The results show that a large minority of Canadian electors turn to television first as their main source of news (34%). Almost three respondents out of 10 also turn to online news, including mobile apps, as one of their main sources of news (29%), and a little under one respondent out of five turns to social media, mostly news organizations pages (16%). In a lesser proportion, some respondents also turn to the radio (8%), friends' and family's social media posts (7%) and print newspapers or magazines (3%).
Figure 1: Main Source of News
Q5: In general, which of these would you say is your main source of news? MULTIPLE ANSWERS ALLOWED * Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 1: Main Source of News"
This graph shows the main source of news for respondents. The breakdown is as follows:
Television: 34%;
Online news, including mobile apps: 29%;
Social media: mostly posts by news organizations: 16%;
Radio: 8%;
Social media: mostly posts by friends or family: 7%;
Print newspapers or magazine: 3%;
I don't follow the news: 2%.
Notable subgroup differences regarding respondents' main source of news include the following:
Men were more likely to turn to online news (36%) compared with women (22%). On the other hand, women were more likely to turn to social media posts by friends and family or by news organizations (28%) compared with men (17%).
Electors aged 55 and older were more likely to turn to the television as their main source of news (52%) compared with electors aged 35-54 (31%) and 18-34 (13%). They were also less likely to turn to online news (21%) compared with those aged 18-34 (32%) and 35-54 (35%).
Nearly half (47%) of younger respondents aged 18-34 mentioned social media as their main source of news, either posts by friends and family (16%) or by news organizations (31%). In comparison, 21% of respondents aged 35-54 and 8% of those 55+ said social media was their main source of news.
Respondents with a university education were less likely (27%) to use television and more likely to use online news (35%) as their main source of news compared with respondents with a high school diploma or less (45% television, 16% online news) or with some college or trade education (40% television, 25% online news).
Immigrant electors were more likely to use television as their main source of news (35%) compared with non-immigrant electors (28%).
Habitual voters were more likely than infrequent voters to use television (37% vs. 26%) and print newspapers and magazines (4% vs. 1%) as their primary source of news.
By contrast, infrequent voters were more likely than habitual voters to rely on social media posts from family and friends (13% vs. 6%) or social media posts by news organizations (20% vs. 15%) as their primary news sources.
Interest in Politics
A majority of electors say they are interested in politics (72%); this includes 22% who are very interested and 49% who are somewhat interested. On the other hand, 28% of electors admit they are not interested in politics: 22% who say they are not very interested and 6% who have no interest at all.
Figure 2: Interest in Politics
Q6: In general, how interested are you in politics? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 2: Interest in Politics"
This graph shows the level of interest of respondents in politics. The breakdown is as follows:
Very interested: 22%;
Somewhat interested: 49%;
Not very interested: 22%;
Not at all interested: 6%.
The following subgroups were more likely to be interested in politics:
Men (79%) compared with women (65%).
Electors aged 55 and older (77%) compared with electors aged 35-54 (70%) and 18-34 (66%).
Respondents with a university education (80%) compared with those with a high school diploma or less (59%) or those with some college or trade education (66%).
Respondents living in Alberta (79%) compared with those living in the Atlantic region (66%), the Prairies (72%), Quebec (64%) and British Columbia (71%).
Respondents living in Ontario (77%) compared with those living in the Atlantic region and Quebec.
Electors with a disability (78%) compared with those without a disability (71%).
Habitual voters (76%) compared with infrequent voters (56%).
Electors who did not hold any conspiracy beliefs (77%) compared with those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (62%) and those with strong conspiracy beliefs (72%).
Confidence in Canadian Institutions
Respondents were asked to rate their confidence in a series of six Canadian institutions, which were presented at random. Among the institutions presented, Elections Canada was the one in which respondents expressed the most confidence. Indeed, a little over three-quarters of electors (78%) had a great deal of confidence (27%) or a fair amount of confidence (51%) in Elections Canada. Very few respondents expressed low confidence in Elections Canada (19%) compared with 26% to 60% for the other institutions.
Confidence was also high in the police (74%), but markedly lower for provincial governments (55%), the mainstream media (55%) and the federal government (54%). Big businesses and corporations were the least trusted institutions, with only a minority of respondents (38%) expressing a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in them.
Figure 3: Confidence in Canadian Institutions
Q7: How much confidence, if any, do you have in the following institutions in Canada? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 3: Confidence in Canadian Institutions"
This graph shows the level of confidence respondents have in different Canadian institutions. The distribution is as follows:
Elections Canada
A great deal of confidence: 27%;
A fair amount of confidence: 51%;
Not much confidence: 15%;
No confidence: 4%;
Don't know: 4%.
The police
A great deal of confidence: 19%;
A fair amount of confidence: 55%;
Not much confidence: 20%;
No confidence: 6%;
Don't know: 1%.
The provincial government
A great deal of confidence: 9%;
A fair amount of confidence: 47%;
Not much confidence: 31%;
No confidence: 12%;
Don't know: 2%.
Mainstream media
A great deal of confidence: 6%;
A fair amount of confidence: 48%;
Not much confidence: 33%;
No confidence: 10%;
Don't know: 2%.
The federal government
A great deal of confidence: 9%;
A fair amount of confidence: 46%;
Not much confidence: 30%;
No confidence: 14%;
Don't know: 2%.
Big business/corporations
A great deal of confidence: 3%;
A fair amount of confidence: 35%;
Not much confidence: 46%;
No confidence: 13%;
Don't know: 2%.
The following subgroups were more likely to express confidence in Elections Canada[1]:
Men (80%) compared with women (76%).
Electors aged 55 and older (82%) compared with electors aged 35-54 (74%) and 18-34 (76%).
Respondents with a university education (83%) compared with those with a high school diploma or less (70%) or those with some college or trade education (75%).
Immigrant electors (83%) compared with non-immigrant electors (77%).
Electors without a disability (79%) compared with those with a disability (70%).
Habitual voters (82%) compared with infrequent voters (64%).
Electors who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (90%) compared with those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (73%) and those with strong conspiracy beliefs (60%).
Opinions on the Fairness of Running Federal Elections
Generally speaking, the majority of electors believe Elections Canada runs elections fairly (87%): 44% believe it does so very fairly, and 42% believe it does so somewhat fairly. Less than one elector in 10 believes Elections Canada runs elections unfairly (8%): 6% believe it does so somewhat unfairly, and 2% believe it does so very unfairly. Another 5% of electors were not able to decide the fairness of Elections Canada.
Figure 4: Fairness of Elections Canada
Q8: Thinking about federal elections in general, how fairly would you say Elections Canada runs the elections? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 4: Fairness of Elections Canada"
This graph shows respondents' opinions of Elections Canada's ability to run a fair election. The distribution is as follows:
Very fairly: 44%;
Somewhat fairly: 42%;
Somewhat unfairly: 6%;
Very unfairly: 2%;
Don't know: 5%.
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that Elections Canada runs federal elections fairly in general:
Electors aged 55 and older (90%) compared with electors aged 35-54 (85%) and 18-34 (84%).
Respondents with a university education (91%) compared with those with a high school diploma or less (79%) or those with some college or trade education (85%).
Respondents in Ontario (90%) compared with those in Quebec (85%) and Alberta (79%).
Non-Indigenous electors (87%) compared with Indigenous electors (77%).
Electors without a disability (87%) compared with those with a disability (82%).
Habitual voters (90%) compared with infrequent voters (75%).
Electors who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (95%) compared with those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (82%) and those with strong conspiracy beliefs (76%).
Reasons for Mistrust of Elections Canada
When asked whether they had a specific reason to think Elections Canada runs elections unfairly, one-third of the respondents who thought Elections Canada runs elections unfairly said they had no particular reason (35%). Among the ones who did have specific reasons, one in 10 said that they had concerns about electoral integrity and security (10%) and that the regional distribution of seats was unfair (9%). In a smaller proportion, some said they mistrusted governments, politics or politicians (8%), they had concerns about the fairness of the system (8%), they were dissatisfied with electoral services (4%) or they were displeased with election outcomes (2%).
Figure 5: Reasons to Think That Elections Are Not Conducted Fairly by Elections Canada
Q9: Is there a specific reason you think Elections Canada runs elections unfairly? SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS * Base: Respondents who said Elections Canada runs elections somewhat unfairly or very unfairly (n=210) *Because respondents were able to give multiple answers, total mentions may exceed 100%.
Text version of "Figure 5: Reasons to Think That Elections Are Not Conducted Fairly by Elections Canada"
This graph shows the reasons some respondents have for believing that Elections Canada runs unfair elections. The distribution is as follows:
Concerns about electoral integrity & security: how the rules are applied, including broad statements about "rigging": 10%;
Regional distribution of seats is unfair, election being decided by On/Qc: 9%;
Mistrust of government, politics or politicians: 8%;
Concerns about fairness of system: the rules themselves are unfair: 8%;
Dissatisfaction with electoral services: 4%;
Displeased with election outcome: 2%;
Other: 5%;
No particular reason: 35%;
DNK: 8%;
Refusal: 12%.
Notable subgroup differences regarding respondents' main reasons for thinking that elections are not conducted fairly by Elections Canada include the following:
Electors aged 35-54 (43%) were more likely to indicate that there was no particular reason for them to think federal elections were run unfairly compared with electors aged 18-34 (27%). Electors living in Quebec (55%) were also more likely than those living in Ontario (20%) to mention that there was no particular reason for them to think that federal elections were generally run unfairly by Elections Canada. Electors with some college or trade education (47%) were more likely to not have any particular reason compared with those with a university degree (29%) or those with a high school diploma or less (28%).
Respondents living on the Prairies (22%) were more likely than those living in Quebec (3%) and Ontario (5%) to explain their opinion because they thought the regional distribution of seats was unfair. Albertan respondents (17%) were also more likely than those in living in Quebec to explain their opinion about the fairness of the federal elections in the same way.
Electors with a disability (13%) were more likely to explain their opinion by their dissatisfaction with electoral services compared with those without a disability (2%).
Habitual voters were more likely to explain their opinion by their concerns about electoral integrity and security (14%) than infrequent voters (2%).
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (17%) were more likely than those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (4%) to explain their opinion with concerns about electoral integrity and security.
For their part, respondents with mixed conspiracy beliefs (43%) were more likely to give no particular reason for their opinion compared with those with strong conspiracy beliefs (24%).
Electoral Interference
In general, respondents think the spread of false information online is what could have the biggest impact on the outcome of the next federal election in Canada. Indeed, three-quarters of Canadians (78%) think the spread of false information online could have a major (40%) or moderate (37%) impact on the outcome of the next federal election. Three Canadians out of five (61%) think foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians could also have a major (22%) or moderate (39%) impact on the outcome of the next federal election. Finally, more than half of the Canadians surveyed (55%) think hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election could also have a major (24%) or moderate (31%) impact on the outcome of the next federal election.
Figure 6: Impact of Different Factors on the Outcome of the Next Federal Election
Q10: Based on what you have seen or heard recently, what impact, if any, do you think the following could have on the outcome of the next federal election in Canada? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 6: Impact of Different Factors on the Outcome of the Next Federal Election"
This graph shows respondents' perceptions of different factors that could impact the outcome of the upcoming election. The distribution is as follows:
The spread of false information online
Major impact: 40%;
Moderate impact: 37%;
Minor impact: 15%;
No impact at all: 3%;
Do not know: 4%.
Foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians
Major impact: 22%;
Moderate impact: 39%;
Minor impact: 27%;
No impact at all: 6%;
Do not know: 6%.
Hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election
Major impact: 24%;
Moderate impact: 31%;
Minor impact: 28%;
No impact at all: 10%;
Do not know: 7%.
The following subgroups were more likely to think that "hacking by foreign countries or groups into the computer systems that support the election" could have a moderate or major impact on the outcome of the next federal election:
Respondents with some college or trade education (59%) compared with those with a university degree (52%).
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (73%) compared with those who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (48%) and those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (54%).
The following subgroup was more likely to think that "foreign countries or groups using social media and other means to influence the political opinions of Canadians" could have a moderate or major impact on the outcome of the next federal election
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (72%) compared with those who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (60%) and those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (58%).
The following subgroups were more likely to think that "the spread of false information online" could have a moderate or major impact on the outcome of the next federal election:
Women (79%) compared with men (76%).
Electors aged 18-34 (84%) compared with electors aged 55 and older (76%) and electors 35-54 (75%).
Respondents with a university degree (81%) compared with respondents with a high school diploma or less (69%).
Electors who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (80%) and those with strong conspiracy beliefs (83%) compared with those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (73%).
Safety of the Voting System in Canada
Generally, three-quarters of electors think that the voting system in Canada is safe and reliable (74%), while 17% think the voting system in Canada is prone to fraud and 9% do not know.
Figure 7: Opinion Regarding the Voting System in Canada
Q11A: Which statement is closest to your opinion about the voting system in Canada? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 7: Opinion Regarding the Voting System in Canada"
This graph shows respondents' opinions about the reliability of the voting system in Canada. The distribution is as follows:
Voting is prone to fraud: 17%;
Voting is safe and reliable: 74%;
Do not know: 9%.
The following subgroups were more likely to believe that voting is safe and reliable:
Men (77%) compared with women (72%).
Electors aged 55 and older (81%) compared with electors aged 35-54 (70%) and 18-34 (71%).
Respondents with a university degree (80%) compared with respondents with a high school diploma or less (66%) or those with some college or trade education (71%).
Non-Indigenous electors (75%) compared with Indigenous electors (63%).
Electors without a disability (75%) compared with those with a disability (69%).
Habitual voters (79%) compared with infrequent voters (59%).
Electors who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (88%) compared with those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (69%) and those with strong conspiracy beliefs (54%).
Safety of Voting by Mail in Canada
Half the respondents think voting by mail is safe and reliable (51%), while one-third of respondents think voting by mail is prone to fraud (32%) and 17% do not know.
Figure 8: Opinion Regarding Voting by Mail
Q11B: Which statement is closest to your opinion about voting by mail in Canada? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 8: Opinion Regarding Voting by Mail"
This graph shows respondents' opinions on the reliability of the mail-in ballot system in Canada. The distribution is as follows:
Voting by mail is prone to fraud: 32%;
Voting by mail is safe and reliable: 51%;
Do not know: 17%.
The following subgroups were more likely to believe that voting by mail is safe and reliable:
Men (54%) compared with women (48%).
Electors living in British Columbia (64%) compared with electors living in Quebec (42%), in Ontario (51%), on the Prairies (53%), in Alberta (46%) and in the territories (42%). Electors living in the Atlantic region (58%) were also more likely to believe that voting by mail is safe and reliable than electors from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the territories.
Respondents with a university degree (58%) compared with respondents with a high school diploma or less (39%) or with some college or trade education (45%).
Habitual voters (53%) compared with infrequent voters (40%).
Electors who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (69%) compared with those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (40%) and those with strong conspiracy beliefs (32%).
Types of Voter Fraud
Two electors out of five believe that someone impersonating someone else is a type of voter fraud that happens in Canadian federal elections (39%). One elector out of three thinks that someone who votes but is not a Canadian citizen is a type of voter fraud that happens (35%). Three electors out of 10 think that someone voting more than once happens (29%), and one-quarter think someone stealing or tampering with ballots after they have been cast is a type of voter fraud that happens (25%).
Figure 9: Perception of the Frequency of Certain Types of Fraud
Q12: Overall, how often do you think the following types of voter fraud happen in Canadian federal elections? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 9: Perception of the Frequency of Certain Types of Fraud"
This graph shows respondents' perceptions of the frequency of particular types of election fraud. The distribution is as follows:
Someone impersonating someone else
Often: 8%;
Sometimes: 31%;
Rarely: 34%;
Almost never: 22%;
Not sure: 6%.
Someone voting who is not a Canadian citizen
Often: 9%;
Sometimes: 26%;
Rarely: 33%;
Almost never: 25%;
Not sure: 7%
Someone voting more than once
Often: 6%;
Sometimes: 23%;
Rarely: 37%;
Almost never: 28%;
Not sure: 6%.
Someone stealing or tampering with ballots after they have been cast
Often: 5%;
Sometimes: 20%;
Rarely: 33%;
Almost never: 35%;
Not sure: 7%.
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that "someone impersonating someone else" is a kind of fraud that happens often or sometimes in Canadian federal elections:
Women (42%) compared with men (34%).
Electors aged 18-34 (43%) compared with electors aged 55 and older (34%).
Electors living in Alberta (47%) and Quebec (46%) compared with electors living in the Atlantic region (32%), in Ontario (37%), on the Prairies (34%), in British Columbia (30%) and in the territories (29%).
Respondents with some college or trade education (44%) compared with those with a university degree (35%).
Non-immigrant electors (40%) compared with immigrant electors (33%).
Infrequent voters (47%) compared with habitual voters (36%).
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (66%) compared with those who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (24%) and those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (45%).
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that "someone voting who is not a Canadian citizen" is a kind of fraud that happens often or sometimes in Canadian federal elections:
Electors living in Alberta (43%) compared with electors living in the Atlantic region (26%), Quebec (35%), Ontario (36%) and British Columbia (30%).
Respondents with some college or trade education (38%) compared with those with a university degree (32%).
Non-immigrant electors (36%) compared with immigrant electors (28%).
Infrequent voters (39%) compared with habitual voters (34%).
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (62%) compared with those who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (21%) and those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (38%).
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that "someone voting more than once" is a kind of fraud that happens often or sometimes in Canadian federal elections:
Electors aged 18-34 (34%) compared with electors aged 55 and older (25%).
Electors living in Alberta (36%) and Quebec (35%) compared with electors living in the Atlantic region (23%), Ontario (28%), the Prairies (28%), British Columbia (23%) and the territories (8%).
Respondents with a high school diploma or less (34%) and those with some college or trade education (32%) compared with those with a university degree (26%).
Infrequent voters (38%) compared with habitual voters (27%).
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (58%) compared with those who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (14%) and those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (32%).
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that "someone stealing or tampering with ballots after they have been cast" is a kind of fraud that happens often or sometimes in Canadian federal elections:
Electors aged 18-34 (34%) compared with electors aged 55 and older (15%) and electors 35-54 (28%).
Respondents with a high school diploma or less (32%) compared with those with a university degree (21%).
Infrequent voters (38%) compared with habitual voters (21%).
Electors with strong conspiracy beliefs (55%) compared with those who did not hold conspiracy beliefs (10%) and those with mixed conspiracy beliefs (27%).
Conspiracy Mindset
Overall, less than half of respondents believe in each conspiracy theory presented. Indeed, two electors out of five believe that certain significant events have been the result of the activity of a small group that secretly manipulates world events (40%). Three electors in 10 believe that experiments involving new drugs or technologies are routinely carried out on the public without their knowledge or consent (30%). Finally, 17% of electors believe that the government is trying to cover up the link between vaccines and autism.
Figure 10: Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Q14: There is often debate about whether or not the public is told the whole truth about various important issues. Please indicate the degree to which you believe each statement is true or false. Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 10: Belief in Conspiracy Theories"
This graph shows the respondents' opinion as to the veracity of certain conspiracy theories. The distribution is as follows:
Certain significant events have been the result of the activity of a small group who secretly manipulate world events.
