1
The connection between class and vote in Canadian electoral politics has
attracted a great deal of attention over the last 40 years. Some observers of this topic
argue that Canada exemplifies a case of "pure non-class politics," while others assert that
a relationship between social class and voting behaviour is present1. While this
controversy has by no means died out, a thorough assessment of the impact of social class
on voting behaviour in the 1997 federal election is yet to be done. In an effort to clarify and
update the body of knowledge pertaining to the relationship between social class and
voting behaviour in Canada, this study examines the impact of income and education on
interest and participation in politics in the 1997 federal election. A series of five bivariate
crosstabulations is used to demonstrate specific relationships between income, education,
interest in politics and political participation. These crosstabulations are followed by a
multiple regression analysis that clarifies both the direct impact of social class on voter
participation, and the indirect impact of social class on voter participation via the impact of
social class on interest in politics; the multiple regression analysis also introduces the age
variable for the purpose of contrasting the impact of social class on voting behaviour with
the impact of age, another variable that literature on this subject identifies as influencing
voting behaviour. The major finding of this study is that, while relationships do exist
between income and education and participation in politics, neither of these relationships is
especially strong. Of the two variables representative of social class, education has a
slightly stronger impact on interest and participation in politics; however, neither variable
influences interest and participation in politics as much as one's age does.
CLASS AND PARTICIPATION: THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY
To examine the impact of social class on voting behaviour one must first determine
what characteristics define an individual's 'class' membership. 'Class' is a somewhat vague
term that connotes differences in power, wealth, occupation, income, education and style of
2
life2. The literature on social class and voting behaviour identifies two major theoretical
approaches the concept of social class. The first theoretical approach, used by social
scientists such as Nakhaie, argues that a Marxian conceptualization of class, which defines
class in terms of different relations to the means of production, is most appropriate. The
second theoretical approach to defining the concept of social class, used by social
scientists such as Fletcher and Forbes, focuses on more substantive objective criteria,
such as education and occupation. While a Marxian conceptualization of class does offer
an interesting approach, it is the weaker of the two theories as it is more subjective and
allows more room for manipulation. For the purpose of this study I will be focussing on
objective differences in income and education, as they are more substantive and will be
more effective in determining whether or not a definitive link exists between social class
and interest and participation in politics. Income has been selected as an indicator of
social class as it is related to both occupation and lifestyle; by selecting income, rather than
occupation, I have avoided potential confusion caused by "the similarity in economic
circumstances and style of life between those with lower-paid white collar occupations and
those with better-paid blue collar occupations."3 Education has been chosen as an
indicator of social class as it represents status quite differently than income, and thus may
have a different impact on interest and participation in politics.
Turning now to the link between social class and voting behaviour, we find that
there has been limited consistency, and in some cases outright disagreement, in the
findings of the various social scientists who have examined the impact of social class on
voting behaviours in Canadian General Elections. The majority of the research on this
topic focuses on the impact of social class on party choice, while major studies examining
1
Alford, Robert R., Party and Society: The Anglo-American Democracies. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963.
Fletcher, Joseph F., and H.D. Forbes, "Education, Occupation and Vote in Canada, 1965 1984," Canadian
Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Nov. 1990), pp. 442.
3 ibid, pp. 443.
2
3
the impact of social class on interest and participation in politics are more rare. The
literature pertaining to class and voting behaviour has isolated many variables that increase
or decrease the likelihood of individuals voting, however, a systematic and rigorous
account of the impact of social class on interest and participation in the 1997 federal
election remains absent. Although there are no previous studies available that pertain
directly to the topic of this study, information from related research is informative and
helpful in gaining an understanding of how class impacts different aspects of voting
behaviour, such as party choice.
A review of the literature on the relationship between class and voting behaviour
indicates that this relationship can differ dramatically from election to election. A
researcher who has reported findings both confirming and denying a link between social
class and voting behaviour is Elisabeth Gidengil. In a 1989 study Gidengil found that while
the strength of the link between class and party choice differs by region, a voter's social
class does have an impact on what party they will likely vote for4. A second study
conducted by Gidengil, this time on the 1997 election, found that there was no strong link
between class and party choice5. Gidengil's 1997 finding, that class did not affect voter
choice, is similar to the findings of a study on the 1984 election conducted by Lambert and
Curtis; in this study, as with Gidengil's 1997 survey, it was determined that social class did
not play a major role in determining which party a voter might choose. These two studies
are in line with the most common finding of research on social class and voting behaviour
in Canada - that the relationship between class and vote is weak.
Political Scientist Jon Pammett suggests that a possible reason for the frequently
demonstrated lack of a relationship between class and voting behaviour is that Canadians
4
Gidengil, Elisabeth, "Class and Region in Canadian Voting: A Dependency Interpretation," Canadian Journal
of Political Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sept. 1989), pp. 563-587.
5 Gidengil, Elisabeth, et al., "Making Sense of Regional Voting in the 1997 Canadian Federal Election: Liberal
and Reform Support Outside Quebec,"Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1999), pp.
247-272.
4
are so oriented towards a self-perception of middle-class membership that distinct class
voting groups have failed to emerge6. While Pammet's claim that the majority of
Canadians perceive of themselves as middle class is worth considering when examining
the link between social class and interest and participation in politics, it does not mean that
distinct differences do not exist between the political behaviour of Canadians with different
socio-demographic characteristics. To delve deeper into the relationship between social
class and voter participation it is necessary to determine to what extent social class
influences the level of interest an individual takes in politics, for as Henry Milner points out,
voter participation rates are a reflection of "political involvement and interest"7. This
statement is quite logical and thus any correlation between social class and voter
participation rates will be reflective of the impact of class on interest in politics as well. For
this reason I have chosen to examine both the direct impact of social class on political
participation and the indirect impact of social class on political participation via its influence
on interest in politics.
While it is clear that the relationship between social class and voting behaviour is
not always constant; it is less clear to what extent other external factors, such as the
primacy of certain policy issues or an individual's age, can influence voter participation
rates. A variable that is not directly related to social class, but has been shown to have an
impact on political participation, is age. As William Mishler, points out, "the relationship
between age and participation is curvilinear: participation tends to be lowest among the
young, increasing through middle age, and declining again in later years."8 To establish to
what extent social class influences political participation in comparison to factors that are
not directly related to social class, such as age, I will be contrasting the impact of income
6
Pammett, John H., "Class Voting and Class Consciousness in Canada," Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (May 1987), pp. 270.
7 Milner, Henry, "Electoral Systems, Integrated Institutions and Turnout in Local and National Elections: Canada
in Comparative Perspective," Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 30, No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 89-106.
8 Mishler, William. Political Participation in Canada. Toronto: Macmillan, 1979, pp. 101.
5
and education on voter participation with the impact of age on voter participation in a
multiple regression analysis. The literature on social class and voting behaviour also
identifies various factors, such as region of residence, as having an impact on their voting
behaviour, however, an examination of all of the factors that can impact voting behaviour is
beyond the scope of this study.
The main purpose of this study, then, is to examine the effects of income and
education on political participation both directly and indirectly via its influence on interest in
politics. Additionally, age will be factored into a final multiple regression analysis to
contextualize the impact of social class on voter participation. Clarifying these statistical
relationships will shed new light on the contemporary relationship between social class and
interest an participation in Canadian general elections; this will add to, and update, the
current body of knowledge pertaining to social class and voting behaviour in Canadian
electoral politics.
STUDY DESIGN
This brief literature review has helped clarify which variables are most appropriate
for this study and helped shape the various hypotheses that this study will investigate. As
this study will be restricted to the impact of social class on voting behaviour in the 1997
federal election, the data used for this study will be taken from the 1997 National Election
Study. Income is measured as a numerical value of an individual's total household income,
from all sources, before taxes and deductions; respondents have been classified into three
categories - LOWER INCOME (less than $40,000), MODERATE INCOME ($40,000 $80,000), and HIGHER INCOME (above $80,000). These three categories have been
selected as they represent differences in income that are large enough to impact one's
consumer power, living standard and other factors associated with social class. Education
is also classified into three categories - LOWER EDUCATION (less than high school),
MODERATE EDUCATION (high school, high school and some post-secondary), and
6
HIGHER EDUCATION (a completed post-secondary degree(s) or diploma(s)). These three
categories have been chosen as they represent major educational benchmarks, such as
graduation from high school and graduation from university or college, which can impact an
individual's social class by shaping how they perceive, and are perceived by, their social
community. Interest in politics, a composite variable taking into account the amount of
attention paid to news about the election on television, radio, and in newspapers, as well as
the amount of interest individuals have in the election and their general interest in politics,
will be classified in four categories - NO INTEREST, LITTLE INTEREST, MODERATE
INTEREST, and HIGH INTEREST. Voter Participation is simply classified as either did
vote (YES), or did not vote (NO) and Age has not been recoded as it is only used in a
multiple regression analysis.
