MyDemocracy.ca — Online digital consultation and engagement platform
[ PDF version of report 1.1 MB ] [ PDF version of executive summary 45 KB ]
Table of Contents
Certificate of Political Neutrality
I hereby certify as founder and Chief Executive Officer of Vox Pop Labs that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.
Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, and standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Clifton van der Linden
Founder and Chief Executive Officer
Vox Pop Labs Inc.
1. Executive Summary
MyDemocracy.ca was an innovative public engagement and consultation initiative commissioned by the Government of Canada in an effort to foster a more inclusive national dialogue on electoral reform.
An interactive online application that surveyed users about their views on how democracy should be practiced in Canada, MyDemocracy.ca analyzed responses in real time and returned to users a rendering of how their respective democratic values situated them within the discourse on electoral reform. It adopted a user experience and interface design that were intended to be both accessible and compelling to all Canadians, irrespective of their level of political interest, knowledge or civic engagement.
The objective of the initiative was to increase engagement in the dialogue both within the general population and among underrepresented groups such as youth. In addition, it was to serve as an innovative means of sampling Canadian public opinion in an effort to promote policymaking that is responsive to the views of Canadians.
MyDemocracy.ca relied on a robust research design developed by Canadian social and data scientists from Vox Pop Labs in consultation with a panel of political scientists that included recognized experts in the fields of survey methodology and electoral systems.
MyDemocracy.ca was launched on 5 December 2016, accompanied by invitations mailed to every household in Canada directly inviting Canadians to participate in the initiative. By the close of the initiative on 15 January 2017, approximately 383,074 unique users had completed MyDemocracy.ca, with 96 per cent of users originating from within Canada, making it one of the largest and most ambitious public consultations ever undertaken in Canada.
User responses to MyDemocracy.ca were weighted to the census in an effort to increase the representativeness of the findings and better reflect the views of Canadians on a number of key considerations within the electoral reform discourse.
The key findings to emerge from the analysis are as follows:
- Canadians are generally satisfied with Canada’s democracy
Though satisfaction does not necessarily preclude a desire for reforming the electoral system, a majority of Canadians (67%) report being somewhat or very satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada. - Canadians value features often associated with different electoral systems
Many Canadians simultaneously hold preferences for various attributes that are commonly associated with different families of electoral systems. - Canadians want a voting system that is easy to understand
Canadians are receptive to options to express their preferences with greater specificity, but not if the result is a ballot that is more difficult to interpret. - Canadians are divided on special measures to promote diversity in Parliament
Opinion in Canada is split as to whether special measures should be taken to increase the representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament. - Broad support for greater freedom for Members of Parliament
Perhaps the most consistent and clear finding from the analysis is that Canadians want to see a relaxing of party discipline and Members of Parliament exert more autonomy so as to better represent the interests of their constituents. - Canadians oppose mandatory voting
Although Canadians are divided on the principle of whether voting is an obligation or a choice, the majority of Canadians (53%) do not support mandatory voting. - Support for online voting turns on security
Canadians feel that online voting in federal elections would have a positive effect on voter turnout. They support online voting in principle, but their support is contingent on assurances that online voting would not result in increased security risks. - Canadians oppose lowering the voting age
A majority of Canadians (66%) feel that the age at which Canadians are eligible to vote should not be lowered from 18. - Canadians support limits on the length of election campaigns
An overwhelming majority of Canadians (90%) support placing limits on the terms of federal election campaigns.
2. Background
MyDemocracy.ca is an initiative commissioned by the Government of Canada as a contribution to the recent national dialogue on electoral reform. It was developed in collaboration with Vox Pop Labs, a Canadian social enterprise comprised of social and data scientists who specialize in online civic engagement applications in consultation with an academic advisory panel consisting of prominent political scientists from universities across Canada.1
The aim of the initiative was to engage as many Canadians as possible in a conversation about how representative democracy ought to be practiced in Canada. Recognizing that many Canadians may not participate in traditional methods of public consultation, MyDemocracy.ca was designed to provide an innovative alternative with a view to facilitating a more inclusive dialogue on electoral reform.
MyDemocracy.ca took the form of an interactive online application that surveyed users on their views about how Canadians are represented in Parliament. Upon completing the survey the application presented each user with an analysis outlining how their responses situate them within the discourse on electoral reform. Users were associated with one of five archetypal perspectives on the practice of democracy in Canada derived from a classification model based on a sample of 4,273 Canadians aged 18 and older. Further details about the design of the initiative are available in the methodology section of this report.
The application was launched on 5 December 2016 and remained available until 15 January 2017. It was offered in both official languages and featured inclusive design principles so as to be accessible to Canadians using assistive technologies. Invitations to take part in MyDemocracy.ca were mailed to every household in Canada and Canadians without Internet access were invited to take the survey by telephone using a toll-free number. By the end of its run an estimated 383,074 unique users participated in the initiative, making it among the largest public consultations ever undertaken in Canada. For further details about the results of the initiative, please see the report findings.
MyDemocracy.ca served as an earnest effort to innovate the practice of public outreach by facilitating a more inclusive dialogue than traditional public consultation methods normally permit. Formal hearings with expert witnesses have explored the public and academic discourses on electoral reform; and town halls, open mic sessions, online surveys, as well as written submissions have enabled thousands of individual Canadians to articulate their views about the practice of democracy in Canada. Presumably, however, Canadians who have participated in these forms of consultation reflect a rather specific subset of the population. Public opinion research in Canada has electoral reform consistently trailing other public priorities, with recent polling indicating that two-thirds of Canadians see changing the voting system as a lower or very low priority.2 This imbalance of interest in electoral reform is very likely reflected in the composition of participants who have been active in the dialogue through traditional outreach activities.
Robust consultation demands modes of engagement that reach beyond citizens who are keenly interested in the issue at hand or who have the means, ability or comfort to participate in traditional fora. MyDemocracy.ca sought to make the conversation on electoral reform both more engaging and more accessible, thus appealing to a broader segment of the Canadian population and ultimately fostering a more inclusive dialogue. Its unique approach involved re-envisaging the incentives to participate in a conversation on electoral reform by appealing not only to a sense of civic duty, but also to self-curiosity. Moreover, it presented the conversation in terms of democratic values as opposed to focusing on the technical dimensions of specific electoral systems.
Associating users with an archetype emulates the viral model of online personality quizzes in that it offers the potential for self-expression in the form of shareable content designed for mass diffusion via social networks. MyDemocracy.ca was designed to leverage this dynamic by presenting users with a compelling distillation of the electoral reform discourse.
Despite their popularity, online personality quizzes offered by Internet media companies command little if any credibility. In fact, their lack of credibility has become a defining feature of such quizzes in popular culture and yet they continue to surpass most other forms of content in terms of online audience reach. MyDemocracy.ca innovates on this model by offering a user experience reminiscent of an online personality quiz so as to reproduce a viral mode of diffusion, but overcomes the lack of credibility common to such content by presenting users with valid inferences derived using a robust methodology. To this end, the format of MyDemocracy.ca is designed not only to broaden engagement but also to deepen it, especially among those who may not already be active participants in the national dialogue on electoral reform due to a variety of factors.
MyDemocracy.ca promoted broader inclusion in the first instance by providing a digital alternative to conventional modes of public consultation. Canada has one of the highest levels of Internet penetration in the world, making online communication a highly effective means of engaging and consulting Canadians.3
In an effort to render the electoral reform discourse itself more accessible to users of MyDemocracy.ca, the survey design was framed in terms of democratic values as opposed to explicit references to the dynamics of specific electoral systems. This follows the prevailing axiom in the academic literature on electoral reform, which is that no single electoral system is likely to fully satisfy the democratic aspirations of its citizens. As Thomas Axworthy recently observed in his testimony to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform:
There is no perfect electoral system. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them, and it is really a question of values, of differing perspectives, that will inform your own debate. There's no technical solution to the issue of electoral reform. It is basically a political process of deciding your purposes and values and what you value most.4
This sentiment echoes a widely-held consensus among experts that trade-offs are inherent in the adoption of any electoral system and thus any decisions with respect to electoral reform must ultimately be values-based (Warren and Pearse 2008; Bowler and Farrell 2006; Norris 2004; Horowitz 2003; Bogdanor 1983). As Grofman and Bowler (1996: 47) argue:
Once we recognise that electoral systems have multiple effects it becomes a certainty that there will be no system that is best with respect to all possible criteria of evaluation. Once this is admitted, then the field of normative debate about electoral system choice is significantly broadened and the nature of the debate should be less polemic, as we move to debate the nature of appropriate trade-offs among multiple competing criteria, all of which have something to recommend them.
The inevitability of trade-offs in the adoption or retention of any particular electoral system was one of the overarching themes to emerge from the Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform to the House Commons and also a 2004 Law Commission of Canada Report on electoral reform, which argued that “each electoral system attempts to balance as many different democratic values as is desirable, but there are necessarily trade-offs among them.”
Accordingly, MyDemocracy.ca operates on the premise that trade-offs are inherent in considerations about electoral reform. The application endeavours to infer users’ democratic values based on the decisions they make when confronted with some of the potential implications associated with various electoral systems, including how Parliament works, how Canadians vote, how Canadians are represented, and how government works. Exploring which trade-offs Canadians are willing to accept and under what circumstances has the effect of profiling tolerance thresholds for various electoral reform options, resulting in a nuanced articulation of democratic values.
Most importantly, a focus on values renders the survey more accessible—and thus more inclusive—than one that concentrates on the esoteric design parameters of specific electoral systems, and more meaningful than a consultation about first principles in isolation of the possible ramifications for the practice of democracy.
While this format does not permit Canadians to directly specify which electoral system they would prefer, MyDemocracy.ca was never intended to serve as a poll on which system Canada should adopt, but rather as a means to deduce which features of a representative democracy Canadians value most and wish to see reflected in elections, Parliament, and government.
3. Methodology
MyDemocracy.ca served as an engagement platform designed to catalyze participation among Canadians in a national dialogue on electoral reform. It also acted as a mechanism for public consultation, cataloguing user input so as to support policymaking that is responsive to the views and values of Canadians. Central to both of these endeavours was the survey element of MyDemocracy.ca. This section details the methods employed in the design of the survey as well as the analysis of the survey responses.
3.1 Survey design
From an engagement perspective, the primary objective of the MyDemocracy.ca survey design was to situate users within the electoral reform discourse by providing them with the opportunity to express their respective views on the practice of representative democracy. This was approached empirically and involved the identification and subsequent operationalization of various dimensions that structure the electoral reform discourse.
A review of the academic literature on electoral systems resulted in the identification of tensions among competing democratic values. Approximately 70 survey items were designed with a view to operationalizing these tensions. As per the discussion related to trade-offs in the background section of this report, the design of the survey items was premised on the understanding that trade-offs are inherent to the design of any electoral system. Consequently, survey items were largely framed in terms of trade-offs, testing support for various aspects of electoral reform in a variety of scenarios.
Survey items were designed with either Likert or binary response options. The items were forced-choice so that users were compelled to make trade-offs, thus capturing the thresholds of individual tolerance for potential implications of different electoral systems. The order of survey items was randomized.
The survey items were fielded in ten iterative pilot studies, each conducted in both English and French, to samples of the Canadian population between 23 October and 22 November, 2016. Response rates varied between 11 and 26 per cent. Responses to pilot studies were analyzed to control for potential response bias in the survey design as well as to test construct validity.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the pilot data surfaced eight dimensions, each with a Cronbach’s alpha of between 0.54 and 0.8, indicating that the measures were reliable. These dimensions were featured directly in the MyDemocracy.ca application, with a user’s position on each dimension visualized on a scale contrasting the user’s position with the average positions of the archetypal views of Canadians as well as the distribution of Canadian public opinion.
3.1.1 Dimensions
The dimensions rendered in MyDemocracy.ca reflect critical tensions in the academic literature on electoral reform wherein the trade-offs between democratic values are made explicit. They include accountability, ballot detail, equality, leadership, mandatory voting, online voting, party discipline, and party focus. It is imperative to note that these dimensions are not mere proxies for electoral systems and it is not the case in every instance that support for one trade-off over another translates directly into support for a specific electoral system. Furthermore, each dimension is constituted as an index of multiple survey items that tap into the same construct. This allows for a more robust representation of each dimension than if they had been measured by a single survey item.
Accountability refers to the extent to which voters can hold governments responsible for their actions (Blais 1999; Katz 1997; Horowitz 2003; Norris 1997; Schmidt 2002). Lijphart (1994: 144) refers to clear government accountability as being a scenario in which “voters know that the governing party is responsible for past government performance, and they can decisively return this party to power or replace it with the other major party.” The accountability dimension in MyDemocracy.ca measures affinities for shared versus concentrated accountability in government.
Accountability is concentrated when a single party is responsible for decisions. As Doorenspleet (2005: 40) explains:
It is argued that one-party governments offer clearer responsibility for policy-making and hence better accountability of the government to the citizens. Citizens can use the elections in majoritarian systems either to renew the term of the incumbent government or to ‘throw the rascals out’.
Accountability is shared when a coalition of parties is responsible for government decisions. Norris (2004: 305) notes that:
Proponents [of one-party governments] argue, in systems with coalition governments even if the public becomes dissatisfied with particular parties they have less power to determine their fate. The process of coalition-building after the result, not the election per se, determines the allocation of seats in cabinet.
The degree of ballot detail reflects the tension between simplicity—as in readily comprehensible ballots and easily interpretable election results—and precision, which can enable citizens to express their vote intention with greater specificity (Farrell 2011; Norris 1997). Blais (1999: 8) notes, however, that “precision cannot be achieved without cost. The most obvious cost is complexity.”
The choice of electoral system is not necessarily the determinant of the degree of complexity of the ballot. For example, the ballot in a closed-list proportional representation system can be as simple as a ballot under a first-past-the-post voting system.
The equality dimension reflects the tension between the democratic principles of one person, one vote, and the liberal democratic tradition of promoting equity among all citizens in society (Blais 1997; Norris 2004; Horowitz 2003). These competing principles are represented by MyDemocracy.ca as equality of opportunity, referring to treating everyone the same in the competition to be elected, and equality of outcomes, which refers to taking actions to correct disparities to help ensure that the diversity of the Canadian population is better reflected in Parliament. Whether electoral systems are the most effective means by which to engender greater representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament is subject to debate. Farrell (2011: 165) argues that:
If the objective is to seek to engineer a greater proportion of women or ethnic minorities in parliament, there are other ways of influencing the electoral laws [...] For instance, in 1993 the British Labour Party introduced quota rules on the nomination of women candidates, forcing certain constituency parties to have all-women short-lists in the event of a vacancy. This was found to have a significant effect on the proportion of women entering the House of Commons in 1997 (Studlar and McAllister 1998). Similar steps have been taken by parties in other countries (Norris 1994), and research by Caul (1999), Dahlerup (2006) and Krook (2009) shows how the use of quotas has become more commonplace—in itself an endorsement of the success of this route. […] An alternative method is to provide a certain number of parliamentary seats for minorities, as in the case of the Maori seats in New Zealand (Lijphart 1986b).
Leadership operationalizes the tension between decisive governments that act unilaterality whenever possible, and governments that tend to seek compromise with other parties in Parliament before making final decisions. Blais (1997: 7) argues that there is:
a tension between effectiveness and accommodation. A government that is effective gets out to implement the policies it had advocated during the election campaign. A government that seeks accommodation will consult widely before making final decisions and will look for compromises that will be acceptable to as many groups as possible. These objectives are partly contradictory.
Leadership style—whether decisive or accommodating—is correlated with the choice of electoral system. Majoritarian-plurality systems tend to produce majority governments, whereas proportional systems more often result in coalition governments, in which the governing arrangement requires compromise (Blais and Massicotte 2002; Blais and Carty 1987; Lijphart 1994; Lijphart and Grofman 1984; Norris 2004). As Irvine (1985: 99-100) notes:
Under a new system, minority governments would become accepted as a fact of life—unlikely to be changed by clever manoeuvering. While a new Parliament might have a different composition from the preceding one, a new governing party would still have to find allies from among the other parties in Parliament. Knowing this, it would have every incentive to behave cooperatively from the start.
Party discipline represents the tension Members of Parliament sometimes face between loyalty to their party and a duty to represent their constituents’ interests. These options are not always in conflict, though as Blais (1997: 8) notes:
Here again, there is a tension. We want strong parties and parties are meaningless if they are not cohesive. It is cohesion that allows voters to anticipate what policies will be adopted if a certain party forms the government. But we do not want parties to be too strong. We want our local representative to be sensitive to our concerns and not to always cave in to the dictates of the party.
Party focus refers to brokerage versus the ideological model of politics, or whether parties seek to appeal to a broad but ideologically diffuse range of voters or a narrower but ideologically concentrated base. The incentives related to party focus are structured in part by the dynamics of the electoral system. Cox (1990: 903) identifies these incentives as being either centripetal or centrifugal:
Centripetal incentives lead political parties (or candidates) to advocate centrist policies; centrifugal incentives, on the other hand, lead to the advocacy of more or less extreme positions.
Plurality/majority systems tend to produce centripetal incentives, often resulting in two-party systems that feature large parties (Lijphart 1994, 1999). Norris (1997: 305) notes that this structure “prevents fringe groups on the extreme right or left from acquiring representative legitimacy.” Proportional representation, on the other hand, often promotes centrifugal incentives, generally resulting in smaller parties with more coherent ideological positions. Norris (2004: 75) observes that, “by facilitating the election of more minor parties, [proportional representation] systems also broaden electoral choice, providing voters with a wider range of alternatives.”
The survey design also included dimensions that captured support for online voting and mandatory voting, both of which are part of the broader dialogue on electoral reform. The dimensions represented herein are not necessarily an exhaustive manifest of themes related to electoral systems, but they do capture many of the most salient themes and those that could be effectively operationalized for analysis.
3.1.2 Archetypes
Having operationalized a number of critical dimensions that structure the discourse on electoral reform in Canada, response data from the pilot studies were then used to determine how the views of Canadians clustered across said dimensions.
Latent clusters were identified using a finite mixture model, where the number of components was determined through a dissimilarity-based partitioning method. The mixture model itself was defined such that all within-component covariance matrices were assumed to be diagonal, meaning that the constitutive factors were assumed to be locally independent. Cluster variances were set to have equal shape, volume, and orientation (an "EEI" model).
Five clusters emerged from the analysis of the survey data, each with distinct properties on one or more of the eight dimensions. In order to make the archetypes accessible, each was given a title (e.g. Guardians, Pragmatists, Challengers, Cooperators, Innovators) and a brief narrative that outlined the perspectives which distinguished that archetype from the others. Moreover, average socio-demographics for each archetype were made available as well as a comparison of the user’s stated priorities for electoral reform with the aggregate priorities of their associated archetype.
In order to associate a user with an archetype the user’s responses were inputted into the mixture model, which outputs the probability of the user belonging to each cluster. The user is then associated with the cluster to which they have the highest probability of belonging.
3.2 Data analysis
Given the reach and uptake of MyDemocracy.ca, an analysis of the respondent data represents an invaluable opportunity for public consultation. What follows is an outline as to how the data were treated in order to prepare the report findings.
3.2.1 Validation
In an effort to minimize limits to inclusion and ensure the privacy of participants, MyDemocracy.ca was made available as a barrier-free service, meaning that users were not required to provide any socio-demographic information in order to access the site. As a result, MyDemocracy.ca could be used multiple times by the same user.
A series of validation techniques were applied to the data to help identify and remove multiple entries by the same user. In instances where two or more records were determined to be from the same user, the earliest record was retained and later records were removed from the analysis. In order to validate observations in the respondent data as being associated with a unique user, a series of screening techniques was employed including but not limited to the following:
i. Survey timers
The MyDemocracy.ca application tracked the timing of responses for the purpose of identifying those who advanced through the survey in a manner consistent with a human respondent.
ii. Response patterns
Responses to MyDemocracy.ca were analyzed to identify incoherent response patterns, which were indicative of users providing the same answer to every proposition in the survey.
iii. Cookies and IP address validation
IP addresses were used to identify repeat entries within the dataset and cookies were used to identify entries from the same device. Each case subsequent to the original entry was removed from the analysis of the data unless the socio-demographic information associated with an entry indicated a unique user from the same IP address or device.
Only participants whose IP addresses belong to Canadian Internet Service Providers were included in the findings from the data.
iv. Socio-demographic profiles
Observations were validated on the basis of the socio-demographic information provided by using census data to ensure that a person with that particular socio-demographic profile exists in the census within the specified geography that was provided.
3.2.2 Sampling
Invitations to participate in MyDemocracy.ca were mailed to every household in Canada, which presumably had the effect of reducing the sampling error associated with common sampling techniques. The mail campaign was accompanied by a social media advertising campaign and the initiative received substantial media coverage. Taken together, this constituted a robust multi-platform sampling method.
As with any conventional survey in which participation is optional, however, responses to the MyDemocracy.ca application do not, in themselves, constitute a representative sample of the Canadian population. This is primarily due to survey non-response: whether a survey is conducted conventionally by telephone or online, or, as with MyDemocracy.ca, through an interactive application, individual participation is voluntary. The selection effects in MyDemocracy.ca are not clearly different from those by respondents who choose to participate in surveys administered through conventional means. As per the weighting methodology, the analysis presented in this report adjusts for differential non-response through a wide variety of socio-demographic weights using the most recent Canadian census.
To help minimize non-response, particularly among those individuals who may not have dependable access to the Internet, the application was made available to Canadians by way of a toll-free telephone service.
As per the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research, there can be no statements made about margins of sampling error on population estimates when non-probability samples are used.
3.2.3 Weighting
As with conventional surveys in which participation is not mandatory—including those that make use of probability samples—there are differences between the population of interest and the sample of individuals who opt to respond (see findings for details). As a consequence, estimates of the frequency of opinions or behaviours calculated from the sample data can differ systematically from that which one is trying to estimate in the population.
All surveys, regardless of their mode—whether online, by telephone, or through an online application such as MyDemocracy.ca—result in differential non-response. As a result, no non-mandatory survey in Canada is fully representative, and all therefore rely on statistical adjustment of the sample to the population based typically on socio-demographic, behavioural, and/or attitudinal variables for which researchers have population-level values.
User responses to MyDemocracy.ca were weighted to the census in an effort to increase the representativeness of the findings. The data were weighted by gender, age, education, occupation, mother tongue, income, and region.
Unlike conventional public opinion research studies, whose samples typically number in the thousands, the size of the sample collected through the MyDemocracy.ca application permits the use of more numerous and granular weighting variables to correct for differences between the sample and the population. That said, there may be unobserved respondent characteristics that are both imbalanced relative to the Canadian population and correlated with responses to the survey items in MyDemocracy.ca. For example, as per the Treasury Board Secretariat directive on government-commissioned public opinion research, the MyDemocracy.ca application did not capture measures of political ideology or partisanship. If the weighted sample differs in ideology or partisanship from the Canadian population and if ideology or partisanship is correlated with responses to the survey, it may limit the representativeness of the findings.
These limitations notwithstanding, the unprecedented size of the sample collected by MyDemocracy.ca as well as the variables available by which to weight observations in the data presumably improve the potential for increasing the representativeness of inferences derived from the data. Accordingly, albeit mindful of the caveats about representativeness expressed herein, the report findings refer to weighted responses as being reflective of those of Canadians at large.
3.3. Privacy
In order to ensure privacy and reduce barriers to inclusion, users participated anonymously in MyDemocracy.ca.
While users were asked to provide certain socio-demographic information for the purpose of weighting the data (see Methodology), it was made clear to users that providing socio-demographic information was optional and did not inhibit users from proceeding through MyDemocracy.ca.
Users were provided with an option to send themselves their results via e-mail. This required the collection of an e-mail address, which in certain instances could constitute a personal identifier if the user’s first name and surname constituted all or part of the e-mail address. However, e-mail addresses were only used to send the user a link to their results and were not retained.
Individual users’ responses to MyDemocracy.ca were at no point in time made available to the Government of Canada or to third parties. Findings from MyDemocracy.ca will only ever be provided to the Government of Canada and publicly released in aggregate format.
As per the MyDemocracy.ca privacy policy, the administration of data collected by MyDemocracy.ca was consistent with the provisions of both the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
4. Findings
4.1 Response rates
It is worth noting that the uptake of MyDemocracy.ca is itself a result that merits due consideration. Over the course of its run, an estimated 383,074 unique users completed the survey, with approximately 96 per cent of responses originating from within Canada.
Country
|
Count
|
Percent
|
|---|---|---|
Canada
|
367,663
|
95.98
|
Abroad
|
15,411
|
4.02
|
The findings reported in this section are based on the 243,057 records in the dataset that contained sufficient socio-demographic information for weighting purposes.
Type
|
Count
|
Percent
|
|---|---|---|
Sufficiently Profiled
|
243,057
|
66.11
|
Insufficiently Profiled
|
124,606
|
33.89
|
The data suggest that MyDemocracy.ca was effective not only in increasing participation in the national dialogue on electoral reform, but also in extending the dialogue to a diverse array of Canadians. Though there are notable disparities between the demographic distributions in the unweighted sample and those in the Canadian population, these differential response probabilities are fully compensated by the weighting methodology.
MyDemocracy.ca drew respondents from across age categories, with younger Canadians in particular overrepresented in the unweighted sample.
Age group
|
Count
|
% of sample
|
% of population*
|
|---|---|---|---|
15-19**
|
7,043
|
2.87
|
5.69
|
20-24
|
21,769
|
8.88
|
6.80
|
25-29
|
27,699
|
11.3
|
6.94
|
30-34
|
26,886
|
10.97
|
6.97
|
35-39
|
21,276
|
8.68
|
6.77
|
40-44
|
16,224
|
6.62
|
6.46
|
45-49
|
15,049
|
6.14
|
6.66
|
50-54
|
15,971
|
6.52
|
7.47
|
55-59
|
18,673
|
7.62
|
7.31
|
60-64
|
22,140
|
9.03
|
6.34
|
65-69
|
22,313
|
9.1
|
5.44
|
70-74
|
16,445
|
6.71
|
3.97
|
75-79
|
8,425
|
3.44
|
2.85
|
80-84
|
3,648
|
1.49
|
2.08
|
85-89
|
1,289
|
0.53
|
1.36
|
90+
|
287
|
0.12
|
0.81
|
* Source: Statistics Canada |
|||
Men were notably overrepresented in the unweighted sample, comprising nearly two-thirds of respondents. While the survey sought to represent Canadians who assume a non-binary gender identity, comparable population-level estimates were not available.
Gender
|
Count
|
% of sample
|
% of population*
|
|---|---|---|---|
Men
|
154,799
|
63.69
|
49.59
|
Women
|
86,135
|
35.44
|
50.41
|
Other
|
2,123
|
0.87
|
N/A
|
* Source: Statistics Canada |
|||
The regional distribution of MyDemocracy.ca users demonstrates successful engagement across Canada, albeit with fewer users in Quebec proportional to its share of the population.
Province/Territory
|
Count
|
% of sample
|
% of population*
|
|---|---|---|---|
Alberta
|
29,385
|
12.09
|
11.72
|
British Columbia
|
43,245
|
17.79
|
13.09
|
Manitoba
|
7,524
|
3.10
|
3.63
|
New Brunswick
|
4,571
|
1.88
|
2.09
|
Newfoundland & Labrador
|
2,207
|
0.91
|
1.46
|
Nova Scotia
|
8,081
|
3.32
|
2.62
|
Northwest Territories
|
270
|
0.11
|
0.12
|
Nunavut
|
79
|
0.03
|
0.10
|
Ontario
|
100,145
|
41.20
|
38.54
|
Prince Edward Island
|
922
|
0.38
|
0.41
|
Quebec
|
38,202
|
15.72
|
22.95
|
Saskatchewan
|
7,951
|
3.27
|
3.17
|
Yukon
|
475
|
0.20
|
0.10
|
* Source: Statistics Canada |
|||
Furthermore, the distribution between rural and urban users of MyDemocracy.ca is relatively consistent with the distribution within the Canadian population.
Place of residence |
Count |
% of sample |
% of population* |
|---|---|---|---|
Rural |
42,675 |
18.51 |
19 |
Suburban |
55,607 |
24.12 |
81 |
Urban |
132,247 |
57.37 |
|
* Source: Statistics Canada | |||
Anglophones were the dominant group in the unweighted sample, with a lower prevalence among both Francophones and those whose mother tongue is not one of Canada’s official languages.
Mother Tongue |
Count |
% of sample |
% of population* |
|---|---|---|---|
English |
186,184 |
76.60 |
58.06 |
French |
36,029 |
14.82 |
21.72 |
Other |
20,844 |
8.58 |
20.22 |
* Source: Statistics Canada. Multiple responses excluded from population figures. | |||
The representation of visible minorities and persons with disabilities in the unweighted sample relative to the sample size was lower than in the population; however, this may to some extent reflect differences between the census and MyDemocracy.ca as to how these identities are solicited from the user. Representation of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit was consistent with or higher than within the general population. Persons who identify as LGBTQ2 were overrepresented in the sample.
Group
|
Count
|
% of sample
|
% of population
|
|---|---|---|---|
Visible minorities
|
25,187
|
10.36
|
23.86*
|
First Nations
|
6,087
|
2.50
|
2.60**
|
Métis
|
5,621
|
2.31
|
1.36**
|
Inuit
|
1,875
|
0.77
|
0.18**
|
LGBTQ2
|
21,695
|
8.93
|
3.00***
|
Persons with disabilities
|
16,570
|
6.82
|
13.70†
|
* Source: Statistics Canada |
|||
Moreover, 3,064 Canadians opted to complete the survey by telephone and were included in the MyDemocracy.ca dataset.
4.2 Democratic satisfaction and participation
Over the past quarter-century, Canadians have consistently expressed general satisfaction with the way their democracy works. The figure below graphs longitudinal public opinion data from the Canadian Election Study (CES) measuring general satisfaction with Canadian democracy since 1993.
Text Version
Year |
% |
|---|---|
1993 |
56.5 |
1997 |
52.2 |
2000 |
56.0 |
2004 |
50.3 |
2006 |
54.0 |
2008 |
59.6 |
2011 |
55.5 |
2015 |
53.4 |
2016 |
59.0 |
The trends in the CES data are consistent with the findings from MyDemocracy.ca. As seen in Figure 1.1, 67 per cent of Canadians indicated that they were somewhat or very satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada, with 32 per cent expressing general dissatisfaction.
Figure 1.2 indicates that, among Canadians who reported voting infrequently or not at all in federal elections, frustration with politics was the most cited barrier to participation (43.9%) followed by lack of time (28.3%). Dissatisfaction with Canada’s current electoral system was cited by 19.6 per cent of users who indicated that they rarely or never vote in federal elections.
4.3 Priorities
MyDemocracy.ca asked users to select their priorities from a list of fifteen issues related to electoral reform. The aggregate results are visualized in Figure 2.1.
