Detailed Findings – National Electors Study on the 43rd Canadian Federal General Election: Report on Voter Experience

1. Attitudes and Past Voting Behaviour

This section of the report presents findings related to electors' pre-election views on politics and voting along with their past voting behaviour.

Substantial majority have at least some interest in politics

Among respondents to the pre-election survey, a substantial majority (80%) said they are at least somewhat interested in politics, with just over one-third (35%) saying they are very interested. Conversely, 15% said they are not very interested in politics, and 5% said they are not at all interested.

Figure 1: Interest in politics

[Text version of] "Figure 1: Interest in politics"

This vertical bar chart shows how interested respondents said they are in politics. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very interested: 35 percent
• Somewhat interested: 45 percent
• Not very interested: 15 percent
• Not at all interested: 5 percent

The following were less likely to be very interested in politics:

• women (28%) compared to men (43%)
• new Canadians (31%) compared to other Canadians (35%)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (30%) compared to Canadians aged 25 and older (36%)
• NEET youth (22%) compared to youth in school (34%) or working full-time (33%)

In addition, the likelihood of being very interested in politics decreased as the severity of a disability increased, from 37% of those with no disability to 28% of those with a severe or very severe disability.

Nearly three-quarters described voting first and foremost as a duty

Asked if they personally think voting is first and foremost a duty or choice, nearly three-quarters (73%) of respondents said they view voting as more of a duty, while one-quarter (25%) said they view it as more of a choice. Two percent did not know or chose not to provide a response.

Figure 2: Is voting a duty or choice?

[Text version of] "Figure 2: Is voting a duty or choice?"

This pie chart shows the breakdown of answers: 73 percent of respondents said voting is first and foremost a duty; 25 percent said voting is first and foremost a choice.

The following were less likely to view voting as a duty compared to a choice:

• Indigenous electors (61% versus 74% of non-Indigenous electors)
• electors aged 18–24 (64% versus 74% of ages 25 and older)
• NEET youth (57%) compared to youth attending school (67%) and youth working full-time (70%)
• those uninterested in politics (54% versus 78% of those who are interested)

In addition, the likelihood of viewing voting as a duty more than a choice:

• decreased as the severity of a disability increased, from 76% of those without a disability to 62% of those with a severe or very severe disability
• increased with age, from 64% among ages 18–24 to 83% among ages 75 and up
• increased with level of education, from 61% of electors with up to a high school diploma to 79% of electors who completed university

Just over half claimed to have voted in all elections

Just over half of electors (52%) reported voting in all elections since they have been eligible to vote. Close to one-third (30%) said they voted in most elections they have been eligible to vote in, and 12% said they voted in some elections. Few (6%) said they did not vote in any elections.

Figure 3: Participation in previous elections

[Text version of] "Figure 3: Participation in previous elections"

This horizontal bar chart shows the percentage of previous elections where respondents have been eligible to vote in which they recall voting. The breakdown is as follows:

• All of them: 52 percent
• Most of them: 30 percent
• Some of them: 12 percent
• None of them: 6 percent

Members of the following subgroups were less likely to say they had voted in all elections:

• electors with a severe/very severe disability (38%) or a mild/moderate disability (48%) compared to those without a disability (55%)
• Indigenous electors (38%) compared to non-Indigenous electors (53%)
• immigrants who became citizens before the 42nd GE (48%) and those who became new citizens after the 42nd GE (32%), compared to non-immigrants (53%)
• Canadians aged 18–24 years (43%) compared to those aged 25 and older (53%)
• NEET youth (30%) compared to 18- to 34-year-olds working full-time (46%) or attending school (43%)
• those uninterested in politics (32%) compared to those who are interested (57%)
• those who view voting as more of a choice (28%) compared to those who view voting as more of a duty (61%)

Eight in 10 voted in the previous federal election

Just over eight in 10 (83%) respondents said they voted in the previous federal election held on October 19, 2015; nearly one in 10 (8%) were new electors in 2019, having been ineligible to vote in 2015.

Figure 4: Voting in the 2015 federal general election

[Text version of] "Figure 4: Voting in the 2015 federal general election"

This horizontal bar chart shows the percentage of respondents who voted in the previous federal election held on October 19, 2015. The breakdown is as follows:

• Yes [voted in the previous federal election]: 83 percent
• No [did not vote]: 8 percent
• Not eligible to vote in 2015: 8 percent
• I can't recall: 2 percent

The following were less likely to say they voted in the 2015 federal general election:

• electors with a severe/very severe disability (71%) compared to those with no disability (85%) or a mild/moderate disability (81%)
• Indigenous electors (75%) compared to non-Indigenous electors (83%)
• those uninterested in politics (65%) compared to those who are interested (87%)
• those who view voting as more of a choice (67%) compared to those who view voting as more of a duty (89%)

2. Voter Registration

This section of the report details electors' experience with voter registration prior to and during the 2019 federal election.

Nine in 10 electors said they were already registered before the election

Nine in 10 (89%) electors in the pre-election survey said they were already registered to vote in a Canadian federal election. Four percent said they were not registered, and 7% said they did not know.

Figure 5: Registration status

[Text version of] "Figure 5: Registration status"

This horizontal bar chart shows the percentage of respondents who are personally registered to vote in a Canadian federal election. The breakdown is as follows:

• Yes [registered to vote]: 89 percent
• No [not registered to vote]: 4 percent
• Don't know: 7 percent

The following were less likely to say they were registered:

• respondents with a severe or very severe disability (82%) compared to those with no disability (90%) or a mild or moderate disability (87%)
• Indigenous electors (84%) compared to non-Indigenous electors (89%)
• new Canadians (60%) compared to immigrants who became Canadian citizens before the 42nd GE (88%) and non-immigrants (90%)
• Canadians 18–24 years of age (64%) compared to those aged 25 and older (92%)
• youth attending school (70%) and NEET youth (70%) compared to youth working full-time (83%)
• non-binary/transgender electors (79%) compared to 89% of men and 90% of women

Two-thirds knew they were registered to vote because they voted in the last election

Most often, registered electors in the pre-election survey said they knew they were registered based on their experience in the 42nd GE: Two-thirds (66%) said they knew they were registered from voting in the last federal election; nearly half (48%) said their information had not changed since the last election; four in 10 (40%) said they knew because they had received a voter information card (VIC).

Just over a third (36%) said they knew they had always been registered, suggesting their knowledge of being registered pre-dated the 42nd GE. Another third (37%) said they had checked the registration box on their income tax forms, which is notable considering the pre-election survey took place in June, shortly after income tax season. Few mentioned having used the Elections Canada website (5%) or contacted Elections Canada (2%).

Figure 6: Source of information on registration status

[Text version of] "Figure 6: Source of information on registration status"

This horizontal bar chart shows the information sources respondents mentioned when asked how they knew that they were registered to vote. The breakdown is as follows:

• Voted in the last federal election: 66 percent
• [Because their] information has not changed since the last federal election: 48 percent
• Received VIC in the mail: 40 percent
• Checked the registration box on income tax forms: 37 percent
• [They] have always been registered: 36 percent
• [They] used the Elections Canada website: 5 percent
• [They] contacted Elections Canada: 2 percent
• Other: 2 percent

Majority recalled receiving a VIC and virtually everyone said the address and name were correct

Post-election, approximately nine in 10 (93%) of those aware of the federal election said they received a voter information card (VIC) in the mail addressed to them personally, which serves to notify electors of their registration. This represents a slight increase from the 2015 Survey of Electors, when 90% recalled receiving a VIC.

The following groups were less likely to recall receiving a VIC:

• electors with a severe/very severe disability (89%) compared to those with a mild/moderate disability (92%) or no disability (93%)
• Indigenous electors (86%) compared to non-Indigenous electors (93%)
• new Canadians (89%) compared to other Canadians (93%)
• Canadians aged 18–24 (83%) compared to Canadians aged 25 and older (94%)

Virtually everyone who recalled receiving a VIC said their name (98%) and address (98%) on the card were correct. Electors with a severe/very severe disability were less likely than those with a mild/moderate disability or no disability to have reported that their name (96% compared to 98% of those with a mild/moderate or no disability) and address (97% compared to 98% of those with a mild/moderate or no disability) were correct. Canadians 18 to 24 years of age were less likely than Canadians aged 25 and older to have reported that their name (97% versus 98%) and address (96% versus 98%) were correct.

Half said they made sure they were registered correctly for the 43rd GE

Regardless of whether or not they received a VIC, electors were asked what, if anything, they did during the election period to make sure they were registered to vote in the 43rd GE.

Half (50%) said they checked and made sure that they were already registered to vote with the correct information. Other actions were identified infrequently: 7% said they updated their registration information; 3% said they registered to vote. In all, 38% reported taking none of these actions.

Figure 7: Registered or updated information during the election

[Text version of] "Figure 7: Registered or updated information during the election"

This horizontal bar chart shows the actions taken by respondents to make sure they were registered to vote. The breakdown is as follows:

• Register[ed] to vote: 3 percent
• Updated registration information: 7 percent
• Checked and were already registered: 50 percent
• Did none of the above: 38 percent
• Did something else: 2 percent

The following groups were more likely to have updated their registration information:

• Indigenous electors (11% versus 7% of non-Indigenous electors)
• new Canadians (11% versus 7% of other Canadians)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (11% versus 7% of those 25 years and older)
• youth working or attending school full-time (12% each versus 7% of NEET youth)
• those who did not receive a VIC (16% versus 7% of those who did)

The following were more likely to have registered to vote:

• new Canadians (15% versus 2% of other Canadians)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (11% versus 2% of those 25 years and older)
• youth attending school (9%) compared to youth working full-time (4%)
• those who did not receive a VIC (9% versus 2% of those who did)

Electors found it easier to register than they expected

Among those who were not registered as of the pre-election survey, three-quarters (75%) expected that it would be easy for them to register, although only about a quarter (28%) expected it would be very easy.

In actual experience, electors found it easier than expected to register: In the post-election survey, 92% of those who registered to vote during the election said they found the experience to be easy, with two-thirds (67%) saying it was very easy.

Figure 8: Ease of registering to vote – expectations versus experience

[Text version of] "Figure 8: Ease of registering to vote – expectations versus experience"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' perceptions of how easy or difficult it was to register to vote, comparing respondents' expectations before being registered (grey bar) to their actual experience after registering (blue bar). The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 8: Ease of registering to vote – expectations versus experience

	Expected	Actual
Very easy	28%	67%
Somewhat easy	47%	25%
Somewhat difficult	11%	5%
Very difficult	2%	1%
Don't know	12%	2%

It was very easy for electors to make sure they were registered

The vast majority (96%) of electors who made sure they were registered to vote said it was easy to do so, with three-quarters (77%) saying it was very easy.

How easy electors found this to be varied depending on the action electors had to take: electors who had to register (67%) or update their registration information (64%) were less likely to say it was very easy to make sure they were registered to vote in the GE compared to those who only had to check that they were already registered with the correct information (79%).

Figure 9: Ease of having to register versus updating or checking registration

Ease of making sure elector was registered by action taken	Registered	Updated registration	Checked registration	Overall
Very easy	67%	64%	79%	77%
Somewhat easy	25%	29%	18%	19%
Somewhat difficult	5%	5%	1%	2%
Very difficult	1%	1%	<0.5%	<0.5%

Q. How easy or difficult was it to make sure you are registered? Base: n=12,232; respondents who made sure they were registered. [DK/NR: 2%] [Wave 2 + Wave 3]

Majority used the VIC to make sure they were registered correctly

A majority (57%) of respondents who made sure they were registered to vote in the 43rd GE said they did this by checking that the information on their VIC was correct. Just over one in five (22%) used the online voter registration system, while one in 10 (10%) said they contacted Elections Canada through the agency's website.

Other actions were taken by smaller proportions of electors and included checking at the polling station before voting (6%), checking at the local Elections Canada office (4%), and contacting Elections Canada by phone (3%) or mail (2%).

Figure 10: Method used to check or update voter registration

[Text version of] "Figure 10: Method used to check or update voter registration"

This horizontal bar chart shows the percentage of methods used by respondents to register, check or update their voter registration. The breakdown is as follows:

• Made sure VIC was correct: 57 percent
• Used the online voter registration system: 22 percent
• Contacted Elections Canada through [the] website: 10 percent
• At the polling place before voting: 6 percent
• At a local Elections Canada office: 4 percent
• Contacted Elections Canada by phone: 3 percent
• Contacted Elections Canada by mail: 2 percent
• Revising agent visited [their] home: less than 0.5 percent
• Other: 6 percent

The following subgroup variations were notable:

• Use of the online registration system was more likely among the following:
  • new Canadians (37% versus 22% of other Canadians)
  • electors 18–24 years of age (45% versus 19% of those 25 and older)
  • youth attending school (44% versus 37% of youth working full-time and 33% of NEET youth)
• Contacting Elections Canada through its website was more likely among new Canadians (21% versus 10% of other Canadians).
• Checking at the polling station before voting was more likely among 18- to 24-year-olds (11% versus 5% of those 25 and older).

3. Contact with Elections Canada

This section reports on electors' interaction with Elections Canada and its website during the election period, including their level of satisfaction with the service received during these interactions.

Few contacted Elections Canada during the election period; most who did, did so by web or phone

Just over one in 10 (12%) electors said they contacted Elections Canada during the election period, an increase from the 7% who said this in the 2015 Survey of Electors following the 42nd GE.

The likelihood of contacting Elections Canada was higher among Indigenous electors (18% versus 12% of non-Indigenous electors), new Canadians (20% versus 12% of other Canadians), and youth attending school (16% compared to 10% of youth working full-time and 8% of NEET youth). The likelihood of contacting Elections Canada also increased with the severity of a disability, from 11% of those with no disability to 18% of those with a severe or very severe disability.

Electors who contacted Elections Canada were most likely to do so through a form on the agency's website (39%) or by phone (36%). Approximately one in five (21%) visited a local Elections Canada office, while just over one in 10 (11%) used email. Smaller numbers used social media (5%) and mail (4%).

Figure 11: Method of contact with EC during the election period

[Text version of] "Figure 11: Method of contact with EC during the election period"

This horizontal bar chart shows the percentage of methods used by online survey respondents to contact Elections Canada during the election period. The breakdown is as follows:

• Web form: 39 percent
• Phone: 36 percent
• Local Elections Canada office: 21 percent
• Email: 11 percent
• Social media: 5 percent
• Mail: 4 percent
• Other: 3 percent

Vast majority were satisfied with service received from EC

The vast majority (89%) of those who contacted Elections Canada during the election period said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the service they received, and two-thirds (66%) said they were very satisfied. One in 10 expressed some degree of dissatisfaction (5% said they were somewhat dissatisfied and 5% said they were very dissatisfied).

Figure 12: Satisfaction with service received from contacting EC

[Text version of] "Figure 12: Satisfaction with service received from contacting EC"

This vertical bar chart shows the level of satisfaction with the service received among online survey respondents who contacted Elections Canada during the election period. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very satisfied: 66 percent
• Somewhat satisfied: 23 percent
• Somewhat dissatisfied: 5 percent
• Very dissatisfied: 5 percent

Those less likely to be very satisfied with the service they received from Elections Canada included Indigenous electors (59% versus 67% of non-Indigenous electors) and electors 18 to 24 years of age (54% versus 68% of electors aged 25 and older). In addition, the likelihood of being very satisfied decreased as the severity of a disability increased, from 69% of those with no disability to 57% of those with a severe or very severe disability.

Approximately one-third visited EC's website during the election period; those who did were satisfied

Just over one-third (35%) of electors said they visited Elections Canada's website during the election period, up from 23% in the 2015 Survey of Electors. The likelihood of visiting the website was higher among Indigenous electors (40% versus 35% of non-Indigenous electors), new Canadians (56% versus 35% of other Canadians), 18- to 24-year-olds (64% versus 32% of those 25 and older), and youth attending school (67% versus 50% of youth working full-time and 46% of youth not attending school, not working, and not taking training).

Most of those who visited Elections Canada's website said they were somewhat (40%) or very (52%) satisfied with their experience using it. There were no noteworthy differences in satisfaction levels by subgroup.

Figure 13: Satisfaction with EC's website

[Text version of] "Figure 13: Satisfaction with EC's website"

This vertical bar chart shows the level of satisfaction with Elections Canada's website among online survey respondents who visited the site. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very satisfied: 52 percent
• Somewhat satisfied: 40 percent
• Somewhat dissatisfied: 5 percent
• Very dissatisfied: 2 percent

4. Voter Participation

This section reports on issues related to voter participation.

