Voting in the Digital Age

I recently gave a speech as an assignment for a class in presentation skills. Naturally, when asked to choose a topic, I slanted towards a political one.  But the topic I chose was not one that causes division between left and right, and red and blue, but rather one that should be of concern to every citizen for the same reason.  The speech explained why many Canadians choose not to vote and why they should. An shortened text of the original speech is below, but while preparing the speech I began to think about how social media could change the way we vote for the better. These ideas could not be included in the original speech due to time constraints but I will explain them below the original text of the speech.

***

Many in the world can’t get it, yet it’s offered to you for free.  People have fought and died for it. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.  You can have it, although you may have to wait in a line and flash some ID.  What is this coveted and powerful thing? It is your vote in a democratic election.

In Canada we enjoy one of the most trustworthy, fair and transparent electoral systems in the world.  We have the power to freely elect those who represent us in political office and on the local, national and international stage.  Yet, in the last federal election in 2008, out of the 23.6 million Canadians who could have voted, only 13.9 million or 58.8 per cent of voters exercised their democratic right. 

Why is this so?  Well, people choose not to vote for a variety of reasons.  A 2003 study by Elections Canada examined the most common reasons for not voting given by non-voters in the 2000 general election.  The study found that 67.7 per cent of those surveyed felt they did not vote because of negative attitudes towards the government, politicians and candidates.  Another 40.3 per cent listed public apathy: a lack of interest, having their attention focused elsewhere or a lack of knowledge or information as their reasons behind not voting.  Finally, 24.9 per cent of non-voters cited feelings of meaninglessness toward participation and a lack of competition.

 Another important factor to consider is age.  Based upon informal observation, I would say that the average age of this class falls into the 21-24 year old age range.  This means that only 27.5 per cent of us would vote based on turnout rates from the 2000 election.  Put another way that means that only about 9 of us would choose to exercise our right to vote.  Although this statistic may not be surprising, it illustrates a lack of participation and a problem for the democratic process in Canada.

But all is not lost.  You will inevitably be given another chance to choose your leaders and a chance to reverse this trend.  You rightfully ask why bother? What’s in it for me? Well, let me tell you.

There are many good reasons to vote.  Some may be rather obvious, while others might not be as noticeable. Whatever form they take, the benefits of voting are real and worth the effort. 

The most basic reason to vote is that it forms the basis for all democratic societies.  Without your vote, our system of government would lack the legitimacy it needs to be effective and recognized.  It would leave a vacuum of power that would be filled based on the interests of a few, rather than the interests of all citizens.  When you vote you are not just voting for a candidate or a party, you are voting for yourself and what matters to you. You are voting for your community, your country and your world.  Voting is the link that connects us together as citizens.  Your vote represents what you didn’t like about the past, what you hope to change in the present and your dreams for the future.  Voting is your right and your civic responsibility.

In spite of this, many of us feel that one vote does not really make a difference, so there’s no point in voting.  The problem with this argument is that it rests on the same logic that is used to defend other decisions and actions that almost nobody agrees with.  For example, almost everyone tries to be environmentally friendly these days, yet you hear people suggest that: idling their car, not recycling or leaving lights on unnecessarily doesn’t matter because they are just one person.  Well, we know that our impact on the environment as a society is the aggregate of individual habits and choices. Such is the same in a democracy.  A democracy is as much a living system of inputs and outputs as is our environment.  When you choose not to vote, you are depriving the political system of the oxygen it needs to function at its full potential.  The more that citizens participate in elections, the more we will all benefit.  As young people, by not voting we lose the ability to influence decisions made today that will affect our future.  Most politicians that are elected will not be around fifty to sixty years from now, but we will be.  Voting is a tool that we can use to shape our future.

So if the importance of voting in our democratic system, the power of your vote and the health benefits that voting can bring aren’t enough to convince you to exercise your right; allow me to leave you with the words of former US presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who once said “If you don’t turn onto politics, politics will turn on you.”    

***

It is clear by the stats stated in the speech that  voting rates amongst youth should be the main concern of Canadian society.  The reasons for not voting given by this group come down to three things: they don't know enough, they don't see why they should care and they think voting is a waste of time.  All of these problems can be solved by communications, using the power of social media to inform and engage youth.

Elections Canada needs to initiate a social media strategy to engage youth using their prefered medium.  I mean the lame commercials on Much Music and appearances by aged leaders are a nice try, but theyre just not going to cut it.  We need to get youth talking on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms about who they will vote for and why.  I am not talking about each political party setting up social media to preach their messages (although this would eventually be an important step in getting youth to care about voting).

What I am proposing, is a centralized effort by a non-partisan group to present political matters in a straight forward manner that is easy for those new to voting to understand.  Have a forum where the big issues in the election are explained in terms people can understand and relay where each major party stands.  For example, I would bet my life that most youth 18-24 have no idea what a harmonized sales tax is.  But explain to them that the prices of certain goods may rise, but on the other hand it may be good for business and thus the economy as a whole and they may be more likely to respond and care.

Social media can also be an important tool in informing voters about the time and place of votes and outcomes.

By using social media to explain political issues to youth and enticing them to vote, the health if the Canadian political system will improve.  If the political establishment chooses to ignore this problem and the preferences of Canadian youth, the Canadian democracy will continue on its path to irrelevancy.

Changing the National Anthem: A Political Issue Made for Social Media.

"Our Government will...ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem." - Speech from the Throne, March 3, 2010.

 With their voices still strained from belting out O'Canada a few days before in Olympic gold celebration, many Canadians found it hard to believe that the government would even consider changing the lyrics of the anthem.  Especially the Conservatives.  I mean they had just come out of the Olympics enjoying a little bit of a bounce, riding the wave of a successful Winter Games and the boost in national pride that went with it.

 So why then would they even propose changing the anthem? The suggestion of changing the anthem would seem natural coming from the NDP in the form of a bill that everyone would know, would have no real chance of passing.  Some have suggested that the Conservatives proposed the idea to create a smokescreen, to offer them cover for prorogation, the deficit or the Afghanistan detainee issue.

My opinion is that it may in fact be both, a political distraction and an attempt to gain some brownie points with the small minority who would favour the change.   The issue has blown up and dominated conversation, the news and social media.  And now Harper can say to those in favour that they tried, but people just didn't want it.

Whatever the strategy behind the idea of opening the anthem up for review, it has definitely gotten the attention of Canadians and many have moved the conversation online.  I did a quick Facebook search "Canadian nation anthem", and it turned up 276 groups and 6 fan pages (one sporting over 8,000 members).  Most of these pages were organized by those against changing the anthem, although there was a sprinkling of those in favour.

The day after the speech from the throne the Conservatives back-pedalled, and said they would not review the lyrics of O'Canada given the backlash the idea generated.  So although most online activity regarding this issue will likely trend downwards as things simmer-down, it has made me wonder why certain issues get more play in social media than others.

There's the obvious link that the bigger the political issue in the public at large, the more online attention it will generate.  However, there are many other factors that decide whether or not something like a proposed law or a scandal become the subjects of tweets or Facebook status updates. 

  I believe, that a political issue is more likely to become popular online if it: is important to the younger demographic, is simply understood and leaves little room to sit on the fence, and it is an issue that users know they will easily gain the support of like minded individuals online.

 The mainstream social media sites are dominated by people between the ages of 13-34, so when this demographic population identifies with an issue it is likely that they will make it the topic of online communications and voice their opinions.  A great example of this was in late 2008 when Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty proposed tougher restrictions for teen drivers.  I’m almost certain that he expected to pass the bill with ease. But then, Facebook happened.  The strongest opposition to the laws was the Facebook group “Young Drivers Against New Ontario Laws”.  According to their page the group had: 200 members within three hours, over 14,000 by its second day and then reached 65,000 and 95,000 members on days three and four.  Even though this topic has long since died it still has over 125,000 members!  In the end, social media tipped the scales and allowed a group of people (comprised mainly of those who weren’t even old enough to vote) to change a political outcome in their favour. 

 Up or down, yes or no.  When a political debate can be explained easily in a few paragraphs and presents a person with a simple choice between opposing views, it is more likely that the issue will migrate to social media.  The O’Canada flap was such an issue.  Are you in favour of changing “In all thy sons command” to something gender neutral? Yes or no. Here there is no “only change part” or, “maybe just a little”.  It is a simple and clear issue.  Explaining it to others and why you support your view point can be reduced to 141 characters or a status update.  Had the government not withdrawn their proposal the social media snowball would have grown quickly.  All it takes is a few friends asking “Hey, have you heard they want to change the anthem?!”