This study will test the following three hypotheses to establish the strength and
nature of the relationship between social class and political interest and participation: 1.)
Individuals with lower levels of income and education will be less likely to vote than
individuals with higher levels of income and education, 2.) Individuals with lower levels of
income and education will be less likely to take an interest in politics than individuals with
higher levels of income and education, 3.) The combined relationship of the direct impact
of social class on political participation and the indirect impact of social class on political
participation, via its influence on interest in politics, will strongly influence voter
participation. To test these hypotheses, I shall perform five bivariate crosstabulations,
followed by a multiple regression analysis to present and summarize the relationships
between income, education, interest in politics, and participation in politics.
7
FINDINGS
Table I.) Participation Crosstabulated With Income
Level of Income
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Higher
Income
NO
21.6%
14.7%
14.0%
(486)
YES
78.4%
85.3%
86.0%
(2293)
(1100)
(508)
Voter
Participation
(2779)
(1171)
Chi-Square - 0.00
Cramer's V - 0.09
Table I demonstrates the strength of the relationship between an individual's level
of income and whether or not they voted in the 1997 election. What is shown here is an
indication of a limited relationship between level of income and voter participation. The fact
that there is a relationship between level of income and voter participation, but that this
relationship is relatively weak, is shown by a Cramer's V measure of 0.09. The relatively
weak impact of income on voter participation is further demonstrated by the column
percentages under each income category; these percentages show that while "lower
income" voters are roughly 7 percent less likely to vote than their counterparts in the
"moderate income" and "high income" categories, there is virtually no difference between
the voter participation levels of "moderate income" and "high income" voters. This
observation identifies the fact that while voter participation is lowest among individuals in
the "lower income" category, once voters have crossed a certain income threshold their
likelihood of voting, or not voting, is unlikely to change with any further increases in income.
While these data are far from conclusive, they show some evidence that individuals who
earn lower salaries will be slightly less likely to vote than more affluent individuals.
8
Table II.) Participation Crosstabulated With Education
Level of Education
Lower
Education
Moderate
Education
Higher
Education
NO
21.4%
20.4%
12.1%
(543)
YES
78.6%
79.6%
87.9%
(2586)
(627)
(1290)
(1213)
Voter
Participation
(3130)
Chi-Square - 0.00
Cramer's V - 0.11
Income, however, is only one indicator of social class. To gain a more thorough
understanding of the impact of social class on political participation education must also be
examined. Table II demonstrates the strength of the relationship between an individual's
level of education and whether or not they voted in the 1997 election. What is shown here
is an indication of a relationship that, while slightly stronger than the relationship between
income and voter participation, is again relatively weak. The fact that there is a relationship
between level of education and voter participation, but that this relationship is limited, is
shown by a Cramer's V measure of 0.11. The relatively weak impact of education on voter
participation is further demonstrated by the column percentages under each education
category; these percentages show that while voters in the "higher education" category are
roughly 8-9 percent more likely to vote than their counterparts in the "moderate education"
and "low education" categories, there is only a minimal difference between the voter
participation levels of "moderate education" and "lower education" voters. This observation
identifies the fact that while voter participation is highest among individuals in the "higher
education" category, unless an individual has a high level of education, the extent to which
a voter has been educated is unlikely to impact their likelihood of voting.
9
Table III.) Participation Crosstabulated With Interest in Politics
Interest in Politics
No
Interest
Little
Interest
Moderate
Interest
High
Interest
YES
37.2%
17.0%
9.0%
5.6%
(524)
NO
62.8%
83.0%
91.0%
94.4%
(2532)
(620)
(1083)
(1011)
(343)
Voter
Participation
(3057)
Chi-Square - 0.00
Cramer's V - 0.29
Tables I and II have shown that while there is a relationship between social class
and voter participation, this relationship is not very strong. This takes us to the next
objective of this study - to determine the indirect impact of social class on political
participation via its impact on interest in politics. The first step in establishing whether or
not social class impacts political participation indirectly through its influence on interest in
politics is to determine to what extent interest in politics is related to voter participation.
Table III shows the strength of the relationship between and individual's level of interest in
politics and whether or not they voted in the 1997 election. This table demonstrates that
the relationship between interest in politics and voter participation is substantially stronger
than either of the relationships demonstrated by the previous two tables. The strength of
this relationship is clearly shown by the column percentages under each interest category;
these percentages show that an individual's likelihood of voting increases substantially with
their level of interest in politics. The table demonstrates that individuals who take "no
interest" in politics are much less likely to vote than individuals in any other categories;
across the "little interest", "moderate interest" and "high interest" categories a clear
increase in voter participation occurs demonstrating that an individual's interest in politics
has a substantial impact on their likelihood of voting. These observations are further
10
reinforced by a Cramer's V measurement of 0.29, which demonstrates that the relationship
between interest in politics and voter participation is relatively strong.
Table IV.) Interest in Politics Crosstabulated With Income
Level of Income
Lower
Income
Interest In
Politics
Moderate
Income
Higher
Income
No
Interest
25.0%
20.8%
15.0%
(706)
Little
Interest
37.0%
35.6%
31.2%
(1159)
Moderate
Interest
28.1%
33.2%
42.0%
(1069)
High
Interest
9.9%
10.4%
11.9%
(343)
(1400)
(1281)
(596)
(3277)
Chi-Square
- 0.00
Kendall's Tau C - 0.09
Moving from the relationship between interest in politics and political participation to
the relationship between social class and interest in politics, Table IV demonstrates the
strength of the relationship between and individual's level of income and the extent to
which they are interested in politics. What is shown here is an indication of a limited
relationship between level of income and interest in politics. The fact that there is a
relationship between level of income and interest in politics, but that this relationship is
relatively weak, is shown by a Kendall's Tau C measure of 0.09. The relatively weak
impact of income on interest in politics is further demonstrated by the column percentages
under each income category. While the fact that individuals in the "lower income" category
are considerably more likely to take "no interest" in politics and considerably less likely to
take a "moderate interest" in politics than individuals in the "higher income" category shows
that an individual's level of income can impact their interest in politics, both the column
11
percentages and measure of association demonstrate that this relationship is fairly weak.
This observation draws attention to potential similarities between the impact of social class
on both participation in politics and interest in politics; such possible similarities can be
further explored by examining the relationship between education and political participation.
Table V.) Interest in Politics Crosstabulated With Education
Level of Education
Lower
Education
Interest In
Politics
Moderate
Education
Higher
Education
No
Interest
27.1%
25.3%
15.5%
(824)
Little
Interest
35.6%
36.1%
34.0%
(1321)
Moderate
Interest
27.0 %
29.0%
38.3%
(1209)
High
Interest
10.2%
9.5%
12.2%
(401)
(1533)
(1443)
(3756)
(779)
Chi-Square
- 0.00
Kendall's Tau C - 0.11
Table V demonstrates the strength of the relationship between and individual's level
of education and the extent to which they are interested in politics. Similar to the previous
table, Table V indicates a limited relationship between level of education and interest in
politics. The fact that there is a relationship between level of education and interest in
politics, but that this relationship is relatively weak, is shown by a Kendall's Tau C measure
of 0.11. Further evidence that the relationship between education and interest in politics is
weak can be found in the observation that the "little interest" and "high interest" categories
show very similar results across all three educational categories. As with the relationship
between income and interest in politics, the greatest impact of one's level of education on
their interest in politics is seen in the "no interest" and "moderate interest" categories. The
12
observation that individuals in the "lower education" category are substantially more likely
to take "no interest" in politics and substantially less likely to take a "moderate interest" in
politics provides evidence that interest in politics can increase with education. The column
percentages in the "little interest" and "high interest" categories are, however, very close to
one another, supporting the original finding that the relationship between education and
interest in politics is not strong. Additionally, it is worth noting that the response patterns of
both Tables IV and V are very similar, leading one to believe that similarities exist in terms
of how both income and education are related to interest in politics. To further clarify to
what extent social class indirectly impacts political participation through its influence on
interest in politics we must contextualize the combined strength of the relationship between
social class and voter participation by contrasting it with Age, a variable unrelated to social
class that the literature has indicated impacts voter participation rates.
