December 4, 2025 • 46 mins
Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian is joined by Jo-Ann Roberts — writer, democracy advocate, and former Interim Leader of the Green Party of Canada — for an urgent and thought-provoking conversation about the state of Canadian democracy. Drawing from her book Storm the Ballot Box: An Insider’s Guide to a Voting Revolution, Jo-Ann breaks down why more Canadians than ever are choosing not to vote, with participation among young people at a troubling low.
Together, they explore why lowering the voting age to 16 could help reverse the trend, how other countries are already making the change, and what the research reveals about young voters’ long-term engagement. The conversation also tackles broader democratic reforms, from mandatory voting and recall elections to improved civic education and greater political accountability. It’s a timely, energizing episode that asks a crucial question: could empowering young voters be the key to revitalizing Canada’s democracy?
Together, they explore why lowering the voting age to 16 could help reverse the trend, how other countries are already making the change, and what the research reveals about young voters’ long-term engagement. The conversation also tackles broader democratic reforms, from mandatory voting and recall elections to improved civic education and greater political accountability. It’s a timely, energizing episode that asks a crucial question: could empowering young voters be the key to revitalizing Canada’s democracy?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty Am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Bran Crombie Radio Hour.
I've got a really interesting individual to introduce you to tonight.
Joe Anne Roberts is her name. She's a writer and
a political consultant. I read a fascinating column that she
wrote about voting age, and then I got into researching
a little about her and found out that she's just
as fascinating as her fascinating article, if not more so,
(00:39):
because her voting age columns suggested that we change the
voting age to sixteen, which I thought was kind of
radical and interesting and I frankly support, and I think
that we're going to chat about that a little bit.
But also she has written recently written a book called
Storm the Ballot Box, An Insider's Guide to a Voting Revolution.
She's also a former interim leader of the Green Party
(01:00):
of Canada. She lives in Halifax and a lot of
what she's about is getting people to vote again. Millions
of Canadians, she says, they're not voting. It's a crisis
that threatens to undermine our democracy. Apathy, ignorance, and frustration
mean a whole generation is losing faith in the value
of the vote. Joanne Roberts, who's our guest tonight, suggests
that one way to turn this around is to lower
(01:21):
the voting age to sixteen. It's one of twenty concrete
steps for how to kickstart a non violent, yet powerful
voting revolution, empowering Canadians to mark their X no matter
who they vote for. Find out what she thinks about
voting age reductions and how they'll help us all improve
voter turnout. Joan Roberts, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
It's great to be with you, Brian, thank you for
having me. I'm glad you liked to call them. I
never know when people say I saw your callum, they go,
I think, well, are they.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
In favor of it?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
But you know, one of the things about lowering the
voting age is you know you're going to get a reaction.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Well, I got to tell you an honest story. My
two sons were I think twelve and fourteen, and they
were delegates to a convention I won't tell you what
political party they were to do, and they put forward
a resolution to a policy convention to lower the voting
age to sixteen, and they both spoke about it, and
(02:18):
in this political party, I'm not sure if all political parties,
twelve year olds were allowed to attend as delegates and vote.
And they made the argument that it made sense that
sixteen year olds should have the vote. Why do you
think sixteen year olds should have the vote?
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Well, for a lot of reasons, but I'm going to
just add a corollary to what you just told me
that fourteen year olds currently vote for the leaders in
all of the political parties. So I mean, we won't
let them vote for who could sure become, but we
can let them vote for who should lead the parties. Anyway,
Why do I think we should lower it? A lot
of reasons, but here's my primary one, and it's really
(02:56):
probably one of the major reasons I wrote the book
is Canadians aren't voting. There are millions of Canadians, eleven
million Canadians and the last federal election didn't vote. That
worries me because you know, I can get into all
kinds of statistics, but let me put it simply. The
(03:18):
older generation that might include you and I, we're good voters.
We're the highest turnout, but we're losing a little bit
older than you and I. They are actually getting older.
Oh good, you've got the graph. So the graph will
show you that. You know, the fifty sixty five to
seventy four, they're the height, they're the winners, they're the
(03:39):
big voters. And then you look at the you know,
the sort of I'm going to put my classes on here.
The fifty five to sixty four they're still voting in
reasonably good numbers. But you know, the seventy five and over,
that's my mother's generation. Their numbers are dropping because they're
becoming more and less able to vote. But look at
(04:02):
those two lower numbers, the first time voters eighteen to
twenty four, all electors in first time, they're down below
fifty percent. That's a generation of voters that if we
don't get them voting, we lose them, and our democracy
then loses the well, I think we start to see
(04:23):
people not voting, and then I question our elections valid
if our turnout is less than fifty percent.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
No, I thought one thing. There's lots of interesting things
about this graph, but one thing that was interesting is
the massive increase in young people turnout in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Well, and I think we all kind of know the
answer to that one, right, it's called Justin Trudeau. I mean,
he got people excited, and he got a lot of
young people excited, and that is reflected there. But even
with that, even with the turnout in twenty fifteen, and
you'll see everybody's turnout went up, right, we saw it
as a I ran as a candidate in twenty fifteen,
(05:04):
so I know this election pretty well, and I can
tell you that the Canadians saw it as an important election, right.
They saw it as an election where something mattered, I
would say as much as anything. They were they were
getting rid of a government Stephen Harper had. Certainly the
public was not supporting a lot of what Stephen Harper
(05:28):
was doing at the time. And so that I knocked
on a lot of doors where they said, you know,
our goal is to get rid of Stephen Harper and
we're going to vote for whoever can do that. It
was kind of hard.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
If you were a I'd like to challenge you for
a second and I'll let you continue with what you
thought the election was about. But I've heard some people
say it was more about sunny ways. It was positivity.
It was this you know, this, this can do attitude
that people got attracted to that too often our politics
or negativity and bringing people down and getting rid of something,
(06:02):
and that appeals to the base and motivates the bases
to come out, but it turns off a lot of
the incremental extra voters and if you want to get
the incremental extra voters, and that turnout shows that that
in twenty fifteen, it certainly came out and we don't
know if he got it. I think he did, but
it turned out. I've heard another assessment that it was
all about cannabis and they just came out because of
(06:25):
the promise to legalize cannabis. I'm not sure if that's
that one.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
I won't say has many numbers to go with it,
but I will tell you something that turned that election around.
And if you look at the liberal analysis of their
own election, do you remember the photograph of Alan Curry.
His name was the little boy on the beach who
had drowned. And we had a government that was turning
(06:54):
his back on immigration. I mean, that's to be questioned,
but suddenly you had Justin Trudeau doing a humanity and
this isn't who Canada is.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
The election of the stitch line.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Yeah, so it was so what kind of Canadians did
we want to be? I do think that was an
issue in that election, and I do think Sonny ways
played into that. Canadian said we're not the snitch line.
We're not turning our back on the other. It'd be
interesting to see if that would work right now. But
(07:27):
I think Justin Trudeau came along and said, hey, this
is who we are. We're positive Canadians, we take in
people in need, We're caring. I mean that I think
was a very resonant message and I think it did appeal.
The other thing he said, and I'd like to hold
him to it, is that was going to be the
(07:47):
last election in their first past the post. Yes exactly.
That's in the book. And I as someone who had
to listen to a lot of people tell me on
a doorstep, I came second in that election. In the
writing I was in, I had thirty two percent of
the vote, and lots of people said to me, well, Joanne,
(08:09):
you know we'll vote for you next time when it's
a proportional vote or you know, ranked ballot, when it's
not first past the post, but right now we have
to be sure that we vote for someone who can
defeat Stephen Harbor and who can win, and we're not
sure Greens can do that, so you know, so I
think we're both right here. Sunny ways played a role, absolutely,
(08:32):
it did.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
I've heard other people say the length of the campaign,
which was one of the longest, if not the longest
campaigns in history, helped. And the example that I had
is someone compared it to the US, where you know,
you know when the election date is, and some people
think the election campaigns in the US, which are like
a year long, because you go through the primary process
in the winter, in the spring first of all, with
(08:54):
the conventions in the summer, and then the elections in November,
you've got a year or at least almost a year
to really get to know people. And in Canada, for
some reason, we don't really start paying attention until the
rit drops, even if we know when the election is,
and certainly seems to be this whole sort of competition
to try to make the election campaigns as short. And
it's interesting because Stephen Harper, I think, had a strategy
(09:16):
of a long campaign because then he thought people would
see Trudeau's weaknesses.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
No, no, no, no, no. He had a long campaign
for one reason and one reason only. He could spend
more money and he had the most money to spend.
That there's only one reason for our own campaign if
you're in government and that and if you have as
much money as the Conservatives had at that time, because
election spending is based on how many days you're campaigning.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
But am I not right that? You know? Trudeau and
the Liberals were in third place until halfway through the campaign. Absolutely,
so that long campaign helped them.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
I don't think it didn't I personally. I mean they've
won other elections without that long a campaign. I mean,
there are those who will say that this was a
strategy for Stephen Harper. He I don't. No one really
knew what Justin Trudeau was going to be like as
a campaigner. So they were hoping that their negative advertising.
