Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T06:47:24.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Attitudes and Behaviour in a Non-Partisan Environment: Toronto 2014

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2016

R. Michael McGregor ,
Aaron A. Moore  and
Laura B. Stephenson
R. Michael McGregor*
Affiliation:
Ryerson University
Aaron A. Moore*
Affiliation:
University of Winnipeg
Laura B. Stephenson*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
*
Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto ON, M5B 2K3, Email: mmcgregor@ryerson.ca
Department of Political Science, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg MB, R3B 2E9, Email: aa.moore@uwinnipeg.ca
Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond St, London ON, N6A 3K7, Email: lstephe8@uwo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Voting behaviour in municipal elections is understudied in Canada. Existing research is limited by the type of data (aggregate instead of individual-level) and the cases evaluated (partisan when most contests are non-partisan). The objective of this study is to contribute to this literature by using individual-level data about a non-partisan election. To do so, we use data from the Toronto Election Study, conducted during the 2014 election. Our research goals are to evaluate whether a standard approach to understanding vote choice (the multi-stage explanatory model) is applicable in a non-partisan, municipal-level contest, and to determine the correlates of vote choice in the 2014 Toronto mayoral election in particular. Our analysis reveals that, although it was a formally non-partisan contest, voters tended to view the mayoral candidates in both ideological and partisan terms. We also find that a standard vote choice model provides valuable insight into voter preferences at the municipal level.

Résumé

Le comportement électoral dans les élections municipales est peu étudié au Canada. La recherche existante est limitée par le type de données (agrégées plutôt que recueillies au niveau individuel) et les cas évalués (à caractère partisan, à la différence de la plupart des courses électorales non partisanes). Cette étude a pour objet de contribuer à la littérature sur le sujet en utilisant des données au niveau individuel à propos d'une élection non partisane. Pour ce faire, nous utilisons les données provenant de l’étude électorale (Toronto Election Study, TES) menée pendant l’élection de 2014. Nos objectifs de recherche visent à évaluer si une approche normalisée permettant de comprendre le choix de vote (le modèle explicatif en plusieurs étapes) est applicable dans une course non partisane au niveau municipal et à déterminer les corrélats de l’élection à la mairie de Toronto de 2014 en particulier. Notre analyse révèle que, bien que s'agissant à titre officiel d'une course électorale non partisane, les électeurs avaient tendance à considérer les candidats au poste de maire sous l'angle aussi bien idéologique que partisan. Nous constatons également qu'un modèle de choix de vote normalisé fournit de précieuses indications sur les préférences de l’électeur au niveau municipal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 311 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, J. 1995. Why Parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blais, A. 2010. “Making electoral democracy work.” Electoral Studies 29 (1): 169–70.Google Scholar
Blais, A, Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E. and Nevitte, N.. 2002. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, W. 1977. American institutions and political behavior. In Foundations of Political Science, ed. Freeman, D.M.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E, Miller, W.E. and Stokes, D.E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Church, E. 2014. “Transit tops Toronto issues in poll that put Tory ahead in mayoral race.” Globe and Mail (Toronto), July 7.Google Scholar
City of Toronto. 2014. 2014 General Election Results: Mayor. http://election.toronto.ca/epr2014/eprDetail.do?M;000#1432346495335 (May, 2015).]Google Scholar
Cutler, F. and Matthews, S.. 2005. “The Challenge of Municipal Voting: Vancouver 2002.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 359–82.Google Scholar
Dale, D. 2014. “Rob Ford to duck World Pride parade, too.” Toronto Star, Feb. 5.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. 2002. Citizen Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges Press.Google Scholar
Dostie-Goulet, E., Blais, A., Fournier, P. and Gidengil, E.. 2012. “L'abstention selective, ou pourquoi cetains jeunes qui votent au federal boudent les elections municipals.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 909–27.Google Scholar
Duch, R.M., Palmer, H.D. and Anderson, C.J.. 2000. “Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 635–52.Google Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Fischel, W.A. 2001. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fournier, P., Cutler, F., Soroka, S. and Stolle, D.. 2011. The 2011 Canadian Election Study. [dataset]Google Scholar
Gee, M. 2012. “Mayor Rob Ford turns his back on vital sector of city he leads.” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 9.Google Scholar
Gidengil, E., Blais, A., Everitt, J., Fournier, P. and Nevitte, N.. 2006. Back to the future? Making sense of the 2004 Canadian election outside Quebec.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Gidengil, E., Nevitte, N., Blais, A., Everitt, J. and Fournier, P.. 2012. Dominance and Decline: Making Sense of Recent Canadian Elections. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ipsos Reid. 2014. “Transit top issue for Torontonian in municipal election: Majority of commuters say their daily commute is getting longer (57%) not shorter (2%).” Ipsos Reid News, October 15.Google Scholar
Kushner, J., Siegel, D. and Stanwick, H.. 1997. “Ontario municipal elections: Voting trends and determinants of success in a Canadian province.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 539–53.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H.. 1948. The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
McGregor, M. and Spicer, Z. (2016). “The Canadian Homevoter: Property Values and Municipal Politics in Canada.” Journal of Urban Affairs 38 (1): 123–39.Google Scholar
Miller, W. and Shanks, J.M.. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nevitte, N., Blais, A., Gidengil, E. and Nadeau, R.. 2000. Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nanos. 2014. “Most important issue: What is the most important issue facing the City of Toronto? [Open-ended], September 16–20, 2014. CTV Globe Toronto Mayoral Race Summary—Wave 2. http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLTOR-S14-T617.pdf (May 2015).Google Scholar
Rider, D. 2011. “Why won't Rob Ford go to gay events?” Toronto Star, June 24.Google Scholar
Sancton, A. 2015. Canadian Local Government: An Urban Perspective. 2nd ed. et al. : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, D., Kushner, J. and Stanwick, H., H., 2001. “Canadian mayors: A profile and determinants of electoral success.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 10 (1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Stanwick, H. 2000. “A megamayor for the people? Voting behaviour and electoral success in the 1997 Toronto municipal election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 33 (3): 549–68.Google Scholar
Tolley, E. 2011. “Do women ‘do better’ in municipal politics? Electoral representation across three level of government.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 573–94.Google Scholar
Toronto Star. 2014a. “Transit a top concern for voters, survey finds.” March 12, GT3.Google Scholar
Toronto Star. 2014b. “Mayor, TTC concern voters most.” February 3, GT2.Google Scholar
Zaller, J.R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar