Canadian voters and "big questions"

Yesterday I wrote of how the environment and poverty did not seem to be “ballot questions” in last week’s election and the risk that political parties will view that as evidence Canadians are not concerned about these big issues and will not vote for political parties on the basis of these issues. Understanding the reactions of Canadian voters to them is thus important to understanding how to address them in the future.

Unfortunately, much like the low voter turnout, I think there is more than one reason why the big questions did not seem to determine the vote. Some of them are structural reasons, and some of them are social or psychological reasons. I can’t say which ones had the greatest impact, so this is not a list in order of influence:

Fear – when dealing with issues of the magnitude of climate change or persistent inequality in a very wealthy country, it can become easier not to identify or confront what is wrong. Making changes is uncomfortable, or even downright painful. And it can be hard to accept that things we’ve done all our lives have a negative impact that we were not aware of. It’s easier to avoid the big questions even when there’s a threat of greater future harm or pain than to go through the uncomfortable process of repentance and change now.

Complexity – many of us feel overwhelmed by the tasks of daily living. We’re working more hours than generations past, but having more difficulty making ends meet. We strive in the midst of busy, stressed out lives to be good partners, parents, friends, neighbours and church members. The turmoil in the financial markets and talk of a recession made us fear for our own futures. The issues of environment and poverty seem so big, so challenging to understand without a significant input of time, and they feel like one more addition to already-overburdened lives.

Voter apathy – because this was our third election in four years, and little was expected to change because of this election, it was hard to get excited about it or even to pay attention. Many voters only tuned in for the last week of the campaign, when the economy was given pretty much exclusive billing.

Electoral system – our electoral system doesn’t encourage long-term thinking or visionary politics. In fact, it tends to reward exactly the opposite: small, very targeted initiatives aimed at a single demographic group, or a geographic region. Also, more people did not vote for the current government than voted for it – if concern for the environment and poverty issues were spread evenly but thinly across the country, these votes would be overwhelmed. Given the prevalence of vote swapping and strategic voting, it is also possible that people who didn’t feel our electoral system or strategic voting dealt with their concerns didn’t vote at all.

Negative advertising – there was a lot of negative advertising in this campaign. Attacks are much simpler to carry out than good explanations of policy or vision and thus can be much more effective. Because attack ads tend to generate attack ads from other parties, they also become a downward spiral for political debate. Serious debate is ignored, in favour of quick and easy attacks.

24 hour news coverage – constant coverage of campaigns tends to generate a need for constant new developments, preferably ones that create excitement. Hence, we saw puffin poop, old blogs, campaign gaffes, and repeated demands for apologies and resignations receive as much coverage as parties’ platforms. Canadians may have some excuse for thinking that this election was not about serious issues.

Dislike of the options – people who were genuinely concerned about climate change and the scandal of poverty didn’t support the actions proposed on these issues. Similarly, much like with voter apathy, it seems many voters didn’t like any of the options when it came to the parties and their leaders.

Disengagement from our political system – in the face of globalization, the rise of neo-liberalism, and the growth of what Linda McQuaig labeled the “cult of impotence,” there are some who believe that our federal government is either powerless or no longer the arena in which to address important questions. Instead, they look to other options for change, either locally or internationally.