The priority for electoral reform most frequently cited by Canadians involved deliberative governance. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians deemed it a priority that governments should consider all viewpoints before making a decision.
The second-most cited priority, identified by 58.6 per cent of Canadians, centred on the ability of voters to hold governments to account.
Closely related to the theme of deliberative governance is the third-most cited priority, selected by 55.7 per cent of Canadians, which called for governments to collaborate with other parties in Parliament.
These were followed by priorities such as increasing voter turnout (52.8%) and ensuring that Members of Parliament focus on what is best for the country (51.9%).
The issues that were in aggregate the lowest priorities for Canadians in terms of electoral reform included increasing the presence of smaller parties in Parliament (25.9%), governments that can make decisions quickly (29.5%), and better representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament (30.1%).
4.4 Dimensions
The findings derived from the survey items on democratic values are organized according to the dimensions with which they are associated.
Before presenting the results of individual survey items, each dimension is first presented as a density graph that aggregates related survey items, visualizing the position of the average Canadian and the distribution of the population along the scale. The middle value on the x-axis for each density graph does not represent either the theoretical centre or a neutral position with respect to the values indicated by the labels on the low- and high-end of the graph. This is because the dimensions being represented are each constituted by survey responses to three separate questions which are measured on different response scales. Density plots should instead simply be used to give readers a sense of the distribution of opinion on the specified dimension.
4.4.1 Accountability
The findings from MyDemocracy.ca reflect a tension in perspectives on accountability. In general, Canadians express a clear preference for a cooperative Parliament where parties work together to develop policy and share accountability for policy outcomes—so long as it remains clear who is ultimately accountable.
As Figure 3.1.1 demonstrates, 62 per cent of Canadians either somewhat or strongly agree that governments should have to negotiate policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if the result is that there is less clarity as to which party or parties are responsible for the resulting policy. This finding is complemented by the results in Figure 3.1.3, which shows that 70 per cent of Canadians prefer that several parties share accountability as opposed to one party being solely accountable for policy outcomes.
Support for shared accountability appears, however, to hinge on assurances that accountability can be duly assigned to the responsible party or parties. As indicated in Figure 3.1.2, 53 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that it should always be clear which party is accountable for decisions made by government, even if this means that decisions are only made by one party.
4.4.2 Ballot detail
The findings with respect to ballot detail indicate that Canadians are receptive to the prospect of being able express their preferences on the ballot with greater specificity, but not if this makes the ballot difficult to understand.
As demonstrated in Figure 3.2.3, Canadians generally exhibit a slight preference for a simpler ballot as opposed to a more complex one, even if a more complex ballot provides a means for citizens to express their preferences with greater specificity. Figure 3.2 indicates that the distribution of opinion on this dimension is bimodal, which suggests a polarization of views with respect to this issue.
The polarization of opinion on ballot detail is most clearly expressed in Figure 3.2.1, which shows that 49 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that a ballot should be easy to understand, even if it means voters have fewer options to express their preferences, whereas 35 per cent somewhat or strongly disagree. However, when the trade-off is reframed from complexity of the ballot to immediacy of the election results, the preference for greater specificity on the ballot increases. As Figure 3.2.2 demonstrates, 62 per cent of Canadians agree that they should be able to express multiple preferences on the ballot, even if this means that it takes longer to count the ballots and announce the election result.
4.4.3 Equality
The findings indicate that Canadians are divided as to how proactive the government should be in taking measures to improve the disparity between the composition of Parliament and of Canadian society in general.
As demonstrated in Figure 3.3.1, 42 per cent of Canadians think that special measures should be adopted to ensure that Parliament is more inclusive of underrepresented groups, while 45 per cent of Canadians are opposed to such measures. When forced to choose, as per Figure 3.3.3, whether further action needs to be taken to ensure that the composition of Members of Parliament better reflects the diversity of the Canadian population, 52 per cent of Canadians indicated that they support further action.
As to whether it should be a top priority to ensure that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament, the results depicted in Figure 3.3.2 show that 45 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree as compared to 35 per cent who somewhat or strongly disagree.
Individuals who identify with underrepresented groups are more open to taking further action to address underrepresentation in Parliament. Women, people who identify as LGBTQ2, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, and younger Canadians are more receptive to taking further action to ensure that Parliament better reflects the diversity of the population and more likely to perceive this issue as a top priority for government.
4.4.4 Leadership
With respect to leadership style, the findings suggest that Canadians generally prefer a deliberative government over a decisive one. They express a consistent preference for parties that compromise with one another rather than those that act unilaterally.
According to Figure 3.4.3, 70 per cent of Canadians prefer a government where several parties have to collectively agree before a decision is made rather than a government where one party governs and can make decisions on its own. This finding remains robust regardless of the trade-offs presented. Figure 3.4.1 shows that 62 per cent of Canadians strongly or somewhat agree that several parties should have to govern together rather than having one party make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done. Similarly, as per Figure 3.4.2, 68 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that a party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.
4.4.5 Party discipline
The findings are perhaps least equivocal when it comes to attitudes toward party discipline. Canadians express a clear preference for representatives in Parliament who put the interests of their constituents ahead of loyalty to their party.
As demonstrated in Figure 3.5.3, 77 per cent of Canadians prefer that Members of Parliament do what their constituents want, even if it means going against the promises made by their party. Figure 3.5.1 shows that 83 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree with the idea that Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their constituents, even if it means going against their own party. This finding remains consistent when reverse scaled. As per Figure 3.5.2, only 9 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that Members of Parliament should always support the position of their party, even if it means going against the wishes of their constituents.
4.4.6 Party focus
The findings indicate that Canadians are of two minds as to whether they would prefer to have brokerage or ideological parties in Parliament.
As demonstrated in Figure 3.6.2, 65 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that there should be greater diversity of views in Parliament. This view notwithstanding, 59 per cent of Canadians would prefer having a few large parties in Parliament that try to appeal to a broad range of people rather than having many small parties in Parliament representing many different views.
Support among Canadians for ideological diversity in Parliament appears to be tempered somewhat by the potential emergence of parties who take extreme views. Forty-five per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly disagree that there should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme, while 41 per cent somewhat or strongly disagree.
4.4.7 Online voting
The findings indicate that many Canadians are receptive to online voting in principle, but support wavers if online voting is perceived to increase security risks.
Figure 4.1 shows that 72 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that online voting in federal elections would increase voter participation.
The potential costs associated with online voting do not appear to substantially inhibit support among Canadians. As per Figure 3.7.2, 53 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly agree that Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if it increases the cost of elections. Thirty-six per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly disagree with this proposition.
According to Figure 3.7.1, only 41 per cent of Canadians support the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure. Forty-nine per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly disagree with permitting online voting if there are potential security risks.
When asked, as in Figure 3.7.3, whether Canadians should have the option to vote online even if the security or privacy of online voting cannot be guaranteed, 51 per cent of Canadians opted to continue using the paper ballot whereas 49 per cent still supported an online complement.
4.4.8 Mandatory voting
The findings indicate that opinion in Canada is evenly split on the question of whether voting in federal elections is an obligation of democratic citizenship or an option that citizens can exercise at their discretion. As illustrated in Figure 3.8.3, 50 per cent of Canadians feel that voting is duty and 50 per cent feel that it is a choice.
Despite many Canadians seeing voting associated with citizenship, the findings also suggest that a majority of Canadians do not feel that voting should be mandatory. As seen in Figure 3.8.2, only 36 per cent of Canadians feel that eligible voters should be forced to vote, whereas 53 per cent disagree.
Support for mandatory voting decreases further when potential punitive measures are introduced. Figure 3.8.1 shows that 59 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly disagree that eligible voters who do not vote in elections should be fined compared with 30 per cent who agree.
4.5 Additional considerations
In addition to the survey items that constitute the dimensions identified in the preceding analysis, MyDemocracy.ca also included items that reflect several ministerial areas of inquiry.
Figure 4.3 indicates that 66 per cent of Canadians oppose lowering the federal voting age, with only 20 per cent of Canadians expressing support for the idea. Though there is greater support for lowering the federal voting age among younger Canadians than there is among older Canadians, the majority of Canadians aged 18 to 29 still oppose the measure.
Figure 4.4 demonstrates broad support among Canadians for placing limits on the length of federal election campaigns, with 90 per cent agreeing to the idea. Only 4 per cent of Canadians disagree with campaign term limits.
There is less consensus among Canadians as to whether the day of a federal election should be a statutory holiday. Figure 4.2 shows that 49 per cent of Canadians favour the measure as compared to 37 per cent who are opposed.
Although Canadians consistently express a clear preference for representatives who put the interests of their constituents first, this does not appear to necessarily translate to support for Members of Parliament spending more time in their constituencies. As shown in Figure 4.5, 55 per cent of Canadians would prefer that Members of Parliament spend more time on Parliament Hill rather than in their constituency.
As to whether Members of Parliament should act as delegates or trustees on behalf of their constituents, the delegate model is clearly preferred by Canadians. Figure 4.6 indicates that 72 per cent of Canadians feel that Members of Parliament should do what their constituents want even in cases when it is at odds with what a Member of Parliament feels is best for their constituency.
- Angus Reid Institute. (2016). Battle of the ballots: Two alternate voting systems seen as competitive to First Past the Post [November 22 - 25, 2016]. Retrieved from the Angus Reid Institute website: http://angusreid.org/electoral-reform/.
- Blais, A. (1999). Criteria for assessing electoral systems. The Advisory Committee of Registered Political Parties, Elections Canada, 9-11.
- Blais, A. & Massicotte, L. (2002). Electoral Systems. In L. Leduc, R. G. Niemi & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting (pp. 40-69). London: Sage Publications.
- Blais, A. & Carty, R. K. (1987). The Impact of Electoral Formulae on the Creation of Majority Governments. Electoral Studies, 6(3), 209-218.
- Bogdanor, V. (1983). Introduction. In V. Bogdanor & D. Butler (Eds.), Democracy and Elections: Electoral Systems and their Political Consequences (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bowler, S. & Farrell, D. M. (2006). We Know Which One We Prefer but We Don’t Really Know Why: The Curious Case of Mixed Member Electoral Systems. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(3), 445-460.
- Caul, M. (1999). Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties. Party Politics, 5(1), 79-98.
- Cira. (2015). The Canadian Internet. In The .Ca Factbook 2015. Retrieved from the Cira website: https://cira.ca/factbook/2015/the-canadian-internet.html.
- Cox, G. (1990). Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 903-935.
- Doorenspleet, R. (2005).Electoral Systems and Democratic Quality: Do Mixed Systems Combine the Best or the Worst of Both Worlds? An Explorative Quantitative Cross-national Study. Acta Politica, 40(30), 28-49.
- Farrell, D. M. (2011). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Grofman, B. & Bowler, S. (1996). STV’s Place in the Family of Electoral Systems: The Theoretical Comparisons and Contrasts. Representations, 34(1), 43-47.
- Horowitz, D. L. (2003). Electoral Systems: A Primer for Decision Makers. Journal of Democracy, 14(4), 115-127.
- Irvine, W. P. (1985). A Review and Evaluation of Electoral System Reform Proposals. In P. Aucoin (Ed.), Institutional Reforms for Representative Government (pp. 71-110). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Katz, R. S. (1997). Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Krook, M. L. (2008). Campaigns for Candidate Gender Quotas: A New Global Women’s Movement? In S. Gret & M. Sawer (Eds.), Womens’ Movements: Flourishing or in Abeyance? (pp. 105-115). London: Routledge.
- Law Commission of Canada. (2004). Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/J31-61-2004E.pdf.
- Lijphart, A. & Grofman, B. (1984). Choosing an Electoral System. In A. Lijphart & B. Grofman (Eds.), Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives (pp. 1-12). New York: Praeger.
- Lijphart, A. (1990). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945-85. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 481-496.
- Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Norris, P. (2004). Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Norris, P. (1994). Labour Party Quotas for Women. In D. Broughton, D. Farrell, D. Denver & C. Rallings (Eds.), British Elections and Parties Yearbook, 1994 (pp. 167-181). London: Frank Cass.
- Norris, P. (1997). Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems. International Political Science Review, 18(3), 297-312.
- Schmidt, M. G. (2002). Political performance and types of democracy: findings from comparative studies. European Journal of Political Research, 41(1), 147-163.
- Special Committee on Electoral Reform. (2016). Strengthening democracy in Canada: Principles, process and public engagement for electoral reform. Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8655791&File=9.
- Studlar, D. T. & McAllister, I. (1998). Candidate Gender and Voting in the 1997 British General Election: Did Labour Quotas Matter? Journal of Legislative Studies, 4(3), 72-91.
- Warren, M.E. & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- 1.1 In general, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Canada?
- 1.2 What are the biggest barriers preventing you from voting?
- 2.1 Please select the priorities from the list below that are most important to you
- 3.1 Accountability
- 3.1.1 Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy
- 3.1.2 It should always be clear which party is accountable for decisions made by government, even if this means that decisions are only made by one party
- 3.1.3 One party governs and is solely accountable for policy outcomes or several parties must cooperate to govern and they share accountability for policy outcomes?
- 3.2 Ballot detail
- 3.2.1 A ballot should be easy to understand, even if it means voters have fewer options to express their preferences
- 3.2.2 Voters should be able to express multiple preferences on the ballot, even if this means that it takes longer to count the ballots and announce the election result
- 3.2.3 Ballots should be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote or ballots should allow everybody to express their preferences in detail?
- 3.3 Equality
- 3.3.1 Members of Parliament should reflect the diversity of Canadian society, even if it means putting in place special measures to increase the representation of certain groups
- 3.3.2 Ensuring that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament should be a top priority
- 3.3.3 No further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent or further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent?
- 3.4 Leadership
- 3.4.1 It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done
- 3.4.2 A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies
- 3.4.3 A government where one party governs and can make decisions on its own or a government where several parties have to collectively agree before a decision is made?
- 3.5 Party discipline
- 3.5.1 Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their constituents, even if it means going against their own party
- 3.5.2 Members of Parliament should always support the position of their party, even if it means going against the wishes of their constituents
- 3.5.3 Members of Parliament that do what their party promised, even if it means going against what their constituents want or members of Parliament that do what their constituents want, even if it means going against what their party promised?
- 3.6 Party focus
- 3.6.1 There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme
- 3.6.2 There should be greater diversity of views in Parliament
- 3.6.3 Having many small parties in Parliament representing many different views or having a few big parties that try to appeal to a broad range of people?
- 3.7 Online voting
- 3.7.1 Canadians should have the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure
- 3.7.2 Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if this increases the cost of elections
- 3.7.3 Canadians should have the option to cast their ballots online in federal elections, even if the security or privacy of online voting cannot be guaranteed or Canadians should continue to vote using paper ballots at a polling station, even if it is less accessible for some voters?
- 3.8 Mandatory voting
- 4.1 Online voting in federal elections would increase voter participation
- 4.2 The day of a federal election should be a statutory holiday
- 4.3 The voting age for federal elections should be lowered
- 4.4 There should be a limit to the length of federal election campaign periods
- 4.5 Members of Parliaments that spend more time in their constituency working with constituents or Members of Parliament that spend more time on Parliament Hill working on the issues that matter to their constituents?
- 4.6 Members of Parliament that always support policies that they think are best for their constituents, even if their constituents disagree or Members of Parliament that always support policies their constituents want, even if the MPs themselves personally disagree?
Text Version
Not at all satisfied |
Not very satisfied |
Somewhat satisfied |
Very satisfied |
Don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|---|
9% |
23% |
50% |
17% |
1% |
Not at all satisfied |
Not very satisfied |
Somewhat satisfied |
Very satisfied |
Don’t know |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 9 |
23 |
50 |
17 |
1 |
| Unweighted | 9 |
23 |
50 |
18 |
1 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 10 |
24 |
48 |
17 |
0 |
| Women | 7 |
22 |
53 |
17 |
1 |
| Other | 22 |
29 |
36 |
10 |
3 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 7 |
24 |
55 |
12 |
2 |
| 30-39 | 9 |
27 |
50 |
13 |
1 |
| 40-49 | 10 |
23 |
50 |
17 |
1 |
| 50-64 | 10 |
22 |
49 |
19 |
1 |
| 65+ | 8 |
19 |
49 |
24 |
0 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 10 |
23 |
51 |
16 |
1 |
| Atlantic | 8 |
20 |
53 |
18 |
1 |
| BC | 9 |
23 |
51 |
17 |
1 |
| Ontario | 8 |
20 |
52 |
20 |
1 |
| Prairies | 8 |
20 |
52 |
18 |
1 |
| Quebec | 10 |
30 |
46 |
13 |
1 |
| Territories | 9 |
22 |
54 |
14 |
1 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 16 |
24 |
41 |
16 |
2 |
| Inuit | 24 |
18 |
39 |
16 |
3 |
| Métis | 16 |
25 |
44 |
13 |
2 |
| Persons with disabilities | 13 |
24 |
46 |
16 |
2 |
| LGBTQ2 | 10 |
26 |
50 |
13 |
1 |
| Visible minority | 9 |
20 |
49 |
20 |
2 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 26 |
17 |
33 |
11 |
13 |
| Not very interested | 9 |
20 |
51 |
16 |
5 |
| Somewhat interested | 5 |
22 |
56 |
16 |
1 |
| Very interested | 11 |
24 |
46 |
19 |
0 |
Text Version
Biggest barriers to voting |
Percentage |
|---|---|
Frustration with politics |
43.88 |
Lack of time |
28.31 |
Don’t like the voting system |
19.6 |
Lack of information |
17.74 |
Voting location isn’t convenient |
15.03 |
Do not feel included |
13.82 |
Disabilities or mobility issues |
3.68 |
Other |
21.11 |
Text Version
The most important priorities |
Percentage |
|---|---|
Governments that consider all viewpoints before making a decision |
62.71 |
Governments that can be easily held to account by voters |
58.62 |
Governments that collaborate with other parties in Parliament |
55.68 |
Increasing voter turnout |
52.8 |
MPs that focus on what is best for the country |
51.9 |
Governments with strong representation from every region |
48.58 |
Ensuring the security of the voting process |
46.42 |
Strengthening the link between voter intention and the election of representatives |
45.02 |
MPs who focus primarily on the interests of their local community |
42.08 |
Ensuring the voting process is easy to understand |
38.85 |
Ability to vote online during elections |
33.9 |
Allowing voters to express a wide range of preferences when voting |
31.21 |
Better representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament |
30.14 |
Governments that can make decisions quickly |
29.5 |
Increasing the presence of smaller parties in Parliament |
25.87 |
Text Version
Accountability - Average of 60.0%Figure 3.1.1: Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
9 |
15 |
15 |
40 |
22 |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 9 |
15 |
15 |
40 |
22 |
| Unweighted | 11 |
15 |
14 |
38 |
22 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 11 |
15 |
15 |
37 |
22 |
| Women | 7 |
14 |
15 |
43 |
22 |
| Other | 14 |
10 |
15 |
31 |
30 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 4 |
12 |
18 |
43 |
22 |
| 30-39 | 6 |
14 |
17 |
39 |
24 |
| 40-49 | 9 |
16 |
15 |
39 |
22 |
| 50-64 | 12 |
16 |
13 |
39 |
20 |
| 65+ | 13 |
16 |
11 |
38 |
22 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 10 |
16 |
15 |
40 |
20 |
| Atlantic | 10 |
15 |
15 |
40 |
21 |
| BC | 10 |
15 |
15 |
37 |
23 |
| Ontario | 11 |
16 |
15 |
37 |
20 |
| Prairies | 12 |
17 |
16 |
37 |
18 |
| Quebec | 5 |
11 |
13 |
46 |
26 |
| Territories | 10 |
16 |
13 |
41 |
21 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 10 |
16 |
16 |
38 |
20 |
| French | 5 |
11 |
12 |
46 |
26 |
| Other | 11 |
15 |
15 |
37 |
22 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 13 |
14 |
13 |
34 |
25 |
| Inuit | 18 |
14 |
11 |
32 |
26 |
| Métis | 11 |
13 |
14 |
37 |
25 |
| Persons with disabilities | 11 |
14 |
14 |
36 |
25 |
| LGBTQ2 | 6 |
12 |
15 |
41 |
26 |
| Visible minority | 9 |
14 |
15 |
39 |
22 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 8 |
7 |
10 |
28 |
47 |
| Not very satisfied | 5 |
9 |
13 |
42 |
31 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 7 |
17 |
16 |
43 |
17 |
| Very satisfied | 20 |
21 |
15 |
32 |
12 |
| Don’t know | 9 |
9 |
29 |
35 |
18 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 12 |
8 |
27 |
28 |
26 |
| Not very interested | 7 |
15 |
21 |
40 |
17 |
| Somewhat interested | 7 |
16 |
17 |
43 |
18 |
| Very interested | 11 |
14 |
12 |
37 |
26 |
Figure 3.1.2: It should always be clear which party is accountable for decisions made by government, even if this means that decisions are only made by one party.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
11% |
20% |
16% |
26% |
27% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 11 |
20 |
16 |
26 |
27 |
| Unweighted | 12 |
21 |
17 |
25 |
26 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 11 |
17 |
16 |
26 |
29 |
| Women | 10 |
22 |
16 |
27 |
25 |
| Other | 23 |
22 |
19 |
16 |
20 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 12 |
28 |
19 |
25 |
16 |
| 30-39 | 14 |
25 |
18 |
23 |
20 |
| 40-49 | 11 |
19 |
18 |
26 |
26 |
| 50-64 | 10 |
16 |
15 |
27 |
32 |
| 65+ | 8 |
12 |
12 |
30 |
38 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 9 |
18 |
14 |
28 |
31 |
| Atlantic | 9 |
18 |
16 |
27 |
30 |
| BC | 11 |
20 |
15 |
26 |
28 |
| Ontario | 10 |
18 |
15 |
26 |
32 |
| Prairies | 9 |
17 |
15 |
28 |
31 |
| Quebec | 15 |
25 |
21 |
25 |
15 |
| Territories | 13 |
21 |
20 |
29 |
18 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 10 |
19 |
15 |
27 |
29 |
| French | 15 |
24 |
21 |
25 |
15 |
| Other | 10 |
16 |
14 |
26 |
33 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 13 |
13 |
12 |
24 |
38 |
| Inuit | 17 |
8 |
13 |
26 |
36 |
| Métis | 11 |
15 |
15 |
25 |
34 |
| Persons with disabilities | 12 |
17 |
13 |
24 |
34 |
| LGBTQ2 | 15 |
26 |
18 |
23 |
19 |
| Visible minority | 9 |
17 |
14 |
28 |
31 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 25 |
15 |
14 |
15 |
31 |
| Not very satisfied | 16 |
23 |
17 |
22 |
22 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 8 |
21 |
17 |
29 |
24 |
| Very satisfied | 6 |
13 |
14 |
29 |
38 |
| Don’t know | 9 |
20 |
20 |
28 |
23 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 15 |
9 |
17 |
26 |
33 |
| Not very interested | 8 |
18 |
20 |
29 |
25 |
| Somewhat interested | 9 |
20 |
17 |
29 |
25 |
| Very interested | 13 |
19 |
15 |
24 |
29 |
Figure 3.1.3: One party governs and is solely accountable for policy outcomes or several parties must cooperate to govern and they share accountability for policy outcomes?
Text Version
One party is solely accountable |
Several parties share accountability |
|---|---|
30% |
70% |
One party is solely accountable |
Several parties share accountability |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 30 |
70 |
| Unweighted | 33 |
67 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 36 |
64 |
| Women | 24 |
76 |
| Other | 24 |
76 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 22 |
78 |
| 30-39 | 24 |
76 |
| 40-49 | 31 |
69 |
| 50-64 | 34 |
66 |
| 65+ | 39 |
61 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 34 |
66 |
| Atlantic | 30 |
70 |
| BC | 30 |
70 |
| Ontario | 33 |
67 |
| Prairies | 37 |
63 |
| Quebec | 22 |
78 |
| Territories | 28 |
72 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 33 |
67 |
| French | 22 |
78 |
| Other | 31 |
69 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 32 |
68 |
| Inuit | 34 |
66 |
| Métis | 29 |
71 |
| Persons with disabilities | 28 |
72 |
| LGBTQ2 | 20 |
80 |
| Visible minority | 30 |
70 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 17 |
83 |
| Not very satisfied | 17 |
83 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 30 |
70 |
| Very satisfied | 55 |
45 |
| Don’t know | 23 |
77 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 27 |
73 |
| Not very interested | 26 |
74 |
| Somewhat interested | 28 |
72 |
| Very interested | 33 |
67 |
Text Version
Ballot detail - Average of 43.9%Figure 3.2.1: A ballot should be easy to understand, even if it means voters have fewer options to express their preferences.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
12% |
23% |
16% |
27% |
22% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 12 |
23 |
16 |
27 |
22 |
| Unweighted | 13 |
24 |
16 |
26 |
21 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 14 |
23 |
16 |
25 |
22 |
| Women | 9 |
23 |
16 |
30 |
22 |
| Other | 28 |
23 |
16 |
19 |
15 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 15 |
32 |
20 |
23 |
10 |
| 30-39 | 15 |
29 |
19 |
24 |
14 |
| 40-49 | 12 |
24 |
16 |
27 |
20 |
| 50-64 | 11 |
19 |
14 |
30 |
26 |
| 65+ | 8 |
14 |
10 |
31 |
37 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 11 |
21 |
16 |
28 |
24 |
| Atlantic | 10 |
22 |
15 |
29 |
24 |
| BC | 12 |
22 |
16 |
27 |
23 |
| Ontario | 11 |
22 |
15 |
28 |
24 |
| Prairies | 11 |
20 |
15 |
29 |
25 |
| Quebec | 14 |
28 |
17 |
26 |
16 |
| Territories | 9 |
24 |
18 |
31 |
18 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 11 |
22 |
15 |
28 |
23 |
| French | 14 |
28 |
17 |
25 |
15 |
| Other | 11 |
20 |
15 |
27 |
27 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 16 |
19 |
14 |
24 |
28 |
| Inuit | 20 |
17 |
12 |
23 |
28 |
| Métis | 16 |
21 |
17 |
25 |
21 |
| Persons with disabilities | 14 |
20 |
14 |
26 |
27 |
| LGBTQ2 | 15 |
28 |
18 |
24 |
15 |
| Visible minority | 11 |
21 |
16 |
26 |
26 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 29 |
21 |
14 |
16 |
20 |
| Not very satisfied | 16 |
29 |
16 |
23 |
16 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 9 |
24 |
17 |
31 |
21 |
| Very satisfied | 8 |
15 |
13 |
29 |
36 |
| Don’t know | 9 |
20 |
23 |
27 |
22 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 14 |
12 |
22 |
18 |
33 |
| Not very interested | 7 |
21 |
18 |
31 |
23 |
| Somewhat interested | 9 |
23 |
17 |
30 |
21 |
| Very interested | 15 |
24 |
14 |
25 |
23 |
Figure 3.2.2: Voters should be able to express multiple preferences on the ballot, even if this means that it takes longer to count the ballots and announce the election result.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
17% |
11% |
9% |
29% |
33% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 17 |
11 |
9 |
29 |
33 |
| Unweighted | 17 |
10 |
8 |
28 |
37 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 18 |
10 |
8 |
27 |
36 |
| Women | 17 |
13 |
10 |
30 |
31 |
| Other | 18 |
7 |
9 |
18 |
48 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 11 |
11 |
9 |
28 |
42 |
| 30-39 | 13 |
10 |
9 |
28 |
41 |
| 40-49 | 18 |
11 |
10 |
29 |
32 |
| 50-64 | 21 |
12 |
9 |
29 |
29 |
| 65+ | 22 |
13 |
8 |
30 |
27 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 25 |
13 |
10 |
27 |
25 |
| Atlantic | 15 |
11 |
9 |
28 |
36 |
| BC | 15 |
9 |
8 |
27 |
40 |
| Ontario | 18 |
11 |
9 |
27 |
35 |
| Prairies | 27 |
12 |
9 |
26 |
26 |
| Quebec | 12 |
13 |
9 |
33 |
32 |
| Territories | 14 |
11 |
12 |
25 |
38 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 19 |
11 |
9 |
28 |
34 |
| French | 12 |
14 |
9 |
33 |
33 |
| Other | 19 |
11 |
10 |
27 |
34 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 23 |
11 |
10 |
24 |
34 |
| Inuit | 25 |
9 |
10 |
22 |
34 |
| Métis | 20 |
11 |
11 |
24 |
34 |
| Persons with disabilities | 19 |
10 |
9 |
24 |
38 |
| LGBTQ2 | 11 |
8 |
8 |
27 |
45 |
| Visible minority | 17 |
11 |
10 |
26 |
35 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 16 |
6 |
8 |
20 |
50 |
| Not very satisfied | 11 |
9 |
8 |
28 |
44 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 15 |
13 |
9 |
32 |
31 |
| Very satisfied | 33 |
14 |
9 |
25 |
19 |
| Don’t know | 17 |
13 |
19 |
28 |
23 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 22 |
9 |
17 |
18 |
34 |
| Not very interested | 15 |
16 |
13 |
29 |
27 |
| Somewhat interested | 16 |
13 |
10 |
32 |
29 |
| Very interested | 19 |
10 |
7 |
27 |
38 |
Figure 3.2.3: Ballots should be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote or ballots should allow everybody to express their preferences in detail?