 Although social media users don’t always think twice about what they post online, I believe that comfort in numbers leads them to voice political opinions that they know will resonate with fellow users.  Just as people post links to videos or articles that they think their friends will like, they also present opinions that they feel will be reinforced by others.  Issues such as O’Canada and young driver regulations make for good social media fodder as the vast majority were on one side of the fence.  When it comes to contentious issues such as reproductive rights, capital punishment and others it is less likely that users will post about these issues. 

 After hearing about the proposal to change O’Canada, I believe most Canadians had a few conversations at work or school and realized that nobody really wanted it.  So why not join the mob online? It's easy to do and you probably won’t offend 99 per cent of your contacts by doing so. Finding comfort and acceptance in a group has motivated people throughout history and although social media is a new phenomena it is still shaped by human desires.

 In the end I'm glad the government backed away from their proposal to change the national anthem.  They were smart to do so, because the world of social media was poised to make this one line from a Throne Speech a very painful mistake.

"So, is that a right in your country?"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being hailed as a hero by gay and lesbian rights activists and other progressive groups in Uganda, for taking a tough stand with the country's president regarding pending changes to the country's laws. The new law would add to Uganda's already draconian codes concerning homosexuality and provides for life sentences for "homosexual acts" and the death sentence for the ridiculous charge of "aggravated homo-sexuality".

Harper, along with President Obama and British PM Gordon Brown, has strongly voiced his concerns over these abhorred laws. However, the news today that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenny, had mentions of: the decriminalization of homosexuality, the right against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gay marriage removed from the citizenship study guide, seems very contradictory.

Perhaps they think that it is implied that these rights exist in Canada, but don't they think it may be important to tell someone immigrating, from say Uganda, that we respect all members of our society. No one was asking the government to include a whole chapter or even a few pages on these rights, just a paragraph or two. Instead they offer up a photo-caption of a gay athlete, noting he is a well known activist.

The exclusion of information about these rights and Canadian values is wrong in a number of ways. How can the government lecture the Ugandan's about their approach to such issues, when they themselves seem either embarrassed, unsupportive, or unaware (or any combination of those three) - that equal rights for all is a fact of life in our country? It's like were saying from our moral high-horse "Hey what you're doing over there is wrong, but we don't want to tell you about what our laws are like."

Secondly, it is unfair to those who use the guide. It puts them at a disadvantage in trying to learn about the cultural and political nuances of the country. Whether they support gay-marriage or are opposed to it, potential citizens need to know that this is the law. Just because most on the right are in opposition to these laws, does not make them disappear. The study guide presents an optimized conservative view of our country, instead of the politically neutral, factual guide we should be providing new-comers with. Bureaucratic staffers recommended including the information, but instead political whims determined what would be contained in a publication essential to those striving to gain a true understanding of Canada.

Lastly, it is greatly disrespectful to all those who have worked to defend against discrimination of all forms and the democratic process , to not include this information in the citizenship guide. To reduce the progress our society has made to a caption under a glossy photo, does not properly convey how much equal rights are valued in Canadian society.

At a time when the poor and marginalized in the world need Canada's voice and support in defence of their human rights, we should not be sweeping knowledge of our rights and freedoms under the rug. We should be lifting them up, as an example for the world to follow.

Welcome to Perceived Political!

“All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.” - Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States.

I don't know Harry? I have yet to take a course in any of the aforementioned PR skills (flattering, kissing and kicking) but this quote does hold some truth. It cannot be denied that PR is an essential (and some would say the primary) skill in politics. In order to get elected and remain elected, a politician (or at least her/his handlers), must be able to gauge and respond to public opinion on the topics that matter. It all comes down to this: you must convince people that you are right or you will be out of a job.

The purpose of Perceived Political will be to examine the use of PR strategies and tactics within the political sphere highlighting not just the failures (which are usually glaringly obvious), but also examples of where PR was used constructively to achieve political goals.

Although I am of the more (small l) liberal political persuasion, I hope to examine PR in the world of politics with a open mind and a level view. In my personal experience, as a student of both politics and public relations, I find that politicians and parties on both sides of the fence routinely pull off some excellent PR work and some that makes you wonder "what the hell were they thinking?"

So that will be the aim of Perceived Political, to examine the good, the bad, and the ugly of political communications.

I hope you enjoy!