And the winner is . . . APATHY!

That’s right, folks! By an overwhelming majority (67% of the electorate - an increase of 15% since the 2006 municipal election, when the “I-can’t-be-bothered-to-vote” crowd rose to 58%, up from 51% in 2003 and just shy of the amazing total of 71% in 2000), support for none of the three mayoral candidates, and neither of the Ward 2 councillor candidates achieved a lack of interest that approached the all-time record in Prince Albert! [Mayoral and Ward 2 voters both dropped 22% from 2006 to 2009.]

This wouldn’t be an issue, except that the individuals who won pluralities in their respective contests essentially have carte blanche to do whatever the few individuals who did vote for them want done. Fewer voters, in other words, means fewer people caring enough to keep track of these elected officials and hold them to account between elections.


Why so little interest in PA municipal elections?

You could blame the lack of candidate diversity, but that explanation doesn’t ring true for the mayoral or Ward 2 pools (in 2006 or 2009). The fact that people don’t care is a meaningless conclusion, since you can’t force people to show an interest in the political process, or care about differentiating one candidate from another. Australia is always trotted out as the exemplary Western democracy that requires its citizens to vote (or be subject to a fine). That wouldn’t work here, but we might be able to implement a $10 tax credit at the federal and provincial levels; this couldn’t work in city elections because we don’t file municipal tax returns.


Is “electronic disconnect” the root of the problem?

I think the analysis I saw last week in the Star-Phoenix is worth repeating: perhaps people don’t vote because it’s a public act, involving face-to-face interaction with people who are usually strangers, and communication technology’s dominance in our society has successfully promoted electronic means of diminishing, even devaluing such interaction. Hand-held mobile phones - Blackberries and iPhones, most notably, but this theory applies to any with texting or internet capacity - have extended the communication functions that were available on personal computers; and computer users individualize themselves through Twitter, Facebook, webcams, and instant messaging, so that direct human contact becomes even less likely. In a society where electronic communication addresses the need for instantaneous gratification and human contact, voting, even when it involves a secret ballot, is too much contact, with only limited prospects for providing gratification. [Supporting the eventual winner is gratifying, but supporters of losing candidates have little reason to feel positive about an election.]

On voting day, people under 50 also have to deal with election officials who are almost always bona fide senior citizens (the ones who actually get Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security payments): regardless of good intentions and training, many of them are more than ready to characterize “youth” they encounter as living lives of unbridled indulgence, scarcely acknowledging, let alone respecting the elders they come in contact with at irregular intervals. Elders’ disapproval doesn’t have to be voiced to be palpable. The voting experience, consequently, is often uncomfortable for the younger voters who do recognize the importance of casting a ballot.

Inculcating a sense of civic duty was never high on the curricula of locally-funded schools. I believe high schools used to teach students how to think (sometimes, even critically). Now they concentrate on producing graduates who get along with one another, have the tools to continue studying, and will be compliant members of the workforce. For their part, post-secondary education institutions deliver saleable commodities to the workplace and the marketplace. But failure to participate in basic democratic practice isn’t related to the narrow foci of our end-stage education system. [In fact, higher educational attainment normally means a higher propensity to vote - evident locally in the turnouts in Ward 8: West Hill residents have the highest level of education in the city, and the highest voting turnout in municipal elections.] Neither is it about feeling “un-empowered” (however that’s defined by navel-gazing egalitarians). Just canvass the under-30 set about how much they “identify with” any aspect of the value system represented by the generation working as poll clerks and returning officers, and you’ll probably get nonchalant, massive indifference (after the initial expression of surprise that the question was asked).


What to Do . . . .

Hmmmm . . . . I’ve tried reminding people of what Ralph Nader said when he ran for US President in 2000: if you don’t turn on to politics, watch out, because politics will eventually turn on you. Doesn’t work.

If people felt they had a personal stake in the operation of the city, that could work wonders. City councillors could take up the cause (if they ever develop the inclination). The current mayor certainly spares no effort to get out to hundreds of events every year, but he largely congratulates and praises the attendees; he doesn’t inspire anyone to do anything (other than reciprocate with a “thank-you for being here”). Rely on the educative power of the media? Nope, too ephemeral - besides, their adherence to the Andy-Warhol-dictated 15 minutes of fame, the newsworthiness of conflict, and “If it bleeds, it leads” persists. I hesitate to prescribe anything, but that leaves parents, pre-school, kindergarten, and primary schools as the prime candidates for instilling the voting habit. Alas, the electoral payoff is a long way off.