(10:15):
You remember they ran a lot of advertising before the
election was called. Do you remember that just not ready,
he's got good hair, right, So that they thought we
will define him before the election because they had lots
of money. That's money you don't get back if you
if you spend the money in the election campaign, you
get some of it back. If you spend it outside
the election writ period, you don't get it back.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Okay, I got one other thing to challenge you with.
I've been told that it was the first election where
a non baby boomer or older was running, and so
this was the youngest person running in a long period
of time, and uh, if not, frankly, uh you know forever.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
How old was Joe Clark when he was elected?
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Do you know, I'd have to but he would have
been a baby boomer, Oh, you know, young at the time,
but a baby burmery. So this is the first person
and that that was what that youth is what appealed
to young people and motivated them to turn out.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Yeah, I would say that's true. There's truth in that.
I mean, you know, Justin Trudeau was the first leader
of a party to be taking selfies and he he
had a different approach than you know. The Liberal campaign
team took advantage of that, took a risk. They were
in third place, they had nothing to lose. Let's go
(11:32):
out there and run a different kind of campaign. And
I think they changed how campaigns are run because that
whole idea roll up your shirt sleeves, get out there
and take the selfies, you know, use social media in
an effective way. They did all of that. Well, I'm
not saying there was only one thing that you know,
sort of changed that election, But having also run an
(11:54):
elections since then, I can tell you that one of
the things that is becoming a constant is people are
deciding they're voting against something not for something right, and
that turns off voters. So back to your original point,
that turns off vote.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
So turnout has gone down dramatically over time, and turnout
is very much lower for younger cohorts than it is
for older cohorts. And so therefore you've come out with
the recommendation that we lower the voting age to sixteen.
But if younger people don't vote, you're going to have
a whole bunch of younger people that are eligible to
vote but aren't going to vote. And if it's by
(12:29):
any kind of a trend that is similar to the
trend that you've shown, it's going to be like thirty
percent are going to vote. And some people have contended,
and this has been a big argument in the UK
because I understand right now England is thinking about following
Scotland and Wales and lowering the voting age. One of
the biggest criticisms has been that people young people, they think,
tend to vote the way their parents vote, and so
(12:50):
therefore it is it is sort of you know, the
people that are motivated and the base that are going
to get their kids to come out, and all you're
going to do is further the voting intentions of the elderly,
the elder people to parents. So We're going to take
a messages and I'm gonna come back. I go to
ask you why you want to give the vote to
(13:11):
sixteen year old Stay with us, everyone back in two
minutes with Joanne Roberts. We've talked about how turnout's gone down,
how turnout is low for young people, So why the
heck have more of them eligible to vote if they're
not going to vote?
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Just give you this.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Everyone back into.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Stream us live at SAGA nine to six am dot CA.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Prombie Radio Hour. I've
got Joann Roberts with me tonight. She's just recently written
an article that was in the paper that you may
have read about reducing the voting age to sixteen and
She's also recently written a book called Storm the Ballot Box,
An Insider's Guide to a Voting Revolution. She's also a
(14:03):
former interim leader of the Green Party of Canada and
she lives in Halifax. And I didn't realize it. You
got thirty two percent of the vote in your twenty
fifteen election. Yeah, it be one of the best performances
for a Green Party other than the people that won. Like,
that's fantastic, congratulations, thank you.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Yeah, twenty three, six hundred and sixty six people voted
for me. I always say, if I have a tattoo,
that's what it'll be.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Who is the victor?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
It was a new Democrat, Murray Rankin.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
And then the Liberals and Considers were behind you.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Yes, the Liberal got pulled from the race and the
Conservative didn't bother showing up for anything, so it was
a two way race in the end.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
No, Look, you know what I like to say that
losers very seldom write books in politics'itutionally from the winners
that you hear. And I've run in four elections and
I've never won any of them, but I think it
does give me perspective. I have been in those back rooms.
I spent forty years as a journalist before I became
a politician, so I've been in the newsrooms as well,
(15:09):
and I think the perspective I bring to this is
a little bit of that journalism mind and a little
bit of that back room political elbows up, boys. We
can't use that anymore, can be because it belongs to
the liberals. But you know, I understand what it's like
to be on the hustings. And I'm not a Pollyanna
(15:29):
about oh, we can fix everything just because we lower
the voting age. But here's I'm going to answer your
argument about oh, we'll just get a bunch of people
who can vote, then they won't vote. There's really good
research out there that if you vote in the first
election you are eligible for that, you will vote in
every election thereafter. It's just that it becomes something you go, well,
(15:52):
that wasn't so bad, so I'll do it when it
comes up again. And the problem with eighteen year olds
not having a great turnout when they got the vote
was because they just left high school. They'd also probably
just started maybe a first job, but they were in
a transition. They weren't in an environment that encouraged them
(16:13):
to vote, and I agree with you. Yes, some of
them are going to vote the way their parents tell
them to vote. But at least they'll vote, they'll be
in there by themselves and they'll mark a ballot. But
more importantly, they're going to be influenced by what happens
in their classroom. And right now in Canada, I say,
if we're going to lower the voting age, let's make
civics mandatory. It's not mandatory in Canada right now. So
(16:37):
let's have them in a kind of a captive audience.
Let's teach them about our democracy, how does it work,
why your vote is important, and then let's let them practice.
Let's let them go do it. So there are about
four hundred thousand and sixteen year olds and four hundred
thousand and seventeen year olds, So we're not likely to
change the outcome of the election, but we are going
(17:01):
to bring voters into our democracy.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So I think that you've got a great idea. I'll
give you a great analogy and an analogy you may
not like, but I think they're both good analogies. And
so blood donor statistics are very similar that if you
donate blood once in your teenage years or your early
adult years, you'll tend to donate blood the rest of
your life. If you don't get used to it in
(17:28):
high school or university, you don't donate. And it's very
difficult to get a thirty or forty or fifty year
old to start donating blood.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I like that analogy. I think that's actually very I mean,
I know, I feel like I'm living a blood when
I'm voting.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
I'll give you another analogy, which you may not like
as much, but it's also equally equally true. And it's
one of the reasons why I used to work for
beer company. One of the reasons why beer companies spend
so much money advertising at universities and donate beer openers
and caps and all this kind of stuff is because
if you tend to start drinking one brand of beer
(18:07):
at university, the prepondinence is greater than fifty percent that
you'll drink that as your first choice of beer brand
for the rest of your life. So once you start
doing something, you keep doing.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
It, you keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I think the other thing that one of my sons
made an argument of is if all the people in
grade eleven and twelve are going to civics classes and
have the vote. Every politician is going to go to
an all candidates meeting at that school. The exposure that
those kids are going to get to the political ideas
(18:42):
and thought in a positive way, that they're actually having
people come and explain their positions to them because they're
going to be captive. They're going to be at school,
they're going to be in civics class, they're going to
be interested in they're going to be invited to that.
You're going to get an incredibly well informed group of
people versus the people. And you know, you use the
example of first job. The other example would be away
(19:04):
at university. There's a whole bunch of people that are
going to be voting for the first time in our
current system that are away in a town. They don't know,
they don't know what the writing boundaries are, they don't
know who the politicians are, they don't know, frankly, what
some of the big issues are in that town because
they're brand new to that university. And so we've structured
a system where the real potential strength of voting in
(19:24):
high school is not there, and the potentiality of voting
in your first job or you're the first time you
moved out of the home or the first time you
moved away to university, where your sort of connection with
your community is the lowest, is where you get your
first vote.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
And I mean, you know, I think your point about
meeting politicians is an important one. And we have four
grown kids, and they're all adults and non pleases say
they're all voters. But I decided to use them as
a focus group for the for the book and ask them,
you know, why do you vote and what influenced you
(20:00):
growing up? And without a doubt, I think all four
of them at some point talked about meeting a politician. Now, remember,
you know, I worked for a radio station for the CBC,
and so we talked a lot about politics. But because
of what I did, you know, they attended all candidates
meetings and they knew people who were in politics. I
(20:21):
think too often are young people who are going to
be expected to vote when they turned eighteen have no
idea who these politicians are. And because they don't vote,
it's not in the politician's interest to necessarily go out
and get to know them all. Where if they were
qualified voters, I guarantee you just as you said, Brian,
(20:43):
those candidates would be at the schools. Politicians between elections
would be at the schools. You know, suddenly we'd see
platforms reflect things that young people cared about. I worry that,
you know, we ignore this group of people and they
(21:04):
don't vote, and politicians are practical. They look at who
does vote and they tailor their messages and what they're
offering to the people who do vote. That leaves out
a whole cohort that you know, people from eighteen to
well jeepers these days, eighteen to almost forty five, which
(21:27):
is that's starting to frighten me, because these people have
a lot of things that they need and they want
and they want to talk to politicians about.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So a study done in Scotland tracked people that voted
after the voting age was lowered to sixteen, and they
found out that the voting turnout increased for seven subsequent elections.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Yeah, yeah, they did, and I mean Germany. They've also
done the research now in Scotland, Wales, German States, Austrian
in America and they found the same trend. It doesn't
change the outcome, or at least in the places that
they studied it doesn't change the outcome dramatically because guess what,
(22:10):
you know, sixteen and seventeen year olds are as diverse
as the rest of the population, and some of it
may reflect that they, you know, are hearing politics talked
about in their families. But it does change the turnout,
and in my opinion, that's a game changer.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Another study done in Europe was kind of interesting. What
they found is that if sixteen and seventeen year olds
had the vote, the turnout was equal across income quitt quotients.
