I'm Betting On A Higher-Turnout Election

Will voter turnout break 70% for the first time since 1988? It might.

Voting? In this economy? Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

In 2015, federal voter turnout surged to 68.3%. That might not seem like a lot, but it was a big increase from the 61.1% we got in 2011 and the record-setting low of 58.8% in 2008. Justin Trudeau got much of the credit for the boost in turnout. The Liberals had developed a slick voter identification and mobilization outfit, which helped, but Canadians were excited to vote for him. Cannabis legalization, electoral reform, a promise to run deficits and invest in social welfare, and not being Stephen Harper made for a winning combination, whatever the nuances of what followed, or not, after his win.

Young, first-time voters showed up in 2015 at higher rates than usual, accounting for some of the increase. Indigenous turnout and votes by recent immigrants were also up. By the 2019 election, turnout dipped to 67% and by 2021, it was down to 62.6% — perhaps reasonable numbers given that we were living through a global pandemic. But it was disappointing nonetheless, and a step in the wrong direction.

From 1945 until, but not including, this year, Canada held twenty-five elections. Of those elections, voter turnout was below 70% in twelve of them. Of those twelve low-turnout elections, ten occurred from 1993 to 2021 inclusive. In short, turnout has structurally declined in the past several decades from highs between the 1950s and 1980s.

There are lots of theories, explanations, and self-cited reasons for low turnout. Apathy, disinterest, and negative attitudes towards politicians feature highly among reasons for not showing up. Some suggest it’s a matter of a decline in deference to authority and duty. Others argue voters are too comfortable to bother showing up to vote, that we’ve come to take democracy for granted. Some suggest a lifestyle cycle in which younger voters don’t show up and depress turnout while older voters turnout and boost it. Others say that voting is a habit you must form or not; if you don’t start early, you’re unlikely to start later.

I can’t adjudicate those debates here and now. I will note that competition seems to be a factor in turnout, though it may not be itself determinative. In the 1990s, when turnout really began to decline, the Liberals dominated the federal scene amidst a fractured right wing and party system. Less competitive races can drive lower turnout since the stakes seem (or are) lower and the race appears to be a foregone conclusion. Voters may think their vote won’t matter.

Today, we’re facing both a competitive election and high-stakes. Over at Abacus Data, David Coletto has put together some fascinating data showing that this election is actually two or three elections divided by different generational media consumption habits and information ecosystems. That divide also reflects and shapes issue concerns (alongside other factors, one would expect, including material interests, pressures, and goals). In that sense, as Coletto has documented, the election is not just focused on Trump. It’s also being fought over affordability and desire for change — or, in a negative frame, to keep one or the other major party out of power.

Given the how important and close this race is, I think there’s a reasonable chance we’ll break a 70% turnout. I’m putting my marker down on it. Canada is facing an existential economic threat from the United States. Affordability is a major, material, tangible concern, and one that is about to get worse. The electorate is polarized between two highly-competitive parties in a close race. Voters in the centre and on the left want to keep the Conservatives out. That’s why the NDP is down so much, because their voters are fleeing to the Liberals to keep out the Tories. For their part, voters on the right want the Liberals gone.

The NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Greens are fighting for their electoral lives, which will motivate them to get out as many voters as they can in key ridings. It may also motivate their more hardcore voters. Indeed, all parties will be working overtime to knock doors and pull the vote.

There’s also a broader sense of drama right now that could draw more, and new, people into an interest in the news and subsequently into the polling place. This is more of an anecdote-driven hypothesis, so bear with me. But sitting around the coffee shop or standing in line, I notice people are talking about Trump, tariffs, recession worries, and the election. They’re talking about it casually, the way they normally talk about sports or the weather or a new album release. Again, and I can’t stress this enough, this is a personal observation backed by no large dataset. It’s probably also a thin-slice of my world, which is an even thinner slice of the broader world. So it’s a sense. A vibe, even. But there may be something there.

I could be wrong. There are arguments against a higher turnout. I’m not convinced any party leader will make a major breakthrough with youth voters as Trudeau did. Perhaps Pierre Poilievre will, since his support is currently skewing younger. But he’s not particularly well liked. And it doesn’t feel like 2015. Mark Carney’s favourabilities are higher, but no one is credibly arguing that Canada is in the throes of Carney-mania.

There aren’t many lawn signs up as far as I can tell. But I don’t have hard data on that and, if true, it could be a function of the snap election call and the season. But perhaps also militating against high turnout is an undetermined factor Lucas Meyer identified: a major jump in population in the last four years, and the open question as to whether recent newcomers will turnout (like they did in 2015).

Despite all of these concerns, I am still confident that this is a close, high-salience election in which voters will feel that the stakes are high, because they are, and will turn out to vote accordingly. Yes, the Liberals and Conservatives are running on some similar promises, but not universally, and they aren’t the same. Nor are their leaders, and that matters. In many ways, this election has the perfect-storm makings for a high-turnout contest: it’s dramatic, consequential, polarized, and close. If ever there was a chance to break a 70% turnout, it’s now. Accordingly, I’m giving a slight edge to that possibility.

Perhaps my optimism is emerging in hope as much as in anticipation. We can check back at the end of April to see if I was right. In the meantime, I’d love to hear what you think. So, please do drop your thoughts in the comment section below.