The Low Turnout and Systematic Denial of the Right to Vote

I was moved to write this particular piece after reading Devin Johnston's latest blog entry, which you can find here.

Across Canada, there was an unacceptably low turnout yesterday. Only about 59% of Canadians eligible to cast ballots did so. Some of this is directly attributable to the fact that this election seemed to be (and was sold by the media as) a forgone conclusion from the beginning. Some people decided that if the results were going to be about the same as last time (and functionally, they are), then what was the point of taking the time to get informed, and to get to the polling station and vote. There was some of that.

What was the bigger problem is the systematic denial of accurate information, the inconsistent application of new rules on identification and the inherent biases against highly-transient populations, particularly university students and the homeless. The new voting rules required every person to present either a piece of photo ID with name and address in the riding in which you intend to vote, or a piece of government issued ID with a photo, and some other document with your address, for example a piece of official mail. For most people, this is no problem. Most people have lived where they are for a couple years. Not so much for students and the homeless.

The homeless, by definition, lack a fixed address, and their only route to vote was an attestation of residence from an emergency shelter. That works to an extent, but only when the homeless person actually goes to a shelter. There are many that do not, for a variety of reasons. If you don't go to the shelter, you don't get the attestation. If you don't get the attestation, you don't vote. It's not really that hard to grasp.

A similar situation applies to students, especially those in their first year of university (or a professional/post-graduate programme) in a place other than their home towns. Students also have a tendency to change their housing arrangements repeatedly. When I was doing my undergrad degree, I knew a person who moved four times in four years. She remained within the same riding, but would have been in different electoral divisions within that riding for each year. She would have had a very difficult time getting enumerated, on the list, and having sufficient ID to vote. If you don't get on the list, and can't prove your address (some students pay rent under the table, some get their "official" mail sent to their permanent address to be forwarded by family, some have never filed an income tax return.

These problems have been compounded by a severe lack of information. Student unions do what they can to get information out about where to vote, but anyone who has been a student during the information age knows just how deluged with e-mails students get. Most of us just delete whatever we get from our student unions. More importantly, this should not be a student union's job. Elections Canada has done a woeful, pathetic, job of this, and as a result tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of students eligible to vote have, through systematic failings or procedural bars, been denied the ability to exercise their franchise.

Lack of information is complemented by moving goal posts in terms of what is acceptable in order to vote. In some polling stations, deputy returning officers were accepting different things as proof of address, and some were refusing to allow electors to vouch for another, as is clearly permitted by law. Students often have to argue their case to try to present what little proof of address they may have to the DRO.

Taking these two problems together, and adding in the apathy I discussed above, we have the recipe for the historically low turnout. If you put these kinds of hurdles in the way of someone who wants to vote, but doesn't feel really strongly about it, then they will simply forget about it, turn around and go home.

In his blog entry (linked above), Mr. Johnston concludes that these bars and hurdles have not been put in place deliberately. I can't be so charitable. These new rules resulted from a bill pushed through Parliament by the Conservatives and Liberals working together. The Conservatives and Liberals are also the two parties least likely to benefit from student votes. Most students that vote will vote NDP or Green. Many homeless people will vote NDP. Applying the logic of cui bono ("who benefits?") we see some reason to believe that the Liberals and Conservatives colluded to put these traps before the feet of highly transient populations.

Many of these new rules need to be reversed. The ID bar is set absurdly high, and the rules governing it are unnecessarily complex. Where I certainly agree with Mr. Johnston is that the government must invest much more funding in voter education efforts. I got one mailing from Elections Canada about the ID requirements, but nowhere on there was information for a student about what that person needed to do to establish residency and get on the voters' list. The government must also ensure that there is a consistent application of the rules. Unequal rules around voting imperil democracy by seeking to disenfranchize a group. Finally, I also agree with Mr. Johnston when he says that the government ought to focus on policies of inclusiveness, rather than exclusivity. Government is (supposed to be) of the people, by the people for the people. Modern governments seem to be forgetting the "by the people" and (most importantly) "for the people" parts.

This may wind up being part of a series on problems I have seen highlighted by the recent election. The next one will probably be on the disproportionate representation arising from the vote. If there is something you'd like to see covered, leave a comment and I'll look into it.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 95