Text Version
Allow everybody to express their preferences |
As simple as possible |
|---|---|
41% |
59% |
Allow everybody to express their preferences |
As simple as possible |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 41 |
59 |
| Unweighted | 44 |
56 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 44 |
56 |
| Women | 37 |
63 |
| Other | 61 |
39 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 61 |
39 |
| 30-39 | 54 |
46 |
| 40-49 | 41 |
59 |
| 50-64 | 31 |
69 |
| 65+ | 21 |
79 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 34 |
66 |
| Atlantic | 39 |
61 |
| BC | 43 |
57 |
| Ontario | 39 |
61 |
| Prairies | 34 |
66 |
| Quebec | 47 |
53 |
| Territories | 42 |
58 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 39 |
61 |
| French | 46 |
54 |
| Other | 37 |
63 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 37 |
63 |
| Inuit | 35 |
65 |
| Métis | 40 |
60 |
| Persons with disabilities | 39 |
61 |
| LGBTQ2 | 56 |
44 |
| Visible minority | 40 |
60 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 58 |
42 |
| Not very satisfied | 55 |
45 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 38 |
62 |
| Very satisfied | 20 |
80 |
| Don’t know | 37 |
63 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 38 |
62 |
| Not very interested | 36 |
64 |
| Somewhat interested | 38 |
62 |
| Very interested | 43 |
57 |
Text Version
Equality - Average of 49.9%Figure 3.3.1: Members of Parliament should reflect the diversity of Canadian society, even if it means putting in place special measures to increase the representation of certain groups.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
26% |
19% |
13% |
25% |
17% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 26 |
19 |
13 |
25 |
17 |
| Unweighted | 28 |
18 |
12 |
24 |
17 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 33 |
20 |
13 |
21 |
13 |
| Women | 19 |
18 |
13 |
30 |
21 |
| Other | 27 |
7 |
7 |
19 |
40 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 18 |
15 |
13 |
28 |
25 |
| 30-39 | 22 |
17 |
14 |
27 |
20 |
| 40-49 | 28 |
19 |
13 |
24 |
16 |
| 50-64 | 30 |
20 |
12 |
24 |
13 |
| 65+ | 29 |
20 |
12 |
24 |
14 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 36 |
19 |
12 |
21 |
12 |
| Atlantic | 23 |
17 |
12 |
29 |
19 |
| BC | 24 |
18 |
13 |
27 |
19 |
| Ontario | 27 |
18 |
12 |
24 |
18 |
| Prairies | 35 |
20 |
11 |
21 |
13 |
| Quebec | 18 |
20 |
14 |
29 |
19 |
| Territories | 20 |
16 |
10 |
30 |
24 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 29 |
19 |
12 |
24 |
16 |
| French | 19 |
21 |
14 |
28 |
17 |
| Other | 24 |
17 |
12 |
25 |
22 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 30 |
14 |
11 |
23 |
22 |
| Inuit | 32 |
14 |
10 |
20 |
23 |
| Métis | 30 |
16 |
13 |
23 |
19 |
| Persons with disabilities | 26 |
15 |
12 |
24 |
23 |
| LGBTQ2 | 14 |
12 |
11 |
29 |
34 |
| Visible minority | 19 |
13 |
12 |
27 |
29 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 35 |
13 |
11 |
16 |
25 |
| Not very satisfied | 24 |
18 |
13 |
25 |
21 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 22 |
21 |
14 |
28 |
16 |
| Very satisfied | 36 |
18 |
11 |
22 |
13 |
| Don’t know | 16 |
18 |
18 |
26 |
22 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 33 |
16 |
17 |
16 |
18 |
| Not very interested | 21 |
21 |
17 |
25 |
16 |
| Somewhat interested | 21 |
21 |
14 |
28 |
15 |
| Very interested | 30 |
17 |
11 |
23 |
19 |
Figure 3.3.2: Ensuring that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament should be a top priority.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
19% |
16% |
20% |
27% |
18% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 19 |
16 |
20 |
27 |
18 |
| Unweighted | 22 |
16 |
18 |
26 |
19 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 25 |
17 |
19 |
23 |
15 |
| Women | 14 |
15 |
20 |
31 |
20 |
| Other | 22 |
8 |
11 |
21 |
37 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 13 |
13 |
19 |
31 |
24 |
| 30-39 | 16 |
14 |
21 |
29 |
20 |
| 40-49 | 20 |
16 |
22 |
25 |
17 |
| 50-64 | 23 |
18 |
20 |
25 |
14 |
| 65+ | 23 |
19 |
17 |
26 |
15 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 28 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
12 |
| Atlantic | 17 |
16 |
18 |
30 |
20 |
| BC | 19 |
15 |
18 |
28 |
21 |
| Ontario | 21 |
16 |
19 |
26 |
18 |
| Prairies | 28 |
18 |
18 |
22 |
14 |
| Quebec | 12 |
17 |
24 |
30 |
17 |
| Territories | 14 |
16 |
18 |
29 |
23 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 22 |
16 |
18 |
26 |
17 |
| French | 13 |
17 |
24 |
29 |
16 |
| Other | 19 |
15 |
19 |
26 |
21 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 24 |
13 |
16 |
24 |
23 |
| Inuit | 23 |
11 |
18 |
22 |
26 |
| Métis | 22 |
13 |
20 |
23 |
21 |
| Persons with disabilities | 20 |
13 |
17 |
26 |
23 |
| LGBTQ2 | 10 |
10 |
17 |
32 |
31 |
| Visible minority | 15 |
12 |
19 |
29 |
25 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 25 |
10 |
15 |
19 |
31 |
| Not very satisfied | 16 |
14 |
19 |
27 |
23 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 16 |
18 |
21 |
30 |
15 |
| Very satisfied | 31 |
18 |
19 |
23 |
10 |
| Don’t know | 13 |
15 |
28 |
26 |
17 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 22 |
15 |
25 |
19 |
19 |
| Not very interested | 16 |
19 |
26 |
26 |
13 |
| Somewhat interested | 16 |
18 |
23 |
29 |
15 |
| Very interested | 23 |
15 |
17 |
26 |
21 |
Figure 3.3.3: No further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent or further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent?
Text Version
Further action needs to be taken |
No further action needs to be taken |
|---|---|
52% |
48% |
Further action needs to be taken |
No further action needs to be taken |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 52 |
48 |
| Unweighted | 51 |
49 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 45 |
55 |
| Women | 59 |
41 |
| Other | 65 |
35 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 63 |
37 |
| 30-39 | 57 |
43 |
| 40-49 | 49 |
51 |
| 50-64 | 47 |
53 |
| 65+ | 47 |
53 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 45 |
55 |
| Atlantic | 55 |
45 |
| BC | 56 |
44 |
| Ontario | 50 |
50 |
| Prairies | 43 |
57 |
| Quebec | 57 |
43 |
| Territories | 56 |
44 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 50 |
50 |
| French | 56 |
44 |
| Other | 54 |
46 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 56 |
44 |
| Inuit | 54 |
46 |
| Métis | 53 |
47 |
| Persons with disabilities | 57 |
43 |
| LGBTQ2 | 71 |
29 |
| Visible minority | 64 |
36 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 59 |
41 |
| Not very satisfied | 60 |
40 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 53 |
47 |
| Very satisfied | 35 |
65 |
| Don’t know | 60 |
40 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 50 |
50 |
| Not very interested | 50 |
50 |
| Somewhat interested | 53 |
47 |
| Very interested | 52 |
48 |
Text Version
Leadership - Average of 64.8%Figure 3.4.1: It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
13% |
16% |
9% |
34% |
28% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 13 |
16 |
9 |
34 |
28 |
| Unweighted | 15 |
16 |
9 |
33 |
27 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 16 |
16 |
9 |
31 |
27 |
| Women | 10 |
16 |
9 |
38 |
28 |
| Other | 14 |
10 |
11 |
25 |
40 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 8 |
17 |
12 |
36 |
27 |
| 30-39 | 9 |
15 |
10 |
35 |
31 |
| 40-49 | 13 |
16 |
9 |
36 |
27 |
| 50-64 | 16 |
16 |
7 |
33 |
27 |
| 65+ | 18 |
15 |
6 |
33 |
28 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 15 |
18 |
9 |
34 |
23 |
| Atlantic | 13 |
16 |
8 |
36 |
27 |
| BC | 13 |
16 |
9 |
33 |
29 |
| Ontario | 15 |
17 |
10 |
33 |
25 |
| Prairies | 18 |
17 |
10 |
33 |
22 |
| Quebec | 7 |
12 |
7 |
38 |
35 |
| Territories | 11 |
14 |
11 |
36 |
27 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 15 |
17 |
9 |
34 |
25 |
| French | 7 |
12 |
7 |
38 |
36 |
| Other | 15 |
16 |
10 |
32 |
27 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 16 |
14 |
8 |
30 |
32 |
| Inuit | 17 |
13 |
10 |
25 |
36 |
| Métis | 13 |
14 |
8 |
34 |
32 |
| Persons with disabilities | 13 |
13 |
8 |
33 |
32 |
| LGBTQ2 | 7 |
13 |
10 |
36 |
34 |
| Visible minority | 14 |
17 |
11 |
32 |
27 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 10 |
6 |
6 |
21 |
57 |
| Not very satisfied | 6 |
10 |
7 |
36 |
40 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 11 |
18 |
10 |
39 |
22 |
| Very satisfied | 30 |
22 |
8 |
26 |
14 |
| Don’t know | 10 |
13 |
16 |
37 |
24 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 14 |
10 |
13 |
28 |
34 |
| Not very interested | 9 |
17 |
13 |
37 |
24 |
| Somewhat interested | 10 |
17 |
10 |
39 |
24 |
| Very interested | 16 |
15 |
8 |
31 |
31 |
Figure 3.4.2: A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral | Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
9% |
13% |
10% |
41% |
27% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 9 |
13 |
10 |
41 |
27 |
| Unweighted | 10 |
14 |
11 |
40 |
26 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 11 |
14 |
11 |
38 |
26 |
| Women | 6 |
12 |
10 |
44 |
27 |
| Other | 13 |
9 |
11 |
32 |
35 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 5 |
12 |
13 |
44 |
25 |
| 30-39 | 6 |
13 |
12 |
41 |
28 |
| 40-49 | 9 |
14 |
11 |
40 |
26 |
| 50-64 | 11 |
14 |
9 |
40 |
26 |
| 65+ | 11 |
13 |
8 |
41 |
28 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 10 |
15 |
11 |
39 |
25 |
| Atlantic | 9 |
13 |
10 |
42 |
26 |
| BC | 9 |
13 |
10 |
39 |
29 |
| Ontario | 10 |
14 |
10 |
40 |
26 |
| Prairies | 12 |
15 |
11 |
40 |
23 |
| Quebec | 5 |
12 |
10 |
45 |
28 |
| Territories | 8 |
11 |
13 |
36 |
32 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 10 |
14 |
10 |
40 |
25 |
| French | 5 |
11 |
10 |
45 |
28 |
| Other | 10 |
13 |
11 |
38 |
29 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 12 |
12 |
9 |
35 |
33 |
| Inuit | 13 |
12 |
9 |
29 |
37 |
| Métis | 10 |
12 |
10 |
37 |
31 |
| Persons with disabilities | 10 |
11 |
9 |
37 |
32 |
| LGBTQ2 | 5 |
10 |
10 |
43 |
31 |
| Visible minority | 9 |
13 |
11 |
39 |
29 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 8 |
6 |
8 |
26 |
52 |
| Not very satisfied | 5 |
9 |
9 |
41 |
37 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 7 |
15 |
12 |
46 |
21 |
| Very satisfied | 19 |
20 |
10 |
35 |
16 |
| Don’t know | 7 |
13 |
16 |
42 |
22 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 12 |
9 |
16 |
31 |
33 |
| Not very interested | 7 |
13 |
13 |
43 |
23 |
| Somewhat interested | 7 |
14 |
12 |
44 |
23 |
| Very interested | 10 |
13 |
9 |
38 |
30 |
Figure 3.4.3: A government where one party governs and can make decisions on its own or a government where several parties have to collectively agree before a decision is made?
Text Version
One party makes decisions on its own |
Several parties have to collectively agree |
|---|---|
30% |
70% |
One party makes decisions on its own |
Several parties have to collectively agree |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 30 |
70 |
| Unweighted | 34 |
66 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 36 |
64 |
| Women | 25 |
75 |
| Other | 27 |
73 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 23 |
77 |
| 30-39 | 25 |
75 |
| 40-49 | 30 |
70 |
| 50-64 | 34 |
66 |
| 65+ | 38 |
62 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 34 |
66 |
| Atlantic | 31 |
69 |
| BC | 31 |
69 |
| Ontario | 33 |
67 |
| Prairies | 37 |
63 |
| Quebec | 21 |
79 |
| Territories | 33 |
67 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 34 |
66 |
| French | 21 |
79 |
| Other | 31 |
69 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 32 |
68 |
| Inuit | 34 |
66 |
| Métis | 30 |
70 |
| Persons with disabilities | 28 |
72 |
| LGBTQ2 | 21 |
79 |
| Visible minority | 30 |
70 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 16 |
84 |
| Not very satisfied | 16 |
84 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 31 |
69 |
| Very satisfied | 55 |
45 |
| Don’t know | 24 |
76 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 28 |
72 |
| Not very interested | 26 |
74 |
| Somewhat interested | 28 |
72 |
| Very interested | 32 |
68 |
Text Version
Party discipline - Average of 80.3%Figure 3.5.1: Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their constituents, even if it means going against their own party.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
3% |
7% |
7% |
32% |
51% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 3 |
7 |
7 |
32 |
51 |
| Unweighted | 3 |
9 |
8 |
33 |
47 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 3 |
7 |
7 |
29 |
55 |
| Women | 2 |
8 |
8 |
36 |
47 |
| Other | 5 |
5 |
14 |
26 |
49 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 2 |
8 |
12 |
36 |
42 |
| 30-39 | 2 |
6 |
8 |
33 |
51 |
| 40-49 | 2 |
6 |
6 |
32 |
53 |
| 50-64 | 3 |
7 |
6 |
31 |
54 |
| 65+ | 3 |
7 |
5 |
31 |
53 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 2 |
7 |
6 |
31 |
53 |
| Atlantic | 3 |
6 |
7 |
31 |
54 |
| BC | 3 |
7 |
7 |
33 |
50 |
| Ontario | 3 |
8 |
8 |
33 |
48 |
| Prairies | 3 |
7 |
7 |
33 |
49 |
| Quebec | 2 |
5 |
6 |
32 |
55 |
| Territories | 3 |
10 |
7 |
33 |
47 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 3 |
8 |
7 |
33 |
50 |
| French | 2 |
5 |
6 |
32 |
55 |
| Other | 3 |
8 |
9 |
31 |
49 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 5 |
6 |
8 |
25 |
56 |
| Inuit | 8 |
6 |
11 |
19 |
55 |
| Métis | 3 |
6 |
8 |
28 |
55 |
| Persons with disabilities | 4 |
6 |
7 |
28 |
56 |
| LGBTQ2 | 3 |
7 |
10 |
34 |
46 |
| Visible minority | 4 |
7 |
9 |
31 |
50 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 3 |
3 |
6 |
16 |
72 |
| Not very satisfied | 2 |
5 |
6 |
28 |
60 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 2 |
7 |
8 |
37 |
46 |
| Very satisfied | 5 |
11 |
9 |
34 |
42 |
| Don’t know | 4 |
12 |
18 |
30 |
35 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 8 |
6 |
12 |
22 |
52 |
| Not very interested | 3 |
8 |
11 |
35 |
44 |
| Somewhat interested | 2 |
6 |
8 |
36 |
48 |
| Very interested | 3 |
8 |
6 |
30 |
53 |
Figure 3.5.2: Members of Parliament should always support the position of their party, even if it means going against the wishes of their constituents.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
54% |
31% |
6% |
6% |
3% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 54 |
31 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
| Unweighted | 53 |
32 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 58 |
28 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
| Women | 50 |
35 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
| Other | 53 |
27 |
10 |
5 |
4 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 46 |
36 |
10 |
6 |
2 |
| 30-39 | 56 |
30 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
| 40-49 | 56 |
30 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
| 50-64 | 56 |
30 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
| 65+ | 54 |
31 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 57 |
29 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
| Atlantic | 58 |
29 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
| BC | 55 |
31 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
| Ontario | 52 |
32 |
7 |
7 |
3 |
| Prairies | 54 |
31 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
| Quebec | 53 |
33 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
| Territories | 55 |
29 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 54 |
31 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
| French | 54 |
33 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
| Other | 52 |
30 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 58 |
23 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
| Inuit | 57 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
7 |
| Métis | 58 |
25 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
| Persons with disabilities | 57 |
26 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
| LGBTQ2 | 50 |
34 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
| Visible minority | 50 |
31 |
9 |
7 |
4 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 73 |
14 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
| Not very satisfied | 63 |
26 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 50 |
36 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
| Very satisfied | 44 |
34 |
7 |
10 |
4 |
| Don’t know | 34 |
36 |
19 |
7 |
4 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 49 |
21 |
14 |
6 |
10 |
| Not very interested | 44 |
35 |
10 |
7 |
3 |
| Somewhat interested | 50 |
34 |
7 |
6 |
2 |
| Very interested | 57 |
29 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
Figure 3.5.3: Members of Parliament that do what their party promised, even if it means going against what their constituents want or members of Parliament that do what their constituents want, even if it means going against what their party promised?
