Voting: Fun, games or none of the above?

Another election, another series of laments for voter turnout. I am starting to believe that the title of this blog should be amended  to include an apology. I.e: .... Politics (Sorry).

In today's Ipolitics.ca, Robert Asselin says this is a pretty dire situation. Of course, if you're reading Ipolitics.ca, you're not likely to be part of the turnout problem. Same thing is probably true about this blog, unless you've stumbled here by accident, in which case, again, sorry it's about politics.

Over the past week or so, I've been sent some messages and links to new projects, aimed at getting young people interested in politics.

One is a  new Facebook game, brought to you by TVO, called Honoured Citizen:

 

One involves a puppet (yes, a puppet) named Suzy Citizen -- a young, would-be political junkie who keeps coming up against an adult wall of cynicism and apathy.

But will games and puppets cut it? Or are we setting our young people up for inevitable disappointment (and even more cynicism) -- leading them to believe that politics is all fun and games, when it's not?

Personally, the most intriguing thing I've heard on this subject lately came from University of Montreal political scientist Andre Blais, speaking at a Library of Parliament forum on youth engagement.

Prof. Blais said that we have to confront this stark, cultural fact: In the past few decades, we have learned to value choice more than we do duty. When voting was seen as a duty, turnout was higher. Now it's a choice -- not just between parties or leaders, but between caring and not caring, voting and not voting.  Until we get our heads around that notion, Blais said, we won't really be tackling the problem of political disengagement.

For fun, I hauled out that Google N-grams gadget again, to test whether choice was more popular than duty.  (Google N-grams, to recap, are charts created by word searches of Google's massive book archives.) Here's the result:

It certainly seems to back Prof. Blais's theory. Now -- what to do about it?

Comments

[Phil Ecclestone]

Interesting, but if you look at post 2000 the gap has been narrowing and turnout has still been falling.After the last election, I got the feedback that many were thinking they didn't see any difference between the options and didn't see why voting would make any difference on what would happen over the next four years (at least in Ontario). I think part of this is due to the vast amount of information that is available in so many forms (what was once native (say in a printed newspaper) is no long so (witness this blog)) that you have to make a choice as to what information you can absorb. When it comes to "politics" everything seems to be covered (although many believe their issue not enough) and it seems that we don't have enough discussion of big issue ideas (ie Free Trade, the Constitution (although don't want to go there again), Acid Rain, etc.).

[ck]

Phil, most don't understand things like Free Trade, the Constitution or Acid Rain or any other such idea. That is the problem. Most are not aware of any issues of the day or how democracy works or why it is eroding. In fact, not only are they not aware, they are willfully unaware and determined to remain as such. Don't believe it? Try explaining any issue of the day or something related to politics, like the constitution. Odds are, they'll cover their ears and run away screaming.

Due to those facts, I have no idea why pundits, columnists and bloggers go to so much trouble trying to analyze why voter turn-out is so low. Really, today's society isn't that deep or complex. In fact, it is more shallow with each passing year. The reason, for the most part, why voter turn-out is low is laziness, pure and simple. I mean, look at the flimsy excuses they came up with to pollsters following the federal election. There are no excuses. Shut-ins are even able to vote.

I'm sooo tired of hearing that whole "Engage me!" "Engage me!" Well, I can't believe it! Those who think that are like six year olds with short attention spans who only like to see circus clowns with dancing poodles. Unless their politicians are performing death defying circus acts, they're bored. Well, I'm sorry, What ever happened to getting yourself involved? Whatever happened to engaging yourself? Whatever happened to critical thinking?

The solution? Follow the Australians--mandatory voting. It seems to work well over there. From what I hear, Australians seem to be more knowledgeable and more engaged in their political process because of it. However, there isn't a politician gutsy enough here to implement it and low voter turn-out favours Harper at this time, as it favoured Dalton McGuinty in Ontario.