The Coronavirus pandemic has changed so many aspects of how we live our lives, including the way we vote in elections. For example, consider the situation with the recent by-election in Toronto Centre:

https://www.cp24.com/news/advance-polls-open-in-two-toronto-byelections-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-1.5146786?cache=yes%3FclipId%3D104066

But even before Covid-19, we saw a lot of hand-wringing over disaffected youth and their lack of interest in politics. There was a feeling that if we made it more convenient for them to vote - especially by providing the option of online voting - we would see a far greater participation rate in that demographic. Now that so much of life has moved online, perhaps the time is ripe to make online voting a permanent feature of the new reality.

Of course, we wouldn't want to neglect other segments of the electorate either. Up to now, there has been a high in-person turnout rate amongst seniors, despite the fact that many of them face some serious mobility and visual challenges (not to mention challenges in proving their identity if they don't have drivers' licences or employer-issued i.d. cards). And they tend to be the very people who are most likely to be self-isolating during a pandemic. They also vary considerably in their level of comfort with online technology. So clearly the ideal public policy choice is one that offers a multiplicity of ways for voters to cast their ballots.

What about mail-in ballots? The Elections Canada website has a detailed section on these:

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90540&lang=e

They may be used not just by eligible voters who are currently out of the country but also by those who are in the area but unable or unwilling to go to a polling station in person. Are they more susceptible to fraud than other voting methods? Certainly there's been a lot of controversy about that with the upcoming U.S. election.

In Canada, I have to say that my main concern would be coercive voting: that domineering spouse, parent or boss who offers some major incentive or disincentive to get the voter to vote in a certain way. Yes, it's definitely illegal and highly unethical. But how would you effectively control the situation when there's no private voting booth and no on-site scrutineers?

In general, I think Canadians tend to be law-abiding people who believe in democratic elections. Still, we can't afford to let our guard down and jeopardize the integrity of the electoral process.
Back in 1968, Canada elected a swinging "young" prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Only thing is, he was nearly fifty!

Also in 1968, a movie was released, Wild in the Streets. It featured a catchy soundtrack of songs by the fictional band Max Frost and the Troopers, one of which was "Fourteen or Fight", advocating a lowering of the (U.S.) voting age from 21 to 14. At that time, you had to be at least 21 to vote in Canada as well.

In the "Wild in the Streets" scenario, folks were shipped off to concentration camp once they reached the age of thirty. Of course, the inevitable happened. The leader of the youth uprising, Max Frost, already 25 when the film began, soon realized he was rapidly reaching the artificially-imposed age of decrepitude. "Nothing can change the shape of things to come" warned another song from that movie.

According to Wikipedia, which may or may not be a reliable source, folksinger Phil Ochs (who committed suicide at a rather early age) was offered the role of Max Frost but turned it down. Apparently he didn't approve of the storyline, though evidently he later decided he wanted to die before he got old.

Fast forward to 2015. Our voting age has been 18 since the early 1970s, round about the time Trudeau fils was born. He'd like to be Canada's next prime minister, but his detractors are saying he's "just not ready". Really? Personally, I'd have said he'd been groomed for the role since birth, if not before! But then again, it's not young people who are clamouring for the vote these days! Fourteen or fight? It's enough of a battle to get the 18-to-30 demographic out to the polls! Apparently it's only about a third of them who plan to vote and presumably even less who are taking a more active role in the current election campaign. Those most likely to vote and get actively involved are seniors, especially the younger seniors, those baby boomers who would have been between 14 and 21 back in 1968!

To be sure, it may simply be that baby boomers are more likely to be retired and have the time to get involved. It may be that more young people would vote if we made it more convenient for them - say, by allowing them to vote online, or by making the identification process less stringent. Still, many seniors manage to vote in spite of major mobility and identification challenges!

Were young people more or less political back in the day? Certainly the anti-Vietnam war protests spread to Canada, for a variety of reasons. But then there was also the turning on and dropping out and going back to the land movement as well.

Is it a question of apathy and complacency, of feeling that the feminists and the other human rights and civil rights activists have already won all the major battles that need to be won? Or is it that young adults are so preoccupied with the day to day battles of finding un bon boss et un job steady, of taking care of the next generation, and of just getting by in life?

I don't have the answers, but I do still hold the perhaps old-fashioned view that voting is a civic duty, assuming you are eligible. Even if you don't really feel your vote will make much difference to the election outcome. And for this election that's coming up in October, it looks as if the outcome is anything but a foregone conclusion.

So get out and vote. You may be pleasantly surprised by what happens!
Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 10:41 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios