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.





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.





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 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.





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.





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.





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 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.





A majority of Canadians (66%) feel that the age at which Canadians are eligible to vote should not be lowered from 18. Canadians support limits on the length of election campaigns

An overwhelming majority of Canadians (90%) support placing limits on the terms of federal election campaigns.

2. Background MyDemocracy.ca is an initiative commissioned by the Government of Canada as a contribution to the recent national dialogue on electoral reform. It was developed in collaboration with Vox Pop Labs, a Canadian social enterprise comprised of social and data scientists who specialize in online civic engagement applications in consultation with an academic advisory panel consisting of prominent political scientists from universities across Canada.1 The aim of the initiative was to engage as many Canadians as possible in a conversation about how representative democracy ought to be practiced in Canada. Recognizing that many Canadians may not participate in traditional methods of public consultation, MyDemocracy.ca was designed to provide an innovative alternative with a view to facilitating a more inclusive dialogue on electoral reform. MyDemocracy.ca took the form of an interactive online application that surveyed users on their views about how Canadians are represented in Parliament. Upon completing the survey the application presented each user with an analysis outlining how their responses situate them within the discourse on electoral reform. Users were associated with one of five archetypal perspectives on the practice of democracy in Canada derived from a classification model based on a sample of 4,273 Canadians aged 18 and older. Further details about the design of the initiative are available in the methodology section of this report.

The application was launched on 5 December 2016 and remained available until 15 January 2017. It was offered in both official languages and featured inclusive design principles so as to be accessible to Canadians using assistive technologies. Invitations to take part in MyDemocracy.ca were mailed to every household in Canada and Canadians without Internet access were invited to take the survey by telephone using a toll-free number. By the end of its run an estimated 383,074 unique users participated in the initiative, making it among the largest public consultations ever undertaken in Canada. For further details about the results of the initiative, please see the report findings.

MyDemocracy.ca served as an earnest effort to innovate the practice of public outreach by facilitating a more inclusive dialogue than traditional public consultation methods normally permit. Formal hearings with expert witnesses have explored the public and academic discourses on electoral reform; and town halls, open mic sessions, online surveys, as well as written submissions have enabled thousands of individual Canadians to articulate their views about the practice of democracy in Canada. Presumably, however, Canadians who have participated in these forms of consultation reflect a rather specific subset of the population. Public opinion research in Canada has electoral reform consistently trailing other public priorities, with recent polling indicating that two-thirds of Canadians see changing the voting system as a lower or very low priority.2 This imbalance of interest in electoral reform is very likely reflected in the composition of participants who have been active in the dialogue through traditional outreach activities.

Robust consultation demands modes of engagement that reach beyond citizens who are keenly interested in the issue at hand or who have the means, ability or comfort to participate in traditional fora. MyDemocracy.ca sought to make the conversation on electoral reform both more engaging and more accessible, thus appealing to a broader segment of the Canadian population and ultimately fostering a more inclusive dialogue. Its unique approach involved re-envisaging the incentives to participate in a conversation on electoral reform by appealing not only to a sense of civic duty, but also to self-curiosity. Moreover, it presented the conversation in terms of democratic values as opposed to focusing on the technical dimensions of specific electoral systems. Associating users with an archetype emulates the viral model of online personality quizzes in that it offers the potential for self-expression in the form of shareable content designed for mass diffusion via social networks. MyDemocracy.ca was designed to leverage this dynamic by presenting users with a compelling distillation of the electoral reform discourse.

Despite their popularity, online personality quizzes offered by Internet media companies command little if any credibility. In fact, their lack of credibility has become a defining feature of such quizzes in popular culture and yet they continue to surpass most other forms of content in terms of online audience reach. MyDemocracy.ca innovates on this model by offering a user experience reminiscent of an online personality quiz so as to reproduce a viral mode of diffusion, but overcomes the lack of credibility common to such content by presenting users with valid inferences derived using a robust methodology. To this end, the format of MyDemocracy.ca is designed not only to broaden engagement but also to deepen it, especially among those who may not already be active participants in the national dialogue on electoral reform due to a variety of factors.

MyDemocracy.ca promoted broader inclusion in the first instance by providing a digital alternative to conventional modes of public consultation. Canada has one of the highest levels of Internet penetration in the world, making online communication a highly effective means of engaging and consulting Canadians.3

In an effort to render the electoral reform discourse itself more accessible to users of MyDemocracy.ca, the survey design was framed in terms of democratic values as opposed to explicit references to the dynamics of specific electoral systems. This follows the prevailing axiom in the academic literature on electoral reform, which is that no single electoral system is likely to fully satisfy the democratic aspirations of its citizens. As Thomas Axworthy recently observed in his testimony to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform:

There is no perfect electoral system. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them, and it is really a question of values, of differing perspectives, that will inform your own debate. There's no technical solution to the issue of electoral reform. It is basically a political process of deciding your purposes and values and what you value most.4

This sentiment echoes a widely-held consensus among experts that trade-offs are inherent in the adoption of any electoral system and thus any decisions with respect to electoral reform must ultimately be values-based (Warren and Pearse 2008; Bowler and Farrell 2006; Norris 2004; Horowitz 2003; Bogdanor 1983). As Grofman and Bowler (1996: 47) argue:

Once we recognise that electoral systems have multiple effects it becomes a certainty that there will be no system that is best with respect to all possible criteria of evaluation. Once this is admitted, then the field of normative debate about electoral system choice is significantly broadened and the nature of the debate should be less polemic, as we move to debate the nature of appropriate trade-offs among multiple competing criteria, all of which have something to recommend them.

The inevitability of trade-offs in the adoption or retention of any particular electoral system was one of the overarching themes to emerge from the Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform to the House Commons and also a 2004 Law Commission of Canada Report on electoral reform, which argued that “each electoral system attempts to balance as many different democratic values as is desirable, but there are necessarily trade-offs among them.” Accordingly, MyDemocracy.ca operates on the premise that trade-offs are inherent in considerations about electoral reform. The application endeavours to infer users’ democratic values based on the decisions they make when confronted with some of the potential implications associated with various electoral systems, including how Parliament works, how Canadians vote, how Canadians are represented, and how government works. Exploring which trade-offs Canadians are willing to accept and under what circumstances has the effect of profiling tolerance thresholds for various electoral reform options, resulting in a nuanced articulation of democratic values.

Most importantly, a focus on values renders the survey more accessible—and thus more inclusive—than one that concentrates on the esoteric design parameters of specific electoral systems, and more meaningful than a consultation about first principles in isolation of the possible ramifications for the practice of democracy.

While this format does not permit Canadians to directly specify which electoral system they would prefer, MyDemocracy.ca was never intended to serve as a poll on which system Canada should adopt, but rather as a means to deduce which features of a representative democracy Canadians value most and wish to see reflected in elections, Parliament, and government.



3. Methodology MyDemocracy.ca served as an engagement platform designed to catalyze participation among Canadians in a national dialogue on electoral reform. It also acted as a mechanism for public consultation, cataloguing user input so as to support policymaking that is responsive to the views and values of Canadians. Central to both of these endeavours was the survey element of MyDemocracy.ca. This section details the methods employed in the design of the survey as well as the analysis of the survey responses.

3.1 Survey design From an engagement perspective, the primary objective of the MyDemocracy.ca survey design was to situate users within the electoral reform discourse by providing them with the opportunity to express their respective views on the practice of representative democracy. This was approached empirically and involved the identification and subsequent operationalization of various dimensions that structure the electoral reform discourse. A review of the academic literature on electoral systems resulted in the identification of tensions among competing democratic values. Approximately 70 survey items were designed with a view to operationalizing these tensions. As per the discussion related to trade-offs in the background section of this report, the design of the survey items was premised on the understanding that trade-offs are inherent to the design of any electoral system. Consequently, survey items were largely framed in terms of trade-offs, testing support for various aspects of electoral reform in a variety of scenarios.

Survey items were designed with either Likert or binary response options. The items were forced-choice so that users were compelled to make trade-offs, thus capturing the thresholds of individual tolerance for potential implications of different electoral systems. The order of survey items was randomized.

The survey items were fielded in ten iterative pilot studies, each conducted in both English and French, to samples of the Canadian population between 23 October and 22 November, 2016. Response rates varied between 11 and 26 per cent. Responses to pilot studies were analyzed to control for potential response bias in the survey design as well as to test construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis of the pilot data surfaced eight dimensions, each with a Cronbach’s alpha of between 0.54 and 0.8, indicating that the measures were reliable. These dimensions were featured directly in the MyDemocracy.ca application, with a user’s position on each dimension visualized on a scale contrasting the user’s position with the average positions of the archetypal views of Canadians as well as the distribution of Canadian public opinion.



3.1.1 Dimensions The dimensions rendered in MyDemocracy.ca reflect critical tensions in the academic literature on electoral reform wherein the trade-offs between democratic values are made explicit. They include accountability, ballot detail, equality, leadership, mandatory voting, online voting, party discipline, and party focus. It is imperative to note that these dimensions are not mere proxies for electoral systems and it is not the case in every instance that support for one trade-off over another translates directly into support for a specific electoral system. Furthermore, each dimension is constituted as an index of multiple survey items that tap into the same construct. This allows for a more robust representation of each dimension than if they had been measured by a single survey item. Accountability refers to the extent to which voters can hold governments responsible for their actions (Blais 1999; Katz 1997; Horowitz 2003; Norris 1997; Schmidt 2002). Lijphart (1994: 144) refers to clear government accountability as being a scenario in which “voters know that the governing party is responsible for past government performance, and they can decisively return this party to power or replace it with the other major party.” The accountability dimension in MyDemocracy.ca measures affinities for shared versus concentrated accountability in government. Accountability is concentrated when a single party is responsible for decisions. As Doorenspleet (2005: 40) explains:

It is argued that one-party governments offer clearer responsibility for policy-making and hence better accountability of the government to the citizens. Citizens can use the elections in majoritarian systems either to renew the term of the incumbent government or to ‘throw the rascals out’.

Accountability is shared when a coalition of parties is responsible for government decisions. Norris (2004: 305) notes that:

Proponents [of one-party governments] argue, in systems with coalition governments even if the public becomes dissatisfied with particular parties they have less power to determine their fate. The process of coalition-building after the result, not the election per se, determines the allocation of seats in cabinet.

The degree of ballot detail reflects the tension between simplicity—as in readily comprehensible ballots and easily interpretable election results—and precision, which can enable citizens to express their vote intention with greater specificity (Farrell 2011; Norris 1997). Blais (1999: 8) notes, however, that “precision cannot be achieved without cost. The most obvious cost is complexity.” The choice of electoral system is not necessarily the determinant of the degree of complexity of the ballot. For example, the ballot in a closed-list proportional representation system can be as simple as a ballot under a first-past-the-post voting system.

The equality dimension reflects the tension between the democratic principles of one person, one vote, and the liberal democratic tradition of promoting equity among all citizens in society (Blais 1997; Norris 2004; Horowitz 2003). These competing principles are represented by MyDemocracy.ca as equality of opportunity, referring to treating everyone the same in the competition to be elected, and equality of outcomes, which refers to taking actions to correct disparities to help ensure that the diversity of the Canadian population is better reflected in Parliament. Whether electoral systems are the most effective means by which to engender greater representation of groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament is subject to debate. Farrell (2011: 165) argues that:



If the objective is to seek to engineer a greater proportion of women or ethnic minorities in parliament, there are other ways of influencing the electoral laws [...] For instance, in 1993 the British Labour Party introduced quota rules on the nomination of women candidates, forcing certain constituency parties to have all-women short-lists in the event of a vacancy. This was found to have a significant effect on the proportion of women entering the House of Commons in 1997 (Studlar and McAllister 1998). Similar steps have been taken by parties in other countries (Norris 1994), and research by Caul (1999), Dahlerup (2006) and Krook (2009) shows how the use of quotas has become more commonplace—in itself an endorsement of the success of this route. […] An alternative method is to provide a certain number of parliamentary seats for minorities, as in the case of the Maori seats in New Zealand (Lijphart 1986b).

Leadership operationalizes the tension between decisive governments that act unilaterality whenever possible, and governments that tend to seek compromise with other parties in Parliament before making final decisions. Blais (1997: 7) argues that there is:

a tension between effectiveness and accommodation. A government that is effective gets out to implement the policies it had advocated during the election campaign. A government that seeks accommodation will consult widely before making final decisions and will look for compromises that will be acceptable to as many groups as possible. These objectives are partly contradictory.

Leadership style—whether decisive or accommodating—is correlated with the choice of electoral system. Majoritarian-plurality systems tend to produce majority governments, whereas proportional systems more often result in coalition governments, in which the governing arrangement requires compromise (Blais and Massicotte 2002; Blais and Carty 1987; Lijphart 1994; Lijphart and Grofman 1984; Norris 2004). As Irvine (1985: 99-100) notes:

Under a new system, minority governments would become accepted as a fact of life—unlikely to be changed by clever manoeuvering. While a new Parliament might have a different composition from the preceding one, a new governing party would still have to find allies from among the other parties in Parliament. Knowing this, it would have every incentive to behave cooperatively from the start.

Party discipline represents the tension Members of Parliament sometimes face between loyalty to their party and a duty to represent their constituents’ interests. These options are not always in conflict, though as Blais (1997: 8) notes:

Here again, there is a tension. We want strong parties and parties are meaningless if they are not cohesive. It is cohesion that allows voters to anticipate what policies will be adopted if a certain party forms the government. But we do not want parties to be too strong. We want our local representative to be sensitive to our concerns and not to always cave in to the dictates of the party.

Party focus refers to brokerage versus the ideological model of politics, or whether parties seek to appeal to a broad but ideologically diffuse range of voters or a narrower but ideologically concentrated base. The incentives related to party focus are structured in part by the dynamics of the electoral system. Cox (1990: 903) identifies these incentives as being either centripetal or centrifugal:

Centripetal incentives lead political parties (or candidates) to advocate centrist policies; centrifugal incentives, on the other hand, lead to the advocacy of more or less extreme positions.

Plurality/majority systems tend to produce centripetal incentives, often resulting in two-party systems that feature large parties (Lijphart 1994, 1999). Norris (1997: 305) notes that this structure “prevents fringe groups on the extreme right or left from acquiring representative legitimacy.” Proportional representation, on the other hand, often promotes centrifugal incentives, generally resulting in smaller parties with more coherent ideological positions. Norris (2004: 75) observes that, “by facilitating the election of more minor parties, [proportional representation] systems also broaden electoral choice, providing voters with a wider range of alternatives.” The survey design also included dimensions that captured support for online voting and mandatory voting, both of which are part of the broader dialogue on electoral reform. The dimensions represented herein are not necessarily an exhaustive manifest of themes related to electoral systems, but they do capture many of the most salient themes and those that could be effectively operationalized for analysis.



3.1.2 Archetypes Having operationalized a number of critical dimensions that structure the discourse on electoral reform in Canada, response data from the pilot studies were then used to determine how the views of Canadians clustered across said dimensions. Latent clusters were identified using a finite mixture model, where the number of components was determined through a dissimilarity-based partitioning method. The mixture model itself was defined such that all within-component covariance matrices were assumed to be diagonal, meaning that the constitutive factors were assumed to be locally independent. Cluster variances were set to have equal shape, volume, and orientation (an "EEI" model).

Five clusters emerged from the analysis of the survey data, each with distinct properties on one or more of the eight dimensions. In order to make the archetypes accessible, each was given a title (e.g. Guardians, Pragmatists, Challengers, Cooperators, Innovators) and a brief narrative that outlined the perspectives which distinguished that archetype from the others. Moreover, average socio-demographics for each archetype were made available as well as a comparison of the user’s stated priorities for electoral reform with the aggregate priorities of their associated archetype.

In order to associate a user with an archetype the user’s responses were inputted into the mixture model, which outputs the probability of the user belonging to each cluster. The user is then associated with the cluster to which they have the highest probability of belonging.



3.2 Data analysis Given the reach and uptake of MyDemocracy.ca, an analysis of the respondent data represents an invaluable opportunity for public consultation. What follows is an outline as to how the data were treated in order to prepare the report findings.

3.2.1 Validation In an effort to minimize limits to inclusion and ensure the privacy of participants, MyDemocracy.ca was made available as a barrier-free service, meaning that users were not required to provide any socio-demographic information in order to access the site. As a result, MyDemocracy.ca could be used multiple times by the same user. A series of validation techniques were applied to the data to help identify and remove multiple entries by the same user. In instances where two or more records were determined to be from the same user, the earliest record was retained and later records were removed from the analysis. In order to validate observations in the respondent data as being associated with a unique user, a series of screening techniques was employed including but not limited to the following:



i. Survey timers The MyDemocracy.ca application tracked the timing of responses for the purpose of identifying those who advanced through the survey in a manner consistent with a human respondent. ii. Response patterns Responses to MyDemocracy.ca were analyzed to identify incoherent response patterns, which were indicative of users providing the same answer to every proposition in the survey. iii. Cookies and IP address validation IP addresses were used to identify repeat entries within the dataset and cookies were used to identify entries from the same device. Each case subsequent to the original entry was removed from the analysis of the data unless the socio-demographic information associated with an entry indicated a unique user from the same IP address or device. Only participants whose IP addresses belong to Canadian Internet Service Providers were included in the findings from the data. iv. Socio-demographic profiles Observations were validated on the basis of the socio-demographic information provided by using census data to ensure that a person with that particular socio-demographic profile exists in the census within the specified geography that was provided.

3.2.2 Sampling Invitations to participate in MyDemocracy.ca were mailed to every household in Canada, which presumably had the effect of reducing the sampling error associated with common sampling techniques. The mail campaign was accompanied by a social media advertising campaign and the initiative received substantial media coverage. Taken together, this constituted a robust multi-platform sampling method. As with any conventional survey in which participation is optional, however, responses to the MyDemocracy.ca application do not, in themselves, constitute a representative sample of the Canadian population. This is primarily due to survey non-response: whether a survey is conducted conventionally by telephone or online, or, as with MyDemocracy.ca, through an interactive application, individual participation is voluntary. The selection effects in MyDemocracy.ca are not clearly different from those by respondents who choose to participate in surveys administered through conventional means. As per the weighting methodology, the analysis presented in this report adjusts for differential non-response through a wide variety of socio-demographic weights using the most recent Canadian census.

To help minimize non-response, particularly among those individuals who may not have dependable access to the Internet, the application was made available to Canadians by way of a toll-free telephone service.

As per the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research, there can be no statements made about margins of sampling error on population estimates when non-probability samples are used.

3.2.3 Weighting As with conventional surveys in which participation is not mandatory—including those that make use of probability samples—there are differences between the population of interest and the sample of individuals who opt to respond (see findings for details). As a consequence, estimates of the frequency of opinions or behaviours calculated from the sample data can differ systematically from that which one is trying to estimate in the population. All surveys, regardless of their mode—whether online, by telephone, or through an online application such as MyDemocracy.ca—result in differential non-response. As a result, no non-mandatory survey in Canada is fully representative, and all therefore rely on statistical adjustment of the sample to the population based typically on socio-demographic, behavioural, and/or attitudinal variables for which researchers have population-level values.

User responses to MyDemocracy.ca were weighted to the census in an effort to increase the representativeness of the findings. The data were weighted by gender, age, education, occupation, mother tongue, income, and region.

Unlike conventional public opinion research studies, whose samples typically number in the thousands, the size of the sample collected through the MyDemocracy.ca application permits the use of more numerous and granular weighting variables to correct for differences between the sample and the population. That said, there may be unobserved respondent characteristics that are both imbalanced relative to the Canadian population and correlated with responses to the survey items in MyDemocracy.ca. For example, as per the Treasury Board Secretariat directive on government-commissioned public opinion research, the MyDemocracy.ca application did not capture measures of political ideology or partisanship. If the weighted sample differs in ideology or partisanship from the Canadian population and if ideology or partisanship is correlated with responses to the survey, it may limit the representativeness of the findings.

These limitations notwithstanding, the unprecedented size of the sample collected by MyDemocracy.ca as well as the variables available by which to weight observations in the data presumably improve the potential for increasing the representativeness of inferences derived from the data. Accordingly, albeit mindful of the caveats about representativeness expressed herein, the report findings refer to weighted responses as being reflective of those of Canadians at large.



3.3. Privacy In order to ensure privacy and reduce barriers to inclusion, users participated anonymously in MyDemocracy.ca. While users were asked to provide certain socio-demographic information for the purpose of weighting the data (see Methodology), it was made clear to users that providing socio-demographic information was optional and did not inhibit users from proceeding through MyDemocracy.ca.

Users were provided with an option to send themselves their results via e-mail. This required the collection of an e-mail address, which in certain instances could constitute a personal identifier if the user’s first name and surname constituted all or part of the e-mail address. However, e-mail addresses were only used to send the user a link to their results and were not retained. Individual users’ responses to MyDemocracy.ca were at no point in time made available to the Government of Canada or to third parties. Findings from MyDemocracy.ca will only ever be provided to the Government of Canada and publicly released in aggregate format.

As per the MyDemocracy.ca privacy policy, the administration of data collected by MyDemocracy.ca was consistent with the provisions of both the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).



4. Findings 4.1 Response rates It is worth noting that the uptake of MyDemocracy.ca is itself a result that merits due consideration. Over the course of its run, an estimated 383,074 unique users completed the survey, with approximately 96 per cent of responses originating from within Canada.

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.

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

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



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?



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.



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



Text Version Accountability - Average of 60.0%



Figure 3.1.1: Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 9 15 15 40 22



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 9 15 15 40 22 Unweighted 11 15 14 38 22 Gender (%) Men 11 15 15 37 22 Women 7 14 15 43 22 Other 14 10 15 31 30 Age (%) 18-29 4 12 18 43 22 30-39 6 14 17 39 24 40-49 9 16 15 39 22 50-64 12 16 13 39 20 65+ 13 16 11 38 22 Region (%) Alberta 10 16 15 40 20 Atlantic 10 15 15 40 21 BC 10 15 15 37 23 Ontario 11 16 15 37 20 Prairies 12 17 16 37 18 Quebec 5 11 13 46 26 Territories 10 16 13 41 21 Language (%) English 10 16 16 38 20 French 5 11 12 46 26 Other 11 15 15 37 22 Group (%) First Nations 13 14 13 34 25 Inuit 18 14 11 32 26 Métis 11 13 14 37 25 Persons with disabilities 11 14 14 36 25 LGBTQ2 6 12 15 41 26 Visible minority 9 14 15 39 22 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 8 7 10 28 47 Not very satisfied 5 9 13 42 31 Somewhat satisfied 7 17 16 43 17 Very satisfied 20 21 15 32 12 Don’t know 9 9 29 35 18 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 12 8 27 28 26 Not very interested 7 15 21 40 17 Somewhat interested 7 16 17 43 18 Very interested 11 14 12 37 26

Figure 3.1.2: It should always be clear which party is accountable for decisions made by government, even if this means that decisions are only made by one party.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 11% 20% 16% 26% 27%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 11 20 16 26 27 Unweighted 12 21 17 25 26 Gender (%) Men 11 17 16 26 29 Women 10 22 16 27 25 Other 23 22 19 16 20 Age (%) 18-29 12 28 19 25 16 30-39 14 25 18 23 20 40-49 11 19 18 26 26 50-64 10 16 15 27 32 65+ 8 12 12 30 38 Region (%) Alberta 9 18 14 28 31 Atlantic 9 18 16 27 30 BC 11 20 15 26 28 Ontario 10 18 15 26 32 Prairies 9 17 15 28 31 Quebec 15 25 21 25 15 Territories 13 21 20 29 18 Language (%) English 10 19 15 27 29 French 15 24 21 25 15 Other 10 16 14 26 33 Group (%) First Nations 13 13 12 24 38 Inuit 17 8 13 26 36 Métis 11 15 15 25 34 Persons with disabilities 12 17 13 24 34 LGBTQ2 15 26 18 23 19 Visible minority 9 17 14 28 31 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 25 15 14 15 31 Not very satisfied 16 23 17 22 22 Somewhat satisfied 8 21 17 29 24 Very satisfied 6 13 14 29 38 Don’t know 9 20 20 28 23 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 15 9 17 26 33 Not very interested 8 18 20 29 25 Somewhat interested 9 20 17 29 25 Very interested 13 19 15 24 29

Figure 3.1.3: One party governs and is solely accountable for policy outcomes or several parties must cooperate to govern and they share accountability for policy outcomes?



Text Version One party is solely accountable Several parties share accountability 30% 70%



One party is solely accountable Several parties share accountability Overall (%) Weighted 30 70 Unweighted 33 67 Gender (%) Men 36 64 Women 24 76 Other 24 76 Age (%) 18-29 22 78 30-39 24 76 40-49 31 69 50-64 34 66 65+ 39 61 Region (%) Alberta 34 66 Atlantic 30 70 BC 30 70 Ontario 33 67 Prairies 37 63 Quebec 22 78 Territories 28 72 Language (%) English 33 67 French 22 78 Other 31 69 Group (%) First Nations 32 68 Inuit 34 66 Métis 29 71 Persons with disabilities 28 72 LGBTQ2 20 80 Visible minority 30 70 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 17 83 Not very satisfied 17 83 Somewhat satisfied 30 70 Very satisfied 55 45 Don’t know 23 77 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 27 73 Not very interested 26 74 Somewhat interested 28 72 Very interested 33 67

Figure 3.2: 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.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 12% 23% 16% 27% 22%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 12 23 16 27 22 Unweighted 13 24 16 26 21 Gender (%) Men 14 23 16 25 22 Women 9 23 16 30 22 Other 28 23 16 19 15 Age (%) 18-29 15 32 20 23 10 30-39 15 29 19 24 14 40-49 12 24 16 27 20 50-64 11 19 14 30 26 65+ 8 14 10 31 37 Region (%) Alberta 11 21 16 28 24 Atlantic 10 22 15 29 24 BC 12 22 16 27 23 Ontario 11 22 15 28 24 Prairies 11 20 15 29 25 Quebec 14 28 17 26 16 Territories 9 24 18 31 18 Language (%) English 11 22 15 28 23 French 14 28 17 25 15 Other 11 20 15 27 27 Group (%) First Nations 16 19 14 24 28 Inuit 20 17 12 23 28 Métis 16 21 17 25 21 Persons with disabilities 14 20 14 26 27 LGBTQ2 15 28 18 24 15 Visible minority 11 21 16 26 26 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 29 21 14 16 20 Not very satisfied 16 29 16 23 16 Somewhat satisfied 9 24 17 31 21 Very satisfied 8 15 13 29 36 Don’t know 9 20 23 27 22 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 14 12 22 18 33 Not very interested 7 21 18 31 23 Somewhat interested 9 23 17 30 21 Very interested 15 24 14 25 23

Figure 3.2.2: Voters should be able to express multiple preferences on the ballot, even if this means that it takes longer to count the ballots and announce the election result.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 17% 11% 9% 29% 33%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 17 11 9 29 33 Unweighted 17 10 8 28 37 Gender (%) Men 18 10 8 27 36 Women 17 13 10 30 31 Other 18 7 9 18 48 Age (%) 18-29 11 11 9 28 42 30-39 13 10 9 28 41 40-49 18 11 10 29 32 50-64 21 12 9 29 29 65+ 22 13 8 30 27 Region (%) Alberta 25 13 10 27 25 Atlantic 15 11 9 28 36 BC 15 9 8 27 40 Ontario 18 11 9 27 35 Prairies 27 12 9 26 26 Quebec 12 13 9 33 32 Territories 14 11 12 25 38 Language (%) English 19 11 9 28 34 French 12 14 9 33 33 Other 19 11 10 27 34 Group (%) First Nations 23 11 10 24 34 Inuit 25 9 10 22 34 Métis 20 11 11 24 34 Persons with disabilities 19 10 9 24 38 LGBTQ2 11 8 8 27 45 Visible minority 17 11 10 26 35 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 16 6 8 20 50 Not very satisfied 11 9 8 28 44 Somewhat satisfied 15 13 9 32 31 Very satisfied 33 14 9 25 19 Don’t know 17 13 19 28 23 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 22 9 17 18 34 Not very interested 15 16 13 29 27 Somewhat interested 16 13 10 32 29 Very interested 19 10 7 27 38

Figure 3.2.3: Ballots should be as simple as possible so that everybody understands how to vote or ballots should allow everybody to express their preferences in detail?



Text Version Allow everybody to express their preferences As simple as possible 41% 59%



Allow everybody to express their preferences As simple as possible Overall (%) Weighted 41 59 Unweighted 44 56 Gender (%) Men 44 56 Women 37 63 Other 61 39 Age (%) 18-29 61 39 30-39 54 46 40-49 41 59 50-64 31 69 65+ 21 79 Region (%) Alberta 34 66 Atlantic 39 61 BC 43 57 Ontario 39 61 Prairies 34 66 Quebec 47 53 Territories 42 58 Language (%) English 39 61 French 46 54 Other 37 63 Group (%) First Nations 37 63 Inuit 35 65 Métis 40 60 Persons with disabilities 39 61 LGBTQ2 56 44 Visible minority 40 60 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 58 42 Not very satisfied 55 45 Somewhat satisfied 38 62 Very satisfied 20 80 Don’t know 37 63 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 38 62 Not very interested 36 64 Somewhat interested 38 62 Very interested 43 57

Figure 3.3: Equality



Text Version Equality - Average of 49.9%



Figure 3.3.1: Members of Parliament should reflect the diversity of Canadian society, even if it means putting in place special measures to increase the representation of certain groups.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 26% 19% 13% 25% 17%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 26 19 13 25 17 Unweighted 28 18 12 24 17 Gender (%) Men 33 20 13 21 13 Women 19 18 13 30 21 Other 27 7 7 19 40 Age (%) 18-29 18 15 13 28 25 30-39 22 17 14 27 20 40-49 28 19 13 24 16 50-64 30 20 12 24 13 65+ 29 20 12 24 14 Region (%) Alberta 36 19 12 21 12 Atlantic 23 17 12 29 19 BC 24 18 13 27 19 Ontario 27 18 12 24 18 Prairies 35 20 11 21 13 Quebec 18 20 14 29 19 Territories 20 16 10 30 24 Language (%) English 29 19 12 24 16 French 19 21 14 28 17 Other 24 17 12 25 22 Group (%) First Nations 30 14 11 23 22 Inuit 32 14 10 20 23 Métis 30 16 13 23 19 Persons with disabilities 26 15 12 24 23 LGBTQ2 14 12 11 29 34 Visible minority 19 13 12 27 29 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 35 13 11 16 25 Not very satisfied 24 18 13 25 21 Somewhat satisfied 22 21 14 28 16 Very satisfied 36 18 11 22 13 Don’t know 16 18 18 26 22 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 33 16 17 16 18 Not very interested 21 21 17 25 16 Somewhat interested 21 21 14 28 15 Very interested 30 17 11 23 19

Figure 3.3.2: Ensuring that more individuals are elected from groups that are currently underrepresented in Parliament should be a top priority.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 19% 16% 20% 27% 18%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 19 16 20 27 18 Unweighted 22 16 18 26 19 Gender (%) Men 25 17 19 23 15 Women 14 15 20 31 20 Other 22 8 11 21 37 Age (%) 18-29 13 13 19 31 24 30-39 16 14 21 29 20 40-49 20 16 22 25 17 50-64 23 18 20 25 14 65+ 23 19 17 26 15 Region (%) Alberta 28 18 20 22 12 Atlantic 17 16 18 30 20 BC 19 15 18 28 21 Ontario 21 16 19 26 18 Prairies 28 18 18 22 14 Quebec 12 17 24 30 17 Territories 14 16 18 29 23 Language (%) English 22 16 18 26 17 French 13 17 24 29 16 Other 19 15 19 26 21 Group (%) First Nations 24 13 16 24 23 Inuit 23 11 18 22 26 Métis 22 13 20 23 21 Persons with disabilities 20 13 17 26 23 LGBTQ2 10 10 17 32 31 Visible minority 15 12 19 29 25 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 25 10 15 19 31 Not very satisfied 16 14 19 27 23 Somewhat satisfied 16 18 21 30 15 Very satisfied 31 18 19 23 10 Don’t know 13 15 28 26 17 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 22 15 25 19 19 Not very interested 16 19 26 26 13 Somewhat interested 16 18 23 29 15 Very interested 23 15 17 26 21

Figure 3.3.3: No further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent or further action needs to be taken to ensure that those elected to Parliament better reflect the diversity of the population they represent?