Table VI.) Multiple Regression - Age, Education, Income, Interest in Politics and
Political Participation
Age
R² - 0.09
N - 3257
0.27
Education
0.14
Interest
In Politics
R² - 0.13
N - 2689
Political
Participation
0.25
0.08
Income
Impact on
Participation
(BETA)
0.03
Age
Education
Income
Direct
Indirect
0.16
0.07
0.11
0.04
0.03
0.02
Total
0.23
0.15
0.05
0.11
0.16
The main diagram of Table VI demonstrates strength of the direct relationships
between interest in politics, age, education, income and political participation, as well as
13
the direct impact of age, education and income on interest in politics; the strength of each
relationship is demonstrated by each variable's Beta measure taken from a series of two
multiple regression analyses. The chart beneath the diagram demonstrates the direct,
indirect and total impacts of age, education and income on political participation. Table VI's
main diagram shows that of the direct relationships between interest in politics, age,
education, income and political participation, the relationship between interest in politics
and political participation (BETA 0.25) is the strongest. This diagram also indicates that, of
the direct relationships between interest in politics, age, education, income and political
participation the relationship between age and political participation (BETA 0.16) is the
second strongest, followed by education (BETA 0.14) and income (BETA 0.03);
additionally, the R² of 0.13 for this multiple regression analysis indicates that interest in
politics, age, education and income together explain roughly 13 percent of the variance in
voting behaviour. Turning our attention now to the direct relationships between age,
education, income and interest in politics we see that again age is the strongest (BETA
0.27), followed by education (BETA 0.14) and income (BETA 0.08). An R² of 0.09 for this
multiple regression demonstrates that age, education and income together explain roughly
9 percent of the variance in interest in politics.
These observations are further supported by the chart underneath the diagram that
shows both the direct and indirect impacts of age, education and income on political
participation. This chart demonstrates that the combined strength of both the direct and
indirect relationships between age and political participation is stronger than combined
direct and indirect relationship between education or income and political participation.
Additionally, this chart indicates that there is a substantially stronger relationship between
education and political participation than there is between income and political participation.
As we see from the data displayed in the six tables above, evidence in support of
the first hypothesis - individuals with lower levels of income and education will be less likely
14
to vote than individuals with higher levels of income and education - does exist, however,
the relationship demonstrated is not strong. Similarly, there is some support for the second
hypothesis -individuals with lower levels of income and education will be less interested in
politics than individuals with higher levels of income and education - however, as we have
seen, this relationship is also quite weak. For the third hypothesis -the combined
relationship of the direct impact of social class on political participation and the indirect
impact of social class on political participation, via its influence on interest in politics, will
strongly influence voter participation - there is less evidence; while the combined direct and
indirect effects of both income and education are greater than their direct effects alone, in
statistical terms, the direct and indirect impact of social class on voter participation is too
limited to be considered to be strongly influencing voter participation. In summary, the
major finding of this study is that, while relationships do exist between income, education,
interest in politics and participation in politics, none of these relationships are especially
strong. Of the two variables representative of social class education has a slightly stronger
impact on interest and participation in politics; however, neither variable influences interest
and participation in politics as strongly as age.
DISCUSSION
As Fletcher and Forbes note, the majority of work on social class and voting
behaviour has had a "typical finding of weak class effects on voting in Canada."9 Overall,
this study has indicated results fairly consistent with the typical finding of a limited
relationship between social class and voting behaviour. While this study has shown that
different indicators of social class can influence voting behaviour to different extents, it has
also shown that characteristics not related to social class, specifically age, can be more
closely linked to voter participation than social class. While different election-specific
factors, such as the issues debated during the campaign, will likely cause social class to
9
Fletcher and Forbes, pp. 441.
15
affect voter participation differently in different elections, consistently weak findings raise
the question of what, then, does determine whether or not someone votes? While this
study has shown that interest in politics, age, education and income are all, to one degree
or another, related to voter participation, various social scientists have put forward other
explanations that may shed further light on the conundrum of political participation. For
example, Milner offers the explanation that the structure of the Canadian electoral system
and the way it influences electoral politics is a major factor contributing to low voter
participation rates.10 Another possible determinant of voter participation is advanced by
Brians, who argues that whether or not individuals vote is dramatically influenced by
residential mobility.11 While both of these explanations of political participation are
plausible, it is important to realise that these explanations may work in concert with social
class, or that class may prove to have an equal, or perhaps more substantial impact on
voter participation than either the Canadian electoral system or residential mobility.