But that when people in their twenties are voting, only
wealthy people tend to vote, or people from kids from
(22:48):
wealthy families, and so therefore there's a real inequality in
the people that go to the ballot box. And so
you got ask yourself which is fairer just the rich
voting or everyone voting.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
And let me tell you a story about a young voter.
So I was helping out on an election in Ontario,
is up in perry Sala, Muskoka, and I broke my sandal.
I had to go get some super glue at the
dollar store. Was the day before the election. I walked in,
I had my T shirt on and I said to
the young woman with blue hair and a lot of
(23:20):
piercings at the checkout, you're going to vote tomorrow? And
she said no, and I said why not? She goes,
I'm not smart enough to vote. Now, Brian, that broke
my heart. Here was a young woman, vibrant, you know,
she knew there was election on, but she didn't think
she should be able to vote. That's the other thing
I think we're saying to young people when we don't
(23:41):
give them the vote till they're at eighteen and then
don't give them any training at eighteen, is we leave
them listening to the pundits and the polsters and all
of it. I mean, during an election campaign, you turn
on any broadcasting, you're going to hear lots of people
trying to figure out what's going to happen. And it
does make it sound like you need some degree in
political science to be able to vote, when the truth
(24:04):
is you don't. That's what I said to this young woman.
I said, I'll give you four websites you can go
check out who the four candidates are. You can vote tomorrow.
And she said, no, I don't think I need to
know who you know who's doing what and who's going
to win? And I don't think I can do that.
So there's the other thing that I think in school,
we would empower people from all walks of life to
(24:26):
realize they can vote and you know, they won't be
hit by lightning if they vote for the wrong person,
which sometimes I listen to our own rhetoric and think, yeah,
we make it sound like you need a PhD In
political science to vote.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
I didn't realize that the vote in the United States
for people to the age of eighteen wasn't until the
nineteen fifties or sixties. Yeah, up until then, it was
twenty one. And the big move to lower it was
because they changed the age of military drive to eighteen.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
So do you know when we lowered the vote voting Canada.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
I don't, it's going to shock you.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Nineteen seventy and what was it before one? Twenty one? Yeah,
and you know what the fight was from the end
of the Second World War because we allowed those who
were enlisted who are eighteen to twenty one to vote
right during the war years and right after if you
were a veteran, you were allowed to vote. So immediately
(25:28):
people started to say, well, if you felt they were
able to vote, then shouldn't we lower the voting age
to eighteen? And that fight went on from nineteen forty
seven to nineteen seventy when it was finally changed.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
That's interesting. When can you drive sixteen?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
Believe me, I was there on my sixteenth birthday?
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Well when can you drink?
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Well you can't, depends where you live. Eighteen nineteen. When
can you get married?
Speaker 2 (26:02):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Sixteen with your parents' permission.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
When are you tried as an adult versus a juvenile?
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Now that's an argument I get from a lot of
people that the court has to decide. But once you're sixteen,
the court can decide you'll be tried as an adult.
Here's another thing. When do you pay taxes? You pay
taxes if you're working as a sixteen year old. And
I don't know. I heard somewhere that you know, no
taxation without representation, So we should think about that.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
So have other countries tried this?
Speaker 3 (26:38):
Oh yeah, yeah, they have tried it, And as you mentioned,
the UK is about to their next election, sixteen year
olds will be able to vote. I mean there's some
states in the United States, but Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guernsey,
Isle of Man, Jersey, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland, Wales all let
people vote at sixteen, Greece and Indonesia at seventeen, and
(27:02):
so it's not like it's And there are states in
the United States where you can I don't know, I
won't list them all up, but where you can vote
when you're sixteen. You and I both talked about parties.
Political parties let people vote from fourteen. So I think
it is an argument we shouldn't go about it too,
(27:24):
you know, sort of. Oh well, no big difference. But
the Supreme Court may be where this will be decided.
In Canada because a group of young people from across
the country, I have a case before the Supreme Court
right now. It's called the Penny Crocker at All, so
that means the other kids versus Canada, and it was
(27:45):
filed in April. Well, they filed the evidence in April
twenty twenty four, so the last April, and the cross
examination is supposed to happen before the end of this year,
so it'll be some time next year I think where
we'll probably get a decision on this. So if the
Supreme Court were to come out and say we have
(28:06):
violated the rights of young people, then then the government
may be forced to act.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
If people wanted to do it. How would we actually
implement it by way of a constitutional amendment or could it.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Would be the vote? The Elections Act in Canada could
be changed. The Elections Act itself says who can vote
and defines who a voter is, so they it's simply
an act of Parliament. We don't have to change the constitution.
And you know, like we've done it, like this is
the thing. Do you remember In twenty nineteen it was
(28:39):
quite a debate over this. Citizens who'd been living abroad
for five years were given back the vote because it
had been taken away if you stayed outside the country
for more than five years. And this was very difficult,
especially for people who were posted with the military or
with foreign affairs. They weren't able to vote and they
challenged it. The Harper government had taken it away, and
(29:01):
in twenty nineteen it was given back. In two thousand
and two we had a fight to have prisoners who
were serving a sentence of more than two years they
were given the right to vote. Although we're not doing
a very good job of making sure that they actually
get the information they need to vote vote. So, you know,
(29:21):
I liken it a little bit too, because the arguments
I hear have sound very similar to when women got
the right to vote. Right.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
That was a mistake, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
Yeah, what we let all those women vote?
Speaker 2 (29:34):
That was a joke for anyone that got Theresa.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
Was kidding me. And it wasn't until nineteen forty eight
that you could vote. You had to own property to vote,
So if you were a renter and you didn't own
a piece of property before nineteen forty eight, you couldn't vote.
So I think we need to talk about our society
today and say, is this a time where sixteen year
(30:00):
olds they're you know they so I sometimes hear the argument, well,
they're not, They're their brains haven't developed enough to let
them vote. But the research has been done. It was
done in California by a number of organization, number of universities.
They are primarily Stanford, and they've said, yes, you're as
(30:21):
intellectually able, you know, prepared to vote as anyone who
is twenty five. So that argument's not going to hold either.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
So we're going to take a break for some messages,
and when we come back, I'm going to ask our
guests to share some of our other ideas on how
we storm the ballot box. Stay with us. Everyone back
in two.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Minutes, No Radio, No Problem. Stream is live on Sagay
ninety sixty am dot cl.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromee Radio Hoar. My
guest is John Roberts, who's written a really interesting book
called Storm the Ballot Box and a fascinating article about
reducing the voting age to sixteen. Joanne, I wonder if
you could share some of your other ideas on storming
the valve box. Twenty concrete steps we could do to
increase vhot to turn it.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Well, let me preface it by saying, you know, we
could have a whole other conversation, Brian. I think we
should talk about moving to some form of proportional representation
in the country. But I know that that's been argued
a lot, and there are others who are making the
case I would say better than me on this, so
(31:45):
I'm going to leave that on the table. That would
be my first choice, Let's get a proportional system in Canada.
But let me talk about this the low hanging things
that we could do easily. I mean, for example, in Australia,
they have mandatory voting, by the way, and we could
discuss that in a minute, but they give every election
(32:06):
day is a holiday, the whole day, not just four
hours to go and vote, but the whole day is
a holiday. They have barbecues, they call them democracy sausages
at the polling stations. It's a party. People come out
to vote because it's a good time. We make it
sound like having a root canal in Canada. I mean,
(32:26):
why don't we have a holiday. Let's make buses free
on election day. Let's get out there and say, well,
so you say to your neighbors, I'll see you at
the polling place. Let's have the school home and schools
have barbecues, and you know, maybe have an incentive. Maybe
someone said to me, well doing maybe we should just
(32:48):
have a tax break. You know, you get a credit
if you vote. And I'm not opposed to that, except
I know there are a lot of people who a
tax break means very little to them. So I'm thinking, well,
how about you know, we give people a pass, a
day pass to the National Park. I'd say, people come
out to vote if you gave them a free ice cream.
(33:10):
We just haven't said we value your vote, and I
think it is time to bring in an incentive for
the vote, So I'd like to see some discussion about
that now. Another thing that I'm experimenting with that I
get lots of arguments about this, but we didn't put
the name of the party on the ballot till nineteen
(33:31):
seventy two, so you had to know if you were
going in to vote for Brian Crombie what party Brian
Crombie was with because it didn't say it on the ballot,
And I'm wondering if we shouldn't consider going back to that.
And there's a reason for that. Right now we have
gone to we're not voting necessarily for individuals. We don't
(33:53):
know our candidates very well. We're voting for a national
platform and a national party. And I'm not saying that's wrong.
There are times when people should decide that that's what
they're voting for. But I also want people to get
to know their candidates, to get to know the person
who's going to be their representative, and I'm wondering how
(34:15):
do we do that. In One of the ways I
think we could do that is to make it more
important for candidates to get their own name out there
and not just their party brand.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Okay, any others.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Well, yeah, this one's a little more complicated. But I
think we took away the per vote subsidy in Canada.
That is that you know, when I was running in
twenty fifteen, that was the last election with a subsidy,
those twenty three, six hundred and sixty six people voted
for me. Each of those votes was worth a dollar
(34:46):
fifty six to the Green Party, and so the writing
I was in got money because I got votes. So
the vote had a value even if I didn't get elected,
and that stayed with the right. As long as I
got over ten percent of the vote and the party
nationally got over two percent, that money could be used
(35:09):
to help the party prepare for the next election. That
was taken away. We have no public funding in federal
elections now, and it's been very hard on smaller parties,
particularly the NDP and the Green Party, and I think
we're heading to a two party state unless that changes,
(35:30):
because smaller parties spend all their time trying to just
raise enough money to keep themselves afloat rather than spending
their time and their energy talking about the issues that
are before Canadians.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Well, that's fascinating. So I've got a couple of my
own recommendations. Can I suggest a few? So I've got
a few suggestions. I think composery voting makes a ton
of sense, and I think one of the reasons why.
And I think Australia has proven this out. And I've
had personal experience with this, just like you we have.
I've campaigned in numerous different election campaigns, and I get
frustrated that the vast majority of the time the canvassers
(36:08):
are doing, what the political organizations are doing is what
they call voter ID. They're identifying the vote. They go
to household after household, either by way of phone or
by way of internet, or by way of a personal
knock on the door, just to find out which party
you typically vote for. They're not there to actually tell
you much about their parties. They're not there to talk
(36:28):
to you. They're not there to discuss with you. They're
not there to try to convince you to vote for
their guy or gal. They just want to know which
way you typically vote, because if you vote their way,
they're going to come back and bug you to get
out and vote on election day, and they're going to
give you some brochures and they're going to ask you
to take a sign, and if you vote for the
other guy, they're not going to say anything. They want
to discourage you from going out voting, And so we
(36:50):
have this incredible amount of negative campaigning and the call.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
I totally agree with you. My worry is that the
country is not ready for anything that's mandatory right now.
We have had quite a pushback on people being told
what to do.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
But you're right, I hear you that we may not
be back, we may not be ready for it. But
I think it's the right thing. And I think that
what would happen is that you would have a lot
less voter ID and negative advertising and just get out
the vote. All the attention would be on persuasion because
you know everyone was going to the ballot box, so
you'd want to try to persuade them to your sign.
(37:28):
And I think it would be very positive. And people
say they don't like compulsory. I would make it an
incentive and a disincentive. I would have five hundred bucks
if you vote, and a five hundred dollars tax increase
if you don't vote, so it would be self financing.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Well, in Australia it's cheaper than that. It's fifty bucks
if you don't vote.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
And they have a very percent turn out. With a friend.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
I know and so, and you know, Australians are pretty
independent people. I mean they're not. You know, it's it's
not like they sort of live in a country where
people are telling them what to do. And you won't
find Australians going, we don't want this this way. In fact,
they actually had a referendum to ask if they wanted
to go back to not having mandatory voting, and they
(38:13):
said no, we want to keep it this way. So
I'm with you on that. I do think we have
changed how our elections are run because we don't have
mandatory The Electoral Reform Commission listened to all the arguments
on mandatory voting and then decided not to recommend it.
But I think we should can. Maybe you and I
(38:34):
could start this. Brian will become the Pro Mandatory Voting Committee.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
Another one for you, I think recall which exists in
the United States and sometimes has been done in some
places in Canada. I think is also good because the
reality is if a politician is threatened by a recall vote,
they smart en up even if the recall vote doesn't
happen because they don't get enough people to sign up
for it. So I think recall. You can hire someone
(39:01):
on a contract, you can get rid of someone halfway
through their tenure, but for some reason, you can't get
rid of MPs or or provincial members of parliament halfway
through the term. And I think you should be able to.
So I think recall would be an incredibly important decisive
measure to put in that voters would have a way
of disciplining someone that is completely inappropriate wrong.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
What do you think about term limits?
Speaker 2 (39:23):
I like the idea of term limits, you know. I
I've done a lot of business in Dallas as an example,
and Dallas it's a two term limit typically, And what
that does is creates the incentive for up and out.
And so what ends up happening is someone starts as
a counselor and then they become a mayor, and then
they become a state senator, and then become a state representative,
(39:45):
and then they become a congress person, and then they
become a senator and it's or run for governor or
something like that, and it's a it's a progressive system.
I think that the power of incumbency is way too powerful. Now.
I'm not sure if two term limits is the right.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
No, I'm not either. I mean, here's but I'm with you.
I think there has to be some kind of a
limit because incumbency is very powerful and you stop getting
good people stepping up because they go, oh so and
so always gets re elected, right, and you have great
name recognition and you have the ability because you've been elected.
I mean, it gives you an advantage. There's no two
(40:22):
ways about it. But I do think you could combine
it with recall, Like so have a term, and I
would keep the threshold high for recall, very high, so
that it has to be just I don't like you
know that you didn't come to Granny's hundredth birthday, So
I'm going to start a recall campaign. But that if something.
(40:42):
I think what people don't have right now, and they
don't see their vote as being that is a way
to be heard, right they feel that, and we've had
these majority governments that go, well, we got the power,
we're doing it our way. And oh, yeah, we promise that. No,
we're not going to do that after all, So we
have no truth in advertising for politicians. Do you realize
(41:05):
that they do not qualify under the Truth in Advertising Act?
They don't, and none of them, one that's brought up
to them, want to actually do that. Well, you know,
it'd be hard to prove it, but I think there
has to be some accountability. So I don't know if
i'd go as far as recall, but I might where
at least you could file a complaint if someone didn't
(41:26):
keep a promise, and they would have to go before
a commissioner and show why, and if they had no
valid reason that there would be repercussions. In New Brunswick,
for example, they've started something that is moving in that
direction where if you make a promise during an election campaign,
you have to cost it and it has to be
(41:47):
put on a public page, and if you can't cost it,
you have to say you can't cost it. And so
all the parties can check what, at least, if nothing else,
how much everybody plans to spend, and you can track them.
I mean, for a while there you could promise the moon,
everybody gets a new bridge, everybody gets this and yet
(42:09):
no costing for it. So I think we need more
accountability built into campaign promises. I also think we need
to look at career politicians. So maybe it's a three
or a four term.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
Well, I've got one less controversial date suggestion for you.
I think primaries are good. I think the nomination process
and political parties in Canada is absurd. I think the
fact that one hundred people in a church basement or
the Veterans Association, or frankly, sometimes less than one hundred people,
and or frankly, a couple thousand people that are all
organized by a racial group or religious group or a
(42:45):
baseball club or something like that can pack a room
and elect a candidate. And I think the fact that
you nominate a candidate four years ahead of the time
is wrong. And I think that the primary system that
they have in the United States, where people that declare
themselves as a Democrat or Republican and frank the independents
can vote in a primary, it's a lot. It's a
(43:07):
lot closer to one person, one vote, and I think
that you would end up getting far better candidates running.
You would have far less power in the unelected PMO
or leaders offices, and the people that I think deserve
to get their candidacy nominated by the different parties would
(43:28):
do so. So I like the idea of a primary
system that is held a year before or in the
year before the election be the way that we elect
our leaders and our candidates.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
I'm going to push back a little bit on that
because I think what we've seen in the United States
is that they have voter fatigue. I mean, their voter
turnouts terrible as well, by the way, and they do
have voter fatigue there. They've shown that people just feel
their constantly in election cycle, and you would find, unless
we were careful about how we dealt with that, you
(44:00):
would have interest groups taking over primaries, which is what
they have done in the States. But I have a
comeback on that one because I think you're onto something.
I am suggesting that if you are a candidate who
has been nominated for by an official political party, and
you've gone through a nomination contest so not an acclamation,
(44:25):
that there would be a public subsidy like EI to
replace income. Because here's what's happening to so many people
is that if they get nominated too early, they have
to give up their job, so you're only getting people
who are wealthy or have a kind of job where
(44:46):
being a political candidate pays you to do it. And
I think we need more people to get in the system.
I think you're right, so I say, let's give them
some incentive, and that is there will be funding if
you go through a nomination race and if you're not acclaimed,
and that we take that acclamation power away from political parties.
Speaker 2 (45:06):
Joint Roberts. This has been a really interest conversation. Now
remind us the title of the book.
Speaker 3 (45:10):
Please aha the book. It's called Storm the Ballot Box,
An Insider's Guide to a Voting Revolution, and it's published
by Nimbus.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Join Roberts. Thanks so much for joining us. I really
appreciate it. I think that your idea of reducing the
voting age to sixteen makes a ton of sense, and
I hope that somebody's listening and will enact it. And
I'd like some of your other ideas, and I think,
if nothing else, we have to have a conversation about
it because our voting turnout is down dramatically and I
think that's a travesty and we need to change it.
(45:40):
And we need to change it quick. But more important
than all that, I got to get you back sometime
to talk about Green Party and some of the Green
Party policies. That's our show for tonight, everybody. Thank you
for joining us. I remind you on one every Monday
through Friday at six o'clock on nine to sixty am.