Text Version Further action needs to be taken No further action needs to be taken 52% 48%



Further action needs to be taken No further action needs to be taken Overall (%) Weighted 52 48 Unweighted 51 49 Gender (%) Men 45 55 Women 59 41 Other 65 35 Age (%) 18-29 63 37 30-39 57 43 40-49 49 51 50-64 47 53 65+ 47 53 Region (%) Alberta 45 55 Atlantic 55 45 BC 56 44 Ontario 50 50 Prairies 43 57 Quebec 57 43 Territories 56 44 Language (%) English 50 50 French 56 44 Other 54 46 Group (%) First Nations 56 44 Inuit 54 46 Métis 53 47 Persons with disabilities 57 43 LGBTQ2 71 29 Visible minority 64 36 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 59 41 Not very satisfied 60 40 Somewhat satisfied 53 47 Very satisfied 35 65 Don’t know 60 40 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 50 50 Not very interested 50 50 Somewhat interested 53 47 Very interested 52 48

Figure 3.4: Leadership



Text Version Leadership - Average of 64.8%



Figure 3.4.1: It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 13% 16% 9% 34% 28%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 13 16 9 34 28 Unweighted 15 16 9 33 27 Gender (%) Men 16 16 9 31 27 Women 10 16 9 38 28 Other 14 10 11 25 40 Age (%) 18-29 8 17 12 36 27 30-39 9 15 10 35 31 40-49 13 16 9 36 27 50-64 16 16 7 33 27 65+ 18 15 6 33 28 Region (%) Alberta 15 18 9 34 23 Atlantic 13 16 8 36 27 BC 13 16 9 33 29 Ontario 15 17 10 33 25 Prairies 18 17 10 33 22 Quebec 7 12 7 38 35 Territories 11 14 11 36 27 Language (%) English 15 17 9 34 25 French 7 12 7 38 36 Other 15 16 10 32 27 Group (%) First Nations 16 14 8 30 32 Inuit 17 13 10 25 36 Métis 13 14 8 34 32 Persons with disabilities 13 13 8 33 32 LGBTQ2 7 13 10 36 34 Visible minority 14 17 11 32 27 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 10 6 6 21 57 Not very satisfied 6 10 7 36 40 Somewhat satisfied 11 18 10 39 22 Very satisfied 30 22 8 26 14 Don’t know 10 13 16 37 24 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 14 10 13 28 34 Not very interested 9 17 13 37 24 Somewhat interested 10 17 10 39 24 Very interested 16 15 8 31 31

Figure 3.4.2: A party that wins the most seats in an election should still have to compromise with other parties, even if it means reconsidering some of its policies.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 9% 13% 10% 41% 27%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 9 13 10 41 27 Unweighted 10 14 11 40 26 Gender (%) Men 11 14 11 38 26 Women 6 12 10 44 27 Other 13 9 11 32 35 Age (%) 18-29 5 12 13 44 25 30-39 6 13 12 41 28 40-49 9 14 11 40 26 50-64 11 14 9 40 26 65+ 11 13 8 41 28 Region (%) Alberta 10 15 11 39 25 Atlantic 9 13 10 42 26 BC 9 13 10 39 29 Ontario 10 14 10 40 26 Prairies 12 15 11 40 23 Quebec 5 12 10 45 28 Territories 8 11 13 36 32 Language (%) English 10 14 10 40 25 French 5 11 10 45 28 Other 10 13 11 38 29 Group (%) First Nations 12 12 9 35 33 Inuit 13 12 9 29 37 Métis 10 12 10 37 31 Persons with disabilities 10 11 9 37 32 LGBTQ2 5 10 10 43 31 Visible minority 9 13 11 39 29 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 8 6 8 26 52 Not very satisfied 5 9 9 41 37 Somewhat satisfied 7 15 12 46 21 Very satisfied 19 20 10 35 16 Don’t know 7 13 16 42 22 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 12 9 16 31 33 Not very interested 7 13 13 43 23 Somewhat interested 7 14 12 44 23 Very interested 10 13 9 38 30

Figure 3.4.3: A government where one party governs and can make decisions on its own or a government where several parties have to collectively agree before a decision is made?



Text Version One party makes decisions on its own Several parties have to collectively agree 30% 70%



One party makes decisions on its own Several parties have to collectively agree Overall (%) Weighted 30 70 Unweighted 34 66 Gender (%) Men 36 64 Women 25 75 Other 27 73 Age (%) 18-29 23 77 30-39 25 75 40-49 30 70 50-64 34 66 65+ 38 62 Region (%) Alberta 34 66 Atlantic 31 69 BC 31 69 Ontario 33 67 Prairies 37 63 Quebec 21 79 Territories 33 67 Language (%) English 34 66 French 21 79 Other 31 69 Group (%) First Nations 32 68 Inuit 34 66 Métis 30 70 Persons with disabilities 28 72 LGBTQ2 21 79 Visible minority 30 70 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 16 84 Not very satisfied 16 84 Somewhat satisfied 31 69 Very satisfied 55 45 Don’t know 24 76 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 28 72 Not very interested 26 74 Somewhat interested 28 72 Very interested 32 68

Figure 3.5: 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.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 3% 7% 7% 32% 51%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 3 7 7 32 51 Unweighted 3 9 8 33 47 Gender (%) Men 3 7 7 29 55 Women 2 8 8 36 47 Other 5 5 14 26 49 Age (%) 18-29 2 8 12 36 42 30-39 2 6 8 33 51 40-49 2 6 6 32 53 50-64 3 7 6 31 54 65+ 3 7 5 31 53 Region (%) Alberta 2 7 6 31 53 Atlantic 3 6 7 31 54 BC 3 7 7 33 50 Ontario 3 8 8 33 48 Prairies 3 7 7 33 49 Quebec 2 5 6 32 55 Territories 3 10 7 33 47 Language (%) English 3 8 7 33 50 French 2 5 6 32 55 Other 3 8 9 31 49 Group (%) First Nations 5 6 8 25 56 Inuit 8 6 11 19 55 Métis 3 6 8 28 55 Persons with disabilities 4 6 7 28 56 LGBTQ2 3 7 10 34 46 Visible minority 4 7 9 31 50 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 3 3 6 16 72 Not very satisfied 2 5 6 28 60 Somewhat satisfied 2 7 8 37 46 Very satisfied 5 11 9 34 42 Don’t know 4 12 18 30 35 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 8 6 12 22 52 Not very interested 3 8 11 35 44 Somewhat interested 2 6 8 36 48 Very interested 3 8 6 30 53

Figure 3.5.2: Members of Parliament should always support the position of their party, even if it means going against the wishes of their constituents.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 54% 31% 6% 6% 3%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 54 31 6 6 3 Unweighted 53 32 6 6 2 Gender (%) Men 58 28 6 6 3 Women 50 35 7 6 3 Other 53 27 10 5 4 Age (%) 18-29 46 36 10 6 2 30-39 56 30 7 5 2 40-49 56 30 6 6 3 50-64 56 30 5 6 3 65+ 54 31 5 8 4 Region (%) Alberta 57 29 6 6 3 Atlantic 58 29 6 5 2 BC 55 31 6 5 3 Ontario 52 32 7 7 3 Prairies 54 31 7 6 3 Quebec 53 33 6 6 3 Territories 55 29 6 7 2 Language (%) English 54 31 6 6 2 French 54 33 5 6 3 Other 52 30 7 7 4 Group (%) First Nations 58 23 7 6 5 Inuit 57 20 10 7 7 Métis 58 25 7 6 4 Persons with disabilities 57 26 7 6 4 LGBTQ2 50 34 8 6 3 Visible minority 50 31 9 7 4 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 73 14 5 4 4 Not very satisfied 63 26 5 4 2 Somewhat satisfied 50 36 6 6 2 Very satisfied 44 34 7 10 4 Don’t know 34 36 19 7 4 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 49 21 14 6 10 Not very interested 44 35 10 7 3 Somewhat interested 50 34 7 6 2 Very interested 57 29 5 6 3

Figure 3.5.3: Members of Parliament that do what their party promised, even if it means going against what their constituents want or members of Parliament that do what their constituents want, even if it means going against what their party promised?



Text Version MPs that do what their constituents want MPs that do what their party promised 77% 23%



MPs that do what their constituents want MPs that do what their party promised Overall (%) Weighted 77 23 Unweighted 76 24 Gender (%) Men 78 22 Women 76 24 Other 72 28 Age (%) 18-29 73 27 30-39 79 21 40-49 80 20 50-64 78 22 65+ 76 24 Region (%) Alberta 79 21 Atlantic 77 23 BC 76 24 Ontario 73 27 Prairies 76 24 Quebec 84 16 Territories 79 21 Language (%) English 75 25 French 84 16 Other 73 27 Group (%) First Nations 73 27 Inuit 71 29 Métis 75 25 Persons with disabilities 76 24 LGBTQ2 75 25 Visible minority 73 27 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 83 17 Not very satisfied 83 17 Somewhat satisfied 77 23 Very satisfied 66 34 Don’t know 60 40 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 68 32 Not very interested 73 27 Somewhat interested 78 22 Very interested 77 23

Figure 3.6: Party focus



Text Version Party focus - Average of 54.8%



Figure 3.6.1: There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 23% 22% 14% 26% 15%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 23 22 14 26 15 Unweighted 22 21 14 26 17 Gender (%) Men 23 20 13 25 18 Women 22 25 15 26 12 Other 16 16 15 26 27 Age (%) 18-29 14 23 16 30 17 30-39 17 21 16 28 18 40-49 23 22 15 25 16 50-64 28 22 13 23 14 65+ 29 22 11 24 14 Region (%) Alberta 26 23 14 24 13 Atlantic 23 21 13 27 15 BC 21 21 14 26 18 Ontario 24 22 14 25 15 Prairies 28 21 14 23 14 Quebec 19 23 14 28 16 Territories 18 23 16 27 17 Language (%) English 24 22 14 25 15 French 19 24 14 29 15 Other 24 21 13 24 18 Group (%) First Nations 24 17 14 24 21 Inuit 22 17 13 21 27 Métis 23 20 14 24 20 Persons with disabilities 23 19 13 25 20 LGBTQ2 15 22 15 30 19 Visible minority 22 20 14 25 18 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 20 10 11 22 37 Not very satisfied 16 19 13 31 21 Somewhat satisfied 22 25 15 27 11 Very satisfied 37 23 13 18 9 Don’t know 16 22 20 25 17 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 21 15 19 18 26 Not very interested 19 25 17 26 14 Somewhat interested 21 25 16 27 12 Very interested 25 20 12 25 18

Figure 3.6.2: 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?



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



Text Version Online voting - Average of 48.9%



Figure 3.7.1: Canadians should have the option to cast their vote online in federal elections, even if it is less secure.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 31% 18% 10% 24% 17%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 31 18 10 24 17 Unweighted 31 18 10 23 17 Gender (%) Men 32 17 9 23 19 Women 30 20 10 25 16 Other 36 12 12 19 20 Age (%) 18-29 24 19 12 26 19 30-39 27 18 10 24 20 40-49 32 18 9 23 18 50-64 35 18 9 22 16 65+ 34 18 8 24 15 Region (%) Alberta 37 18 9 21 15 Atlantic 25 16 9 26 23 BC 31 17 10 24 17 Ontario 31 18 9 23 19 Prairies 40 18 9 21 13 Quebec 27 21 10 26 17 Territories 29 18 9 29 14 Language (%) English 32 17 9 24 18 French 26 20 9 27 17 Other 34 19 10 20 17 Group (%) First Nations 40 14 8 19 18 Inuit 40 15 8 18 19 Métis 35 15 9 23 17 Persons with disabilities 35 15 9 21 20 LGBTQ2 24 18 11 25 22 Visible minority 33 19 10 21 18 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 37 12 10 17 24 Not very satisfied 28 18 11 24 19 Somewhat satisfied 28 20 10 26 16 Very satisfied 40 18 7 20 15 Don’t know 29 21 14 21 14 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 28 12 12 16 31 Not very interested 24 20 11 27 19 Somewhat interested 27 20 10 26 17 Very interested 34 17 9 22 18

Figure 3.7.2: Canadians should have the option to cast their ballot online in federal elections, even if this increases the cost of elections.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 22% 14% 11% 27% 26%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 22 14 11 27 26 Unweighted 21 14 11 27 26 Gender (%) Men 23 13 11 26 27 Women 21 16 11 28 25 Other 28 9 10 21 31 Age (%) 18-29 17 14 12 28 29 30-39 19 14 11 26 30 40-49 23 14 10 26 27 50-64 25 15 10 27 24 65+ 25 15 10 27 22 Region (%) Alberta 28 15 11 25 21 Atlantic 17 12 10 28 33 BC 21 13 11 27 28 Ontario 21 13 11 27 29 Prairies 30 16 10 25 19 Quebec 20 18 11 28 22 Territories 18 10 18 31 22 Language (%) English 22 13 11 27 27 French 20 18 11 28 23 Other 24 15 11 24 26 Group (%) First Nations 31 12 10 21 26 Inuit 32 11 12 18 26 Métis 27 12 10 24 27 Persons with disabilities 25 12 11 23 30 LGBTQ2 17 12 11 27 34 Visible minority 22 15 11 24 28 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 30 10 11 17 31 Not very satisfied 21 14 11 27 27 Somewhat satisfied 19 15 11 29 26 Very satisfied 28 15 9 25 23 Don’t know 23 16 16 24 20 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 25 11 15 19 29 Not very interested 19 15 12 30 24 Somewhat interested 18 16 12 29 25 Very interested 25 13 10 25 27

Figure 3.7.3: Canadians should have the option to cast their ballots online in federal elections, even if the security or privacy of online voting cannot be guaranteed or Canadians should continue to vote using paper ballots at a polling station, even if it is less accessible for some voters?