Clearly, a deeper understanding of the various factors influencing political participation in
Canada will require further research.
Another finding of this survey that could be examined further, is the stronger impact
of education than income on political participation. This finding raises interesting questions
about what indicators of social class will have a higher likelihood of influencing an
individual's political behaviour. As income can be seen as a 'material' indicator of social
status, and education can be seen as an 'intellectual' indicator of social class, the findings
of this study seem to indicate that, perhaps 'material' indicators of social class have a
lesser impact on voting behaviour than 'intellectual' indicators of social class, a hypothesis
that could be examined in a future study. In offering these observations, this study is not
trying to claim to have any further insights into voter participation than those offered by the
10
Milner, pp. 106.
Brians, Craig Leonard, "Residential Mobility, Voter Registration, and Electoral Participation in Canada,"
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 215-227.
11
16
statistical findings, but rather trying to stimulate discussion that may lead to further
investigation, and ultimately a greater understanding of voter participation in Canadian
electoral politics.
One of the most interesting things about the findings of this study is that they
confirm consistently weak relationship between class and voter participation over time.
This finding is consistent with the majority of the literature on class and voting behaviour in
Canada written over the last 40 years, demonstrating a remarkable lack of fluctuation in the
relationship between class and political participation in Canada. In the face of the dramatic
changes in Canadian federal politics brought on by the 1993 'landslide' election, the
relationship between class and participation has not been altered dramatically. This may
be best explained, as I am suggesting, by Jon Pammet's assertion that Canadians are so
oriented towards a self-perception of middle-class membership that distinct class voting
groups have failed to emerge. This assertion seems reflective of the general political and
social culture of Canada and offers insight into the limited relationship between class and
participation in Canadian federal elections.
CONCLUSIONS
The relationship between social class and political participation in Canada is best
understood by examining the impact of objective criteria, such as income and education, on
voter participation. By examining such criteria, this study shows that, while relationships do
exist between income and education and participation in politics, neither of these
relationships is especially strong. Additionally, while of the two variables representative of
social class, education has a slightly stronger impact on interest and participation in
politics, neither variable influences interest and participation in politics as much as one's
age does. These findings clarify and update the body of knowledge pertaining to the
relationship between social class and voting behaviour in Canada, and in doing so
contribute to a better understanding of the contemporary relationship between social class
17
and voter participation. Consistent findings of a weak relationship between class and
participation are somewhat specific to Canada; as William Mishler notes, the weak
relationship between class and vote seen in Canada is somewhat of an anomaly in
industrialized democracies.12 Due to its unusual nature, the relationship between class and
vote in Canadian electoral politics should be revisited at least every election, to gain a
better understanding of election specific factors that might alter the relationship between
class and participation in a Canadian context.
12
Mishler, William. Political Participation in Canada. Toronto: Macmillan, 1979. pp. 89.
18
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL NOTES ON DATA AND METHODOLOGY
All of the variables used in this study were taken from the 1997 national election
survey. With the exception of missing values, the following recodes apply only to the
crosstabulation and not the multiple regression analyses. The variables used in this study
were recoded as follows:
INCOME - CPSM16 merged with CPSM16A
All don't know and refusal responses were declared as missing
cpsm16 (998, 999).
cpsm16a (98, 99).
Income was computed by merging CPSM16 and CPSM16A into 10 categories as
follows:
numeric Income
if (cpsm16a=1) or (cpsm16 le 20) Income = 1
if (cpsm16a=2) or ((cpsm16 gt 20) and (cpsm16 le 30)) Income = 2
if (cpsm16a=3) or ((cpsm16 gt 30) and (cpsm16 le 40)) Income = 3
if (cpsm16a=4) or ((cpsm16 gt 40) and (cpsm16 le 50)) Income = 4
if (cpsm16a=5) or ((cpsm16 gt 50) and (cpsm16 le 60)) Income = 5
if (cpsm16a=6) or ((cpsm16 gt 60) and (cpsm16 le 70)) Income = 6
if (cpsm16a=7) or ((cpsm16 gt 70) and (cpsm16 le 80)) Income = 7
if (cpsm16a=8) or ((cpsm16 gt 80) and (cpsm16 le 90)) Income = 8
if (cpsm16a=9) or ((cpsm16 gt 90) and (cpsm16 le 100)) Income = 9
if (cpsm16a=10) or (cpsm16 gt 100) income = 10
These 10 categories were further condensed into three categories for the purpose
of crosstabulation as follows:
recode income (1 thru 3=0)(4 thru 7=1)(8 thru 10=2)
value label Income 0'Low Income'1'Moderate Income'2'High Income'
These three categories have been selected as they represent differences in income
that are large enough to impact one's consumer power, living standard and other
factors associated with social class.