You can stream me online even from Halifax, Nova, Scotia
at TRIBLEW SAGA nine sixty c A. All my all
(46:02):
my programs get put on my website Briancromby dot com,
on podcast servers, on social media, on the YouTube channel
and UH and get broadcast to air as soon as
the radio show goes to air. Thanks everybody, good night, Thanks.
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Joe, thank you.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
No Radio, No Problem. Streams live on SAGA nine six
am dot c A
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty Am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Bran Crombie Radio Hour.
I've got a really interesting individual to introduce you to tonight.
Joe Anne Roberts is her name. She's a writer and
a political consultant. I read a fascinating column that she
wrote about voting age, and then I got into researching
a little about her and found out that she's just
as fascinating as her fascinating article, if not more so,
(00:39):
because her voting age columns suggested that we change the
voting age to sixteen, which I thought was kind of
radical and interesting and I frankly support, and I think
that we're going to chat about that a little bit.
But also she has written recently written a book called
Storm the Ballot Box, An Insider's Guide to a Voting Revolution.
She's also a former interim leader of the Green Party
(01:00):
of Canada. She lives in Halifax and a lot of
what she's about is getting people to vote again. Millions
of Canadians, she says, they're not voting. It's a crisis
that threatens to undermine our democracy. Apathy, ignorance, and frustration
mean a whole generation is losing faith in the value
of the vote. Joanne Roberts, who's our guest tonight, suggests
that one way to turn this around is to lower
(01:21):
the voting age to sixteen. It's one of twenty concrete
steps for how to kickstart a non violent, yet powerful
voting revolution, empowering Canadians to mark their X no matter
who they vote for. Find out what she thinks about
voting age reductions and how they'll help us all improve
voter turnout. Joan Roberts, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
It's great to be with you, Brian, thank you for
having me. I'm glad you liked to call them. I
never know when people say I saw your callum, they go,
I think, well, are they.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
In favor of it?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
But you know, one of the things about lowering the
voting age is you know you're going to get a reaction.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Well, I got to tell you an honest story. My
two sons were I think twelve and fourteen, and they
were delegates to a convention I won't tell you what
political party they were to do, and they put forward
a resolution to a policy convention to lower the voting
age to sixteen, and they both spoke about it, and
(02:18):
in this political party, I'm not sure if all political parties,
twelve year olds were allowed to attend as delegates and vote.
And they made the argument that it made sense that
sixteen year olds should have the vote. Why do you
think sixteen year olds should have the vote?
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Well, for a lot of reasons, but I'm going to
just add a corollary to what you just told me
that fourteen year olds currently vote for the leaders in
all of the political parties. So I mean, we won't
let them vote for who could sure become, but we
can let them vote for who should lead the parties. Anyway,
Why do I think we should lower it? A lot
of reasons, but here's my primary one, and it's really
(02:56):
probably one of the major reasons I wrote the book
is Canadians aren't voting. There are millions of Canadians, eleven
million Canadians and the last federal election didn't vote. That
worries me because you know, I can get into all
kinds of statistics, but let me put it simply. The
(03:18):
older generation that might include you and I, we're good voters.
We're the highest turnout, but we're losing a little bit
older than you and I. They are actually getting older.
Oh good, you've got the graph. So the graph will
show you that. You know, the fifty sixty five to
seventy four, they're the height, they're the winners, they're the
(03:39):
big voters. And then you look at the you know,
the sort of I'm going to put my classes on here.
The fifty five to sixty four they're still voting in
reasonably good numbers. But you know, the seventy five and over,
that's my mother's generation. Their numbers are dropping because they're
becoming more and less able to vote. But look at
(04:02):
those two lower numbers, the first time voters eighteen to
twenty four, all electors in first time, they're down below
fifty percent. That's a generation of voters that if we
don't get them voting, we lose them, and our democracy
then loses the well, I think we start to see
(04:23):
people not voting, and then I question our elections valid
if our turnout is less than fifty percent.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
No, I thought one thing. There's lots of interesting things
about this graph, but one thing that was interesting is
the massive increase in young people turnout in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Well, and I think we all kind of know the
answer to that one, right, it's called Justin Trudeau. I mean,
he got people excited, and he got a lot of
young people excited, and that is reflected there. But even
with that, even with the turnout in twenty fifteen, and
you'll see everybody's turnout went up, right, we saw it
as a I ran as a candidate in twenty fifteen,
(05:04):
so I know this election pretty well, and I can
tell you that the Canadians saw it as an important election, right.
They saw it as an election where something mattered, I
would say as much as anything. They were they were
getting rid of a government Stephen Harper had. Certainly the
public was not supporting a lot of what Stephen Harper
(05:28):
was doing at the time. And so that I knocked
on a lot of doors where they said, you know,
our goal is to get rid of Stephen Harper and
we're going to vote for whoever can do that. It
was kind of hard.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
If you were a I'd like to challenge you for
a second and I'll let you continue with what you
thought the election was about. But I've heard some people
say it was more about sunny ways. It was positivity.
It was this you know, this, this can do attitude
that people got attracted to that too often our politics
or negativity and bringing people down and getting rid of something,
(06:02):
and that appeals to the base and motivates the bases
to come out, but it turns off a lot of
the incremental extra voters and if you want to get
the incremental extra voters, and that turnout shows that that
in twenty fifteen, it certainly came out and we don't
know if he got it. I think he did, but
it turned out. I've heard another assessment that it was
all about cannabis and they just came out because of
(06:25):
the promise to legalize cannabis. I'm not sure if that's
that one.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
I won't say has many numbers to go with it,
but I will tell you something that turned that election around.
And if you look at the liberal analysis of their
own election, do you remember the photograph of Alan Curry.
His name was the little boy on the beach who
had drowned. And we had a government that was turning
(06:54):
his back on immigration. I mean, that's to be questioned,
but suddenly you had Justin Trudeau doing a humanity and
this isn't who Canada is.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
The election of the stitch line.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Yeah, so it was so what kind of Canadians did
we want to be? I do think that was an
issue in that election, and I do think Sonny ways
played into that. Canadian said we're not the snitch line.
We're not turning our back on the other. It'd be
interesting to see if that would work right now. But
(07:27):
I think Justin Trudeau came along and said, hey, this
is who we are. We're positive Canadians, we take in
people in need, We're caring. I mean that I think
was a very resonant message and I think it did appeal.
The other thing he said, and I'd like to hold
him to it, is that was going to be the
(07:47):
last election in their first past the post. Yes exactly.
That's in the book. And I as someone who had
to listen to a lot of people tell me on
a doorstep, I came second in that election. In the
writing I was in, I had thirty two percent of
the vote, and lots of people said to me, well, Joanne,
(08:09):
you know we'll vote for you next time when it's
a proportional vote or you know, ranked ballot, when it's
not first past the post, but right now we have
to be sure that we vote for someone who can
defeat Stephen Harbor and who can win, and we're not
sure Greens can do that, so you know, so I
think we're both right here. Sunny ways played a role, absolutely,
(08:32):
it did.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
I've heard other people say the length of the campaign,
which was one of the longest, if not the longest
campaigns in history, helped. And the example that I had
is someone compared it to the US, where you know,
you know when the election date is, and some people
think the election campaigns in the US, which are like
a year long, because you go through the primary process
in the winter, in the spring first of all, with
(08:54):
the conventions in the summer, and then the elections in November,
you've got a year or at least almost a year
to really get to know people. And in Canada, for
some reason, we don't really start paying attention until the
rit drops, even if we know when the election is,
and certainly seems to be this whole sort of competition
to try to make the election campaigns as short. And
it's interesting because Stephen Harper, I think, had a strategy
(09:16):
of a long campaign because then he thought people would
see Trudeau's weaknesses.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
No, no, no, no, no. He had a long campaign
for one reason and one reason only. He could spend
more money and he had the most money to spend.
That there's only one reason for our own campaign if
you're in government and that and if you have as
much money as the Conservatives had at that time, because
election spending is based on how many days you're campaigning.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
But am I not right that? You know? Trudeau and
the Liberals were in third place until halfway through the campaign. Absolutely,
so that long campaign helped them.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
I don't think it didn't I personally. I mean they've
won other elections without that long a campaign. I mean,
there are those who will say that this was a
strategy for Stephen Harper. He I don't. No one really
knew what Justin Trudeau was going to be like as
a campaigner. So they were hoping that their negative advertising.
(10:15):
You remember they ran a lot of advertising before the
election was called. Do you remember that just not ready,
he's got good hair, right, So that they thought we
will define him before the election because they had lots
of money. That's money you don't get back if you
if you spend the money in the election campaign, you
get some of it back. If you spend it outside
the election writ period, you don't get it back.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Okay, I got one other thing to challenge you with.
I've been told that it was the first election where
a non baby boomer or older was running, and so
this was the youngest person running in a long period
of time, and uh, if not, frankly, uh you know forever.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
How old was Joe Clark when he was elected?
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Do you know, I'd have to but he would have
been a baby boomer, Oh, you know, young at the time,
but a baby burmery. So this is the first person
and that that was what that youth is what appealed
to young people and motivated them to turn out.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Yeah, I would say that's true. There's truth in that.
I mean, you know, Justin Trudeau was the first leader
of a party to be taking selfies and he he
had a different approach than you know. The Liberal campaign
team took advantage of that, took a risk. They were
in third place, they had nothing to lose. Let's go
(11:32):
out there and run a different kind of campaign. And
I think they changed how campaigns are run because that
whole idea roll up your shirt sleeves, get out there
and take the selfies, you know, use social media in
an effective way. They did all of that. Well, I'm
not saying there was only one thing that you know,
sort of changed that election, But having also run an
(11:54):
elections since then, I can tell you that one of
the things that is becoming a constant is people are
deciding they're voting against something not for something right, and
that turns off voters. So back to your original point,
that turns off vote.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
So turnout has gone down dramatically over time, and turnout
is very much lower for younger cohorts than it is
for older cohorts. And so therefore you've come out with
the recommendation that we lower the voting age to sixteen.
But if younger people don't vote, you're going to have
a whole bunch of younger people that are eligible to
vote but aren't going to vote. And if it's by
(12:29):
any kind of a trend that is similar to the
trend that you've shown, it's going to be like thirty
percent are going to vote. And some people have contended,
and this has been a big argument in the UK
because I understand right now England is thinking about following
Scotland and Wales and lowering the voting age. One of
the biggest criticisms has been that people young people, they think,
tend to vote the way their parents vote, and so
(12:50):
therefore it is it is sort of you know, the
people that are motivated and the base that are going
to get their kids to come out, and all you're
going to do is further the voting intentions of the elderly,
the elder people to parents. So We're going to take
a messages and I'm gonna come back. I go to
ask you why you want to give the vote to
(13:11):
sixteen year old Stay with us, everyone back in two
minutes with Joanne Roberts. We've talked about how turnout's gone down,
how turnout is low for young people, So why the
heck have more of them eligible to vote if they're
not going to vote?
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Just give you this.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Everyone back into.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Stream us live at SAGA nine to six am dot CA.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Prombie Radio Hour. I've
got Joann Roberts with me tonight. She's just recently written
an article that was in the paper that you may
have read about reducing the voting age to sixteen and
She's also recently written a book called Storm the Ballot Box,
An Insider's Guide to a Voting Revolution. She's also a
(14:03):
former interim leader of the Green Party of Canada and
she lives in Halifax. And I didn't realize it. You
got thirty two percent of the vote in your twenty
fifteen election. Yeah, it be one of the best performances
for a Green Party other than the people that won. Like,
that's fantastic, congratulations, thank you.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Yeah, twenty three, six hundred and sixty six people voted
for me. I always say, if I have a tattoo,
that's what it'll be.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Who is the victor?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
It was a new Democrat, Murray Rankin.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
And then the Liberals and Considers were behind you.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Yes, the Liberal got pulled from the race and the
Conservative didn't bother showing up for anything, so it was
a two way race in the end.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
No, Look, you know what I like to say that
losers very seldom write books in politics'itutionally from the winners
that you hear. And I've run in four elections and
I've never won any of them, but I think it
does give me perspective. I have been in those back rooms.
I spent forty years as a journalist before I became
a politician, so I've been in the newsrooms as well,
(15:09):
and I think the perspective I bring to this is
a little bit of that journalism mind and a little
bit of that back room political elbows up, boys. We
can't use that anymore, can be because it belongs to
the liberals. But you know, I understand what it's like
to be on the hustings. And I'm not a Pollyanna
(15:29):
about oh, we can fix everything just because we lower
the voting age. But here's I'm going to answer your
argument about oh, we'll just get a bunch of people
who can vote, then they won't vote. There's really good
research out there that if you vote in the first
election you are eligible for that, you will vote in
every election thereafter. It's just that it becomes something you go, well,
(15:52):
that wasn't so bad, so I'll do it when it
comes up again. And the problem with eighteen year olds
not having a great turnout when they got the vote
was because they just left high school. They'd also probably
just started maybe a first job, but they were in
a transition. They weren't in an environment that encouraged them
(16:13):
to vote, and I agree with you. Yes, some of
them are going to vote the way their parents tell
them to vote. But at least they'll vote, they'll be
in there by themselves and they'll mark a ballot. But
more importantly, they're going to be influenced by what happens
in their classroom. And right now in Canada, I say,
if we're going to lower the voting age, let's make
civics mandatory. It's not mandatory in Canada right now. So
(16:37):
let's have them in a kind of a captive audience.
Let's teach them about our democracy, how does it work,
why your vote is important, and then let's let them practice.
Let's let them go do it. So there are about
four hundred thousand and sixteen year olds and four hundred
thousand and seventeen year olds, So we're not likely to
change the outcome of the election, but we are going
(17:01):
to bring voters into our democracy.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So I think that you've got a great idea. I'll
give you a great analogy and an analogy you may
not like, but I think they're both good analogies. And
so blood donor statistics are very similar that if you
donate blood once in your teenage years or your early
adult years, you'll tend to donate blood the rest of
your life. If you don't get used to it in
(17:28):
high school or university, you don't donate. And it's very
difficult to get a thirty or forty or fifty year
old to start donating blood.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I like that analogy. I think that's actually very I mean,
I know, I feel like I'm living a blood when
I'm voting.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
I'll give you another analogy, which you may not like
as much, but it's also equally equally true. And it's
one of the reasons why I used to work for
beer company. One of the reasons why beer companies spend
so much money advertising at universities and donate beer openers
and caps and all this kind of stuff is because
if you tend to start drinking one brand of beer
(18:07):
at university, the prepondinence is greater than fifty percent that
you'll drink that as your first choice of beer brand
for the rest of your life. So once you start
doing something, you keep doing.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
It, you keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I think the other thing that one of my sons
made an argument of is if all the people in
grade eleven and twelve are going to civics classes and
have the vote. Every politician is going to go to
an all candidates meeting at that school. The exposure that
those kids are going to get to the political ideas
(18:42):
and thought in a positive way, that they're actually having
people come and explain their positions to them because they're
going to be captive. They're going to be at school,
they're going to be in civics class, they're going to
be interested in they're going to be invited to that.
You're going to get an incredibly well informed group of
people versus the people. And you know, you use the
example of first job. The other example would be away
(19:04):
at university. There's a whole bunch of people that are
going to be voting for the first time in our
current system that are away in a town. They don't know,
they don't know what the writing boundaries are, they don't
know who the politicians are, they don't know, frankly, what
some of the big issues are in that town because
they're brand new to that university. And so we've structured
a system where the real potential strength of voting in
(19:24):
high school is not there, and the potentiality of voting
in your first job or you're the first time you
moved out of the home or the first time you
moved away to university, where your sort of connection with
your community is the lowest, is where you get your
first vote.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
And I mean, you know, I think your point about
meeting politicians is an important one. And we have four
grown kids, and they're all adults and non pleases say
they're all voters. But I decided to use them as
a focus group for the for the book and ask them,
you know, why do you vote and what influenced you
(20:00):
growing up? And without a doubt, I think all four
of them at some point talked about meeting a politician. Now, remember,
you know, I worked for a radio station for the CBC,
and so we talked a lot about politics. But because
of what I did, you know, they attended all candidates
meetings and they knew people who were in politics. I
(20:21):
think too often are young people who are going to
be expected to vote when they turned eighteen have no
idea who these politicians are. And because they don't vote,
it's not in the politician's interest to necessarily go out
and get to know them all. Where if they were
qualified voters, I guarantee you just as you said, Brian,
(20:43):
those candidates would be at the schools. Politicians between elections
would be at the schools. You know, suddenly we'd see
platforms reflect things that young people cared about. I worry that,
you know, we ignore this group of people and they
(21:04):
don't vote, and politicians are practical. They look at who
does vote and they tailor their messages and what they're
offering to the people who do vote. That leaves out
a whole cohort that you know, people from eighteen to
well jeepers these days, eighteen to almost forty five, which
(21:27):
is that's starting to frighten me, because these people have
a lot of things that they need and they want
and they want to talk to politicians about.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So a study done in Scotland tracked people that voted
after the voting age was lowered to sixteen, and they
found out that the voting turnout increased for seven subsequent elections.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Yeah, yeah, they did, and I mean Germany. They've also
done the research now in Scotland, Wales, German States, Austrian
in America and they found the same trend. It doesn't
change the outcome, or at least in the places that
they studied it doesn't change the outcome dramatically because guess what,
(22:10):
you know, sixteen and seventeen year olds are as diverse
as the rest of the population, and some of it
may reflect that they, you know, are hearing politics talked
about in their families. But it does change the turnout,
and in my opinion, that's a game changer.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Another study done in Europe was kind of interesting. What
they found is that if sixteen and seventeen year olds
had the vote, the turnout was equal across income quitt quotients.
But that when people in their twenties are voting, only
wealthy people tend to vote, or people from kids from
(22:48):
wealthy families, and so therefore there's a real inequality in
the people that go to the ballot box. And so
you got ask yourself which is fairer just the rich
voting or everyone voting.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
And let me tell you a story about a young voter.
So I was helping out on an election in Ontario,
is up in perry Sala, Muskoka, and I broke my sandal.
I had to go get some super glue at the
dollar store. Was the day before the election. I walked in,
I had my T shirt on and I said to
the young woman with blue hair and a lot of
(23:20):
piercings at the checkout, you're going to vote tomorrow? And
she said no, and I said why not? She goes,
I'm not smart enough to vote. Now, Brian, that broke
my heart. Here was a young woman, vibrant, you know,
she knew there was election on, but she didn't think
she should be able to vote. That's the other thing
I think we're saying to young people when we don't
(23:41):
give them the vote till they're at eighteen and then
don't give them any training at eighteen, is we leave
them listening to the pundits and the polsters and all
of it. I mean, during an election campaign, you turn
on any broadcasting, you're going to hear lots of people
trying to figure out what's going to happen. And it
does make it sound like you need some degree in
political science to be able to vote, when the truth
(24:04):
is you don't. That's what I said to this young woman.
I said, I'll give you four websites you can go
check out who the four candidates are. You can vote tomorrow.
And she said, no, I don't think I need to
know who you know who's doing what and who's going
to win? And I don't think I can do that.
So there's the other thing that I think in school,
we would empower people from all walks of life to
(24:26):
realize they can vote and you know, they won't be
hit by lightning if they vote for the wrong person,
which sometimes I listen to our own rhetoric and think, yeah,
we make it sound like you need a PhD In
political science to vote.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
I didn't realize that the vote in the United States
for people to the age of eighteen wasn't until the
nineteen fifties or sixties. Yeah, up until then, it was
twenty one. And the big move to lower it was
because they changed the age of military drive to eighteen.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
So do you know when we lowered the vote voting Canada.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
I don't, it's going to shock you.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Nineteen seventy and what was it before one? Twenty one? Yeah,
and you know what the fight was from the end
of the Second World War because we allowed those who
were enlisted who are eighteen to twenty one to vote
right during the war years and right after if you
were a veteran, you were allowed to vote. So immediately
(25:28):
people started to say, well, if you felt they were
able to vote, then shouldn't we lower the voting age
to eighteen? And that fight went on from nineteen forty
seven to nineteen seventy when it was finally changed.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
That's interesting. When can you drive sixteen?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
Believe me, I was there on my sixteenth birthday?
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Well when can you drink?
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Well you can't, depends where you live. Eighteen nineteen. When
can you get married?
Speaker 2 (26:02):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Sixteen with your parents' permission.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
When are you tried as an adult versus a juvenile?
Speaker 3 (26:09):
Now that's an argument I get from a lot of
people that the court has to decide. But once you're sixteen,
the court can decide you'll be tried as an adult.
Here's another thing. When do you pay taxes? You pay
taxes if you're working as a sixteen year old. And
I don't know. I heard somewhere that you know, no
taxation without representation, So we should think about that.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
So have other countries tried this?
Speaker 3 (26:38):
Oh yeah, yeah, they have tried it, And as you mentioned,
the UK is about to their next election, sixteen year
olds will be able to vote. I mean there's some
states in the United States, but Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guernsey,
Isle of Man, Jersey, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland, Wales all let
people vote at sixteen, Greece and Indonesia at seventeen, and
(27:02):
so it's not like it's And there are states in
the United States where you can I don't know, I
won't list them all up, but where you can vote
when you're sixteen. You and I both talked about parties.
Political parties let people vote from fourteen. So I think
it is an argument we shouldn't go about it too,
(27:24):
you know, sort of. Oh well, no big difference. But
the Supreme Court may be where this will be decided.
In Canada because a group of young people from across
the country, I have a case before the Supreme Court
right now. It's called the Penny Crocker at All, so
that means the other kids versus Canada, and it was
(27:45):
filed in April. Well, they filed the evidence in April
twenty twenty four, so the last April, and the cross
examination is supposed to happen before the end of this year,
so it'll be some time next year I think where
we'll probably get a decision on this. So if the
Supreme Court were to come out and say we have
(28:06):
violated the rights of young people, then then the government
may be forced to act.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
If people wanted to do it. How would we actually
implement it by way of a constitutional amendment or could it.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Would be the vote? The Elections Act in Canada could
be changed. The Elections Act itself says who can vote
and defines who a voter is, so they it's simply
an act of Parliament. We don't have to change the constitution.
And you know, like we've done it, like this is
the thing. Do you remember In twenty nineteen it was
(28:39):
quite a debate over this. Citizens who'd been living abroad
for five years were given back the vote because it
had been taken away if you stayed outside the country
for more than five years. And this was very difficult,
especially for people who were posted with the military or
with foreign affairs. They weren't able to vote and they
challenged it. The Harper government had taken it away, and
(29:01):
in twenty nineteen it was given back. In two thousand
and two we had a fight to have prisoners who
were serving a sentence of more than two years they
were given the right to vote. Although we're not doing
a very good job of making sure that they actually
get the information they need to vote vote. So, you know,
(29:21):
I liken it a little bit too, because the arguments
I hear have sound very similar to when women got
the right to vote. Right.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
That was a mistake, wasn't it.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
Yeah, what we let all those women vote?
Speaker 2 (29:34):
That was a joke for anyone that got Theresa.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
Was kidding me. And it wasn't until nineteen forty eight
that you could vote. You had to own property to vote,
So if you were a renter and you didn't own
a piece of property before nineteen forty eight, you couldn't vote.
So I think we need to talk about our society
today and say, is this a time where sixteen year
(30:00):
olds they're you know they so I sometimes hear the argument, well,
they're not, They're their brains haven't developed enough to let
them vote. But the research has been done. It was
done in California by a number of organization, number of universities.
They are primarily Stanford, and they've said, yes, you're as
(30:21):
intellectually able, you know, prepared to vote as anyone who
is twenty five. So that argument's not going to hold either.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
So we're going to take a break for some messages,
and when we come back, I'm going to ask our
guests to share some of our other ideas on how
we storm the ballot box. Stay with us. Everyone back
in two.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Minutes, No Radio, No Problem. Stream is live on Sagay
ninety sixty am dot cl.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromee Radio Hoar. My
guest is John Roberts, who's written a really interesting book
called Storm the Ballot Box and a fascinating article about
reducing the voting age to sixteen. Joanne, I wonder if
you could share some of your other ideas on storming
the valve box. Twenty concrete steps we could do to
increase vhot to turn it.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Well, let me preface it by saying, you know, we
could have a whole other conversation, Brian. I think we
should talk about moving to some form of proportional representation
in the country. But I know that that's been argued
a lot, and there are others who are making the
case I would say better than me on this, so
(31:45):
I'm going to leave that on the table. That would
be my first choice, Let's get a proportional system in Canada.
But let me talk about this the low hanging things
that we could do easily. I mean, for example, in Australia,
they have mandatory voting, by the way, and we could
discuss that in a minute, but they give every election
(32:06):
day is a holiday, the whole day, not just four
hours to go and vote, but the whole day is
a holiday. They have barbecues, they call them democracy sausages
at the polling stations. It's a party. People come out
to vote because it's a good time. We make it
sound like having a root canal in Canada. I mean,
(32:26):
why don't we have a holiday. Let's make buses free
on election day. Let's get out there and say, well,
so you say to your neighbors, I'll see you at
the polling place. Let's have the school home and schools
have barbecues, and you know, maybe have an incentive. Maybe
someone said to me, well doing maybe we should just
(32:48):
have a tax break. You know, you get a credit
if you vote. And I'm not opposed to that, except
I know there are a lot of people who a
tax break means very little to them. So I'm thinking, well,
how about you know, we give people a pass, a
day pass to the National Park. I'd say, people come
out to vote if you gave them a free ice cream.
(33:10):
We just haven't said we value your vote, and I
think it is time to bring in an incentive for
the vote, So I'd like to see some discussion about
that now. Another thing that I'm experimenting with that I
get lots of arguments about this, but we didn't put
the name of the party on the ballot till nineteen
(33:31):
seventy two, so you had to know if you were
going in to vote for Brian Crombie what party Brian
Crombie was with because it didn't say it on the ballot,
And I'm wondering if we shouldn't consider going back to that.
And there's a reason for that. Right now we have
gone to we're not voting necessarily for individuals. We don't
(33:53):
know our candidates very well. We're voting for a national
platform and a national party. And I'm not saying that's wrong.
There are times when people should decide that that's what
they're voting for. But I also want people to get
to know their candidates, to get to know the person
who's going to be their representative, and I'm wondering how
(34:15):
do we do that. In One of the ways I
think we could do that is to make it more
important for candidates to get their own name out there
and not just their party brand.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Okay, any others.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Well, yeah, this one's a little more complicated. But I
think we took away the per vote subsidy in Canada.
That is that you know, when I was running in
twenty fifteen, that was the last election with a subsidy,
those twenty three, six hundred and sixty six people voted
for me. Each of those votes was worth a dollar
(34:46):
fifty six to the Green Party, and so the writing
I was in got money because I got votes. So
the vote had a value even if I didn't get elected,
and that stayed with the right. As long as I
got over ten percent of the vote and the party
nationally got over two percent, that money could be used
(35:09):
to help the party prepare for the next election. That
was taken away. We have no public funding in federal
elections now, and it's been very hard on smaller parties,
particularly the NDP and the Green Party, and I think
we're heading to a two party state unless that changes,
(35:30):
because smaller parties spend all their time trying to just
raise enough money to keep themselves afloat rather than spending
their time and their energy talking about the issues that
are before Canadians.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Well, that's fascinating. So I've got a couple of my
own recommendations. Can I suggest a few? So I've got
a few suggestions. I think composery voting makes a ton
of sense, and I think one of the reasons why.
And I think Australia has proven this out. And I've
had personal experience with this, just like you we have.
I've campaigned in numerous different election campaigns, and I get
frustrated that the vast majority of the time the canvassers
(36:08):
are doing, what the political organizations are doing is what
they call voter ID. They're identifying the vote. They go
to household after household, either by way of phone or
by way of internet, or by way of a personal
knock on the door, just to find out which party
you typically vote for. They're not there to actually tell
you much about their parties. They're not there to talk
(36:28):
to you. They're not there to discuss with you. They're
not there to try to convince you to vote for
their guy or gal. They just want to know which
way you typically vote, because if you vote their way,
they're going to come back and bug you to get
out and vote on election day, and they're going to
give you some brochures and they're going to ask you
to take a sign, and if you vote for the
other guy, they're not going to say anything. They want
to discourage you from going out voting, And so we
(36:50):
have this incredible amount of negative campaigning and the call.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
I totally agree with you. My worry is that the
country is not ready for anything that's mandatory right now.
We have had quite a pushback on people being told
what to do.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
But you're right, I hear you that we may not
be back, we may not be ready for it. But
I think it's the right thing. And I think that
what would happen is that you would have a lot
less voter ID and negative advertising and just get out
the vote. All the attention would be on persuasion because
you know everyone was going to the ballot box, so
you'd want to try to persuade them to your sign.
(37:28):
And I think it would be very positive. And people
say they don't like compulsory. I would make it an
incentive and a disincentive. I would have five hundred bucks
if you vote, and a five hundred dollars tax increase
if you don't vote, so it would be self financing.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Well, in Australia it's cheaper than that. It's fifty bucks
if you don't vote.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
And they have a very percent turn out. With a friend.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
I know and so, and you know, Australians are pretty
independent people. I mean they're not. You know, it's it's
not like they sort of live in a country where
people are telling them what to do. And you won't
find Australians going, we don't want this this way. In fact,
they actually had a referendum to ask if they wanted
to go back to not having mandatory voting, and they
(38:13):
said no, we want to keep it this way. So
I'm with you on that. I do think we have
changed how our elections are run because we don't have
mandatory The Electoral Reform Commission listened to all the arguments
on mandatory voting and then decided not to recommend it.
But I think we should can. Maybe you and I
(38:34):
could start this. Brian will become the Pro Mandatory Voting Committee.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
Another one for you, I think recall which exists in
the United States and sometimes has been done in some
places in Canada. I think is also good because the
reality is if a politician is threatened by a recall vote,
they smart en up even if the recall vote doesn't
happen because they don't get enough people to sign up
for it. So I think recall. You can hire someone
(39:01):
on a contract, you can get rid of someone halfway
through their tenure, but for some reason, you can't get
rid of MPs or or provincial members of parliament halfway
through the term. And I think you should be able to.
So I think recall would be an incredibly important decisive
measure to put in that voters would have a way
of disciplining someone that is completely inappropriate wrong.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
What do you think about term limits?
Speaker 2 (39:23):
I like the idea of term limits, you know. I
I've done a lot of business in Dallas as an example,
and Dallas it's a two term limit typically, And what
that does is creates the incentive for up and out.
And so what ends up happening is someone starts as
a counselor and then they become a mayor, and then
they become a state senator, and then become a state representative,
(39:45):
and then they become a congress person, and then they
become a senator and it's or run for governor or
something like that, and it's a it's a progressive system.
I think that the power of incumbency is way too powerful. Now.
I'm not sure if two term limits is the right.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
No, I'm not either. I mean, here's but I'm with you.
I think there has to be some kind of a
limit because incumbency is very powerful and you stop getting
good people stepping up because they go, oh so and
so always gets re elected, right, and you have great
name recognition and you have the ability because you've been elected.
I mean, it gives you an advantage. There's no two
(40:22):
ways about it. But I do think you could combine
it with recall, Like so have a term, and I
would keep the threshold high for recall, very high, so
that it has to be just I don't like you
know that you didn't come to Granny's hundredth birthday, So
I'm going to start a recall campaign. But that if something.
(40:42):
I think what people don't have right now, and they
don't see their vote as being that is a way
to be heard, right they feel that, and we've had
these majority governments that go, well, we got the power,
we're doing it our way. And oh, yeah, we promise that. No,
we're not going to do that after all, So we
have no truth in advertising for politicians. Do you realize
(41:05):
that they do not qualify under the Truth in Advertising Act?
They don't, and none of them, one that's brought up
to them, want to actually do that. Well, you know,
it'd be hard to prove it, but I think there
has to be some accountability. So I don't know if
i'd go as far as recall, but I might where
at least you could file a complaint if someone didn't
(41:26):
keep a promise, and they would have to go before
a commissioner and show why, and if they had no
valid reason that there would be repercussions. In New Brunswick,
for example, they've started something that is moving in that
direction where if you make a promise during an election campaign,
you have to cost it and it has to be
(41:47):
put on a public page, and if you can't cost it,
you have to say you can't cost it. And so
all the parties can check what, at least, if nothing else,
how much everybody plans to spend, and you can track them.
I mean, for a while there you could promise the moon,
everybody gets a new bridge, everybody gets this and yet
(42:09):
no costing for it. So I think we need more
accountability built into campaign promises. I also think we need
to look at career politicians. So maybe it's a three
or a four term.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
Well, I've got one less controversial date suggestion for you.
I think primaries are good. I think the nomination process
and political parties in Canada is absurd. I think the
fact that one hundred people in a church basement or
the Veterans Association, or frankly, sometimes less than one hundred people,
and or frankly, a couple thousand people that are all
organized by a racial group or religious group or a
(42:45):
baseball club or something like that can pack a room
and elect a candidate. And I think the fact that
you nominate a candidate four years ahead of the time
is wrong. And I think that the primary system that
they have in the United States, where people that declare
themselves as a Democrat or Republican and frank the independents
can vote in a primary, it's a lot. It's a
(43:07):
lot closer to one person, one vote, and I think
that you would end up getting far better candidates running.
You would have far less power in the unelected PMO
or leaders offices, and the people that I think deserve
to get their candidacy nominated by the different parties would
(43:28):
do so. So I like the idea of a primary
system that is held a year before or in the
year before the election be the way that we elect
our leaders and our candidates.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
I'm going to push back a little bit on that
because I think what we've seen in the United States
is that they have voter fatigue. I mean, their voter
turnouts terrible as well, by the way, and they do
have voter fatigue there. They've shown that people just feel
their constantly in election cycle, and you would find, unless
we were careful about how we dealt with that, you
(44:00):
would have interest groups taking over primaries, which is what
they have done in the States. But I have a
comeback on that one because I think you're onto something.
I am suggesting that if you are a candidate who
has been nominated for by an official political party, and
you've gone through a nomination contest so not an acclamation,
(44:25):
that there would be a public subsidy like EI to
replace income. Because here's what's happening to so many people
is that if they get nominated too early, they have
to give up their job, so you're only getting people
who are wealthy or have a kind of job where
(44:46):
being a political candidate pays you to do it. And
I think we need more people to get in the system.
I think you're right, so I say, let's give them
some incentive, and that is there will be funding if
you go through a nomination race and if you're not acclaimed,
and that we take that acclamation power away from political parties.
Speaker 2 (45:06):
Joint Roberts. This has been a really interest conversation. Now
remind us the title of the book.
Speaker 3 (45:10):
Please aha the book. It's called Storm the Ballot Box,
An Insider's Guide to a Voting Revolution, and it's published
by Nimbus.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Join Roberts. Thanks so much for joining us. I really
appreciate it. I think that your idea of reducing the
voting age to sixteen makes a ton of sense, and
I hope that somebody's listening and will enact it. And
I'd like some of your other ideas, and I think,
if nothing else, we have to have a conversation about
it because our voting turnout is down dramatically and I
think that's a travesty and we need to change it.
(45:40):
And we need to change it quick. But more important
than all that, I got to get you back sometime
to talk about Green Party and some of the Green
Party policies. That's our show for tonight, everybody. Thank you
for joining us. I remind you on one every Monday
through Friday at six o'clock on nine to sixty am.
You can stream me online even from Halifax, Nova, Scotia
at TRIBLEW SAGA nine sixty c A. All my all
(46:02):
my programs get put on my website Briancromby dot com,
on podcast servers, on social media, on the YouTube channel
and UH and get broadcast to air as soon as
the radio show goes to air. Thanks everybody, good night, Thanks.
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Joe, thank you.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
No Radio, No Problem. Streams live on SAGA nine six
am dot c A
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.