Secondary menu

National Youth Survey Report

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The National Youth Survey provided insights into the main factors underlying the decision by Canadian youth to participate or not in the May 2011 general election and in elections in general.

When youth were asked about all elections since they had been eligible to vote, approximately 46% in the national random sample were habitual voters, 20% were frequent voters, 21% were occasional voters and 13% were habitual non-voters. Slightly fewer than three quarters (74%) reported that they had voted in the May 2011 general election. However, when considering these participation rates, it is important to note that surveys consistently overestimate participation, when compared to data on voter turnout.

Education was associated with voting in the general election, with higher participation by those with higher educational attainment. However, education was highly correlated with other factors associated with higher voting participation, such as older age, increased motivation, increased political knowledge and increased exposure to influencers. Thus, education likely underlies many of the variables that drive voting behaviour (such as knowing how to vote and discussing politics with family). Lower income was also associated with lower voting rates.

Barriers to participation in the 2011 general election were considered in terms of motivation (attitudes, interest and political knowledge) and access (knowledge of the electoral process, personal circumstances and administrative barriers). Both motivation factors and access barriers were significantly associated with voting behaviour in the recent general election.

The most commonly provided main reason for voting related to the importance of voting – as a civic duty or to express opinions and views. The main reason for not voting in the general election, provided by 64% of non-voters, related to access, including being at school or work, or looking after children.

Key motivation barriers to not voting included a belief that all political parties were the same, the lack of a party speaking to issues relevant to the youth, less agreement that it was a civic duty to vote and lack of political interest and knowledge.

Non-voters were more likely to have had difficulty getting to the polling station. Administrative barriers included difficulty in providing ID. Youth non-voters were more likely to think that voting in a federal election was not easy or convenient. Some voters also experienced barriers to casting a ballot. Not knowing about different ways to vote and not knowing where or when to vote were the electoral process barriers most strongly associated with non-voting. Receiving a VIC may have helped provide the needed information as those who received a VIC were more likely to have voted.

Youth who had voted reported being influenced by politicians (especially by direct contact with a party or candidate), the media and family. They were also more likely to have discussed politics with their family both while growing up and at that time.

7.1 Electoral Participation by Subgroups

Participation in the 2011 general election was explored for five subgroups of youth: Aboriginal, ethnocultural, unemployed, those with disabilities and those living in rural localities.

Participation by Aboriginal (First Nations or Inuit but not Métis) and unemployed youth was substantially less (each at 42%) than for the total voting rates in the national random sample (74%). Participation by youth with disabilities (55%), ethnocultural youth (61%) and those living in rural localities was also lower than for the national random sample.

Youth in the subgroups differed from youth in the national random sample. The groups studied appear to have motivation barriers arising from less political knowledge, less interest in Canadian politics, less belief that government plays a role in their lives, less belief that voting makes a difference and less belief that there is a political party that talks about issues important to them.

Access barriers were also more prevalent. Youth in subgroups were less aware of electoral processes, less likely to have received a VIC and less likely to think that they would feel welcome at the polling station.

Within each subgroup, when youth voters and non-voters were compared, both motivation factors and access barriers significantly influenced voting participation. Within all subgroups, non-voters' lack of interest in the election was a key predictor of their voting behaviour.

Aspects of knowing where, when or different ways to vote were associated with non-voting by youth in the subgroups (with the exception of youth with disabilities). Not receiving a VIC was significantly associated with not voting for ethnocultural, unemployed and youth with disabilities. Other common barriers among subgroups included difficulty in getting to the polling station (all but youth with disabilities – where perhaps both voters and non-voters are challenged by mobility issues).

Other characteristics influencing low participation were specific to particular groups, including:

In the bivariate analysis, youth from subgroups appeared to have fewer influencers. In the regression analysis, lack of family influence on decisions about whether or not to vote was a significant barrier to voting for all youth in all subgroups, with the exception of unemployed youth.

7.2 Interventions with the Potential to Increase Electoral Participation

A regression analysis performed with the national random sample clearly demonstrated that both motivation and access barriers influence youth voting. Interventions with potential to increase youth electoral participation in the short to medium term are those that address access barriers. Increasing process knowledge, mitigating challenges associated with personal circumstances and removing administrative barriers to voting are all important. Although increasing youth motivation to vote is more difficult than mitigating access barriers, there are still actions that can be taken to reduce these barriers in the long term. Youth who had positive attitudes toward politics and democracy, or who were interested in and knowledgeable about politics, were more likely to vote than less motivated youth.

7.3 Recommendations

Some interventions apply to all youth, while others will be most effective if they target specific groups. Youth subgroups are clustered in some localities – for example, ethnocultural youth in large metropolitan centres. Similarly, there is a high concentration of Aboriginal youth in the North, although there are also many Aboriginals living in the South. It is recommended that Elections Canada use census data to demographically profile ridings and implement interventions specifically targeted to the demographic profiles of youth in those ridings. Priority could be given to ridings identified as having a relatively lower turnout of youth voters.

Interventions with the potential to have the most immediate impact are those that will target access barriers; they include:

Mitigating motivation barriers will require longer-term strategies:

7.3.1 Influencers

7.3.2 Reaching Youth Non-voters

7.3.3 Further Research

Qualitative research, such as focus groups with identified non-voters in subgroups, is recommended to explore more fully the context around the barriers identified to voting and potential solutions. Examples might include:


34 Elections Canada does not make up the core requirements involved in this policy, which is legislated and must be amended by the legislator.