Election Results

The last week provided a lot of chatter in our office regarding the Canadian Federal Election, and they ranged from the reluctant prediction of a Conservative majority at 157 seats, to almost nothing changing (how right that almost was!) to a Liberal-Conservative tie. It was the prospect of a tie that generated the most controversy, not necessarily because it was wrong (though it was), but because it was based on some troubling long-term trends that last night's voter turnout indicated might in fact be right.

To begin with, we had the suggestion that Canada is in for a string of minority governments, probably for the next seven to ten years. The idea for this is based on demographics. Currently, the most populous demographic in Canada is the aging Baby Boomer generation.  The Boomers and their parents also happen to be the demographic most likely to vite. If you accept the argument that people grow more conservative as they age, then this becomes the premise used to predict a Conservative win.  

The Liberals meanwhile are thought to be favoured by the "middle-classes" and more importantly the so-called Generation X cohort. The suggestion is that this particular group is currently the most frustrated and jaded politically. In part because this was the group most hurt by the Chretien/Martin cuts of the 1990s. Attempts to influence the direction of those policies was blocked by the presence of numerous middle-aged Baby Boomers  who had joined the political process in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This group is therefore leaving the Liberal Party and in many cases the political process altogether. Last night's voter turnout at 59% has the distinction of being the lowest turnout in over a hundred years. Previously, that honour was held by the election that Paul Martin won (two elections ago) in which 60% of the voters showed up and gave Martin a minority. Furthermore, this is complicated by accusations that the "middle-class" is shrinking.

Despite their success last night, the tie scenario predicted the NDP losing seats based on the belief that they are "too much about unions" (indeed, fears about the economy might have helpd them out in Ontario). Union membership is declining, especially amongst youth, who are finding the workplace a radically different place than post-WWII factories. Layton perhaps has sensed this and is trying to transition his party to something else with their green platform - the notion of a tie was based on the Liberal's ability to steal voters away from the NDP.

Which brings us to the environment.

When Canadians are polled the environment is constantly one of the top issues. However this consistently fails to translate at the voting booth. With the prediction of a tie, the premise hear, and indeed the one that further projects a series of minority governments, is that the environment is one of THE major issues of the millenial generation, a generation that is widely suspected of failing to vote by the widest margins. Demographically, it also outnumbers Generation X. Thus, the environment ought to be seen as a kind of bellweather of voter participation. The first election that sees both an uptick of voter participation and votes for environmental policies will signal the entrance of the millenial generation. The next majority government will only occur once the millenials have fully entered the ring.

This is also why the heat is on the NDP. The Greens are nipping at their heels, and have none of the baggage the existing parties have and thus are capable of wooing voters disenchanted with the current political system.