Canadian students say they'd rather vote in U.S. election

FREDERICTON (CUP) — Alisha Harrity says she would have traded her vote in the Canadian election for a say in the upcoming American Presidential election.

“The presidential election is just so much more interesting,” she said. “It’s not politics as usual; it actually feels like something important is about to happen.”

Harrity — a student at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick — is just one of millions of Canadians who feel the same way. That may be why the recent federal election had the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history.

According to a survey conducted by CBC, 15 per cent of people surveyed would give up the right to vote in Canada to vote for the next President of the United States.

Nicole Slipp, 21, said she is disappointed that a lot of Canadians aren’t more concerned with the politics of our own country, even if they are just politics as usual.

“I know that the American election gets a lot of coverage, even in our own media. But when our election has started, I thought it was important to focus on that until it was over — focus on something that would affect our lives that we actually had a say in,” she said.
"It’s a shame that so many people willingly decided not to have a say.”

Slipp doesn’t think we should ignore the American election altogether. She admits that she has followed the American election fairly regularly all year, even during the Canadian campaign.

“The American media is an impossible giant to ignore,” she said.

Not only does the size of the American media mean Canadians are going to be exposed to it more, but it cultivates competition between news sources.

American media outlets use different tactics to stay ahead, including espousing themselves with political parties — Fox News is labelled as right-wing, for example, while MSNBC is said to be left-leaning.

Tim Porter, a specialist in political public relations, described this competition as a digression of the American media into “propaganda machines.”

“Canada’s filter is just different,” Porter said. “Are we getting less information? Maybe. But it’s probably higher-quality, more accurate and more objective.”

So back to Harrity, who thought coverage of the Canadian election was too dry to be bothered with. Is the media to blame for that? Not necessarily, Porter says.

He explains the presidential election is naturally more interesting because it’s a contest of individuals, not parties.

“Having a one-on-one race is more personal. The candidates get more face-time during debates, and their personalities can come through that way,” Porter said. “And it’s easier to compare and contrast their personalities and their histories.”

How does the American public get so much disclosure from its candidates? “They demand to know,” Porter said.

“[Republican vice presidential candidate] Sarah Palin was such a surprise pick because she hadn’t gone through the primary war and suffered the intense scrutiny the rest were put under,” he said. “That’s why there’s so much news coming about her now. Americans want to know this stuff.”

In Canada, it seemed less time was spent on personal scrutiny of candidates. This could be because we didn’t have the interest, but is probably because we didn’t have the time.

An American election is a long process, during which a lot of skeletons can fall out of politicians’ closets. But Canadian federal elections begin and end in a matter of weeks.

That’s not to say there isn’t hope for Canadian elections to be more compelling in the future, even to those like Harrity. Porter says that Canada may soon be heading to “a more American style,” with a regular rhythm for elections.

“Fixed election dates would change the whole dynamic of our elections,” Porter said. “Parties wouldn’t have to wait and wonder when an election is coming, so they can strategize and mobilize, and be prepared.”

According to Porter, fixed election dates would not only change the dynamic of politics themselves, but coverage as well.

“The media will bring more pressure to bare. When they know the clock is ticking, they can scrutinize more, and take a more objective view, asking the tough questions to everyone, including the opposition.”