Definitely true: 8%;
Probably true: 32%;
Probably false: 31%;
Definitely false: 22%;
Do not know: 8%.
Experiments involving new drugs or technologies are routinely carried out on the public without their knowledge or consent
Definitely true: 7%;
Probably true: 24%;
Probably false: 34%;
Definitely false: 28%;
Do not know: 7%.
The government is trying to cover up the link between vaccines and autism
Definitely true: 4%;
Probably true: 13%;
Probably false: 24%;
Definitely false: 49%;
Do not know: 11%.
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that the statement "Certain significant events have been the result of the activity of a small group who secretly manipulate world events" is definitely or probably true:
Respondents with a high school diploma or less (51%) compared with those with some college or trade education (41%) and those with a university degree (35%).
Indigenous electors (49%) compared with non-Indigenous electors (39%).
Immigrant electors (47%) compared with non-immigrant electors (39%).
Electors with a disability (46%) compared with those without a disability (39%).
Infrequent voters (49%) compared with habitual voters (37%).
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that the statement "Experiments involving new drugs or technologies are routinely carried out on the public without their knowledge or consent" is definitely or probably true:
Electors aged 18-34 (34%) and 35-54 (36%) compared with electors aged 55 and older (23%).
Respondents with a high school diploma or less (37%) compared with those with some college or trade education (34%) and those with a university degree (26%).
Indigenous electors (44%) compared with non-Indigenous electors (30%).
Immigrant electors (40%) compared with non-immigrant electors (29%).
Electors with a disability (41%) compared with those without a disability (29%).
Infrequent voters (45%) compared with habitual voters (26%).
The following subgroups were especially likely to think that the statement "The government is trying to cover up the link between vaccines and autism" is definitely or probably true:
Electors aged 35-54 (21%) compared with electors aged 18-34 (17%) and 55 and older (12%).
Electors living in Ontario (19%) compared with electors living in Quebec (14%) and on the Prairies (14%).
Respondents with a high school diploma or less (21%) compared with those with a university degree (14%).
Indigenous electors (26%) compared with non-Indigenous electors (16%).
Immigrant electors (23%) compared with non-immigrant electors (15%).
Electors with a disability (22%) compared with those without a disability (16%).
Infrequent voters (31%) compared with habitual voters (13%).
Scenarios of a Pandemic Election: Results from a Conjoint Analysis
Objectives of the Analysis
In the next section of the survey, each respondent was presented with a series of six hypothetical scenarios describing the days following the next general election, such that over 14,000 election scenarios were tested across all survey respondents. Conjoint analysis enables inference of a respondent's inclination by simulating real-life situations composed of many possible events.
Each scenario presented a narrative of an election that assumed high levels of voting by mail and included different events that could instill or undermine confidence in the election results. Each scenario used a random combination of events based on four attributes[2]:
A delay in the results: if the results of the election were to take three, five or seven days to be announced.
Source of (dis)information: if respondents heard an anecdote about people voting twice that might raise concerns about the integrity of voting by mail; the anecdote could either come from a neutral news story or be a negative social media rumour.
Elections Canada messaging: if respondents heard a simple, reassuring message from Elections Canada about the integrity of voting by mail, a more complex message or no message at all.
Party reaction: if the party the respondents voted for either accepted or challenged the results of the election.
After each scenario, respondents were asked to indicate their level of confidence in the accuracy of the results for that election using a four-point scale (a great deal of confidence, a fair amount of confidence, not much confidence or no confidence).
A conjoint-based design and analysis based on multiple ordered logit models were used to examine which specific attributes had more or less impact on whether electors ultimately had confidence in the election results.
Overview of the Results
Overall, over two-thirds (69%) of all tested scenarios led to confidence in the election results, including 22% that led to a great deal of confidence. On the other hand, a quarter of the scenarios (25%) led to not much confidence and 6% to no confidence.
