Site MenuThe National Youth Election Survey Report: A Subgroup Analysis of Political and Civic Participation among Canadian Youth
4. Disadvantaged Youth Subgroups: Why do they participate less?
In this section we focus on those youth subgroups that participate the least in Canada's political and civic life: the unemployed and rural youth. We also analyse Aboriginal youth, which used to be strongly underrepresented until the current 2015 federal election. We study each subgroup in turn and proceed in two steps. We first explore to what extent socioeconomic resources, attitudes and mobilisation account for the given subgroup's lower rates of participation. Subsequently, we reapply the method of controlled correlation to find out which of the relevant explanatory factors identified in the first step of the analysis characterize each subgroup. This way, we can identify the most suitable targets for enhancing political and civic participation among those who participate the least.
4.1 Unemployed Youth
Section 2 above showed that, as a group, unemployed youth are less likely to report having voted, engage in other forms of political participation, and to volunteer or attend a community meeting on a local issue in the past 12 months. This can be seen also in the regression baseline models 11, 13 and 15 presented in Table 6. Controlling for differences in socioeconomic resources, political attitudes, and exposure to mobilisation reduces the discrepancy in voter turnout among unemployed youth by nearly two-thirds, when compared against our baseline model (see Model 12). Similarly, controlling for differences in socioeconomic resources, political attitudes, and mobilisation, the differences in political and civic participation are reduced by half and no longer statistically significant. Our results suggest that much of the discrepancy in voter turnout for unemployed youth can be explained by socioeconomic status, political attitudes, and exposure to mobilising influences. However, these factors do not tell the whole story, suggesting that other considerations like stressful life events could be at play (Hassell & Settle, in press).
| (11) Voting Baseline AME |
(12) Voting Full AME |
(13) Non-Electoral Baseline AME |
(14) Non-Electoral Full AME |
(15) Civic Baseline AME |
(16) Civic Full AME |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unemployed | -0.29*** | -0.12** | -0.16* | -0.09 | -0.16** | -0.08 |
| Post-Secondary Education | 0.04* | 0.05+ | 0.09** | |||
| Income Above $40,000 | -0.02 | -0.05+ | -0.01 | |||
| Have Recently Moved | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.01 | |||
| Children | -0.03 | -0.04 | -0.09** | |||
| Interested in the Election | 0.23*** | 0.03 | -0.00 | |||
| Interested in Politics | 0.08** | 0.12** | 0.08* | |||
| Pol. Cynicism (Scale, 0–1) | -0.22*** | 0.08 | -0.16* | |||
| Voting is a Civic Duty | 0.21*** | 0.05+ | 0.05* | |||
| Pol. Knowledge (Scale, 0–1) | 0.16*** | 0.19*** | 0.09+ | |||
| Received the Voter Card | 0.22*** | 0.02 | -0.03 | |||
| Political Mobilisation | 0.04* | 0.11*** | 0.07** | |||
| Family Mobilisation | 0.06** | 0.02 | 0.01 | |||
| Mobilised by Friends or Teachers | 0.00 | 0.08* | 0.11*** | |||
| Contacted by Media | -0.06** | 0.02 | 0.04 | |||
| Contacted by an Organisation | -0.02 | 0.14*** | 0.14*** | |||
| Observations | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.01 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Note: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Unless stated otherwise, predictors are dichotomous and coded as 0 or 1. The dependent variables are the dichotomous measures of voting (models 11 and 12), non-electoral political participation (13 and 14) and civic participation (15 and 16) that were introduced in Section 2.
Next, we examine the factors associated with being an unemployed youth in the 2015 NYS. The results, summarized in Table 7, suggest that unemployed youth differ from other younger adults on a number of factors that are important drivers of political participation. On average, unemployed youth have lower levels of education than other young adults. They are also less likely to believe that citizens have a duty to vote and less likely to be mobilised to vote by their family members. There might be some evidence to suggest that on average, unemployed youth are poorer and are less knowledgeable about politics, but these effects are only marginally significant and, especially in the latter case, should be interpreted with caution.
| (17) Resources AME |
(18) Attitudes AME |
(19) Mobilisation AME |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-Secondary Education | -0.03*** | ||
| Income Above $40,000 | -0.01+ | ||
| Have Recently Moved | -0.00 | ||
| Children | -0.00 | ||
| Interested in the Election | -0.01 | ||
| Interested in Politics | -0.00 | ||
| Pol. Cynicism (Scale, 0–1) | 0.01 | ||
| Voting is a Civic Duty | -0.02** | ||
| Pol. Knowledge (Scale, 0–1) | -0.02+ | ||
| Received the Voter Card | -0.01 | ||
| Political Mobilisation | 0.00 | ||
| Family Mobilisation | -0.02** | ||
| Mobilised by Friends or Teachers | -0.00 | ||
| Contacted by Media | 0.01 | ||
| Contacted by an Organisation | -0.01 | ||
| Observations | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Note: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Unless stated otherwise, predictors are dichotomous and coded as 0 or 1.
