MyDemocracy.ca — Online digital consultation and engagement platform

  1. 1. Executive Summary
  2. 2. Background
  3. 3. Methodology
    1.      3.1 Survey Design
      1.           3.1.1 Dimensions
      2.           3.1.2 Archetypes
    2.      3.2 Data Analysis
      1.           3.2.1 Validation
        1.                i. Survey timers
        2.                ii. Response patterns
        3.                iii. Cookies and IP address validation
        4.                iv. Socio-demographic profiles
      2.           3.2.2 Sampling
      3.           3.2.3 Weighting
    3.      3.3 Privacy
  4. 4. Findings
    1.      4.1 Response rates
    2.      4.2 Democratic satisfaction and participation
    3.      4.3 Priorities
    4.      4.4 Dimensions
      1.           4.4.1 Accountability
      2.           4.4.2 Ballot detail
      3.           4.4.3 Equality
      4.           4.4.4 Leadership
      5.           4.4.5 Party discipline
      6.           4.4.6 Party focus
      7.           4.4.7 Online voting
      8.           4.4.8 Mandatory voting
    5.      4.5 Additional considerations
  5. 5. Works Cited
  6. Appendix A – Findings
  7. Appendix B – Questionnaires

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.

Screenshot from results page of MyDemocracy.ca application displaying a sample distribution of Canadian opinion on one of eight dimensions. Also displayed are the average positions on the dimension of a sample user and the five archetypes identified in MyDemocracy.ca

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.

Total number of validated responses by IP address:
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.

Total number of profiled responses within Canada:
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 distribution among respondents to MyDemocracy.ca
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
** As per Government of Canada guidelines on public opinion research, users under the age of 18 were excluded from the report findings.

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 distribution among respondents to MyDemocracy.ca
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. 

Provincial/Territorial distribution among respondents to MyDemocracy.ca
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.

Urban/rural distribution among respondents to MyDemocracy.ca
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.

Language distribution among respondents to MyDemocracy.ca
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 distribution among respondents to MyDemocracy.ca
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
** Source: Statistics Canada
*** Source: Statistics Canada. Figure limited to Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported in 2014 that they consider themselves to be lesbian, gay or bisexual.
† 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. 

Figure B graphs longitudinal public opinion data from the Canadian Election Study (CES) measuring general satisfaction with Canadian democracy between 1993 and 2015.
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.

5. Works cited

  • 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.

Appendix A – Findings

  1. 1.1 In general, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Canada?
  2. 1.2 What are the biggest barriers preventing you from voting?
  3. 2.1 Please select the priorities from the list below that are most important to you
  4. 3.1 Accountability
    1. 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
    2. 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. 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?
  5. 3.2 Ballot detail
    1. 3.2.1 A ballot should be easy to understand, even if it means voters have fewer options to express their preferences
    2. 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. 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?
  6. 3.3 Equality
    1. 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
    2. 3.3.2 Ensuring that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament should be a top priority
    3. 3.3.3 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?
  7. 3.4 Leadership
    1. 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
    2. 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. 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?
  8. 3.5 Party discipline
    1. 3.5.1 Members of Parliament should always act in the interests of their constituents, even if it means going against their own party
    2. 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. 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?
  9. 3.6 Party focus
    1. 3.6.1 There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme
    2. 3.6.2 There should be greater diversity of views in Parliament
    3. 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?
  10. 3.7 Online voting
    1. 3.7.1 Canadians should have the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure
    2. 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. 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?
  11. 3.8 Mandatory voting
    1. 3.8.1 Eligible voters who do not vote in elections should be fined
    2. 3.8.2 Eligible voters should not be forced to vote
    3. 3.8.3 Voting in federal elections is an obligation or voting in federal elections is a choice?
  12. 4.1 Online voting in federal elections would increase voter participation
  13. 4.2 The day of a federal election should be a statutory holiday
  14. 4.3 The voting age for federal elections should be lowered
  15. 4.4 There should be a limit to the length of federal election campaign periods
  16. 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?
  17. 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?

Figure 1.1: In general, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Canada?

Bar graph of satisfaction level regarding Canadian democracy
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

Figure 1.2: What are the biggest barriers preventing you from voting?

Point graph of respondents’ views on specific barriers to voting
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

Figure 2.1: Please select the priorities from the list below that are most important to you.

Point graph of priorities for government in order of importance
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

Figure 3.1: Accountability

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views for either a concentrated or shared accountability
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement 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
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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference that either one party is solely accountable, or that several parties 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

Figure 3.2: Ballot detail

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views for either simplicity or precision regarding ballot detail
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference that ballots should either allow everybody to express their preferences in detail, or be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote
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

Figure 3.3: Equality

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views for equality of opportunity, or for equality of outcomes
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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.

=" Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference on whether further action is needed or not 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

Figure 3.4: Leadership

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views for either decisiveness or for compromise as a leadership quality
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that it is better for several parties 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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that a party that wins the most seats in an elections 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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference between 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

Figure 3.5: Party discipline

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views for either a more rigid or more flexible party discipline
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference for Members of Parliament that do what their constituents want, or for Members of Parliament that do 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

Figure 3.6: Party focus

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views on whether party focus should be broad or narrow
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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

Figure 3.6.2: There should be greater diversity of views in Parliament.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that there should be greater diversity of views in Parliament
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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference between 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

Figure 3.7: Online voting

Graph of the respondents’ views for online ballot voting versus paper ballot voting
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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that 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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference on whether 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

Figure 3.8: Mandatory voting

Graph of the distribution of respondents’ views on whether mandatory voting should be discretionary or mandatory
Text Version Mandatory voting - Average of 39.9%

Figure 3.8.1: Eligible voters who do not vote in elections should be fined.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that eligible voters who do not vote in elections should be fined
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

Figure 3.8.2: Eligible voters should not be forced to vote.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that eligible votes should not be forced to vote
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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference on whether voting in federal elections is an obligation or 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

Figure 4.1: Online voting in federal elections would increase voter participation.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that online voting in federal elections would increase voter participation
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

Figure 4.2: The day of a federal election should be a statutory holiday.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that the day of a federal election should be a statutory holiday
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

Figure 4.3: The voting age for federal elections should be lowered.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that the voting age for federal elections should be lowered
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

Figure 4.4: There should be a limit to the length of federal election campaign periods.

Bar graph of respondents’ level of agreement with the statement that there should be a limit to the length of federal election campaign periods
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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference on whether Members of Parliament should spend more time in their constituency or on Parliament Hill
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?

Bar graph of respondents’ preference on whether Members of Parliament should support policies their constituents want, or policies they think are best for their constituents
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

Appendix B – Questionnaires

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

  1. 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.
  2. http://angusreid.org/electoral-reform/
  3. https://cira.ca/factbook/2015/the-canadian-internet.html
  4. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8655791&File=21#1
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Privacy statement

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: