voter turnouts for various reasonsvoter turnouts for various reasons Knowledge of world around themKnowledge of world around them Importance of issuesImportance of issues Opinions and viewsOpinions and views And various othersAnd various others

Hypothesis: lower ages will have a lower voter Hypothesis: lower ages will have a lower voter turnoutturnout– Less issues directly affect younger electorsLess issues directly affect younger electors– Probably have less of an understanding of politicsProbably have less of an understanding of politics

High/Low Values:High/Low Values:– Voted:Voted: 83.3% (68+)/22.4% (18-20) 83.3% (68+)/22.4% (18-20)– Didn’t Vote:Didn’t Vote: 77.6% (18-20)/16.7% (68+) 77.6% (18-20)/16.7% (68+)

Age of Elector and Election Participation in 2000

0102030405060708090

100

18-20 21-24 25-29 30-37 38-47 48-57 58-67 68+

Age Range (years)

Rep

rese

nta

tio

n o

f A

ge

Ran

ge

(% o

f ag

e ra

ng

e)

Voted Didn't Vote

The hypothesis is proven, as the lower the The hypothesis is proven, as the lower the age of the elector, the less likely they are age of the elector, the less likely they are to voteto vote

Possible reasons why:Possible reasons why:– More issues have direct relevance to older More issues have direct relevance to older

electors:electors: More taxesMore taxes Social programsSocial programs Economic issuesEconomic issues

– Younger electors are likely not as concerned Younger electors are likely not as concerned about the importance of voting to Canada’s about the importance of voting to Canada’s futurefuture

First pie graph clearly shows how little the First pie graph clearly shows how little the 18-20 age group contributes to elections, and 18-20 age group contributes to elections, and how much the 68+ age group contributeshow much the 68+ age group contributes

Second graph shows how the inverse is true Second graph shows how the inverse is true for those who don’t votefor those who don’t vote

From this data, probabilities can be From this data, probabilities can be calculated for votingcalculated for voting

Percentage of Age Group that Didn’t Vote

77.672.5

61.8

45.833.8

23.6

19.6

16.7

18-20

21-24

25-29

30-37

38-47

48-57

58-67

68+

Percentage of Age Group that Voted

22.4

27.5

38.2

54.2

66.2

76.4

80.4

83.318-20

21-24

25-29

30-37

38-47

48-57

58-67

68+

As the age of the elector increases, so does As the age of the elector increases, so does the probability that the elector will votethe probability that the elector will vote– 28/125 age 18-20 electors will vote28/125 age 18-20 electors will vote– 97/125 age 18-20 electors will not vote97/125 age 18-20 electors will not vote– 833/1000 age 68+ electors will vote833/1000 age 68+ electors will vote– 167/1000 age 68+ electors will not vote167/1000 age 68+ electors will not vote

Significant differences between the age Significant differences between the age extremesextremes

Special Case Variables:Special Case Variables:Weather on Election DayWeather on Election Day

In Canada, any change in weather can In Canada, any change in weather can happen without noticehappen without notice– Precipitation is one of the most unpredictablePrecipitation is one of the most unpredictable– It can occur in any amount at any given timeIt can occur in any amount at any given time

Hypothesis: High precipitation will cause a Hypothesis: High precipitation will cause a low voter turnoutlow voter turnout– If the precipitation is high, then it is harder to If the precipitation is high, then it is harder to

get to polling stations, and some people may get to polling stations, and some people may think it is not worth the effortthink it is not worth the effort

Correlation Coefficient:Correlation Coefficient: -0.0346 -0.0346– Nonexistent correlationNonexistent correlation


valuevalue

Precipitation vs. Voter Turnout for Individual Ridings from 1993-2004

0102030405060708090

100

Precipitation (mm)

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

0-Trace 0.1+

The hypothesis is clearly disproven, as The hypothesis is clearly disproven, as precipitation has no effect on voter turnoutprecipitation has no effect on voter turnout– People who take the time to go out and vote People who take the time to go out and vote

will still do so, even in rain or snowwill still do so, even in rain or snow– People who do not vote will still not vote if it a People who do not vote will still not vote if it a

nice day outsidenice day outside

Recap of the ConclusionsRecap of the Conclusions Since 1980, there has been a declining trend in voter turnout Since 1980, there has been a declining trend in voter turnout

on both national and provincial levelson both national and provincial levels There is a moderate positive correlation between the length of There is a moderate positive correlation between the length of

the previous government’s term and national voter turnoutthe previous government’s term and national voter turnout There is no correlation between the number of federal parties There is no correlation between the number of federal parties

registered in an election and national voter turnoutregistered in an election and national voter turnout There is no correlation between unemployment rate and voter There is no correlation between unemployment rate and voter

