open Secondary menu

Report on the Evaluations of the 40th General Election of October 14, 2008


1. Voters' Experience of the Election

1.1 Communications and Outreach

The 40th general election was the first in which voters were required to prove their identity and address when voting. Consequently, informing electors of this new requirement was the key focus of our communications activities and the predominant message in our advertising campaign throughout the election.

In addition to our standard television, radio and print campaigns, we distributed a pamphlet to all Canadian households reminding them of the new rules, informing them of their options for proving their identity and address and giving the list of identification documents authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. Furthermore, we adapted the voter information card to inform electors about the new voter identification requirements, and made special efforts to reach elector communities that might face greater difficulties meeting the requirements or might not be reached by our general campaign. These efforts are detailed in the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 40th General Election of October 14, 2008, which is available on our Web site at www.elections.ca.

Communicating with Canadians

Elections Canada used a variety of media products to communicate about the election and its requirements:

  • voter information card
  • householder (direct mail flyer)
  • television ads
  • newspaper ads
  • radio ads
  • cinema ads
  • Internet/banner ads
  • e-bulletins
  • news releases

About 9 in 10 (89 percent) Canadians recalled receiving a voter information card addressed to them personally, and nearly 8 in 10 (79 percent) recalled at least one of the Elections Canada advertisements.

Respondents reported a very high recall rate (nearly 80 percent) of at least one of the media products Elections Canada used to communicate with citizens through the overall campaign. Nearly 90 percent of electors recalled the voter information card, although youth and Aboriginal Canadians were less likely (69 and 75 percent respectively) to say that they received a card. Television and radio advertising was also readily recalled (by about 50 percent of the population), while newspaper advertising was somewhat less so (by one-third). Finally, about half of electors remembered receiving the householder from Elections Canada.

There was a high level of awareness (over 90 percent) of the voter identification requirements among voters and non-voters alike, with exceptions among some groups of electors (Section 1.2 provides more details). In general, most respondents cited traditional media, such as television (32 percent), radio (22 percent) and newspapers (22 percent) for informing them of the requirements. They also cited the voter information card (27 percent) as one of the key sources of this information. Among those who remembered receiving the householder, almost 40 percent recalled that it provided specific information on the new identification requirements.

One of the key outreach initiatives was the Community Relations Officer ProgramFootnote 2 . These officers, who worked specifically with youth, Aboriginal and ethnocultural communities, and with homeless electors, were asked to comment on their experience in reaching out to various groups. Among the community relations officers who answered our survey, 83 percent deemed the program they participated in helpful for raising awareness about the electoral process in their target group. They also offered suggestions for improvements to outreach activities, such as conducting more activities on-site and better adapting material to target groups.

Overall, almost all Canadians were aware of the election, understood the voter identification requirements, were aware that they were registered (if they were) and were aware of how to vote. While opportunities remain for Elections Canada to refine its communications and outreach programs further, the multimedia approach used in the 40th general election was clearly successful at informing Canadian electors of both the new voter identification requirements and the election itself.

1.2 Voter Identification Requirements

In the 40th general election, electors could choose from three ways to prove their identity and address in order to vote. As set out in the Canada Elections Act, they could:

  • provide one original piece of identification, issued by any level of government in Canada or any governmental agency; this had to show the elector's photo, name and address;
  • provide two original pieces of identification from a list authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada; both had to show the name of the elector, and at least one had to also show the elector's address; or
  • swear an oath and be vouched for by an elector whose name appeared on the list of electors in the same polling division and who had acceptable identification.Footnote 3

These new requirements represented a significant change for Canadians. As noted earlier, Elections Canada prepared an extensive communications and outreach campaign to ensure that voters were aware of the new requirements and came to the polls prepared to satisfy them. Most did: the requirements did not pose a problem for the vast majority of electors.

Awareness of the proof-of-identity requirement was very high across all regional and demographic groups. Even among those members of the general population who did not vote, more than 9 in 10 reported being aware of this requirement. Awareness of the proof-of-address requirement was slightly lower than of the proof-of-identity requirement, but still very high. Awareness of the proof-of-address requirement did show some regional demographic variation. Regionally, residents of the Atlantic provinces and Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as those living in rural areas,Footnote 4 were slightly below average in awareness. Demographically, those with annual household incomes of under $20,000, those with high-school education only and non-voters were slightly below the average.

Key findings from the evaluations

94 percent of electors were aware of the proof-of-identity requirement, as were 92 percent of those who did not vote.

Awareness was lower among those with only high-school education (91 percent) or whose household incomes were $20,000 or less (91 percent).

Awareness of the proof-of-address requirement was lower (85 percent) than of the proof-of-identity requirement.

Regionally, residents of the Atlantic provinces (78 percent) and Manitoba and Saskatchewan (79 percent), as well as those living in rural areas (80 percent), were below average in awareness.

Among Aboriginal electors, awareness of the proof-of-identity requirement was 84 percent overall, 82 percent among those living in rural areas, and 78 percent among non-voters.

Aboriginal electors overall (71 percent), and especially those living in rural areas (68 percent), were also somewhat lower in awareness of the proof-of-address requirement. About two thirds (67 percent) of non-voting Aboriginal Canadians reported awareness of the proof-of-address requirement.

Of the general population, 94 percent said they had a positive attitude to the proof-of-identity requirement. Attitudes to the proof-of-address requirement were somewhat less positive, with 88 percent indicating a positive attitude. Of Aboriginal Canadians, 80 percent indicated a positive attitude to the proof-of-identity requirement, while 75 percent of them indicated a positive attitude toward the proof-of-address requirement.

Virtually all voters (98 percent) reported bringing the required identification with them. Fewer Aboriginal Canadians (89 percent) did so.

While a substantial majority of Aboriginal Canadians were aware of both the proof-of-identity and address requirement, they were less likely to be so than the general population. Indeed, they were the only group less likely than the general population to be aware of both requirements. Both youth and immigrant/visible-minority groups had uniformly high awareness of the proof-of-identity requirement, and were no different from the general population in their awareness of the proof-of-address requirement.

For the most part, voters endorsed the new requirements. A large majority of voters had a positive attitude toward them. The majority of Aboriginal electors also expressed a positive attitude, but they were not as positive as the general population. Youth and immigrant/visible-minority groups were, overall, as positive as the general population was to each requirement.

Before the call of the 40th general election, Elections Canada undertook a number of consultations with organizations representing communities of electors who may have greater difficulty in meeting the new voter identification requirements. These included northern Canadians, students, homeless persons and residents of long-term care facilities. The principal challenge identified in the consultations was the ability of these groups of electors to provide proof of address. A number of recommendations stemming from these consultations were received after the general election and are now being considered.

Virtually all voters who came to the polls were prepared to satisfy the identification requirements, and brought the required identification with them. Slightly fewer Aboriginal Canadians did so.

Elections Canada's poll workers observed that the voter identification process went well overall (95 percent) and that voters were prepared to comply with the new requirements when they arrived at the polls.

The majority of candidates (61 percent) observed no problems with the implementation of the identification requirements, but enough (37 percent or 328 survey respondents) witnessed problems that raise some concerns. These problems included voters not having proper identification, being unable to vote or having problems with proving their identity and address, and uneven interpretation of the rules by poll workers. We also received feedback indicating that some of our poll workers did not inform electors proactively of all the options available to them to meet the new requirements, such as vouching. As well, even though a vast majority of poll workers felt well trained and prepared to implement the new identification requirements, a minority (8 percent) indicated that they did not verify whether electors had the proper identification before allowing them to vote. This would appear to confirm a need to continue improving our training programs, but it also highlights the challenge we face in imparting, through a three-hour training session, increasingly complex rules to some 200,000 poll workers, most of whom we hire to work for a single day. This is an issue we discuss further in Section 3.2: Voting Operations.

While the majority of electors endorsed identification and brought the required identification document(s) with them, initial elector reactions at the polls appeared unfavourable to about one in five poll workers, with electors in Manitoba and Saskatchewan expressing the most objections. Electors' main objection to the requirement was that not everyone has an address.

Elections Canada receives complaints from electors in every election. For the 40th general election, about one in six (219 of 1,352)5 related to the voter identification requirements. This suggests that groups other than Aboriginal Canadians may also have been challenged by the requirements, particularly by proof of address. These groups include homeless electors, residents of long-term care facilities, students, individuals without a permanent civic address and individuals who do not have a driver's licence. These issues, which were also raised during the consultations before the election, were further confirmed by our experience in the field, particularly as it relates to students and seniors in long-term care facilities. During our post-event sessions, some of our returning officers and field liaison officers indicated that students living away from home often lack pieces of identification related to the location where they currently live. They also pointed out that seniors in long-term care facilities may not have access to pieces of identification, which may be held by the administration of the facility or by their families.

There also appears to have been some confusion about the use of the voter information card as a piece of identification. The vast majority of electors received a voter information card showing their correct name and address. Each card also stated explicitly that "This card CANNOT be used as proof of identity or residential address," as the voter information card is not on the list of authorized documents for establishing proof of identification and address. Nevertheless, about one in four poll workers (23 percent) reported that it was a common problem for electors to think they could use their voter information card as identification. Voters in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were most likely to mistake their voter information card as a proof of identification. This inconvenience does not appear to have compromised electors' perceptions of the voting process or of Elections Canada: 97 percent reported finding it easy to vote, with 86 percent stating it was "very easy," while 98 percent were satisfied with the instructions they received from Elections Canada about casting a ballot.

We also received some feedback through complaints and during the consultations we held before the election on the current vouching provisions of the Act. Among the issues raised, the one that is of most concern to Elections Canada is that the Act may be overly restrictive of electors' ability to vouch for family members. Under the current legislation, an elector can vouch for only one other elector in a federal election. It is not possible, for instance, for a parent to vouch for more than one child at the polls. In the recent provincial election in British Columbia, a relative could vouch for any voters who are members of their family. This approach may be better adapted to the needs of electors.

In summary, the overall implementation of the new voter identification requirements went well. Except for certain segments of the population, most voters were aware of the requirements, accepted them, and arrived at the polls prepared to satisfy them. Yet there appear to be some groups of voters that found it more difficult than the general population to vote, particularly because of the proof-of-address requirement. Elections Canada will therefore explore the possibility of adding the voter information card to the list of authorized documents, and allowing it to be used in combination with another authorized piece of documentation. Elections BC already allows the use of its provincial "Where to Vote" card for these purposes and early indications are that it worked well.

One of Elections Canada's strategic objectives is to ensure Canadians' access to the electoral process, while protecting the integrity of that process. For the 40th general election, our approach to the voter identification requirements was through communications, outreach and training. While improvements are clearly possible, particularly as they relate to the proof-of-address requirement and the training of poll workers, the overall approach appears to be working well.

1.3 Voting Process

Including advance polls and ordinary polling day, almost 14 million Canadians voted in the 40th general election. Voting went very smoothly for the vast majority of them:

  • 97 percent found it easy to vote.
  • 97 percent found the location of the polling station they used a convenient distance for them.
  • 99 percent were satisfied with the language they were served in at the polling station.
  • 96 percent were satisfied with the amount of time spent waiting to cast a ballot.
  • 98 percent were satisfied with the instructions they received on casting a ballot.

Before the election, it was difficult to determine just what impact the new identification requirements would have on voters' experience at the polls. There was a concern that it would slow down the voting process.

Drawing on our experience in recent by-elections, Elections Canada took steps to minimize the impact of the new requirements on the workflow at polling stations. The Chief Electoral Officer adapted the Act to allow for information and registration officers to facilitate the registration and voting process at advance polls. On election day, returning officers were required to have a supervisor and/or an information officer at practically all polling locations, as opposed to just locations containing more than three polling stations, which was the practice in previous general elections.

From the electors' perspective, these changes appear to have been successful and seamless. However, Elections Canada could realize greater efficiency if we had more flexibility to organize work inside our polling stations. At present, this is limited by the provisions of the Act, which explicitly defines the voting process, and the roles and responsibilities of returning officers and each type of election worker. This matter is further addressed in Section 3.2: Voting Operations.

As in past elections, about one in nine electors (11 percent) voted at an advance poll. This is virtually unchanged since 2006. Even though most voters still cast their ballot at a polling station on election day, advances in electoral technology, experienced in other democracies and by many Canadians during municipal elections, offer new avenues for alternative voting methods that cannot be ignored. As noted in Section 3.3: Future Services, a large number of Canadians are interested in accessing electoral services on-line. Elections Canada therefore remains committed, with the prior approval of Parliament, to conduct a secure electronic voting pilot in a by-election by 2013.

1.4 Voter Turnout

Including advance polls, special ballots and ordinary polling day, the total number of voters in the 40th general election was 13,929,093, or 58.8 percent of registered electors. This represented a 5.9 percent decrease from the turnout in the 39th general election and, as shown in the chart below, is consistent with a long-term trend for turnout to decline in successive elections. This is a trend observed in most provincial jurisdictions and other established democracies around the world.

Percent Voting in General Elections

The low turnout in the 2008 election is worrisome. It speaks to societal issues that are larger than the administration of electoral events. Addressing this trend requires the broad leadership of civil society. Elections Canada can assist by reducing administrative barriers to participation, thereby improving accessibility, and by conducting research to better understand the dynamics of voter turnout. With this in mind, we included questions related to voting behaviour, and factors that may impede participation, in our post-election survey of electors.

In interpreting the survey results, it is important to remember that self-reported turnout was higher than actual turnout (73 versus about 59 percent). This was also the case for the 39th general election (87 versus about 65 percent). This is a phenomenon observed in all such surveys.Footnote 6 Despite these limitations, surveys remain the best method for understanding the factors that may contribute to electors' decision to vote – or not.

Consistent with past research, self-reported turnout tends to be lower among specific groups of electors. In particular, Aboriginal electors are the least likely to report that they have voted (54 percent in the 2008 election survey), followed by youth (63 percent).

During the 40th general election, Canadians had a range of opportunities to vote in various ways, in accessible venues and in more locations than ever before. As noted elsewhere in this report, both electors and candidates expressed high levels of satisfaction with the administration of the election. As such, administrative barriers do not appear to be a prominent factor in dissuading voting behaviour, although we note that more Aboriginal and young electors indicated these as factors than the general population did.

Self-reported reasons for not voting in the 40th general election –
Using an open-ended question approach
All electors
57%Everyday situations, for example:
  • Holidays or being out of town (16%)
  • Being too busy or unexpected things coming up (15%)
  • Work or school schedules (11%)
  • Family obligations (3%)
36%Negative attitude toward politics or political parties, for example:
  • Apathy (14%)
  • Cynicism (8%)
  • Not knowing who to vote for or dislike of all candidates (9%)
  • Negative attitude toward political parties or their platform (3%)
8%Administration of the electoral process, for example:
  • Not having received a voter information card (1%)
  • Not being sure if they were registered (1%)
  • Lack of proper identification (1%)
  • A transportation issue in getting to a poll (1%)
  • Not knowing where the polling station was or that it was too far (1%)
Aboriginal electors
47%Everyday life situations
35%Negative attitude toward politics or political parties
18%Administration of the electoral process
Young electors
57%Everyday life situations
25%Negative attitude toward politics or political parties
16%Administration of the electoral process

Everyday life situations dominate, at over 20 percent ahead of the second-most cited reasons for all electors, and significantly ahead of other reasons for both Aboriginal electors and youth.

Bearing in mind that self-reported reasons may be masking other factors, such as personal interest levels or other attitudes, it would appear that voting competes with other daily priorities for a substantial number of electors. In that sense, Elections Canada's efforts to make registration and voting more accessible and convenient for electors (e.g. through initiatives such as e-registration and an eventual e-voting pilot) appear to be well positioned. By working at "bringing the ballot to the elector," we may contribute to mitigating some of the reasons for lower turnout.

That being said, voting is a complex phenomenon that seems to result from a variety of factors that we need to understand better. Elections Canada will therefore continue to pursue research into these factors, to support future improvements to the electoral process. As examples, the agency is in the process of reconducting its study of turnout by age groups based on a sample of voters and data in the National Register of Electors, and its analysis of turnout on reserves.

We also renewed our partnership with the Canadian Election StudyFootnote 7 ; the study will be completed later this year

Elections Canada also remains concerned by the low level of engagement of young Canadians in the electoral process. As indicated in our Strategic Plan 2008–2013, a key factor explaining youth disengagement is their lack of understanding of the importance of voting and becoming a candidate. Elections Canada remains committed to working collaboratively with a range of political and civil society partners to conduct targeted civic education for Canadians under 18 years of age.

More specifically, we are concerned about students, who often become eligible to vote for the first time while they are away from their families. Their first voting experience is made more complex by the residency rules of the Act as they apply to students. The onus is on students to determine whether they consider their place of residence to be with their family or where they study. Students who are away from their family home and have determined it to be their residence must vote by mail unless they happen to be at home during one of the voting days. Students who have determined that they reside where they study may intuitively think they can vote on campus – though this option is available only to students who live in residence on campus. Others must cast their ballot off campus, in the neighbourhood where they actually reside.

Representation from post-secondary student associations also indicates that local Elections Canada office staff have not consistently adhered to Elections Canada's procedures for students on campus. This is therefore an area that merits our attention, and where we look forward to engaging both returning officers and student groups. The aim is to improve service, and to simplify and improve communications and products.


Footnote 2 Where it was warranted, returning officers hired community relations officers to conduct local outreach activities such as setting up information kiosks and distributing communications material to specific groups of electors during the election. The 554 community relations officers worked an average of 75 hours during the election period.

Footnote 3Additional details, including the complete list for proving identity and address, are described on the Elections Canada Web site at www.elections.ca. Because some electors, especially those in rural and northern areas, do not have a complete civic address that would prove their residence within a polling division, the Act provides that an elector who shows a piece of identification on which the address is consistent with the information contained on the list of electors is deemed to have established his or her residence.

Footnote 4 As determined by the postal code of survey respondents.

Footnote 5 Total complaints received as of December 31, 2008.

Footnote 6 It is well known that surveys over-report voting, "… in part because those who are less interested in politics and less inclined to vote are less prone to answer surveys… and in part because of mis-reporting due to social desirability." See André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, Richard Nadeau and Neil Nevitte, Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the 2000 Canadian Election (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2002), p. 61. However, evidence shows that surveys can reliably be used to identify factors of voting and non-voting.

Footnote 7 Since 1997, Elections Canada has partnered with the Canadian Election Study (CES), a unique academic survey that has collected longitudinal data on Canadian federal elections since 1965. The replication of questions across studies, and the continual incorporation of new questions, makes the CES the most comprehensive account of the circumstances and the outcomes of national elections in Canada. The CES is based on a very large sample of Canadian electors (approximately 4,000 respondents) and traditionally consists of three consecutive panels (the same respondents are interviewed at three different moments), which provides for the collection of public opinion data both during the campaign period and after the election.