Text Version Continue to vote using paper ballots Have the option to cast their ballots online 51% 49%



Continue to vote using paper ballots Have the option to cast their ballots online Overall (%) Weighted 51 49 Unweighted 51 49 Gender (%) Men 51 49 Women 50 50 Other 51 49 Age (%) 18-29 43 57 30-39 46 54 40-49 50 50 50-64 55 45 65+ 56 44 Region (%) Alberta 56 44 Atlantic 42 58 BC 50 50 Ontario 49 51 Prairies 59 41 Quebec 52 48 Territories 46 54 Language (%) English 50 50 French 51 49 Other 53 47 Group (%) First Nations 56 44 Inuit 58 42 Métis 52 48 Persons with disabilities 51 49 LGBTQ2 42 58 Visible minority 52 48 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 53 47 Not very satisfied 48 52 Somewhat satisfied 49 51 Very satisfied 58 42 Don’t know 55 45 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 47 53 Not very interested 46 54 Somewhat interested 48 52 Very interested 53 47

Figure 3.8: Mandatory voting



Text Version Mandatory voting - Average of 39.9%



Figure 3.8.1: 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.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 16% 20% 12% 20% 33%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 16 20 12 20 33 Unweighted 15 20 11 19 35 Gender (%) Men 17 19 11 18 35 Women 15 22 12 21 31 Other 17 17 12 15 38 Age (%) 18-29 16 24 14 21 26 30-39 17 22 12 19 31 40-49 16 20 11 19 34 50-64 15 18 11 19 37 65+ 16 20 11 20 34 Region (%) Alberta 14 19 12 20 36 Atlantic 14 20 11 19 36 BC 16 22 12 18 32 Ontario 16 20 12 18 35 Prairies 13 18 11 19 39 Quebec 17 22 12 23 27 Territories 11 21 16 20 33 Language (%) English 15 20 11 18 35 French 17 22 11 23 27 Other 17 20 12 19 32 Group (%) First Nations 19 17 12 16 37 Inuit 19 17 13 15 37 Métis 16 18 13 18 35 Persons with disabilities 18 19 12 17 34 LGBTQ2 19 24 13 18 26 Visible minority 18 21 12 19 30 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 23 15 11 13 39 Not very satisfied 17 22 12 20 30 Somewhat satisfied 14 22 12 21 30 Very satisfied 15 17 10 18 41 Don’t know 13 14 15 20 37 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 13 10 10 11 55 Not very interested 12 17 12 21 37 Somewhat interested 13 21 12 22 31 Very interested 18 20 11 17 33

Figure 3.8.3: Voting in federal elections is an obligation or voting in federal elections is a choice?



Text Version A choice An obligation 50% 50%



A choice An obligation Overall (%) Weighted 50 50 Unweighted 52 48 Gender (%) Men 51 49 Women 49 51 Other 57 43 Age (%) 18-29 50 50 30-39 52 48 40-49 53 47 50-64 52 48 65+ 42 58 Region (%) Alberta 54 46 Atlantic 52 48 BC 48 52 Ontario 50 50 Prairies 56 44 Quebec 46 54 Territories 53 47 Language (%) English 52 48 French 46 54 Other 47 53 Group (%) First Nations 52 48 Inuit 50 50 Métis 52 48 Persons with disabilities 50 50 LGBTQ2 45 55 Visible minority 46 54 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 53 47 Not very satisfied 49 51 Somewhat satisfied 48 52 Very satisfied 53 47 Don’t know 65 35 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 71 29 Not very interested 62 38 Somewhat interested 51 49 Very interested 47 53

Figure 4.1: 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.



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.



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.



Text Version Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree 2% 2% 7% 25% 65%



Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree Overall (%) Weighted 2 2 7 25 65 Unweighted 2 2 6 23 67 Gender (%) Men 2 2 7 24 64 Women 1 2 6 25 66 Other 6 3 12 22 58 Age (%) 18-29 2 3 12 29 53 30-39 2 2 8 24 64 40-49 2 2 6 24 66 50-64 2 1 5 24 68 65+ 2 1 3 22 72 Region (%) Alberta 2 2 8 25 63 Atlantic 1 2 6 22 69 BC 2 2 7 22 67 Ontario 2 2 7 23 67 Prairies 3 2 7 24 65 Quebec 1 2 6 30 60 Territories 1 1 10 21 67 Language (%) English 2 2 7 23 67 French 1 2 5 30 62 Other 3 2 9 25 62 Group (%) First Nations 5 2 9 22 62 Inuit 9 2 8 22 58 Métis 3 3 8 25 61 Persons with disabilities 3 2 7 22 67 LGBTQ2 2 2 7 24 64 Visible minority 3 3 9 27 59 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 3 1 7 17 71 Not very satisfied 1 2 7 24 66 Somewhat satisfied 1 2 6 27 64 Very satisfied 3 3 7 23 64 Don’t know 5 2 15 34 44 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 5 2 12 23 57 Not very interested 2 2 10 28 58 Somewhat interested 1 2 7 27 63 Very interested 2 2 6 22 67

Figure 4.5: Members of Parliaments that spend more time in their constituency working with constituents or Members of Parliament that spend more time on Parliament Hill working on the issues that matter to their constituents?



Text Version MPs spend more time in their constituency MPs spend more time on Parliament Hill 45% 55%



MPs spend more time in their constituency MPs spend more time on Parliament Hill Overall (%) Weighted 45 55 Unweighted 43 57 Gender (%) Men 45 55 Women 46 54 Other 46 54 Age (%) 18-29 49 51 30-39 52 48 40-49 50 50 50-64 44 56 65+ 34 66 Region (%) Alberta 46 54 Atlantic 48 52 BC 44 56 Ontario 42 58 Prairies 48 52 Quebec 51 49 Territories 48 52 Language (%) English 43 57 French 50 50 Other 47 53 Group (%) First Nations 49 51 Inuit 46 54 Métis 50 50 Persons with disabilities 45 55 LGBTQ2 48 52 Visible minority 52 48 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 53 47 Not very satisfied 50 50 Somewhat satisfied 44 56 Very satisfied 39 61 Don’t know 49 51 Political interest (%) Not interested at all 50 50 Not very interested 51 49 Somewhat interested 47 53 Very interested 43 57

Figure 4.6: Members of Parliament that always support policies that they think are best for their constituents, even if their constituents disagree or Members of Parliament that always support policies their constituents want, even if the MPs themselves personally disagree?



Text Version MPs do what they feel is best MPs do what their constituents want 28% 72%



MPs do what they feel is best MPs do what their constituents want Overall (%) Weighted 28 72 Unweighted 33 67 Gender (%) Men 30 70 Women 26 74 Other 29 71 Age (%) 18-29 34 66 30-39 29 71 40-49 25 75 50-64 25 75 65+ 30 70 Region (%) Alberta 21 79 Atlantic 29 71 BC 27 73 Ontario 29 71 Prairies 25 75 Quebec 32 68 Territories 26 74 Language (%) English 27 73 French 32 68 Other 29 71 Group (%) First Nations 23 77 Inuit 28 72 Métis 24 76 Persons with disabilities 23 77 LGBTQ2 31 69 Visible minority 29 71 Satisfaction with Democracy (%) Not at all satisfied 17 83 Not very satisfied 23 77 Somewhat satisfied 3