turnoutturnout There is a moderate positive correlation between rate of There is a moderate positive correlation between rate of

inflation and voter turnoutinflation and voter turnout As the age of elector increases, the probability that the elector As the age of elector increases, the probability that the elector

will vote increaseswill vote increases There is no correlation between the amount of precipitation on There is no correlation between the amount of precipitation on

the day of election and voter turnoutthe day of election and voter turnout

Expectations for the January Expectations for the January ElectionElection

Using the drawn conclusions, probable voter Using the drawn conclusions, probable voter turnout values can be hypothesizedturnout values can be hypothesized– Microsoft Excel provides a mathematical equation Microsoft Excel provides a mathematical equation

for each line or curve of best fitfor each line or curve of best fit– By plugging in the required x-values, the y-values, By plugging in the required x-values, the y-values,

or the voter turnout percentages, can be calculatedor the voter turnout percentages, can be calculated Three lines and curves of best fit can be usedThree lines and curves of best fit can be used

– General voter turnout curveGeneral voter turnout curve– Length of term lineLength of term line– Rate of inflation lineRate of inflation line

Others cannot be used for various reasonsOthers cannot be used for various reasons

National Voter Turnout from 1980-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

1980 1984 1988 1993 1997 2000 2004

Length of Previous Term vs. National Voter Turnout

0102030405060708090

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Length of Term (days)

Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Provincial Rate of Inflation vs. Provincial Voter Turnout (1980 Removed)

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Vo

ter

Tu

rno

ut

(% o

f el

ecto

rs)

Equation:Equation:– y = -0.744x^2 y = -0.744x^2

+ 3.8917x + + 3.8917x + 68.268.2

x-value:x-value:– Number Number

assigned assigned election year election year being analyzed, being analyzed, where 1980 = 1where 1980 = 1

– 2006 is eighth2006 is eighth– x = 8x = 8

Calculation:Calculation:– y = 51.72y = 51.72

Equation:Equation:– y = 0.0167x + y = 0.0167x +

44.56544.565 x-value:x-value:

– Length of the Length of the government’s government’s term in daysterm in days

– Government Government lasted 498 dayslasted 498 days

– x = 498x = 498 Calculation:Calculation:

– y = 52.88y = 52.88

Equation:Equation:– y = 3.6939x + y = 3.6939x +

58.09658.096 x-value:x-value:

– Inflation rate as Inflation rate as a percentagea percentage

– Latest yearly Latest yearly inflation inflation estimate is estimate is 2.2%2.2%

– x = 2.2x = 2.2 Calculation:Calculation:

– y = 66.22y = 66.22

The expected values for the election are:The expected values for the election are:– 51.72% by voter turnout trend51.72% by voter turnout trend– 52.88% by length of term52.88% by length of term– 66.22% by rate of inflation66.22% by rate of inflation

To obtain a possible value, the To obtain a possible value, the percentages are averagedpercentages are averaged

This yields 56.94%, which, when looking at This yields 56.94%, which, when looking at the correlations, is reasonablethe correlations, is reasonable

However, 2006’s voter turnout was 64.9%, However, 2006’s voter turnout was 64.9%, which is the first increase in 22 yearswhich is the first increase in 22 years

How can this be?How can this be?

Many possible reasons why:Many possible reasons why:– During last election, government accountability a hot During last election, government accountability a hot

issueissue– Parties rallied support, promising to clean up systemParties rallied support, promising to clean up system– This variable cannot be easily measured statisticallyThis variable cannot be easily measured statistically

Although quantitative statistics provide for Although quantitative statistics provide for effective mathematical correlations, the strength effective mathematical correlations, the strength of the effect of important issues at the time of of the effect of important issues at the time of election cannot be denied as one of the primary election cannot be denied as one of the primary influences on voter turnout.influences on voter turnout.

However, an equation can be used to model the However, an equation can be used to model the 2006 election, which I call “The Martin Law”2006 election, which I call “The Martin Law”

Paul Martin winning Liberal leadershipPaul Martin winning Liberal leadership

++Martin calling D-Day “The invasion of Norway”Martin calling D-Day “The invasion of Norway”

××‘‘Where did all the money go?’Where did all the money go?’

––Gomery’s inquiryGomery’s inquiry

÷÷‘‘Harper ruined Christmas’ as a Liberal election sloganHarper ruined Christmas’ as a Liberal election slogan

==More Canadians turning out to vote for Stephen HarperMore Canadians turning out to vote for Stephen Harper

Thank YouThank You

canadian federal elections and the variables affecting voter turnout

Documents

canadas voter turnout

voter turnoutmore parties

number of parties

general voter turnout

voter turnoutif

runfederal parties

length of time

federal electionsrange