Site MenuElectoral Participation of Aboriginals in Canada
Literature Review
A number of studies carried out in the 1950s and 1960s argued that apathy and low voter turnout were symptomatic of a widely shared acceptance of the regime. American politics, in particular, was seen as less charged than that of European states which were divided on class lines
(Morris-Jones 1954; Lipset 1963, chapter 6). More recently, academics, politicians and Elections Canada, in addition to the AFN, have evinced concern that the low and decreasing rates of participation, especially among specific groups such as youth and Aboriginals, indicates a disengagement from the democratic process that is not healthy for the body politic.
Until the 1990s little interest was paid to voter participation among Aboriginal persons by students of voting. One of the first such studies was conducted by Bedford and Pobihushchy in 1995. This paper examined on-reserve voter turnout in the Maritime provinces using the now standard method of studying only those polls which were entirely contained within reserve communities (Bedford and Pobihushchy 1995). Data for a sample of reserves across Canada were added to a revision of this paper published in 2003 (Bedford 2003). These studies concluded both that turnout on reserves was markedly lower than that of the rest of Canada and that the rates were decreasing. Daniel Guérin also utilized this method in his study of the
2000 federal election. He concluded that the turnout rate among on-reserve Aboriginals was 47.8% – 16% lower than the overall rate (2003, 12). Jean-Nicholas Bustros' study in 2000 used a similar methodology to conclude that the turnout among Aboriginals on reserve for the federal election of 1993 was 38%, for that of 1997 was 40% and for the Charlottetown Accord Referendum was 41% (cited in Guérin 2003, 11). Jennifer Dalton's recent study looked at
on-reserve voting in Ontario for the 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 federal elections. She concluded that rates for Aboriginal persons were lower than those for the population as a whole, but unlike the Bedford study which covered the period from 1960 to 1993, her results showed a gradual increase over time (2007, Table 5A).
This method of determining participation rates is generally preferred to that of collecting data using surveys in which people are asked if they have voted. This latter method of self-reporting produces rates that are consistently higher than the actual turnout rates, leading to concern over the accuracy of such results (Dalton 2007, 11; Silver et al 2005, 6). The "polling station within reserves" method produces data that can be trusted to a high degree, but it leaves out important sections of the Aboriginal population: Those who live off-reserve, whether status or not, are not surveyed. This is a significant weakness of the method, as the two populations will not necessarily vote at the same rate. Nor can the polling station approach reveal much about important correlates of voter participation, such as socio-demographic characteristics or psychological and social attitudes. While the discrepancies in the self-reported data are significant and care must be taken in interpreting the data, the information provided by the survey method is a vital addition to what we know through the polling station method.
Despite these methodological difficulties there is broad consensus that Aboriginals are less likely to vote than non-Aboriginals in federal and provincial elections. (Band elections are an exception; see Bedford and Pobihushchy 1995, 263–4.) There is much less consensus, and much less evidence, as to why this is so. The most commonly proposed reason is that of Aboriginal
nationalism, that is, their identification as Maliseet, Mohawk, Blood, etc. rather than as Canadian, leads them to regard Canadian elections as foreign (Bedford and Pobihushchy 1995, 269–70; Cairns 2003, 6–7). Various factors encourage this self-identification: the push for
self-government; alienation from the often racist and oppressive Canadian state and people; the rise of identity politics and a global tendency to localisms; attempts at cultural and linguistic preservation; and so on. This account has not gone unchallenged, however. Perhaps most interestingly, the AFN proposes three reasons for low turnout. They argue that, first of all, the "collective traumas" of the residential schools, the history of colonialism and racism discourage participation. Second, the tradition of voting has not been established as part of the political culture, as Status Indians did not receive the right to vote (and keep status) until 1960. Finally, the "crushing burden of poverty" is noted. The "hand-to-mouth" existence of so many Aboriginal persons creates numerous obstacles to voting.Footnote 4
Silver et al explicitly challenge the "nationalist explanation". Their qualitative study of voting among Aboriginals in Winnipeg's inner-city indicates that this is not the key factor (2005, 12–13). Instead, three other factors or explanations seem to be supported by this study. They are: the "social exclusion" explanation – where feeling "excluded from, distanced and distrustful of, the Canadian political system" correlates with low turnout (2005, 13–15); the
"socio-economic and demographic" explanation – where such factors that influence voting in the general population as income, education and age correlate with turnout (2005, 15–17); and, finally, the "political opportunity and political effort" explanation – where barriers to participation such as the party system, the electoral system, lack of interest by parties in counting Aboriginal voters correlate with turnout (2005, 17–18). The limitation of this approach is that it relies on the explanations for turnout offered by the citizens themselves. Such a method reports what voters take to be the reasons for their having (or not having) voted. There will be, as a result, a bias towards explanations that are experiential or phenomenological. That is, there will be a tendency to emphasize reasons that are most immediately present in one's experience and to deemphasize reasons that may be, for lack of a better term, structural. Non-voters are not likely to report low income or lack of education as reasons for non-voting, yet we know these to be significant factors. So, while such a methodology produces valuable qualitative information there still remains the need for quantitative data which will permit the evaluation of various hypotheses concerning turnout.
A large-scale national survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 2003 allows us to address some of the important gaps in the existing literature. It provides coverage of Aboriginals in both urban and rural areas, allowing us to evaluate turnout rates among all sections of the Aboriginal population. We are also able to gather more systematic evidence regarding the reasons for
non-voting. Factors such as income, level of education, and age are known to be important factors in turnout for the population as a whole. The dataset provides information on the socio-demographic status of the participants, allowing us to evaluate the degree to which such
factors can account for the lower participation rates among Aboriginal persons. Additionally, we can access data of a more subjective or attitudinal nature, such as degree of confidence in public institutions, levels of trust, identification with nation or province, and so on. These are all known factors which influence participation. Analysis based on these measures allows us to assess the relative significance of Aboriginal nationalism as an explanatory factor in the context of a broader exploration of varied influences on Aboriginal turnout levels.
Return to source of Footnote 4 afn.ca/elections08/EAHB.pdf, p.3.