4.2 Youth from Rural Areas
Table 8 highlights our multivariate results predicting self-reported political and civic participation for youth living in rural areas. Although rural youth, on average, are less politically active than their urban counterparts, they tend to be more active with respect to their levels of civic participation, defined here as volunteering or attending community meetings in the previous 12 months, all else being equal. Our findings suggest that the disparities in differences in rural youths' self-reported voting can be completely explained by differences in their socioeconomic resources, political attitudes, and exposure to mobilisation. By contrast, these factors only explain a portion of the inequality in political participation and conceal the inequality in civic participation. In fact, our model suggests that after controlling for differences in socioeconomic resources, political attitudes, and exposure to mobilising influences, rural youth are significantly more likely to report civic participation than their urban counterparts.
| (20) Voting Baseline AME |
(21) Voting Full AME |
(22) Non-Electoral Baseline AME |
(23) Non-Electoral Full AME |
(24) Civic Baseline AME |
(25) Civic Full AME |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural | -0.07** | -0.02 | -0.10*** | -0.06* | 0.04 | 0.08** |
| Post-Secondary Education | 0.04+ | 0.05+ | 0.09** | |||
| Income Above $40,000 | -0.02 | -0.06* | -0.01 | |||
| Have Recently Moved | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.01 | |||
| Children | -0.03 | -0.03 | -0.10** | |||
| Interested in the Election | 0.21*** | 0.04 | 0.01 | |||
| Interested in Politics | 0.08** | 0.12** | 0.08* | |||
| Pol. Cynicism (Scale, 0–1) | -0.23*** | 0.08 | -0.17* | |||
| Voting is a Civic Duty | 0.22*** | 0.05+ | 0.05* | |||
| Pol. Knowledge (Scale, 0–1) | 0.16*** | 0.18*** | 0.09+ | |||
| Received the Voter Card | 0.22*** | 0.02 | -0.04 | |||
| Political Mobilisation | 0.04* | 0.11*** | 0.08** | |||
| Family Mobilisation | 0.07** | 0.03 | 0.00 | |||
| Mobilised by Friends or Teachers | 0.01 | 0.08* | 0.11*** | |||
| Contacted by Media | -0.06** | 0.02 | 0.03 | |||
| Contacted by an Organisation | -0.02 | 0.14*** | 0.14*** | |||
| Observations | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 | 1966 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Note: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Unless stated otherwise, predictors are dichotomous and coded as 0 or 1. The dependent variables are the dichotomous measures of voting (models 20 and 21), non-electoral political participation (22 and 23) and civic participation (24 and 25) that were introduced in Section 2.
In Table 9, we assess the effect for being a youth from a rural area on levels of the factors considered in our model of participation. On average, young rural youth are less knowledgeable about politics and are typically poorer than other young voters. They are less likely to be targeted by politicians, but are also more likely to be influenced to vote by family members. This finding is interesting in that it suggests that for rural youth, the family socialisation process may be of greater importance in impacting political participation.
| (26) DV = Rural Youth AME |
|
|---|---|
| Post-Secondary Education | -0.03 |
| Income Above $40,000 | -0.05* |
| Have Recently Moved | -0.01 |
| Children | 0.10*** |
| Interested in the Election | -0.03 |
| Interested in Politics | -0.00 |
| Pol. Cynicism (Scale, 0–1) | 0.02 |
| Voting is a Civic Duty | 0.00 |
| Pol. Knowledge (Scale, 0–1) | -0.12** |
| Received the Voter Card | 0.01 |
| Political Mobilisation | -0.04+ |
| Family Mobilisation | 0.06** |
| Mobilised by Friends or Teachers | 0.00 |
| Contacted by Media | 0.04* |
| Contacted by an Organisation | -0.04+ |
| Observations | -0.04+ |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.03 |
Note: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Unless stated otherwise, predictors are dichotomous and coded as 0 or 1.
4.3 Aboriginal Youth Participation
Finally, we turn our attention to Aboriginal youth participation. Table 1 in Section 2.2 indicated that although Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth reported voting in comparable numbers, there was a noticeable difference both in terms of other forms of political participation as well as civic engagement. Table 10 reports the results of our multivariate logistic regression for our model of participation on measures of political and civic participation. Once we control for differences in socioeconomic resources, political attitudes, and exposure to mobilisation, Aboriginal youth are 6 percentage points more likely than non-Aboriginal youth to report having voted in 2015 (see Model 28). This means if Aboriginal youth had the same characteristics as non-Aboriginal youth they would perhaps have reported even higher levels of turnout than non-Aboriginal youth.
| (27) Voting Baseline AME |
(28) Voting Full AME |
(29) Non-Electoral Baseline AME |
(30) Non-Electoral Full AME |
(31) Civic Baseline AME |
(32) Civic Full AME |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aboriginal | 0.01 | 0.06* | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.10* | 0.09* |
| Post-Secondary Education | 0.04* | 0.05+ | 0.09** | |||
| Income Above $40,000 | -0.01 | -0.05+ | -0.01 | |||
| Have Recently Moved | -0.02 | -0.03 | -0.01 | |||
| Children | -0.03 | -0.05 | -0.10** | |||
| Interested in the Election | 0.22*** | 0.02 | -0.00 | |||
| Interested in Politics | 0.08** | 0.12** | 0.08* | |||
| Pol. Cynicism (Scale, 0–1) | -0.23*** | 0.08 | -0.17* | |||
| Voting is a Civic Duty | 0.21*** | 0.05* | 0.06* | |||
| Pol. Knowledge (Scale, 0–1) | 0.16*** | 0.19*** | 0.09+ | |||
| Received the Voter Card | 0.22*** | 0.02 | -0.03 | |||
| Political Mobilisation | 0.04* | 0.11*** | 0.07** | |||
| Family Mobilisation | 0.06** | 0.02 | 0.01 | |||
| Mobilised by Friends or Teachers | 0.00 | 0.07* | 0.11*** | |||
| Contacted by Media | -0.06** | 0.02 | 0.04 | |||
| Contacted by an Organisation | -0.02 | 0.14*** | 0.14*** | |||
| Observations | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Note: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Unless stated otherwise, predictors are dichotomous and coded as 0 or 1. The dependent variables are the dichotomous measures of voting (models 27 and 28), non-electoral political participation (29 and 30) and civic participation (31 and 32) that were introduced in Section 2.
In contrast to voting, models 30 and 31 show that the distribution of these factors does not completely explain differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth to report non-electoral political and civic types of engagement. This suggests that other factors, presumably characteristics specific to Aboriginal youth, are responsible for the observed discrepancy between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth. More generally, the findings of increased participation from Aboriginal youth presented here could be a result of the mobilisation efforts from leaders within the Aboriginal community, such as the Assembly of First Nations (e.g., Tremonti, 2015). However, given the survey data presented here, we are unable to explore this possibility further.Footnote 16
From Table 11, our results suggest that Aboriginal youth are at a disadvantage on a number of other fronts that have been known to be associated with political participation. First, Aboriginal youth in our sample were poorer and more likely to be a parent and to have moved in the past year. Aboriginal youth were also substantially less knowledgeable about politics. Importantly, these respondents from our sample were also less likely to have reported receiving a voter information card. This is significant because, as reported above, our findings suggest a strong relationship between receiving a voter information card and casting a ballot.
| (33) Resources AME |
(34) Attitudes AME |
(35) Mobilisation AME |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Aboriginal | |||
| Post-Secondary Education | -0.01 | ||
| Income Above $40,000 | -0.04*** | ||
| Have Recently Moved | 0.02** | ||
| Children | 0.02* | ||
| Interested in the Election | 0.01 | ||
| Interested in Politics | 0.01 | ||
| Pol. Cynicism (Scale, 0–1) | 0.02 | ||
| Voting is a Civic Duty | -0.00 | ||
| Pol. Knowledge (Scale, 0–1) | -0.06*** | ||
| Received the Voter Card | -0.03** | ||
| Political Mobilisation | 0.00 | ||
| Family Mobilisation | 0.00 | ||
| Mobilised by Friends or Teachers | 0.01 | ||
| Contacted by Media | -0.00 | ||
| Contacted by an Organisation | 0.02** | ||
| Observations | 1993 | 1993 | 1993 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Note: + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Unless stated otherwise, predictors are dichotomous and coded as 0 or 1.
Return to source of Footnote 16 This being said, additional analyses of Aboriginal respondents (not reported here) suggest that being contacted by an Aboriginal organisation is not positively associated with voter turnout in either bivariate or multivariate models.