Text Version
MPs that do what their constituents want |
MPs that do what their party promised |
|---|---|
77% |
23% |
MPs that do what their constituents want |
MPs that do what their party promised |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 77 |
23 |
| Unweighted | 76 |
24 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 78 |
22 |
| Women | 76 |
24 |
| Other | 72 |
28 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 73 |
27 |
| 30-39 | 79 |
21 |
| 40-49 | 80 |
20 |
| 50-64 | 78 |
22 |
| 65+ | 76 |
24 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 79 |
21 |
| Atlantic | 77 |
23 |
| BC | 76 |
24 |
| Ontario | 73 |
27 |
| Prairies | 76 |
24 |
| Quebec | 84 |
16 |
| Territories | 79 |
21 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 75 |
25 |
| French | 84 |
16 |
| Other | 73 |
27 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 73 |
27 |
| Inuit | 71 |
29 |
| Métis | 75 |
25 |
| Persons with disabilities | 76 |
24 |
| LGBTQ2 | 75 |
25 |
| Visible minority | 73 |
27 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 83 |
17 |
| Not very satisfied | 83 |
17 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 77 |
23 |
| Very satisfied | 66 |
34 |
| Don’t know | 60 |
40 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 68 |
32 |
| Not very interested | 73 |
27 |
| Somewhat interested | 78 |
22 |
| Very interested | 77 |
23 |
Text Version
Party focus - Average of 54.8%Figure 3.6.1: There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
23% |
22% |
14% |
26% |
15% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 23 |
22 |
14 |
26 |
15 |
| Unweighted | 22 |
21 |
14 |
26 |
17 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 23 |
20 |
13 |
25 |
18 |
| Women | 22 |
25 |
15 |
26 |
12 |
| Other | 16 |
16 |
15 |
26 |
27 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 14 |
23 |
16 |
30 |
17 |
| 30-39 | 17 |
21 |
16 |
28 |
18 |
| 40-49 | 23 |
22 |
15 |
25 |
16 |
| 50-64 | 28 |
22 |
13 |
23 |
14 |
| 65+ | 29 |
22 |
11 |
24 |
14 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 26 |
23 |
14 |
24 |
13 |
| Atlantic | 23 |
21 |
13 |
27 |
15 |
| BC | 21 |
21 |
14 |
26 |
18 |
| Ontario | 24 |
22 |
14 |
25 |
15 |
| Prairies | 28 |
21 |
14 |
23 |
14 |
| Quebec | 19 |
23 |
14 |
28 |
16 |
| Territories | 18 |
23 |
16 |
27 |
17 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 24 |
22 |
14 |
25 |
15 |
| French | 19 |
24 |
14 |
29 |
15 |
| Other | 24 |
21 |
13 |
24 |
18 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 24 |
17 |
14 |
24 |
21 |
| Inuit | 22 |
17 |
13 |
21 |
27 |
| Métis | 23 |
20 |
14 |
24 |
20 |
| Persons with disabilities | 23 |
19 |
13 |
25 |
20 |
| LGBTQ2 | 15 |
22 |
15 |
30 |
19 |
| Visible minority | 22 |
20 |
14 |
25 |
18 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 20 |
10 |
11 |
22 |
37 |
| Not very satisfied | 16 |
19 |
13 |
31 |
21 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 22 |
25 |
15 |
27 |
11 |
| Very satisfied | 37 |
23 |
13 |
18 |
9 |
| Don’t know | 16 |
22 |
20 |
25 |
17 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 21 |
15 |
19 |
18 |
26 |
| Not very interested | 19 |
25 |
17 |
26 |
14 |
| Somewhat interested | 21 |
25 |
16 |
27 |
12 |
| Very interested | 25 |
20 |
12 |
25 |
18 |
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5% |
8% |
22% |
35% |
30% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 5 |
8 |
22 |
35 |
30 |
| Unweighted | 6 |
8 |
22 |
33 |
31 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 7 |
9 |
23 |
32 |
29 |
| Women | 4 |
7 |
20 |
37 |
31 |
| Other | 12 |
5 |
14 |
20 |
48 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 3 |
5 |
17 |
36 |
39 |
| 30-39 | 4 |
6 |
20 |
35 |
36 |
| 40-49 | 6 |
9 |
22 |
33 |
30 |
| 50-64 | 7 |
10 |
24 |
34 |
26 |
| 65+ | 6 |
10 |
23 |
36 |
25 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 8 |
11 |
25 |
32 |
24 |
| Atlantic | 5 |
6 |
20 |
36 |
33 |
| BC | 5 |
7 |
22 |
33 |
33 |
| Ontario | 7 |
8 |
23 |
32 |
30 |
| Prairies | 9 |
11 |
24 |
31 |
24 |
| Quebec | 2 |
6 |
18 |
41 |
33 |
| Territories | 4 |
6 |
22 |
31 |
37 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 6 |
9 |
23 |
33 |
29 |
| French | 3 |
6 |
18 |
42 |
31 |
| Other | 6 |
7 |
21 |
31 |
35 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 11 |
7 |
18 |
29 |
35 |
| Inuit | 13 |
7 |
19 |
26 |
35 |
| Métis | 9 |
7 |
21 |
31 |
32 |
| Persons with disabilities | 7 |
7 |
19 |
31 |
35 |
| LGBTQ2 | 4 |
4 |
14 |
33 |
46 |
| Visible minority | 6 |
6 |
15 |
32 |
41 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 9 |
6 |
14 |
20 |
51 |
| Not very satisfied | 4 |
6 |
16 |
33 |
41 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 4 |
8 |
23 |
39 |
26 |
| Very satisfied | 11 |
12 |
28 |
31 |
19 |
| Don’t know | 7 |
4 |
25 |
34 |
30 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 11 |
8 |
24 |
19 |
38 |
| Not very interested | 5 |
7 |
27 |
37 |
25 |
| Somewhat interested | 4 |
8 |
24 |
38 |
26 |
| Very interested | 7 |
8 |
19 |
32 |
34 |
Figure 3.6.3: Having many small parties in Parliament representing many different views or having a few big parties that try to appeal to a broad range of people?
Text Version
A few big parties |
Many small parties |
|---|---|
59% |
41% |
A few big parties |
Many small parties |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 59 |
41 |
| Unweighted | 58 |
42 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 57 |
43 |
| Women | 62 |
38 |
| Other | 35 |
65 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 43 |
57 |
| 30-39 | 45 |
55 |
| 40-49 | 58 |
42 |
| 50-64 | 69 |
31 |
| 65+ | 77 |
23 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 64 |
36 |
| Atlantic | 58 |
42 |
| BC | 55 |
45 |
| Ontario | 62 |
38 |
| Prairies | 65 |
35 |
| Quebec | 55 |
45 |
| Territories | 50 |
50 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 61 |
39 |
| French | 55 |
45 |
| Other | 61 |
39 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 56 |
44 |
| Inuit | 56 |
44 |
| Métis | 54 |
46 |
| Persons with disabilities | 57 |
43 |
| LGBTQ2 | 43 |
57 |
| Visible minority | 59 |
41 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 36 |
64 |
| Not very satisfied | 42 |
58 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 63 |
37 |
| Very satisfied | 83 |
17 |
| Don’t know | 52 |
48 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 55 |
45 |
| Not very interested | 60 |
40 |
| Somewhat interested | 61 |
39 |
| Very interested | 58 |
42 |
Text Version
Online voting - Average of 48.9%Figure 3.7.1: Canadians should have the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral | Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
31% |
18% |
10% |
24% |
17% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 31 |
18 |
10 |
24 |
17 |
| Unweighted | 31 |
18 |
10 |
23 |
17 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 32 |
17 |
9 |
23 |
19 |
| Women | 30 |
20 |
10 |
25 |
16 |
| Other | 36 |
12 |
12 |
19 |
20 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 24 |
19 |
12 |
26 |
19 |
| 30-39 | 27 |
18 |
10 |
24 |
20 |
| 40-49 | 32 |
18 |
9 |
23 |
18 |
| 50-64 | 35 |
18 |
9 |
22 |
16 |
| 65+ | 34 |
18 |
8 |
24 |
15 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 37 |
18 |
9 |
21 |
15 |
| Atlantic | 25 |
16 |
9 |
26 |
23 |
| BC | 31 |
17 |
10 |
24 |
17 |
| Ontario | 31 |
18 |
9 |
23 |
19 |
| Prairies | 40 |
18 |
9 |
21 |
13 |
| Quebec | 27 |
21 |
10 |
26 |
17 |
| Territories | 29 |
18 |
9 |
29 |
14 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 32 |
17 |
9 |
24 |
18 |
| French | 26 |
20 |
9 |
27 |
17 |
| Other | 34 |
19 |
10 |
20 |
17 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 40 |
14 |
8 |
19 |
18 |
| Inuit | 40 |
15 |
8 |
18 |
19 |
| Métis | 35 |
15 |
9 |
23 |
17 |
| Persons with disabilities | 35 |
15 |
9 |
21 |
20 |
| LGBTQ2 | 24 |
18 |
11 |
25 |
22 |
| Visible minority | 33 |
19 |
10 |
21 |
18 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 37 |
12 |
10 |
17 |
24 |
| Not very satisfied | 28 |
18 |
11 |
24 |
19 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 28 |
20 |
10 |
26 |
16 |
| Very satisfied | 40 |
18 |
7 |
20 |
15 |
| Don’t know | 29 |
21 |
14 |
21 |
14 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 28 |
12 |
12 |
16 |
31 |
| Not very interested | 24 |
20 |
11 |
27 |
19 |
| Somewhat interested | 27 |
20 |
10 |
26 |
17 |
| Very interested | 34 |
17 |
9 |
22 |
18 |
Figure 3.7.2: Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if this increases the cost of elections.
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
22% |
14% |
11% |
27% |
26% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 22 |
14 |
11 |
27 |
26 |
| Unweighted | 21 |
14 |
11 |
27 |
26 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 23 |
13 |
11 |
26 |
27 |
| Women | 21 |
16 |
11 |
28 |
25 |
| Other | 28 |
9 |
10 |
21 |
31 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 17 |
14 |
12 |
28 |
29 |
| 30-39 | 19 |
14 |
11 |
26 |
30 |
| 40-49 | 23 |
14 |
10 |
26 |
27 |
| 50-64 | 25 |
15 |
10 |
27 |
24 |
| 65+ | 25 |
15 |
10 |
27 |
22 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 28 |
15 |
11 |
25 |
21 |
| Atlantic | 17 |
12 |
10 |
28 |
33 |
| BC | 21 |
13 |
11 |
27 |
28 |
| Ontario | 21 |
13 |
11 |
27 |
29 |
| Prairies | 30 |
16 |
10 |
25 |
19 |
| Quebec | 20 |
18 |
11 |
28 |
22 |
| Territories | 18 |
10 |
18 |
31 |
22 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 22 |
13 |
11 |
27 |
27 |
| French | 20 |
18 |
11 |
28 |
23 |
| Other | 24 |
15 |
11 |
24 |
26 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 31 |
12 |
10 |
21 |
26 |
| Inuit | 32 |
11 |
12 |
18 |
26 |
| Métis | 27 |
12 |
10 |
24 |
27 |
| Persons with disabilities | 25 |
12 |
11 |
23 |
30 |
| LGBTQ2 | 17 |
12 |
11 |
27 |
34 |
| Visible minority | 22 |
15 |
11 |
24 |
28 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 30 |
10 |
11 |
17 |
31 |
| Not very satisfied | 21 |
14 |
11 |
27 |
27 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 19 |
15 |
11 |
29 |
26 |
| Very satisfied | 28 |
15 |
9 |
25 |
23 |
| Don’t know | 23 |
16 |
16 |
24 |
20 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 25 |
11 |
15 |
19 |
29 |
| Not very interested | 19 |
15 |
12 |
30 |
24 |
| Somewhat interested | 18 |
16 |
12 |
29 |
25 |
| Very interested | 25 |
13 |
10 |
25 |
27 |
Figure 3.7.3: Canadians should have the option to cast their ballots online in federal elections, even if the security or privacy of online voting cannot be guaranteed or Canadians should continue to vote using paper ballots at a polling station, even if it is less accessible for some voters?
Text Version
Continue to vote using paper ballots |
Have the option to cast their ballots online |
|---|---|
51% |
49% |
Continue to vote using paper ballots |
Have the option to cast their ballots online |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 51 |
49 |
| Unweighted | 51 |
49 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 51 |
49 |
| Women | 50 |
50 |
| Other | 51 |
49 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 43 |
57 |
| 30-39 | 46 |
54 |
| 40-49 | 50 |
50 |
| 50-64 | 55 |
45 |
| 65+ | 56 |
44 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 56 |
44 |
| Atlantic | 42 |
58 |
| BC | 50 |
50 |
| Ontario | 49 |
51 |
| Prairies | 59 |
41 |
| Quebec | 52 |
48 |
| Territories | 46 |
54 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 50 |
50 |
| French | 51 |
49 |
| Other | 53 |
47 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 56 |
44 |
| Inuit | 58 |
42 |
| Métis | 52 |
48 |
| Persons with disabilities | 51 |
49 |
| LGBTQ2 | 42 |
58 |
| Visible minority | 52 |
48 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 53 |
47 |
| Not very satisfied | 48 |
52 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 49 |
51 |
| Very satisfied | 58 |
42 |
| Don’t know | 55 |
45 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 47 |
53 |
| Not very interested | 46 |
54 |
| Somewhat interested | 48 |
52 |
| Very interested | 53 |
47 |
Text Version
Mandatory voting - Average of 39.9%
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
41% |
18% |
11% |
18% |
12% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 41 |
18 |
11 |
18 |
12 |
| Unweighted | 43 |
17 |
11 |
17 |
12 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 42 |
16 |
11 |
17 |
14 |
| Women | 40 |
19 |
12 |
18 |
11 |
| Other | 46 |
14 |
12 |
14 |
15 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 34 |
21 |
12 |
20 |
13 |
| 30-39 | 38 |
18 |
11 |
19 |
14 |
| 40-49 | 43 |
17 |
11 |
17 |
13 |
| 50-64 | 46 |
17 |
11 |
16 |
10 |
| 65+ | 42 |
17 |
12 |
18 |
11 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 46 |
17 |
10 |
17 |
10 |
| Atlantic | 46 |
17 |
11 |
16 |
10 |
| BC | 40 |
17 |
12 |
19 |
13 |
| Ontario | 44 |
16 |
11 |
17 |
12 |
| Prairies | 49 |
17 |
11 |
15 |
9 |
| Quebec | 32 |
22 |
12 |
20 |
15 |
| Territories | 43 |
18 |
14 |
17 |
7 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 45 |
17 |
11 |
17 |
11 |
| French | 33 |
22 |
12 |
19 |
15 |
| Other | 40 |
17 |
12 |
18 |
14 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 47 |
12 |
11 |
16 |
14 |
| Inuit | 48 |
10 |
11 |
15 |
16 |
| Métis | 46 |
14 |
12 |
16 |
12 |
| Persons with disabilities | 46 |
14 |
12 |
15 |
13 |
| LGBTQ2 | 34 |
19 |
12 |
20 |
16 |
| Visible minority | 37 |
18 |
12 |
18 |
16 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 46 |
12 |
10 |
13 |
19 |
| Not very satisfied | 38 |
18 |
12 |
19 |
13 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 39 |
20 |
12 |
19 |
11 |
| Very satisfied | 50 |
15 |
9 |
15 |
11 |
| Don’t know | 48 |
16 |
13 |
15 |
8 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 63 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| Not very interested | 49 |
19 |
12 |
13 |
8 |
| Somewhat interested | 41 |
19 |
12 |
18 |
10 |
| Very interested | 41 |
16 |
11 |
18 |
14 |
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
16% |
20% |
12% |
20% |
33% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 16 |
20 |
12 |
20 |
33 |
| Unweighted | 15 |
20 |
11 |
19 |
35 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 17 |
19 |
11 |
18 |
35 |
| Women | 15 |
22 |
12 |
21 |
31 |
| Other | 17 |
17 |
12 |
15 |
38 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 16 |
24 |
14 |
21 |
26 |
| 30-39 | 17 |
22 |
12 |
19 |
31 |
| 40-49 | 16 |
20 |
11 |
19 |
34 |
| 50-64 | 15 |
18 |
11 |
19 |
37 |
| 65+ | 16 |
20 |
11 |
20 |
34 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 14 |
19 |
12 |
20 |
36 |
| Atlantic | 14 |
20 |
11 |
19 |
36 |
| BC | 16 |
22 |
12 |
18 |
32 |
| Ontario | 16 |
20 |
12 |
18 |
35 |
| Prairies | 13 |
18 |
11 |
19 |
39 |
| Quebec | 17 |
22 |
12 |
23 |
27 |
| Territories | 11 |
21 |
16 |
20 |
33 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 15 |
20 |
11 |
18 |
35 |
| French | 17 |
22 |
11 |
23 |
27 |
| Other | 17 |
20 |
12 |
19 |
32 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 19 |
17 |
12 |
16 |
37 |
| Inuit | 19 |
17 |
13 |
15 |
37 |
| Métis | 16 |
18 |
13 |
18 |
35 |
| Persons with disabilities | 18 |
19 |
12 |
17 |
34 |
| LGBTQ2 | 19 |
24 |
13 |
18 |
26 |
| Visible minority | 18 |
21 |
12 |
19 |
30 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 23 |
15 |
11 |
13 |
39 |
| Not very satisfied | 17 |
22 |
12 |
20 |
30 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 14 |
22 |
12 |
21 |
30 |
| Very satisfied | 15 |
17 |
10 |
18 |
41 |
| Don’t know | 13 |
14 |
15 |
20 |
37 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 13 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
55 |
| Not very interested | 12 |
17 |
12 |
21 |
37 |
| Somewhat interested | 13 |
21 |
12 |
22 |
31 |
| Very interested | 18 |
20 |
11 |
17 |
33 |
Figure 3.8.3: Voting in federal elections is an obligation or voting in federal elections is a choice?