Nine in 10 said they voted in the 2019 general election

In the post-election survey, nine in 10 (90%) electors aware of the 43rd GE said they voted in the election. As is often the case, self-reported voter turnout was overstated compared to Elections Canada's official turnout figure, which was 67% of registered electors. ^{footnote 4} This was also the case in 2015 following the 42nd general election, when self-reported turnout was 90%, while the actual turnout rate among all eligible voters was 68% as reported by Elections Canada in the official voting results. ^{footnote 5}

Figure 14: Voting intention and participation for the GE

[Text version of] "Figure 14: Voting intention and participation for the GE"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' voting intention and participation in the general election, comparing views from the pre-election period through to the post-election period. The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 14: Voting intention and participation for the GE

	Voted in the general election	Certain to vote	Likely to vote
Pre-election	–	80%	14%
Early election phase	0% (not pictured)	82%	12%
Registration phase	less than 0.5% (not pictured)	83%	12%
VIC phase	1% (not pictured)	83%	10%
Early voting phase	13%	76%	7%
Election day phase	27%	64%	5%
Post-election	90%	–	–

Electors less likely to report having voted include:

• Indigenous electors (84% versus 91% of non-Indigenous electors)
• NEET youth (80% compared to 90% of youth working full-time and 89% of youth attending school)
• those who did not receive a VIC during the election (73% versus 92% of those who did)
• those uninterested in politics (77% compared to 94% of those interested)
• those who view voting as more of a choice (79%) compared to a duty (95%)
• those who were eligible but did not vote in the 42nd GE in 2015 (57%) versus those who voted (95%)

In addition, the likelihood of reporting having voted decreased as the severity of a disability increased, from 92% of those with no disability to 80% of those with a severe or very severe disability.

Across the pre-election and election period surveys, electors were asked how likely it was that they would vote in the GE. Throughout the study, at least eight in 10 (80%) electors said they were certain to vote or that they had already voted using an early voting method. By the final week of the election period leading up to election day, ^{footnote 6} 92% of electors indicated they were either certain to vote (64%) or had voted early (27%); another 5% said they were likely to vote. This indicates a gap between stated vote intention and actual participation despite high self-reported turnout among respondents.

In the pre-election survey, electors from Alberta and Quebec were more likely to say they would be likely or certain to vote in the 2019 federal election (95% each).

The following groups were less likely to say in the pre-election survey that they would be likely or certain to vote:

• Indigenous electors (88% versus 94% non-Indigenous electors)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (87% versus 95% of those 25 and older)
• NEET youth (81%) compared to youth working (93%) or attending school (90%)
• those uninterested in politics (80% compared to 98% of those interested)
• those who view voting as more of a choice (84%) compared to a duty (99%)
• those who were eligible but did not vote in 2015 (62%) compared to those who voted (98%)

In addition, the likelihood of respondents saying they would be likely or certain to vote in the 2019 federal election:

• decreased as the severity of a disability increased, from 95% of those with no disability to 84% of those with a severe or very severe disability
• increased with education, from 87% of electors who completed high school or less to 97% of electors who completed university

Many who did not vote said it is due to political reasons

Electors aware of the election who said they did not vote (n=1,751) most often pointed to political reasons to explain why (43%), followed at a distance by everyday life or health reasons (29%) and reasons related to the electoral process (12%). Included in the “other” category are forgetting to vote, not voting due to religious or other beliefs, work conflicts and last-minute commitments, and poor weather, among other reasons.

Figure 15: Reason for not voting – themes

[Text version of] "Figure 15: Reason for not voting – themes"

This horizontal bar chart shows the four main reasons that respondents gave for not voting. The breakdown is as follows:

• Political reasons: 43 percent
>
• Everyday life or health reasons: 29 percent
>
• Electoral process-related reasons: 12 percent
>
• Other reasons: 16 percent
>

For the 43rd GE, the following subgroup differences were noteworthy:

• Among those who identified everyday life or health reasons for not voting:
  • Being too busy to vote was mentioned more often by electors aged 18–54 (13%) compared to those who are 55 and older (4%).
  • Not voting due to illness/disability was higher among electors aged 55 and older (14%) compared to those 18–54 (6%).
  • The likelihood of non-voters saying they were too busy decreased as the severity of a disability increased, from 14% of non-voters with no disability to 5% of those with a severe or very severe disability, as did the likelihood of saying they were out of town/away from home, from 13% of those with no disability to 6% of those with a severe or very severe disability.
  • By contrast, the likelihood of identifying an illness or disability as a reason for not voting increased with the severity of a disability, from 6% of those with no disability to 13% of those with a severe or very severe disability.
• Electoral process-related reasons for not voting were more likely to be identified by the following:
  • electors with a severe/very severe disability (24% versus 10% of those with a mild/moderate disability and 10% of those with no disability)
  • Indigenous electors (21% versus 12% of non-Indigenous electors)
  • new Canadians (30% versus 12% of other Canadians)
  • electors who did not receive a VIC (17% versus 11% of those who did)
• Political reasons for not voting were more likely to be identified by the following:
  • non-Indigenous electors (44% versus 29% of Indigenous electors)
  • established Canadians (43% versus 27% of new Canadians)
  • NEET youth (50%) and youth working full-time (41%) compared to youth attending school (30%)
  • non-voters with a high school education or less (46%) or some post-secondary or college (45%) compared to those with a university degree (37%)
  • non-voters who were eligible to vote in 2015 but did not (52% compared to 35% of non-voters who did vote in 2015)

The table below provides a detailed breakdown of the reasons why respondents did not vote during the 43rd GE in 2019, alongside reasons given for the 42nd GE in the 2015 Survey of Electors. ^{footnote 7} Those who gave political reasons for not voting increased to 43% in 2019 up from 37% in 2015, with observable differences in the proportions who said they did not like the candidates, parties, or campaign (14%) and those who did not know who to vote for (7%). In 2015, these two reasons combined accounted for 10% of non-voters. In contrast, those who gave everyday life or health reasons decreased to 29% down from 45%, with the most visible decrease being those who said they were too busy (down to 11% from 25%).

Figure 16a: Reasons for not voting – breakdown – Political reasons

Reasons for not voting (%)	2019 (n=1,751)	2015 (n=283)
Political reasons	43	37
Did not like candidates/parties/campaign	14	10 footnote 8
Felt voting would not make a difference	10	9
Not interested in politics	9	9
Did not know who to vote for	7	- footnote 8
Lack of information about campaign issues and parties' positions	4	7

Figure 16b: Reasons for not voting – breakdown – Everyday life or health reasons

Reasons for not voting (%)	2019 (n=1,751)	2015 (n=283)
Everyday life or health reasons	29	45
Too busy (details provided below)	11	25
Out of town (details provided below)	10	15
Illness or disability	8	5

Figure 16c: Reasons for not voting – breakdown – Electoral process–related reasons

Reasons for not voting (%)	2019 (n=1,751)	2015 (n=283)
Electoral process–related reasons	12	11
Transportation problem/polling station too far	3	2
Not on voters list	2	3
Polling station was not accessible	2	<1
Issues with VIC	1	1
Could not prove identity or address	1	2
Lack of information about voting process (e.g. when/where to vote)	1	1
Lineups were too long	1	2
Voting process was not accessible	1	-

Figure 16d: Reasons for not voting – breakdown – Other reasons

Reasons for not voting (%)	2019 (n=1,751)	2015 (n=283)
Other reasons	16	5
Religious or other beliefs	2	- footnote 9
Forgot to vote	2	1 footnote 10
Other reasons	10	-
Don't know	2	1

Reasons given by respondents who said they were too busy to vote (n=177) included having other priorities that day (40%), unexpected plans that deterred them from voting (36%), and not having time in their daily schedule to vote (20%).

Among those who did not vote because they were out of town (n=187), more than half (58%) said their travel was for personal reasons, while approximately one-third (34%) said they were away due to work commitments. Of those who were out of town for personal reasons (n=112), two-thirds (67%) said they had previously planned their trip.

Majority voted at a polling station on election day

The majority (57%) of electors who said they voted in the federal election held on October 21, 2019, reported doing so at a polling station on election day, while more than one-third (37%) reported going to an advance polling station to vote. This represents a considerable decrease in election-day voting and increase in advance voting compared to the 2015 Survey of Electors, where 73% reported voting on election day compared to 25% who voted at an advance poll.

It must be said that self-reported voting at advance polls in 2019 is over-reported considering the official voting results for the 43rd GE, where 26% of valid votes were cast at an advance polling station. Still, the increase in self-reported advance voting is consistent with the trend, if not the degree, of increasing advance voting that has been observed across previous surveys and official results through multiple past elections.

As the accompanying graph shows, few electors used other methods to vote, although the percent of those who reported voting at a local EC office increased to 4% up from 1% in the 2015 Survey of Electors.