Notably, half of respondents (50%) expressed the same level of confidence, positive or negative, for all the scenarios presented, regardless of any changes in the attributes. This suggests that there is a certain floor in the level of confidence or lack of confidence that electors can be expected to have in the results of an election. In aggregate, this base errs toward having confidence in the election results: among all survey respondents, 13% always expressed having a great deal of confidence, no matter the scenario, and 23% always had a fair amount of confidence; 9% always had not much confidence, and 3% always had no confidence at all.[3]
Respondents who expressed high confidence no matter the scenario tended to be older, male, more educated and less likely to hold any conspiracy beliefs. On the other hand, respondents who expressed no confidence in any scenarios tended to be younger, less educated and far more likely to believe in conspiracies (no significant difference in gender was found for this group).
Effects of Scenario Attributes on Confidence in the Election Results
When the individual attributes in each scenario are examined in isolation, only two out of four were found to have any impact on confidence in the election results: exposure to messages from Elections Canada and decisions from the party of choice.
Any message from Elections Canada was significantly better for confidence in the results than none: scenarios that had a reassuring message from Elections Canada resulted in a 4-percentage-point lift in net confidence compared with scenarios with no message at all. The simpler message had a greater impact than the more complex message, with a 5-percentage-point lift in net confidence compared with no message at all.[4]
Scenarios in which a respondent's political party of choice decided to accept the results of the election also led to greater confidence in the election results, with a 2.4-percentage-point lift in net confidence compared with a decision to challenge the results.[5]
In our exercise, delays in the reporting of the election results by three days or as much as a week had no significant impact on electors' confidence in the election results, nor did a rumour about the integrity of mail-in ballots, whether coming from social media or the news. Figure 11 illustrates these relationships.
Figure 11: Confidence in Election Results by Scenario Attributes
Q13: Overall, how much confidence do you have in the accuracy of results of this election? Base: All respondents (n=2,582)
Text version of "Figure 11: Confidence in Election Results by Scenario Attributes"
This graph shows respondents' confidence in the outcome of the general election based on the different scenario attributes that were assessed in the conjoint analysis. The results show the net confidence score (a great deal of confidence + a fair amount of confidence) for each of the attribute levels. The results are as follows:
Attribute 1: Results delay
3-day delay: 69.0%
5-day delay: 69.0%
7-day delay: 68.1%
Attribute 2: Rumour about the integrity of mail-in ballots
News story: 68.8%
Social media rumour: 68.6%
Attribute 3: Messages from Elections Canada
No message from EC: 65.8%
Complex message from EC: 69.9%
Simple message from EC: 70.5%
Attribute 4: Decisions from the party of choice
Party challenges results: 67.5%
Party accepts results: 69.9%
Messages from Elections Canada and political party decisions did not improve confidence in the election results for all subgroups. That is, none of the scenario attributes had an impact on confidence in the election results among respondents who did not already believe that Elections Canada conducts elections fairly. As a result, while Elections Canada messages can have a significant impact on electors' confidence in the results of a specific election, that impact is generally limited to individuals who already believe in Elections Canada's fair handling of elections (87% who said somewhat or very fairly).
In any case, among respondents whose confidence in the election results could be affected, the scenarios show that combining messages from Elections Canada with a political party's acceptance of the results has an added positive effect on confidence in the election results. As a corollary, scenarios that included no message from Elections Canada, combined with a political party challenging the results, resulted in significantly smaller proportions of respondents having confidence in the results.
Figure 12 illustrates the range of confidence that respondents assigned to the results of the different election scenarios, from the scenario that obtained the overall greatest amount of confidence at the top down to the smallest amount of confidence at the bottom. Between these extremes are the six combinations of scenario attributes that impacted confidence (Elections Canada messaging and party reaction). The attributes that had no impact on confidence (delays and rumours) are presented only for the extreme scenarios.