EDUCATION - CPSM3
All don't know and refusal responses were declared as missing
cpsm3 (98,99)
The 11 original categories were condensed into three categories for the purpose of
crosstabulation as follows:
recode cpsm3 (1 thru 4=1)(5 thru 6=2)(8=2)(7=3)(9 thru 11=3).
value label cpsm3 1'low education'2'moderate education' 3'high education'
19
These three categories have been chosen as they represent major educational
benchmarks, such as graduation from high school and graduation from university or
college, which can impact an individual's social class by shaping how they perceive,
and are perceived by, their social community.
PARTICIPATION - PESA2A merged with PESA2B
All don't know and refusal responses were declared as missing
pesa2a (9)
pesa2b (8,9)
The two variables were merged into one as follows:
numeric VOTE.
if (pesa2a=1) or (pesa2b=1) vote = 1.
if (pesa2a=5) or (pesa2b=5) vote = 0.
Value label Vote 0'NO' 1'YES'
Voter Participation is simply classified as either did vote (YES), or did not vote (NO)
INTEREST- CPSB1, CPSB2, CPSB3, CPSB4 and CPSB5 indexed together
The Alpha coefficient for these five variables was 0.81
All don't know and refusal responses were declared as missing
cpsb1 (98,99)
cpsb2 (98,99)
cpsb3 (98,99)
cpsb4 (98,99)
cpsb5 (98)
The new indexed variable was then computed as follows :
COMPUTE Interest = (cpsb1 + cpsb2 + cpsb3 + cpsb4 + cpsb5)
The 50 categories of the index variable were combined into 4 as follows:
recode Interest (0 thru 13=0)(14 thru 25=1)(26 thru 37=2) (38 thru 50=3)
value label Interest 0'No Interest'1'Little Interest' 2'Moderate Interest'3'High Interest'
These categories represent differences in individuals' levels of interest in politics
based on the amount of attention paid to news about the election on television,
radio, and in newspapers, as well as the amount of interest individuals have in the
election and their general interest in politics
AGE - CPSAGE
All don't know and refusal responses were declared missing
cpsage (9999).
No further recodes were necessary as CPSAGE was only used in the multiple regression
analyses.
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alford, Robert R., Party and Society: The Anglo-American Democracies. Chicago:
Rand-McNally, 1963.
Blais, André, Robert Young, and Miriam Lapp, "The Calculus of Voting: An
Empirical Test," The European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 37, No.
3 (March 2000), pp. 181-196
Brians, Craig Leonard, "Residential Mobility, Voter Registration, and Electoral
Participation in Canada," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1
(March 1997), pp. 215-227.
Fletcher, Joseph F., and H.D. Forbes, "Education, Occupation and Vote in
Canada, 1965-1984," Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,
Vol. 27, No. 4 (Nov. 1990), pp. 441-461.
Gidengil, Elisabeth, "Class and Region in Canadian Voting: A Dependency
Interpretation," Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sept.
1989), pp. 563-587.
Gidengil, Elisabeth, et al., "Making Sense of Regional Voting in the 1997
Canadian Federal Election: Liberal and Reform Support Outside Quebec,"
Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1999), pp. 247
272.
Lambert, Ronald D., and James E. Curtis, "Perceived Party Choice and Class
Voting," Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 2 (June 1993),
pp. 273-286.
Milner, Henry, "Electoral Systems, Integrated Institutions and Turnout in Local
and National Elections: Canada in Comparative Perspective," Canadian
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 30, No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 89-106.
Mishler, William. Political Participation in Canada. Toronto: Macmillan, 1979.
Nakhaie, Reza M., "Class and Voting Consistency in Canada: Analyses Bearing
on the Mobilization Thesis," Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 3
(Summer 1992), pp. 275-299.
Pammett, John H., "Class Voting and Class Consciousness in Canada,"
Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (May
1987), pp. 296-290.
Lowi, Theodore J., and Benjamin Ginsberg, American Government: Freedom and
Power. New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 2000.