Figure 17: Method used to vote in the GE

[Text version of] "Figure 17: Method used to vote in the GE"

This horizontal bar chart shows the percentage of methods that respondents used to vote in the federal election. The breakdown is as follows:

• [At a] polling station on election day: 57 percent
• [At an] advance polling station: 37 percent
• [At a] local Elections Canada office: 4 percent
• [At a] poll on campus: 1 percent
• By mail: less than 0.5 percent
• At home: less than 0.5 percent
• Other: less than 0.5 percent

The following groups of voters were more likely to say they voted at a polling station on election day:

• Indigenous electors (64% versus 57% of non-Indigenous electors)
• new Canadians (63% versus 57% of other Canadians)
• electors aged 18–54 (62% versus 50% of those age 55 or older)
• NEET youth (76% versus 65% of youth working full-time and not attending school, and 53% of youth attending school)

Voting at an advance polling station was more likely to be identified by the following:

• non-Indigenous electors (37% versus 30% of Indigenous electors)
• electors with no disability (37%) or a mild/moderate disability (36%) compared to those with a severe/very severe disability (31%)
• electors 55 and older (43% versus 32% of 18- to 54-year-olds)
• youth working full-time (31%) and youth attending school (30%) compared to NEET youth (21%)

5. Getting to the Polling Place

This section reports on issues related to the experience of voters in getting to and accessing the polling place.

Most went to the voting place from home

Of those who voted in person (n=19,270), just over three-quarters (77%) said they went to the voting place from home. Most (16%) of the rest said they went to vote from work, while 3% said they went from school, and 4% from some other location.

Figure 18: Went to vote from home, work, or another location

[Text version of] "Figure 18: Went to vote from home, work, or another location"

This horizontal bar chart shows the location from which respondents went to vote, comparing overall (blue bar) with election day (grey bar) and advance polls (red bar). The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 18: Went to vote from home, work, or another location

	Overall	Election Day	Advance Polls
Home	77%	72%	87%
Work	16%	22%	6%
School	3%	2%	2%
Some other location	4%	3%	5%

Electors who voted at an advance poll were more likely to have gone to the polling station from home (87% versus 72% of those who voted on election day and 74% who voted at a local EC office), and less likely to have gone to vote from work (6% versus 22% of those who voted on election day and 15% who voted at a local EC office).

Half voted on their own and half went to vote with others

Half (50%) of in-person voters went to vote on their own. The other half went to vote with someone else, nearly all of whom (47%) went with at least one other person who also voted.

Figure 19: Voting with others

[Text version of] "Figure 19: Voting with others"

This horizontal bar chart shows whether respondents who voted in person went to vote on their own or with others. The breakdown is as follows:

• Went to vote on their own: 50 percent
• Went with at least one other voter: 47 percent
• Went with someone else, but they did not vote: 3 percent

The following were more likely to have gone to vote on their own:

• those aged 18–54 (53%) compared to those aged 55 and up (46%)
• those who were eligible but did not vote in 2015 (58%) compared to those who voted in 2015 (49%)
• those who voted at a poll on campus (73%), local EC office (61%), or on election day (53%) compared to advance poll voters (42%)
• those who went to vote from work (71%) or from school (64%) compared to those who went from home (45%)

The following were more likely to have gone to vote with another voter:

• those aged 55 and up (53%) compared to those aged 18–54 (43%)
• those who voted in 2015 (48%) compared to those who were eligible but did not vote (38%)
• advance voters (55%) compared to election-day voters (44%), EC office voters (36%), and campus voters (24%)
• those who went to vote from home (53%) compared to those who went from work (27%) or from school (30%)

Four in 10 election-day voters went to the polls in the evening

Polls on election day were open for 12 hours across the country. The opening hours varied based on time zones. ^{footnote 11}

Electors who went to vote on election day (n=11,127) did so throughout the day, with the plurality (42%) going in the evening period between 4:00 p.m. and the closing of the polls. Three in 10 (30%) said they went to vote at some point in the morning, i.e. between the opening of the polls and noon. A quarter (26%) went between noon and 4:00 p.m.

Figure 20: Time of the day electors voted – election day

[Text version of] "Figure 20: Time of the day electors voted – election day"

This horizontal bar chart shows the time of day that election day voters went to vote. The breakdown is as follows:

• Before 8 a.m.: 1 percent
• Between 8 and 9 a.m.: 3 percent
• Between 9 and 10 a.m.: 8 percent
• Between 10 and 11 a.m.: 10 percent
• Between 11 a.m. and noon: 7 percent
• Between noon and 1 p.m.: 5 percent
• Between 1 and 2 p.m.: 7 percent
• Between 2 and 3 p.m.: 7 percent
• Between 3 and 4 p.m.: 7 percent
• Between 4 and 5 p.m.: 10 percent
• Between 5 and 6 p.m.: 13 percent
• Between 6 and 7 p.m.: 11 percent
• Between 7 and 8 p.m.: 6 percent
• Between 8 and 9 p.m.: 2 percent
• After 9 p.m.: less than 0.5 percent

In total, 30 percent went to vote in the morning (by noon), 26 percent went to vote in the afternoon (between noon and 4 p.m.) and 42 percent went to vote in the evening (between 4 p.m. and the close of polls).

More than a third of advance voters did so during the new voting hours in the morning

For the 43rd GE, advance voting hours across the country were expanded to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (local time), compared to the hours of noon to 8:00 p.m. that were offered in previous elections.

Among those who voted at an advance poll (n=7,165), over one-third (37%) took advantage of the extended voting hours and reported that they went to vote in the morning before noon. The same proportion (37%) went to vote between noon and 4:00 p.m. In contrast to election day voters, just over one in five (22%) went to vote between 4:00 p.m. and the closing of the polls.

Figure 21: Time of the day electors voted – advance poll

[Text version of] "Figure 21: Time of the day electors voted – advance poll"

This horizontal bar chart shows the time of day that advance poll voters went to vote. The breakdown is as follows:

• Between 9 and 10 a.m.: 8 percent
• Between 10 and 11 a.m.: 15 percent
• Between 11 a.m. and noon: 14 percent
• Between noon and 1 p.m.: 8 percent
• Between 1 and 2 p.m.: 12 percent
• Between 2 and 3 p.m.: 10 percent
• Between 3 and 4 p.m.: 7 percent
• Between 4 and 5 p.m.: 6 percent
• Between 5 and 6 p.m.: 5 percent
• Between 6 and 7 p.m.: 4 percent
• Between 7 and 8 p.m.: 4 percent
• Between 8 and 9 p.m.: 3 percent

In total, 37 percent went to vote in the morning (by noon), 37 percent voted in the afternoon (between noon and 4 p.m.) and 22 percent voted in the evening (between 4 p.m. and the close of polls).

Two-thirds used a private vehicle to get to the polling place

Just over two-thirds (68%) of those who voted in person said they used a private vehicle to get to the polling place. One-quarter (26%) said they walked to the voting place.

The vast majority (96%) of those who used a private vehicle to travel to the polling place reported finding suitable parking, although voters with a severe/very severe disability were more likely to say they did not find suitable parking (5%) compared to voters with no disability (3%).

Figure 22: Means of transportation used when going to vote

[Text version of] "Figure 22: Means of transportation used when going to vote"

This horizontal bar chart shows the means of transportation used when voters went to vote in person. The breakdown is as follows:

• Private vehicle: 68 percent
• Walked: 26 percent
• Public transit: 3 percent
• Bicycle: 1 percent
• Taxi, Uber, Lyft, etc.: less than 0.5 percent
• Other: 1 percent

In addition, the chart indicates that 96 percent of the 13,458 respondents who used a private vehicle to travel to the polling station found suitable parking.

The following were more likely to say they walked to the polling place:

• 18- to 24-year-olds (33% versus 26% of those 25 and older)
• non-Indigenous electors (27% versus 21% of Indigenous electors)
• new Canadians (35% versus 26% of others)
• youth attending school (37% versus 30% of youth working full-time and not attending school and 29% of youth not attending school, not working, and not taking training)

The likelihood of walking to the polling place also decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 27% of those with no disability to 23% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Use of public transportation was more likely among 18- to 24-year-olds (10% versus 2% of those 25 and older), and among youth attending school (12% versus 5% of youth working full-time and not attending school and 2% of youth not attending school, not working, and not taking training).

Use of a private vehicle was more likely among the following:

• electors 25 and older (70% versus 54% of those 18–24 years of age)
• Indigenous electors (73% versus 68% of non-Indigenous electors)
• established Canadians (69% versus 58% of new Canadians)
• youth not attending school, not working, and not taking training (68%) and youth working full-time (63%) compared to youth attending school (47%)

Just over half said it took no more than five minutes to get to the polling place; virtually everyone said the distance from their home was reasonable

In the post-election survey, over half (54%) of in-person voters said it took them only five minutes or less to get to the polling station, better than electors expected: Only 28% of electors expected it would take this long when asked in the pre-election survey. One-quarter (25%) of voters said their actual travel time was six to 10 minutes, and almost one in five (19%) said it took them more than 10 minutes.