Figure 12: Range of Scenarios That Had an Impact on Confidence in Election Results
Q13: Overall, how much confidence do you have in the accuracy of results of this election? * Base: All respondents (n=2,582). Unless noted otherwise, the scenarios are presented by regrouping any delays and any types of rumour because these attributes did not impact respondents? confidence in the election results.
Text version of "Figure 12: Range of Scenarios That Had an Impact on Confidence in Election Results"
This graph shows the range of confidence respondents assigned to the results of different election scenarios. The results show the detailed range of confidence for each scenario. The results are as follows:
Scenario 1: 5-day delay + social media rumour + simple message from EC + political party accepts results
A great deal of confidence: 22%;
A fair amount of confidence: 58%;
Not much confidence: 17%;
No confidence: 3%
Scenario 2: complex message from EC + political party accepts results
A great deal of confidence: 24%;
A fair amount of confidence: 48%;
Not much confidence: 22%;
No confidence: 6%
Scenario 3: simple message from EC + political party accepts results
A great deal of confidence: 25%;
A fair amount of confidence: 46%;
Not much confidence: 23%;
No confidence: 6%
Scenario 4: simple message from EC + political party challenges results
A great deal of confidence: 23%;
A fair amount of confidence: 47%;
Not much confidence: 24%;
No confidence: 6%
Scenario 5: complex message from EC + political party challenges results
A great deal of confidence: 22%;
A fair amount of confidence: 46%;
Not much confidence: 26%;
No confidence: 7%
Scenario 6: no message from EC + political party accepts results
A great deal of confidence: 22%;
A fair amount of confidence: 45%;
Not much confidence: 26%;
No confidence: 7%
Scenario 7: no message from EC + political party challenges results
A great deal of confidence: 19%;
A fair amount of confidence: 45%;
Not much confidence: 28%;
No confidence: 7%
Scenario 8: 7-day delay + social media rumour + no message from EC + political party challenges results
A great deal of confidence: 19%;
A fair amount of confidence: 42%;
Not much confidence: 30%;
No confidence: 9%
Among all the scenarios presented, the one leading to the least amount of confidence yielded almost twice as many unconfident respondents, with 39% net unconfident, compared with the scenario leading to the most confidence (20% net unconfident).
Notably, the fact that the "best" scenario included a five-day delay in election results rather than a shorter three-day delay, and the fact that a rumour coming from social media was present in both the "best" and the "worst" scenarios, demonstrates how any changes in confidence in the results of a given scenario were not driven by the length of the delay or by the source of any rumour.
Footnotes
[1] Details of differences in trust in other institutions by subgroup are available in the banner tables published with this report.
[2] For exact wording and details, see Question 13 in the survey questionnaire (Appendix B).
[3] These unwavering citizens are overly represented in those who gave extreme answers when asked about the fairness with which Elections Canada runs elections: half (51%) of those who said that it runs elections very fairly did not waver in their assessment of being confident in the results across all six scenarios; neither did 80% of those who said that it runs elections very unfairly. The answers to both questions are significantly correlated for unwavering respondents (r (7,334) = 0.58, p < 0.001). It is possible that some of them straight-lined their answers; however, their answers were not random, and they reflect the respondents' very high or very low opinion of Canadian electoral administration.
[4] A second order Rao-Scott test of independence (a generalization of Pearson's Chi-Square) highlighted a significant difference between the proportion of confident individuals ("a great deal of confidence" + "a fair amount of confidence") who received a message compared with no message, F (2, 14,761) = 23.74, p < 0.001. A significant difference was also discovered between the proportion of confident individuals ("a great deal of confidence" + "a fair amount of confidence") who received a simple message compared with those who received no message or a complex message, F (2, 14,761) = 8.71, p = 0.003.
[5] A second-order Rao-Scott test of independence highlighted a significant difference in the population between the proportion of confident individuals ("a great deal of confidence" + "a fair amount of confidence") whose political party of choice had decided that it accepted the results compared with those who received a message stating that the party had disputed the results, F = 8.21, p = 0.004.