Text Version
A choice |
An obligation |
|---|---|
50% |
50% |
A choice |
An obligation |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 50 |
50 |
| Unweighted | 52 |
48 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 51 |
49 |
| Women | 49 |
51 |
| Other | 57 |
43 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 50 |
50 |
| 30-39 | 52 |
48 |
| 40-49 | 53 |
47 |
| 50-64 | 52 |
48 |
| 65+ | 42 |
58 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 54 |
46 |
| Atlantic | 52 |
48 |
| BC | 48 |
52 |
| Ontario | 50 |
50 |
| Prairies | 56 |
44 |
| Quebec | 46 |
54 |
| Territories | 53 |
47 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 52 |
48 |
| French | 46 |
54 |
| Other | 47 |
53 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 52 |
48 |
| Inuit | 50 |
50 |
| Métis | 52 |
48 |
| Persons with disabilities | 50 |
50 |
| LGBTQ2 | 45 |
55 |
| Visible minority | 46 |
54 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 53 |
47 |
| Not very satisfied | 49 |
51 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 48 |
52 |
| Very satisfied | 53 |
47 |
| Don’t know | 65 |
35 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 71 |
29 |
| Not very interested | 62 |
38 |
| Somewhat interested | 51 |
49 |
| Very interested | 47 |
53 |
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
9% |
8% |
12% |
34% |
38% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 9 |
8 |
12 |
34 |
38 |
| Unweighted | 9 |
8 |
13 |
34 |
36 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 10 |
8 |
12 |
33 |
37 |
| Women | 8 |
8 |
12 |
35 |
38 |
| Other | 16 |
6 |
14 |
22 |
43 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 5 |
5 |
9 |
33 |
47 |
| 30-39 | 7 |
6 |
11 |
31 |
45 |
| 40-49 | 9 |
7 |
12 |
32 |
40 |
| 50-64 | 11 |
9 |
13 |
36 |
33 |
| 65+ | 11 |
10 |
15 |
37 |
26 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 12 |
9 |
12 |
34 |
33 |
| Atlantic | 7 |
7 |
10 |
31 |
44 |
| BC | 8 |
7 |
13 |
32 |
39 |
| Ontario | 9 |
7 |
11 |
33 |
41 |
| Prairies | 13 |
9 |
13 |
34 |
30 |
| Quebec | 8 |
8 |
13 |
38 |
33 |
| Territories | 10 |
5 |
12 |
37 |
36 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 9 |
7 |
11 |
33 |
39 |
| French | 8 |
8 |
12 |
38 |
33 |
| Other | 10 |
8 |
12 |
31 |
39 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 18 |
9 |
13 |
27 |
34 |
| Inuit | 23 |
7 |
13 |
25 |
31 |
| Métis | 15 |
7 |
12 |
29 |
37 |
| Persons with disabilities | 13 |
8 |
12 |
29 |
39 |
| LGBTQ2 | 7 |
6 |
10 |
30 |
47 |
| Visible minority | 11 |
8 |
11 |
30 |
41 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 17 |
7 |
14 |
24 |
38 |
| Not very satisfied | 8 |
8 |
12 |
34 |
38 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 7 |
7 |
11 |
36 |
39 |
| Very satisfied | 13 |
9 |
12 |
32 |
34 |
| Don’t know | 11 |
7 |
13 |
29 |
39 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 15 |
6 |
13 |
26 |
40 |
| Not very interested | 7 |
6 |
10 |
34 |
42 |
| Somewhat interested | 6 |
7 |
12 |
36 |
39 |
| Very interested | 11 |
8 |
12 |
32 |
36 |
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral | Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
24% |
13% |
15% |
18% |
31% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 24 |
13 |
15 |
18 |
31 |
| Unweighted | 24 |
13 |
15 |
18 |
31 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 23 |
12 |
15 |
17 |
33 |
| Women | 25 |
14 |
15 |
18 |
29 |
| Other | 19 |
6 |
10 |
13 |
51 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 6 |
7 |
10 |
22 |
55 |
| 30-39 | 13 |
10 |
14 |
20 |
43 |
| 40-49 | 22 |
13 |
15 |
19 |
30 |
| 50-64 | 33 |
16 |
17 |
15 |
19 |
| 65+ | 38 |
17 |
18 |
14 |
13 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 31 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
27 |
| Atlantic | 26 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
32 |
| BC | 24 |
12 |
16 |
17 |
31 |
| Ontario | 25 |
12 |
13 |
17 |
32 |
| Prairies | 34 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
24 |
| Quebec | 14 |
15 |
17 |
21 |
33 |
| Territories | 29 |
16 |
15 |
13 |
27 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 27 |
12 |
14 |
17 |
30 |
| French | 15 |
16 |
18 |
21 |
30 |
| Other | 23 |
11 |
15 |
17 |
35 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 26 |
11 |
15 |
15 |
33 |
| Inuit | 29 |
10 |
17 |
13 |
30 |
| Métis | 25 |
10 |
14 |
16 |
34 |
| Persons with disabilities | 26 |
10 |
14 |
17 |
34 |
| LGBTQ2 | 12 |
8 |
10 |
19 |
51 |
| Visible minority | 19 |
10 |
12 |
18 |
42 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 23 |
8 |
15 |
13 |
41 |
| Not very satisfied | 18 |
12 |
15 |
20 |
35 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 22 |
14 |
15 |
19 |
30 |
| Very satisfied | 35 |
14 |
13 |
14 |
24 |
| Don’t know | 19 |
8 |
18 |
18 |
37 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 29 |
8 |
17 |
11 |
35 |
| Not very interested | 22 |
13 |
17 |
18 |
30 |
| Somewhat interested | 23 |
14 |
16 |
19 |
28 |
| Very interested | 24 |
12 |
14 |
17 |
33 |
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
45% |
21% |
14% |
12% |
8% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 45 |
21 |
14 |
12 |
8 |
| Unweighted | 42 |
21 |
15 |
13 |
9 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 46 |
20 |
14 |
11 |
8 |
| Women | 44 |
23 |
14 |
12 |
7 |
| Other | 33 |
13 |
14 |
16 |
24 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 30 |
23 |
16 |
17 |
14 |
| 30-39 | 37 |
22 |
17 |
14 |
10 |
| 40-49 | 46 |
21 |
14 |
12 |
8 |
| 50-64 | 54 |
21 |
12 |
8 |
5 |
| 65+ | 52 |
21 |
12 |
10 |
4 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 56 |
17 |
11 |
10 |
6 |
| Atlantic | 37 |
20 |
15 |
16 |
12 |
| BC | 34 |
21 |
18 |
16 |
11 |
| Ontario | 43 |
21 |
15 |
12 |
8 |
| Prairies | 54 |
19 |
11 |
10 |
6 |
| Quebec | 49 |
26 |
11 |
9 |
6 |
| Territories | 34 |
16 |
23 |
18 |
10 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 44 |
20 |
14 |
13 |
9 |
| French | 49 |
26 |
11 |
9 |
6 |
| Other | 44 |
21 |
16 |
12 |
8 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 46 |
17 |
13 |
12 |
13 |
| Inuit | 44 |
17 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
| Métis | 45 |
19 |
13 |
11 |
12 |
| Persons with disabilities | 45 |
17 |
14 |
13 |
11 |
| LGBTQ2 | 27 |
19 |
16 |
20 |
18 |
| Visible minority | 40 |
21 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 47 |
13 |
14 |
11 |
15 |
| Not very satisfied | 40 |
21 |
15 |
14 |
10 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 43 |
24 |
14 |
12 |
7 |
| Very satisfied | 58 |
18 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
| Don’t know | 41 |
24 |
17 |
11 |
7 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 47 |
19 |
13 |
7 |
13 |
| Not very interested | 42 |
26 |
15 |
10 |
6 |
| Somewhat interested | 43 |
25 |
15 |
11 |
6 |
| Very interested | 47 |
18 |
13 |
13 |
10 |
Text Version
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2% |
2% |
7% |
25% |
65% |
Strongly disagree |
Somewhat disagree |
Neutral |
Somewhat agree |
Strongly agree |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | |||||
| Weighted | 2 |
2 |
7 |
25 |
65 |
| Unweighted | 2 |
2 |
6 |
23 |
67 |
| Gender (%) | |||||
| Men | 2 |
2 |
7 |
24 |
64 |
| Women | 1 |
2 |
6 |
25 |
66 |
| Other | 6 |
3 |
12 |
22 |
58 |
| Age (%) | |||||
| 18-29 | 2 |
3 |
12 |
29 |
53 |
| 30-39 | 2 |
2 |
8 |
24 |
64 |
| 40-49 | 2 |
2 |
6 |
24 |
66 |
| 50-64 | 2 |
1 |
5 |
24 |
68 |
| 65+ | 2 |
1 |
3 |
22 |
72 |
| Region (%) | |||||
| Alberta | 2 |
2 |
8 |
25 |
63 |
| Atlantic | 1 |
2 |
6 |
22 |
69 |
| BC | 2 |
2 |
7 |
22 |
67 |
| Ontario | 2 |
2 |
7 |
23 |
67 |
| Prairies | 3 |
2 |
7 |
24 |
65 |
| Quebec | 1 |
2 |
6 |
30 |
60 |
| Territories | 1 |
1 |
10 |
21 |
67 |
| Language (%) | |||||
| English | 2 |
2 |
7 |
23 |
67 |
| French | 1 |
2 |
5 |
30 |
62 |
| Other | 3 |
2 |
9 |
25 |
62 |
| Group (%) | |||||
| First Nations | 5 |
2 |
9 |
22 |
62 |
| Inuit | 9 |
2 |
8 |
22 |
58 |
| Métis | 3 |
3 |
8 |
25 |
61 |
| Persons with disabilities | 3 |
2 |
7 |
22 |
67 |
| LGBTQ2 | 2 |
2 |
7 |
24 |
64 |
| Visible minority | 3 |
3 |
9 |
27 |
59 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | |||||
| Not at all satisfied | 3 |
1 |
7 |
17 |
71 |
| Not very satisfied | 1 |
2 |
7 |
24 |
66 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 1 |
2 |
6 |
27 |
64 |
| Very satisfied | 3 |
3 |
7 |
23 |
64 |
| Don’t know | 5 |
2 |
15 |
34 |
44 |
| Political interest (%) | |||||
| Not interested at all | 5 |
2 |
12 |
23 |
57 |
| Not very interested | 2 |
2 |
10 |
28 |
58 |
| Somewhat interested | 1 |
2 |
7 |
27 |
63 |
| Very interested | 2 |
2 |
6 |
22 |
67 |
Figure 4.5: Members of Parliaments that spend more time in their constituency working with constituents or Members of Parliament that spend more time on Parliament Hill working on the issues that matter to their constituents?
Text Version
MPs spend more time in their constituency |
MPs spend more time on Parliament Hill |
|---|---|
45% |
55% |
MPs spend more time in their constituency |
MPs spend more time on Parliament Hill |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 45 |
55 |
| Unweighted | 43 |
57 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 45 |
55 |
| Women | 46 |
54 |
| Other | 46 |
54 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 49 |
51 |
| 30-39 | 52 |
48 |
| 40-49 | 50 |
50 |
| 50-64 | 44 |
56 |
| 65+ | 34 |
66 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 46 |
54 |
| Atlantic | 48 |
52 |
| BC | 44 |
56 |
| Ontario | 42 |
58 |
| Prairies | 48 |
52 |
| Quebec | 51 |
49 |
| Territories | 48 |
52 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 43 |
57 |
| French | 50 |
50 |
| Other | 47 |
53 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 49 |
51 |
| Inuit | 46 |
54 |
| Métis | 50 |
50 |
| Persons with disabilities | 45 |
55 |
| LGBTQ2 | 48 |
52 |
| Visible minority | 52 |
48 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 53 |
47 |
| Not very satisfied | 50 |
50 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 44 |
56 |
| Very satisfied | 39 |
61 |
| Don’t know | 49 |
51 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 50 |
50 |
| Not very interested | 51 |
49 |
| Somewhat interested | 47 |
53 |
| Very interested | 43 |
57 |
Figure 4.6: Members of Parliament that always support policies that they think are best for their constituents, even if their constituents disagree or Members of Parliament that always support policies their constituents want, even if the MPs themselves personally disagree?