For both election day and advance polls, the average amount of time voters spent travelling to the polling place was nine minutes, and the median time was five minutes. Those who voted at a local EC office reported taking longer to get there, with an average travel time of 14 minutes and a median time of 10 minutes.

Figure 23: Time it took to get to the polling place: expected versus actual

[Text version of] "Figure 23: Time it took to get to the polling place: expected versus actual "

This horizontal bar chart shows how long it took respondents to get to their voting place, comparing respondents' expectations in advance of voting (grey bar) with the actual time it took them to travel to the polling place (blue bar). The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 23: Time it took to get to the polling place: expected versus actual

	Expected	Actual
5 minutes or less	28%	54%
6 to 10 minutes	29%	25%
11 to 15 minutes	17%	9%
16 to 20 minutes	8%	4%
21 to 30 minutes	8%	3%
More than 30 minutes	4%	3%

The following were less likely to report that actual travel to their voting location took 5 minutes or less:

• electors with a disability (52%) compared to those with no disability (55%)
• new Canadians (47%) compared to other Canadians (55%)
• youth 18 to 34 years of age attending school full-time (51%) compared to NEET youth (59%)
• electors aged 18–24 (52% versus 55% of electors 25+ years of age)

Nearly everyone (98%) said the voting place was located a reasonable distance from their home, with 88% saying the distance was very reasonable. This is similar to 2015 results, when 97% said the polling place was a convenient distance from their home.

Widespread agreement that the polling place was in a familiar location

Nearly all (93%) of those who voted in-person said the polling place was in a location that was at least somewhat familiar to them, with three-quarters (73%) saying the location was very familiar to them.

Figure 24: Familiarity of the polling place location

[Text version of] "Figure 24: Familiarity of the polling place location"

This vertical bar chart shows how familiar respondents who voted in person were with the location of their polling place. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very familiar: 73 percent
• Somewhat familiar: 20 percent
• Not very familiar: 5 percent
• Not familiar at all: 3 percent

The following were less likely to say the polling place was in a very familiar location:

• voters 18–24 years of age (65% versus 74% of those aged 25 and older)
• new Canadians (65% compared to 73% of other Canadians)
• those with a severe/very severe disability (69% versus 73% of voters with no disability)

One in 10 electors with some level of mobility or vision limitation needed level access

In-person voters who have at least some difficulty seeing, using stairs and/or experience recurring pain (n=7,583) were asked if they needed level access to enter the polling place. One in 10 (12%) overall said they did require level access.

Need for level access was higher among those who reported having a lot of difficulty or higher in a single disability category ^{footnote 12} as follows:

• 16% among those who have a lot of difficulty seeing
• 41% among those who have a lot of difficulty using stairs
• 23% among those who have a lot of difficulty with chronic or recurring pain

Among all respondents, need for level access:

• increased with severity of disability, from 10% of those determined to have no functional disability ^{footnote 13} up to 24% of those with a severe/very severe disability
• increased with age, from 7% among respondents aged 18–24 up to 19% of those aged 75 or older

Most voters with a disability said it was easy to access the polling place

In the beginning phases of the election period, two-thirds (67%) of electors with a disability said they expected it would be very easy for them to enter and access the polling place. The perception that accessing the polling place would be easy increased measurably over the election period: By the final phase marking the week leading up to election day, three-quarters (77%) of electors with a disability expected it would be very easy.

In the post-election survey, the actual experience of voters with a disability exceeded their expectations: 85% of those who voted in person found it very easy to access the polling place. An additional 12% said it was somewhat easy.

Figure 25: Ease of entering and accessing the polling place

[Text version of] "Figure 25: Ease of entering and accessing the polling place"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' expectations before and during the election for how easy or difficult electors with a disability thought it would be for them to access the polling station if they voted, compared to how easy or difficult it actually was for voters with a disability to enter and access the polling station according to responses from after the election.

The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 25: Ease of entering and accessing the polling place

	Very easy	Somewhat easy	Somewhat or very difficult
Early election phase	67%	26%	4%
Registration phase	67%	24%	5%
VIC phase	75%	19%	4%
Early voting phase	79%	17%	3%
Election day phase	77%	18%	4%
Post-election	85%	12%	2%

Voters with a severe/very severe disability (79%) were less likely than those with a mild/moderate disability (87%) to say they found it very easy to enter and access the polling place. In addition, those who indicated they needed level access were less likely to say it was very easy to enter the polling place (71%) compared to those who said they did not need level access (88%).

Nearly everyone said the building where they voted was suitable for holding an election

Virtually all voters (98%) said the building where they voted was at least somewhat suitable for holding an election, ^{footnote 14} with a substantial majority (83%) describing it as very suitable. This represents no change from 2015, when 97% said the building was suitable and 82% said it was very suitable. Among the few who said the building was not suitable for holding an election, ^{footnote 15} lack of parking and accessibility issues were mentioned with the greatest frequency.

Those who voted at an advance poll (84%) or an ordinary poll on election day (83%) were more likely to say the building was very suitable compared to those who voted at a local EC office (72%) or at a poll held on campus (74%).

New Canadians (77%) were less likely than other Canadians (83%) to say the building was very suitable for an election. In addition, the likelihood of describing it as very suitable decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 84% of those with no disability to 77% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

6. Experience at the Polling Place

This section reports on voters' experience at the polling place.

Vast majority brought their VIC to vote

Nine in 10 (91%) electors who received a VIC and voted in person said they brought their VIC with them to the polling place, which could allow them to bypass the registration desk and proceed directly to the polling station in a streamlined voting process for the 43rd GE. A similar proportion (89%) of voters brought their VIC to the polls in 2015.

Nine percent did not bring their VIC to the polling place. Voters 18 to 24 years of age (21%) were more likely to say they did not bring their VIC than those aged 25 and older (8%).

Figure 26: Brought VIC to vote

[Text version of] "Figure 26: Brought VIC to vote"

This pie chart shows the breakdown of answers: 91 percent of respondents said they brought their voter information card with them to vote; 9 percent said they did not bring their voter information card.

Nearly two-thirds said it took no more than five minutes to vote

Voters said it took less time to cast their ballot than they had expected: During the pre-election survey, only about a third (35%) of electors said they expected it would take only five minutes or less to vote. Another one-third (32%) expected voting would take more than 10 minutes.

In the post-election survey, nearly two-thirds (63%) of voters said it took them no more than five minutes to vote once they arrived at the polling place. Another one in five (21%) said it took six to 10 minutes to vote. Only 14% said it took longer than 10 minutes.

Figure 27: Time it took to vote – expected versus actual

[Text version of] "Figure 27: Time it took to vote – expected versus actual"

This horizontal bar chart shows how long it took respondents to vote, comparing their expectations in advance of voting (grey bar) with the actual time it took them to vote once they arrived at the polling station (blue bar). The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 27: Time it took to vote – expected versus actual

	Expected	Actual
5 minutes or less	35%	63%
6 to 10 minutes	26%	21%
11 to 15 minutes	15%	7%
16 to 20 minutes	7%	3%
21 to 30 minutes	7%	2%
More than 30 minutes	3%	2%

Average voting times improved considerably from 2015

Voters in the 2019 election reported taking an overall average of eight minutes to cast their ballot, a four-minute improvement from the 12-minute average reported for the 2015 election. In the 2019 pre-election survey, respondents estimated that it would take an average of 13 minutes to vote once they arrived at the polling station, suggesting their expectations may have been based on the experiences of the 2015 election.

Differences in the time it took to vote across voting methods narrowed considerably in 2019 compared to those reported in 2015:

• Average time to vote on election day was seven minutes, versus nine minutes in 2015.
• Average time to vote at an advance poll was eight minutes, versus 21 minutes in 2015.
• Average time to vote at a local EC office was also eight minutes, versus 19 minutes in 2015.

Across all in-person voting methods, electors with a VIC reported spending less time than those who did not: Those who brought their VIC to the polling place took seven minutes to vote on average, compared to eight minutes for those who received a VIC but did not bring it. Those who did not receive a VIC reported an above-average voting time of 11 minutes.

Ultimately, 95% of voters said the time it took for them to vote was reasonable, up slightly from 2015 when 92% said the wait time before voting was reasonable. Voting at advance polls improved the most in this regard: 93% of advance voters in 2019 said the time it took to vote was reasonable, up from 80% of advance voters in 2015.

7. Voter Identification

This section reports on issues related to voter identification.

Most used a driver's licence to meet the identification requirements

Nearly all voters (94%) reported using one piece of government-issued photo ID to prove their identity and address when they voted: 89% used their driver's licence, while 5% used a general provincial or territorial photo identification card. ^{footnote 16} Another 4% of voters used two authorized pieces of ID that together could establish identity and address for the purposes of voting. Less than 1% had to declare their identity and address in writing and have another elector from their polling station vouch for them in order to vote. ^{footnote 17} Overall, the distribution of voters who used each option for meeting the identification requirements was similar to 2015 (93% used one piece, 3% used two pieces, and less than 1% had someone attest to their address).

Those more likely to have used two pieces of ID include:

• voters aged 18–24 (6%), 25–34 (5%), and 75 or older (5%), compared to 4% of voters aged 35–74
• youth attending school (6%) compared to youth working full-time (4%)
• Quebec voters (11% compared to 3% of voters from Ontario and Atlantic Canada, 2% in other provinces, and 1% in the territories). This difference is notable when considering that Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not issue a general photo identification card containing address for non-drivers

In addition, the likelihood of using two pieces of ID increased as the severity of a disability increased (from 4% of those with no disability to 9% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Voters who used two pieces of ID most often used the VIC to establish proof of residence

Among voters who presented two pieces of ID to meet the identification requirements for voting (n=756), the most mentioned pieces were:

• a health card (used by 53% of voters who used two pieces of ID, representing 2% of all voters)
• the VIC (43% of voters who used two pieces; nearly 2% of all voters)
• a Canadian passport (24% of voters who used two pieces; 1% of all voters)
• a utility bill (20% of voters who used two pieces; 1% of all voters)

The health card therefore, was the most common piece of ID used that could satisfy the proof of identity requirement. ^{footnote 18} The VIC was the most common piece used to satisfy proof of address, which is notable considering this was the first general election in which the VIC was authorized as an acceptable proof of address for the purposes of voting. ^{footnote 19}

Among all voters, use of the VIC as proof of address was higher among:

• Quebec voters (5% compared to 1% or less in the other provinces and territories)
• unemployed voters (5%) and caregivers/homemakers (4%) compared to 2% of employed and retired voters
• voters with a high school education or less (3% compared to 2% of those with at least some post-secondary education or higher)

In addition, use of the VIC increased as the severity of a disability increased (from 2% of voters with no disability to 4% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Virtually everyone said it was easy to meet voter identification requirements

During the election period survey, nearly nine in 10 (87%) expected it would be very easy for them to prove their identity and address if they were to vote; 10% expected it would be somewhat easy.

In the post-election survey, an even greater proportion (94%) of voters reported that they found it actually very easy to prove their identity and address when they voted, and another 5% said it was somewhat easy. These proportions are similar to 2015, when 92% said meeting the voter identification requirements was very easy and another 7% said it was somewhat easy.

Figure 28: Ease of meeting ID requirements: expectations versus experience

[Text version of] "Figure 28: Ease of meeting ID requirements: expectations versus experience"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' expectations during the election for how easy or difficult they thought it would be for them to prove their identity and address if they voted, compared to how easy or difficult it actually was for them to meet the identification requirements according to voters' responses after the election. The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 28: Ease of meeting ID requirements: expectations versus experience

	Very easy	Somewhat easy	Somewhat or very difficult
VIC phase	87%	11%	1%
Early voting phase	87%	11%	2%
Election day phase	88%	10%	2%
Post-election	94%	5%	1%

The likelihood of voters finding it very easy to meet the ID requirements decreased as the severity of one's disability increased, from 95% of those with no disability to 89% of those with a severe/very severe disability.

The likelihood of finding it very easy was lower among Indigenous voters (91% versus 94% of non-Indigenous voters), new Canadians (89% versus 94% of other Canadians), and 18- to 24-year-olds (90% versus 94% of electors aged 25 and older).

Voters who used one piece of ID (94%) were more likely than those who used two pieces of ID (83%) to have said it was very easy to meet the ID requirements.

Electors had more difficulty proving their address than their identity

Respondents who said they had difficulty meeting the identification requirements (n=93) were more likely to say they had trouble proving their address (41%) than their identity (22%), though one-quarter (25%) said they had difficulty proving both.

Figure 29: Nature of difficulty encountered proving identity or address

[Text version of] "Figure 29: Nature of difficulty encountered proving identity or address"

This horizontal bar chart shows the responses to the following question: Was it your identity or your address that was difficult to prove? The breakdown is as follows:

• Address: 41 percent
• Identity: 22 percent
• Both [address and identity]: 25 percent
• Don't know: 8 percent

8. Accessible Voting Services

This section reports on awareness and use of Elections Canada's accessible voting services among electors with a disability.

Half of electors with a disability were aware of accessible voting tools and services

Half (50%) of electors with a disability said they are at least somewhat aware of the voting tools and services Elections Canada offers to make voting more accessible. This represents an increase in awareness from 2015, when 43% said they were aware of the available tools and services. Those with a severe/very severe disability (55%) were more likely to be aware of the tools and services available than those with a mild/moderate disability (49%).

Figure 30: Awareness of accessible tools and services

[Text version of] "Figure 30: Awareness of accessible tools and services"

This vertical bar chart shows awareness of Elections Canada's accessible tools and services among electors with a disability. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very aware: 15 percent
• Somewhat aware: 36 percent
• Not very aware: 31 percent
• Not at all aware: 14 percent
• Don't know: 4 percent

Most who needed information on accessibility found it easy to find

Relatively few electors with a disability said they needed information on the accessibility of the voting place (15%) or accessible voting tools and services (12%) for this election. ^{footnote 20} Those with a severe/very severe disability were more likely than those with a mild/moderate disability to need information on the accessibility of the polling place (23% versus 13%) and on accessible voting tools and services (20% versus 10%).

More than three-quarters (78%) of those who needed information on accessibility said it was very (43%) or somewhat (35%) easy to find this information. Seven percent of those who said they needed information also said they did not look for information.

Figure 31: Ease of finding information on accessibility

[Text version of] "Figure 31: Ease of finding information on accessibility "

This vertical bar chart shows how easy or difficult it was for electors with a disability who required information to find the information they needed on accessibility for the election. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very easy: 43 percent
• Somewhat easy: 35 percent
• Somewhat difficult: 9 percent
• Very difficult: 4 percent
• Did not look for information: 7 percent

Large-print lists was the tool most commonly used by electors with disabilities

Consistent with the finding that one in 10 (12%) electors with a disability said they needed information on accessible voting tools and services, use of these tools and services to assist with voting was relatively limited: ^{footnote 21}

• The only tool used with any frequency was large-print lists of candidates, used by one in 10 (10%) voters who have difficulty with seeing, a cognitive activity such as concentrating, and/or a developmental disability (n=4,444).
• Language or sign language interpretation was used by 5% of voters who have a lot of difficulty hearing or are unable to hear (n=215).
• The braille lists of candidates were used by 3% of voters who have a lot of difficulty seeing or are unable to see (n=251).
• Use of other tools (signature guide, magnifiers, tactile and braille template, a personal smart phone to read the ballot) ranged from 1% to 2% among their respective intended users.

Most who received assistance marking their ballot were assisted by Elections Canada staff

Seven percent of electors with a disability who voted in person said someone assisted them in marking their ballot. ^{footnote 22} Those with a severe/very severe disability were more likely to need assistance (10% compared to 7% of those with a mild/moderate disability).

Among respondents who received assistance marking their ballot, more than eight in 10 (85%) indicated that Elections Canada staff assisted them, while one in 10 (10%) said they were assisted by someone they knew, such as a family member, friend, or personal support worker. A few (4%) could not recall who assisted them.

Figure 32: Assistance marking ballot

[Text version of] "Figure 32: Assistance marking ballot"

This horizontal bar chart shows who gave voters with a disability assistance marking their ballot. The breakdown is as follows:

• Elections Canada staff: 85 percent
• Someone the elector knew: 10 percent
• Someone else: 1 percent
• Cannot recall: 4 percent

Voters with a severe/very severe disability (18%) were more likely than those with a mild/moderate disability (7%) to have received help from someone they knew.

Most who received assistance marking their ballot were satisfied with the assistance

Among respondents with a disability who received assistance when voting, most (95%) said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the assistance, including just over three-quarters (77%) who were very satisfied with it.

Figure 33: Satisfaction with assistance received when voting

[Text version of] "Figure 33: Satisfaction with assistance received when voting"

This vertical bar chart shows the level of satisfaction among electors with a disability who needed assistance marking their ballot with the assistance they received. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very satisfied: 77 percent
• Somewhat satisfied: 18 percent
• Somewhat dissatisfied: 3 percent
• Very dissatisfied: 1 percent

The likelihood of being very satisfied with the assistance received was higher among those aged 55 or over (88%) compared to 18- to 54-year-olds (73%).

Eight in 10 said EC staff were sensitive to their needs when voting

Approximately eight in 10 (82%) voters with a disability indicated that Elections Canada staff were at least somewhat sensitive to their needs when voting, with a majority (56%) indicating that staff were very sensitive to such needs. Those who did not indicate that Elections Canada staff were sensitive to their needs were more likely to offer no response to this question (13%) than to indicate that staff were insensitive to their needs (5%).

Figure 34: Sensitivity of EC staff in regard to elector’s disability

[Text version of] "Figure 34: Sensitivity of EC staff in regard to elector’s disability"

This vertical bar chart shows the perceptions among voters with a disability of how sensitive Elections Canada staff were regarding their needs when voting. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very sensitive: 56 percent
• Somewhat sensitive: 26 percent
• Not very sensitive: 4 percent
• Not at all sensitive: 1 percent
• Don't know: 13 percent

The likelihood of saying that Elections Canada staff were very sensitive to their voting needs increased with age, from 50% of voters with a disability aged 18–24 to 70% of those aged 75 and older, and was higher among women (58% versus 55% of men).

9. Satisfaction with the Voting Process

This section reports on satisfaction with the voting process.

Strong and widespread satisfaction with the service provided by Elections Canada staff

Of those who voted in person, nearly everyone (98%) said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the services provided by Elections Canada staff, and a substantial majority (85%) said they were very satisfied. These proportions are similar to 2015, when 97% were satisfied and 86% were very satisfied.

Figure 35: Satisfaction with services provided by EC staff when voting

[Text version of] "Figure 35: Satisfaction with services provided by EC staff when voting"

This vertical bar chart shows the level of satisfaction with the services provided by Elections Canada staff among respondents who voted in person. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very satisfied: 85 percent
• Somewhat satisfied: 13 percent
• Somewhat dissatisfied: 2 percent
• Very dissatisfied: 1 percent

The likelihood of being very satisfied decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 86% of those with no disability to 79% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Majority were served in English; all were satisfied with the official language in which they were served

Over three-quarters of respondents who voted in person (76%) said they were served in English, one in five (20%) said they were served in French, and 3% said they were served in both of Canada's official languages. ^{footnote 23} As was the case in 2015, virtually all (99%) voters in the 2019 GE were satisfied with the official language in which they were served. ^{footnote 24}

Nearly everyone found it easy to vote overall and the perception that voting was easy increased over the election period

In the pre-election survey, seven in 10 (71%) electors said they expected it would be very easy for them to vote at the polling place if they wanted to vote. The perception that it would be easy to vote increased measurably over the election period: During the period when VICs were being delivered to electors, 80% of electors expected it would very easy to vote; by the final week of the election period leading up to election day, 83% of electors expected it would be very easy to vote.

In the post-election survey, the actual experience of voters matched their final expectations: 85% of voters found it very easy to vote, while another 13% found voting to be somewhat easy.

Figure 36: Ease of voting – expectations versus experience

[Text version of] "Figure 36: Ease of voting – expectations versus experience"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' expectations before and during the election for how easy or difficult they thought it would be for them to vote once they arrived at the polling station, compared to how easy or difficult voting actually was according to voters' responses after the election.

The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 36: Ease of voting – expectations versus experience

	Very easy	Somewhat easy	Somewhat or very difficult
Pre-election	71%	25%	3%
VIC phase	80%	16%	2%
Early voting phase	82%	16%	1%
Election day phase	83%	14%	2%
Post-election	85%	13%	2%

The following subgroups were less likely to have said it was very easy to vote:

• Indigenous voters (82%) compared to non-Indigenous voters (85%)
• new Canadians (81%) compared to other Canadians (85%)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (77%) compared to Canadians aged 25 and older (86%)
• youth attending school (76%) compared to youth working full-time (81%)
• voters who did not receive their VIC (71%) compared to those who did (86%)
• those who voted at a local Elections Canada office (84%) or on election day (85%) compared to those who voted at an advance poll (87%)

In addition, the likelihood of finding it very easy to vote decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 87% of those with no disability to 78% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Widespread and strong overall satisfaction with voting experience

Most voters (97%) said they were at least somewhat satisfied with their voting experience, with a substantial majority (80%) expressing strong satisfaction with the experience. These proportions are similar to 2015, when 96% were satisfied and 81% very satisfied.

Figure 37: Satisfaction with overall voting experience

[Text version of] "Figure 37: Satisfaction with overall voting experience"

This vertical bar chart shows the level of satisfaction among voters with their voting experience. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very satisfied: 80 percent
• Somewhat satisfied: 17 percent
• Somewhat dissatisfied: 2 percent
• Very dissatisfied: 1 percent

The following subgroups were less likely to have been very satisfied with their voting experience:

• Indigenous voters (73%) compared to non-Indigenous voters (81%)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (76%) compared to Canadians aged 25 and older (81%)
• voters who did not receive their VIC (67%) compared to those who did (81%)
• those who voted on election day (79%) compared to those who voted at an advance poll (82%) or at a local Elections Canada office (84%)

In addition, the likelihood of being very satisfied decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 82% of those with no disability to 72% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

10. Overall Satisfaction with Elections Canada and the Election

This section reports on issues related to satisfaction with the administration of the democratic process in Canada.

Widespread impression that Elections Canada ran the election fairly

Nine in 10 respondents (90%) felt that Elections Canada ran the election at least somewhat fairly, with 70% indicating that they believe Elections Canada ran the election very fairly. These proportions are effectively the same as results from 2015, when 92% said EC ran the election fairly and 67% said very fairly. Other respondents in 2019 were almost equally divided between those who believe the election was run somewhat or very unfairly (5%), and those who do not know (6%).

Figure 38: Perception that EC ran the election fairly

[Text version of] "Figure 38: Perception that EC ran the election fairly"

This vertical bar chart shows perceptions of how fairly Elections Canada ran the election. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very fairly: 70 percent
• Somewhat fairly: 20 percent
• Somewhat unfairly: 3 percent
• Very unfairly: 2 percent
• Don't know: 6 percent

The following were less likely to say that the election was run very fairly:

• Indigenous electors (59% versus 70% of non-Indigenous electors)
• Youth aged 18–24 (64% compared to 70% of electors 25 and older)
• NEET youth (53%) compared to youth attending school (66%) and youth working full-time (63%)
• women (68% compared to 72% of men)
• those who did not vote in the 2019 GE (35%) compared to voters (73%) ^{footnote 25}

In addition, the likelihood of saying that the election was run very fairly:

• decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 72% of electors with no disability to 56% of those with a severe/very severe disability)
• increased with education, from 59% of those with high school or less to 76% of electors who completed university

Widespread confidence in accuracy of the election results in their riding

There was widespread trust in the accuracy of the election results in respondents' respective ridings—89% had at least some level of trust in the accuracy of the results, with 61% saying their trust was very high. This represents a slight decrease from the 2015 Survey of Electors, when 92% had at least some trust and 65% had a very high level of trust in the accuracy of the results.

Figure 39: Trust in the accuracy of the election results in the riding

[Text version of] "Figure 39: Trust in the accuracy of the election results in the riding"

This vertical bar chart shows the level of trust among respondents in the accuracy of the election results in their riding. The breakdown is as follows:

• Very high: 61 percent
• Somewhat high: 28 percent
• Somewhat low: 4 percent
• Very low: 2 percent
• Don't know: 4 percent

A very high level of trust in the accuracy of results was more likely among the following:

• non-Indigenous electors (61% versus 53% of Indigenous electors)
• electors 25 and older (62% versus 55% of those 18–24 years of age)
• youth attending school (57%) and youth working full-time (56%) compared to NEET youth (44%)
• men (65% compared to 58% of women)
• 2019 voters (64%) compared to non-voters (29%)
• those who voted at a local Elections Canada office (72% versus 65% of those who voted at an advance poll and 63% of those who voted on election day)

In addition, the likelihood of expressing very high trust in the accuracy of results:

• decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 64% of electors with no disability to 46% of those with a severe/very severe disability)
• increased with education, from 47% of those with high school or less to 70% of electors who completed university

Low trust in the accuracy of results was notably more likely among non-voters (19% versus 5% of voters) and Indigenous electors (14% versus 6% of non-Indigenous electors), and increased with the severity of a disability (from 5% of those with no disability to 14% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Confidence in Elections Canada was high before the election

In the pre-election survey, respondents were asked about their base level of confidence in various institutions in Canada, including Elections Canada. As the graph below indicates, electors reported having a comparatively high level of confidence in Elections Canada. Specifically, more than eight in 10 (85%) electors said they had a great deal or fair amount of confidence in EC, followed by the police (80%), civil service (66%), federal government (56%), and big business or corporations (41%).

Figure 40: Confidence in Canadian institutions

[Text version of] "Figure 40: Confidence in Canadian institutions"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' confidence in a number of institutions in Canada. The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 40: Confidence in Canadian institutions

	A great deal of confidence	A fair amount of confidence	Not much confidence	No confidence	Don't know
Elections Canada	35	50	10	3	3
Police	27	53	15	4	1
The civil service	13	53	24	5	5
Federal government	12	44	30	13	1
Big business and corporations	4	37	41	15	2

Values of 3 percent or less are not labelled on the chart.

Confidence in Elections Canada increased overall and in intensity through the election period

Over the course of the election, the proportion of electors who had confidence in Elections Canada increased measurably from the pre-election baseline of 85% up to 92% in the post-election survey. Most notably, the proportion who said they have a great deal of confidence increased from a third (35%) of electors to more than half (58%) following the 43rd general election.

Figure 41: Confidence in Elections Canada

[Text version of] "Figure 41: Confidence in Elections Canada"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' confidence in Elections Canada, comparing views from the pre-election period through to the post-election period. The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 41: Confidence in Elections Canada

	A great deal of confidence	A fair amount of confidence	Not much confidence	No confidence
Pre-election	35%	50%	10%	3%
Early election phase	36%	50%	8%	3%
Registration phase	40%	47%	8%	2%
VIC phase	48%	42%	6%	2%
Early voting phase	50%	41%	6%	1%
Election day phase	53%	39%	5%	2%
Post-election	58%	34%	4%	2%

Post-election, the likelihood of saying they have a great deal of confidence in Elections Canada was lower among:

• electors with a severe/very severe disability (43%) compared to those with a mild/moderate disability (54%) or no disability (61%)
• Indigenous electors (47%) compared to non-Indigenous electors (58%)
• Canadians aged 18–24 (51%) compared to those 25 and older (58%)
• NEET youth (40%) compared to youth attending school (54%) or working full-time (53%)

Having a great deal of confidence in Elections Canada was higher among:

• university graduates (67% versus 53% of electors with college or some post-secondary education and 44% of those with high school or less)
• men (62% compared to 54% of women)
• those who received their VIC (59% versus 39% of those who did not get a VIC)
• those who voted in 2019 (61% versus 29% of non-voters)

Moderate satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada

Satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada increased among electors from the election period survey to the post-election survey: Just over three-quarters (78%) of post-election respondents indicated that they are at least somewhat satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada, including one-third (33%) who are very satisfied (up from 71% and 23% of election period respondents, respectively). By contrast, one in five (20%) expressed some degree of dissatisfaction with this (down from 27% in the election period survey).

Figure 42: Satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada

[Text version of] "Figure 42: Satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada"

This vertical bar chart shows respondents' satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada, comparing views during the election period (blue bar) with views post-election (grey bar). The breakdown is as follows:

Figure 42: Satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada

	Election period	Post-election
Very satisfied	23%	33%
Somewhat satisfied	48%	45%
Not very satisfied	18%	14%
Not at all satisfied	9%	6%

Among post-election respondents, satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada was more likely among the following:

• new Canadians (86% versus 78% of other Canadians)
• electors in Quebec (83%) compared to electors in other parts of Canada
• electors who completed university (83% compared to 73% of those who completed high school or less and 75% of those who completed college or some post-secondary education)
• those who voted in 2019 (80% compared to 61% of non-voters)

Those less likely to express satisfaction with the way democracy works in Canada include:

• Indigenous electors (64% versus 79% of non-Indigenous electors)
• 18- to 24-year-olds (70% versus 79% of electors 25 and older)
• NEET youth (58%) compared to youth in school (73%) and working full-time (72%)

In addition, the likelihood of expressing satisfaction with how democracy works in Canada decreased as the severity of a disability increased (from 81% of electors with no disability to 66% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Dissatisfaction with how democracy works in Canada was more likely among non-voters (31% compared to 19% of voters), along with electors in Alberta (33%) and the Prairies (29%) compared to those elsewhere in Canada. In addition, the likelihood of expressing dissatisfaction with how democracy works in Canada increased with the severity of a disability (from 18% of electors with no disability to 30% of those with a severe/very severe disability).

Footnotes

Return to source of footnote ⁴ Official voting results for the 43rd general election: https://www.elections.ca/res/rep/off/ovr2019app/51/table4E.html.

Return to source of footnote ⁵ See the Notes to Readers for a discussion on historical over-reporting of voter turnout in public opinion surveys.

Return to source of footnote ⁶ The election day phase of the Wave 2 survey corresponds to the final week of the election period, beginning after the close of advance polls.

Return to source of footnote ⁷ The 2019 categories of reasons for not voting were lightly modified from the 2015 survey. To the extent possible, 2015 survey results have been adjusted to correspond to the 2019 categories and therefore are slightly different from those published in the 2015 survey report. In addition, proportions may not add up due to rounding or categories being excluded from the table.

Return to source of footnote ⁸ In 2015, a single category was used to report reasons of “did not like candidates/parties/campaign” combined with “did not know who to vote for.”

Return to source of footnote ⁹ In 2015, reasons related to religious beliefs were included in the broader “other reasons” category.

Return to source of footnote ¹⁰ In 2015, “forgot to vote” was categorized under “everyday life reasons.”

Return to source of footnote ¹¹ Poll hours across the time zones were as follows: Newfoundland (8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.), Atlantic (8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.), Eastern (9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.), Central (8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.), Mountain (7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.), and Pacific (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.).

Return to source of footnote ¹² Having a lot of difficulty or higher in a single disability category corresponds to an elector with a moderate to severe disability from just that disability category alone.

Return to source of footnote ¹³ Respondents could indicate they had some difficulty performing an activity such as using stairs but were not determined to have a functional disability overall unless they had at least some other difficulty in another area.

Return to source of footnote ¹⁴ Q: Overall, would you say that the building where you voted was…? Base: n=19,270; those who voted in person. [Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ¹⁵ The sample size for this follow-up question is n=52 phone respondents.

Return to source of footnote ¹⁶ For simplicity, this proportion includes use of the BC Services card, which also includes phone, name, and address.

Return to source of footnote ¹⁷ To establish the method and pieces of ID voters used to meet the identification requirements, the survey asked a series of questions designed to accept the fewest possible pieces of ID needed to satisfy both proof of address and identity requirements, and minimize the over-reporting of pieces that provide only proof of identity that occurred in the 2015 Survey of Electors. The results of the 2019 and 2015 approaches are considered comparable when comparing the proportions that used each of the three ID options; proportions of the use of individual documents are not considered comparable between 2019 and 2015. Across all voter ID questions, base: n=19,417; respondents who voted in the 43rd GE. [DK/NR: 1%] [Wave 2+ Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ¹⁸ Manitoba and Yukon health cards can also satisfy the proof of address requirement, but use of the health card by voters from these areas was negligible.

Return to source of footnote ¹⁹ To minimize potential over-reporting of use of the VIC as proof of address, mentions of the VIC could only be accepted as an answer if the respondent was already ruled out of using one piece of ID, and then only if they reported receiving and bringing their VIC to the polls.

Return to source of footnote ²⁰ Q. For this election, did you need information on ... the accessibility of your polling place? … accessible voting tools and services to assist you with voting? Base: n=6,679; electors with a disability. [Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ²¹ Q. Did you use any of the following tools or services to help you vote? Base: voters with disabilities. [DK/NR: <2%] [Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ²² Q. When you voted, did someone assist you with marking your ballot? Base: 5,743; voters with a disability. [DK: 1%] [Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ²³ Q. Voters can choose to be served in either official language, English or French. In which language were you served? Base: n=19,300; voters. [DK/NR: <0.5%] [Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ²⁴ Q. Were you satisfied with the official language in which you were served? Base: n=19,250; voters. [DK/NR: <0.5%] [Wave 3]

Return to source of footnote ²⁵ Some part of this difference can be attributed to a higher proportion of “don’t know” responses to this question among non-voters – 20% of non-voters said they did not know how fairly EC ran the election, compared to 4% of voters.

• Previous
• Table of Contents
• Next