Text Version
MPs do what they feel is best |
MPs do what their constituents want |
|---|---|
28% |
72% |
MPs do what they feel is best |
MPs do what their constituents want |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overall (%) | ||
| Weighted | 28 |
72 |
| Unweighted | 33 |
67 |
| Gender (%) | ||
| Men | 30 |
70 |
| Women | 26 |
74 |
| Other | 29 |
71 |
| Age (%) | ||
| 18-29 | 34 |
66 |
| 30-39 | 29 |
71 |
| 40-49 | 25 |
75 |
| 50-64 | 25 |
75 |
| 65+ | 30 |
70 |
| Region (%) | ||
| Alberta | 21 |
79 |
| Atlantic | 29 |
71 |
| BC | 27 |
73 |
| Ontario | 29 |
71 |
| Prairies | 25 |
75 |
| Quebec | 32 |
68 |
| Territories | 26 |
74 |
| Language (%) | ||
| English | 27 |
73 |
| French | 32 |
68 |
| Other | 29 |
71 |
| Group (%) | ||
| First Nations | 23 |
77 |
| Inuit | 28 |
72 |
| Métis | 24 |
76 |
| Persons with disabilities | 23 |
77 |
| LGBTQ2 | 31 |
69 |
| Visible minority | 29 |
71 |
| Satisfaction with Democracy (%) | ||
| Not at all satisfied | 17 |
83 |
| Not very satisfied | 23 |
77 |
| Somewhat satisfied | 30 |
70 |
| Very satisfied | 36 |
64 |
| Don’t know | 38 |
62 |
| Political interest (%) | ||
| Not interested at all | 29 |
71 |
| Not very interested | 26 |
74 |
| Somewhat interested | 26 |
74 |
| Very interested | 30 |
70 |
MyDemocracy.ca survey
Values
Values_G1_1 - It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G1_2 - A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G2_1 - Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G2_2 - It should always be clear which party is accountable for decisions made by government, even if this means that decisions are only made by one party.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G3_1 - A ballot should be easy to understand, even if it means voters have fewer options to express their preferences.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G3_2 - Voters should be able to express multiple preferences on the ballot, even if this means that it takes longer to count the ballots and announce the election result
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G4_1 - Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their constituents, even if it means going against their own party.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G4_2 - Members of Parliament should always support the position of their party, even if it means going against the wishes of their constituents.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G5_1 - Members of Parliament should reflect the diversity of Canadian society, even if it means putting in place special measures to increase the representation of certain groups.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G5_2 - Ensuring that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament should be a top priority.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G6_1 - Canadians should have the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G6_2 - Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if this increases the cost of elections.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G7_1 - Eligible voters who do not vote in elections should be fined.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G7_2 - Eligible voters should not be forced to vote.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G8_1 - There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Values_G8_2 - There should be greater diversity of views in Parliament.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Preferences
Preferences_G1_1 - Which would you prefer? A government where one party governs and can make decisions on its own or a government where several parties have to collectively agree before a decision is made?
Answer options:
- One party makes decisions on its own (1)
- Several parties have to collectively agree (2)
Preferences _G2_1 - Which would you prefer? One party governs and is solely accountable for policy outcomes or several parties must cooperate to govern and they share accountability for policy outcomes?
Answer options:
- One party is solely accountable (1)
- Several parties share accountability (2)
Preferences _G3_1 - Which best describes your views? Ballots should be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote or ballots should allow everybody to express their preferences in detail?
Answer options:
- As simple as possible (1)
- Allow everybody to express their preferences (2)
Preferences _G4_1 - Which would you prefer? Members of Parliament that do what their party promised, even if it means going against what their constituents want or members of Parliament that do what their constituents want, even if it means going against what their party promised?
Answer options:
- MPs that do what their party promised (1)
- MPs that do what their constituents want (2)
Preferences _G5_1 - No further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent or further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent?
Answer options:
- No further action needs to be taken (1)
- Further action needs to be taken (2)
Preferences _G6_1 - Which best describes your views? Canadians should have the option to cast their ballots online in federal elections, even if the security or privacy of online voting cannot be guaranteed or Canadians should continue to vote using paper ballots at a polling station, even if it is less accessible for some voters?
Answer options:
- Have the option to cast their ballots online (1)
- Continue to vote using paper ballots (2)
Preferences _G7_1 - Which best describes your views? Voting in federal elections is an obligation or voting in federal elections is a choice?
Answer options:
- An obligation (1)
- A choice (2)
Preferences _G8_1 - Which would you prefer? Having many small parties in Parliament representing many different views or having a few big parties that try to appeal to a broad range of people?
Answer options:
- Many small parties (1)
- A few big parties (2)
Preferences _G9_1 - Which would you prefer? Members of Parliaments that spend more time in their constituency working with constituents or Members of Parliament that spend more time on Parliament Hill working on the issues that matter to their constituents.
Answer options:
- MPs spend more time in their constituency (1)
- MPs spend more time on Parliament Hill (2)
Preferences _G10_1 - Which would you prefer? Members of Parliament that always support policies that they think are best for their constituents, even if their constituents disagree or Members of Parliament that always support policies their constituents want, even if the MPs themselves personally disagree?
Answer options:
- MPs do what they feel is best (1)
- MPs do what their constituents want (2)
Priorities
Please select the priorities from the list below that are most important to you.
Answer options:
- Governments that collaborate with other parties in Parliament (1)
- Strengthening the link between voter intention and the election of representatives (2)
- Governments that consider all viewpoints before making a decision (3)
- Increasing voter turnout (4)
- Governments that can be easily held to account by voters (5)
- MPs that focus on what is best for the country (6)
- Ensuring the security of the voting process (7)
- Ensuring the voting process is easy to understand (8)
- Governments with strong representation from every region (9)
- Allowing voters to express a wide range of preferences when voting (10)
- Governments that can make decisions quickly (11)
- Ability to vote online during elections (12)
- Better representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament (13)
- MPs who focus primarily on the interests of their local community (14)
- Increasing the presence of smaller parties in Parliament (15)
Additional questions
Survey_Q1 - Online voting in federal elections would increase voter participation.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Survey_Q2 - The day of a federal election should be a statutory holiday.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Survey Q_3 - The voting age for federal elections should be lowered.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Survey Q_4 - There should be a limit to the length of federal election campaign periods.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Profile
Profile_Q1 - What is your gender?
Answer options :
- Male (1)
- Female (2)
- Other (3)
Profile_Q2 - In which year were you born?
Answer options:
- 1916-2016
Profile_Q3 - What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Answer options:
- No schooling (1)
- Some high school or elementary school (2)
- High school (3)
- Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma (4)
- College, CEGEP, or college classique (5)
- Bachelor's degree (6)
- Master's degree (7)
- Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, or optometry (8)
- Doctorate (9)
Profile_Q4 - What occupational area do you work in?
Answer options:
- Retired (1)
- Student (without other employment) (2)
- Stay-at-home parent (3)
- Art, culture, recreation and sport (4)
- Business, finance and administration (5)
- Education, law and social, community and government services (6)
- Health (7)
- Management (8)
- Manufacturing and utilities (9)
- Natural and applied sciences (10)
- Natural resources, agriculture and related production (11)
- Sales and service (12)
- Trades, transport and equipment operators (13)
- Unemployed (14)
Profile_Q5 - Which of the following best describes your combined household income before taxes?
Answer options :
- Less than $20,000 (1)
- Between $20,000 - $29,999 (2)
- Between $30,000 - $39,999 (3)
- Between $40,000 - $49,999 (4)
- Between $50,000 - $59,999 (5)
- Between $60,000 - $69,999 (6)
- Between $70,000 - $79,999 (7)
- Between $80,000 - $89,999 (8)
- Between $90,000 - $99,999 (9)
- Between $100,000 - $109,999 (10)
- Between $110,000 - $119,999 (11)
- Between $120,000 - $129,000 (12)
- Between $130,000 - $139,000 (13)
- Between $140,000 - $149,999 (14)
- Between $150,000 - $199,999 (15)
- Between $200,000 - $500,000 (16)
- Between $500,000 - $999,999 (17)
- $1 million or more (18)
Profile_Q6 - What is the first language that you learned?
Answer options :
- English (1)
- French (2)
- Other (3)
Profile_Q10 - Generally speaking, how interested are you in politics?
Answer options :
- Not interested at all (1)
- Not very interested (2)
- Somewhat interested (3)
- Very interested (4)
Profile_Q11 - How frequently do you follow news and current affairs?
Answer options :
- Never (1)
- Rarely (2)
- Several times each month (3)
- Several times each week (4)
- Daily (5)
Profile_Q13 - Do you identify with any of the following groups?
Answer options:
- Visible minority (1)
- First Nations (2)
- Inuit (3)
- Métis (4)
- Persons with disabilities (5)
- LGBTQ2 (6)
Profile_Q14 - Please provide your postal code so we can determine your region.
Intro_Q1 - In general, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Canada?
Answer options:
- Not at all satisfied (1)
- Not very satisfied (2)
- Somewhat satisfied (3)
- Very satisfied (4)
- Don't know (4)
Intro_Q2 - How closely have you followed the public debate on electoral reform in Canada?
Answer options:
- Not closely at all (1)
- Somewhat closely (2)
- Very closely (3)
Intro_Q3 - How often have you discussed federal electoral reform with others?
Answer options:
- Not at all (1)
- Somewhat often (2)
- Very often (3)
Intro_Q4 - How often do you vote in federal elections?
Answer options:
- I am not eligible to vote (1)
- Never (2)
- Rarely (3)
- Sometimes (4)
- Most of the time (5)
Intro_Q5 [only appears if “Never (2)” or “Rarely (3)” are selected in Intro_Q4] - What are the biggest barriers preventing you from voting? (Please select all that apply.)
Answer options:
- Lack of time (1)
- Lack of information (2)
- Disability or mobility issues (3)
- Voting location isn't convenient (4)
- Do not feel included (5)
- Frustration with politics (6)
- Don’t like the voting system (7)
- I was not eligible to vote (8)
- Other (9)
Intro_Q6 [only appear if “Other (9)” is selected in Intro_Q5] - Please specify which other barriers prevent you from voting.
Answer options:
- Open text box
Pilot Survey
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Q2.1 - It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.2 - A party that wins the most seats in an election should not have to compromise on its agenda to accommodate other parties in Parliament.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.3 - A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.4 - Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.5 - It should always be clear which party is accountable for decisions made by government, even if this means that decisions are only made by one party.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.6 - It should always be clear which party is responsible for a decision made in Parliament, even if it keeps parties from working together.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.7 - A ballot should be easy to understand, even if it means voters have fewer options to express their preferences.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.8 - Voters should be able to express multiple preferences on the ballot, even if this means that it takes longer to count the ballots and announce the election result.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.9 - Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their constituents, even if it means going against their own party.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.10 - Members of Parliament should always support the position of their party, even if it means going against the wishes of their constituents.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.11 - Members of Parliament should always act according to their principles, even if their constituents disagree.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.12 - Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their local constituents, even if they conflict with the national interest.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.13 - Members of Parliament should always act in the national interest, even if it conflicts with the interests of their local constituents.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.14 - Members of Parliament should reflect the diversity of Canadian society, even if it means putting in place special measures to increase the representation of certain groups.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.15 - Politicians should take further action to ensure that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.16 - Ensuring that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament should be a top priority.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.17 - Canadians should have the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.18 - Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if this increases the cost of elections.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.19 - The risks of online voting outweigh the potential benefits.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.20 - It should be mandatory for eligible voters to vote in elections.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.21 - Eligible voters who do not vote in elections should be fined.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.22 - Eligible voters should not be forced to vote.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.23 - Voting should be a personal choice, not an obligation.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.24 - There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.25 - There should be greater diversity of views in Parliament.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.26 - Smaller parties should have greater influence on Parliamentary decisions.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q2.27 - It should be easier for small parties to gain seats in Parliament.
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
Q3.1 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- A government that implements the policies it put forward during the election campaign (1)
- A government that looks for compromises that will be acceptable to as many groups as possible (2)
Q3.2 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- A government where one party governs and can make decisions on its own (1)
- A government where several parties have to collectively agree before a decision is made (2)
Q3.3 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- One party governs and is solely accountable for policy outcomes (1)
- Several parties must cooperate to govern and they share accountability for policy outcomes (2)
Q3.4 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- Fewer parties involved in policy decisions, but clear accountability for policy outcomes (1)
- More parties involved in policy decisions, but less clear accountability for policy outcomes (2)
Q3.5 - Which best describes your views?
Answer options:
- Ballots should be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote (1)
- Ballots should allow everybody to express their preferences in detail (2)
Q3.6 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- Members of Parliament who do what their party promised, even if it means going against what their constituents want (1)
- Members of Parliament who do what their constituents want, even if it means going against what their party promised (2)
Q3.7 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- Members of Parliaments who spend more time in their constituency working with constituents (1)
- Members of Parliament who spend more time on Parliament Hill working on the issues that matter to their constituents (2)
Q3.8 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- Members of Parliament who always support policies that they think are best for their constituents, even if their constituents disagree (1)
- Members of Parliament who always support policies their constituents want, even if the Members of Parliament themselves personally disagree (2)
Q3.9 - Which best describes your views?
Answer options:
- No further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent (1)
- Further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent (2)
Q3.10 - Which best describes your views?
Answer options:
- Canadians should have the option to cast their ballots online in federal elections, even if the security or privacy of online voting cannot be guaranteed (1)
- Canadians should continue to vote using paper ballots at a polling station, even if it is less accessible for some voters (2)
Q3.11 - Which best describes your views?
Answer options:
- Voting in federal elections is an obligation (1)
- Voting in federal elections is a choice (2)
Q3.12 - Which would you prefer?
Answer options:
- Having many small parties in Parliament representing many different views (1)
- Having a few big parties that try to appeal to a broad range of people (2)
Q4.1 - Select the five imperatives for government from the list below that are most important to you.
Answer options:
- Better representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament (1)
- Greater diversity in Parliament (2)
- Governments with strong representation from every region (3)
- MPs who focus primarily on the interests of their local community (4)
- MPs who spend most of their time in their local community (5)
- MPs that focus on what is best for the country (6)
- Governments that can be easily held to account by voters (7)
- A Parliament where all viewpoints are represented (8)
- Governments that can make decisions quickly (9)
- Governments that consider all viewpoints before making a decision (10)
- Governments that collaborate with other parties in Parliament (11)
- Keeping parties with extreme views out of Parliament (12)
- Increasing the presence of smaller parties in Parliament (13)
- Allowing voters to express a wide range of preferences when voting (14)
- Strengthening the link between voter intention and the election of representatives (15)
- Increasing voter turnout (16)
- Ability to vote online during elections (17)
- Ensuring the security of the voting process (18)
- Ensuring the voting process is easy to understand (19)
7.1 - How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Answer options:
- I enjoyed filling out this survey (1)
- The time it took to complete the survey was reasonable (2)
- I would fill out a survey like this again (3)
- Overall, this survey was easy to complete (4)
Answer options:
- Strongly disagree (1)
- Somewhat disagree (2)
- Neutral (3)
- Somewhat agree (4)
- Strongly agree (5)
7.2 Are there any comments you would like to make about the topics in the survey or the experience you had completing this survey?
Endnotes
- The academic advisory panel for MyDemocracy.ca included, in alphabetical order by surname, André Blais (University of Montreal), Elisabeth Gidengil (McGill University), Richard Johnston (University of British Columbia), Peter Loewen (University of Toronto), Scott Matthews (Memorial University), Jonathan Rose (Queen’s University), Laura Stephenson (Western University), Melanee Thomas (University of Calgary). The membership of the panel reflects expertise in both electoral politics and survey methodology and includes advocates for each of the electoral systems under consideration in the Government of Canada’s national dialogue on electoral reform.
- http://angusreid.org/electoral-reform/
- https://cira.ca/factbook/2015/the-canadian-internet.html
- http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8655791&File=21#1
Page details
- Date modified: