16 Oct 03 SPSS for Unix, Release 6.1 (AIX 3.2) Page 1 11:11:35 UofT Library IBM RS6000 AIX For AIX UofT Library SPSS ID 1294 1 0 title Explaining the turnout decline..., 2003 2 0 set length=none 3 0 import file='non-voters_e.por' 4 0 * display dictionary 5 0 * write outfile='nonvote03.dat' table / id to weight Portable file: non-voters_e.por File format: Communications Date and time: 2003/09/29 17:46:49 Originating software: SPSS for MS WINDOWS Release 11.0 Originating installation: Precision: 11 base-30 digits - roughly 16 base-10 digits Variables: 141 Weighting variable: -NONE- Number of cases read: 5,641 Input file size: 22,485 records (1,798,800 bytes) Preceding task required 401.00 seconds CPU time; 4.33 seconds elapsed. 6 0 frequencies variables=lang to gendr Memory allows a total of 18,724 values accumulated across all variables. There may be up to 2,340 value labels for each variable. 16 Oct 03 Explaining the turnout decline..., 2003 Page 2 11:11:42 UofT Library IBM RS6000 AIX LANG Language of interview Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent English 1 4396 77.9 78.0 78.0 French 2 1241 22.0 22.0 100.0 . 4 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5637 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REGIO Region Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Atlantic 1 598 10.6 10.6 10.6 Quebec 2 1340 23.8 23.8 34.4 Ontario 3 1856 32.9 32.9 67.3 Prairies 4 1055 18.7 18.7 86.0 British Columbia 5 788 14.0 14.0 100.0 . 4 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5637 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROV Province Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Newfoundland 1 125 2.2 2.2 2.2 Nova Scotia 2 238 4.2 4.2 6.4 Prince Edward Island 3 31 .5 .5 7.0 New Brunswick 4 204 3.6 3.6 10.6 Quebec 5 1340 23.8 23.8 34.4 Ontario 6 1856 32.9 32.9 67.3 Manitoba 7 238 4.2 4.2 71.5 Saskatchewan 8 210 3.7 3.7 75.3 Alberta 9 595 10.5 10.6 85.8 British Columbia 10 777 13.8 13.8 99.6 Yukon 11 7 .1 .1 99.7 Northwest Territorie 12 16 .3 .3 100.0 . 4 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5637 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FED Federal electoral district Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Bonavista--Trinity-- 10001 16 .3 .3 .3 Burin--St. George´s 10002 27 .5 .5 .8 Gander--Grand Falls 10003 11 .2 .2 1.0 Humber--St. Barbe--B 10004 16 .3 .3 1.2 Labrador 10005 6 .1 .1 1.4 St. John´s East 10006 24 .4 .4 1.8 St. John´s West 10007 25 .4 .4 2.2 Cardigan 11001 9 .2 .2 2.4 Egmont 11002 5 .1 .1 2.5 Hillsborough 11003 12 .2 .2 2.7 Malpeque 11004 5 .1 .1 2.8 Bras d´Or 12001 24 .4 .4 3.2 Cumberland--Colchest 12002 16 .3 .3 3.5 Dartmouth 12003 16 .3 .3 3.8 Halifax 12004 40 .7 .7 4.5 Halifax West 12005 16 .3 .3 4.8 Kings--Hants 12006 25 .4 .4 5.2 Pictou--Antigonish-- 12007 22 .4 .4 5.6 Sackville--Eastern S 12008 11 .2 .2 5.8 South Shore 12009 23 .4 .4 6.2 Sydney--Victoria 12010 21 .4 .4 6.6 West Nova 12011 20 .4 .4 6.9 Acadie--Bathurst 13001 12 .2 .2 7.2 Beauséjour--Petitcod 13002 25 .4 .4 7.6 Charlotte 13003 15 .3 .3 7.9 Fredericton 13004 24 .4 .4 8.3 Fundy--Royal 13005 18 .3 .3 8.6 Madawaska--Restigouc 13006 18 .3 .3 8.9 Miramichi 13007 21 .4 .4 9.3 Moncton 13008 31 .5 .6 9.9 Saint John 13009 24 .4 .4 10.3 Tobique--Mactaquac 13010 16 .3 .3 10.6 Abitibi 24001 21 .4 .4 11.0 Ahuntsic 24002 27 .5 .5 11.4 Anjou--Rivière-des-P 24003 17 .3 .3 11.7 Argenteuil--Papineau 24004 15 .3 .3 12.0 Beauce 24005 23 .4 .4 12.4 Beauharnois--Salaber 24006 24 .4 .4 12.8 Beauport--Montmorenc 24007 11 .2 .2 13.0 Bellechasse--Etchemi 24008 20 .4 .4 13.4 Berthier--Montcalm 24009 23 .4 .4 13.8 Bourassa 24010 15 .3 .3 14.1 Brome--Missisquoi 24011 21 .4 .4 14.4 Brossard--La Prairie 24012 13 .2 .2 14.7 Chambly 24013 18 .3 .3 15.0 Champlain 24014 16 .3 .3 15.3 Charlesbourg 24015 26 .5 .5 15.7 Charlevoix 24016 19 .3 .3 16.1 Châteauguay 24017 11 .2 .2 16.3 Chicoutimi 24018 8 .1 .1 16.4 Compton--Stanstead 24019 20 .4 .4 16.8 Drummond 24020 20 .4 .4 17.1 Frontenac--Mégantic 24021 13 .2 .2 17.4 Bonaventure--Gaspé-- 24022 16 .3 .3 17.6 Gatineau 24023 26 .5 .5 18.1 Hochelaga--Maisonneu 24024 14 .2 .2 18.4 Hull--Aylmer 24025 21 .4 .4 18.7 Joliette 24026 16 .3 .3 19.0 Jonquière 24027 22 .4 .4 19.4 Kamouraska--Rivière- 24028 18 .3 .3 19.7 Notre-Dame-de-Grâce- 24029 11 .2 .2 19.9 Lac-Saint-Jean 24030 12 .2 .2 20.1 Lac-Saint-Louis 24031 16 .3 .3 20.4 LaSalle--Émard 24032 19 .3 .3 20.8 Laurentides 24033 24 .4 .4 21.2 Laurier--Sainte-Mari 24034 23 .4 .4 21.6 Laval Centre 24035 26 .5 .5 22.1 Laval East 24036 20 .4 .4 22.4 Laval West 24037 11 .2 .2 22.6 Lévis 24038 27 .5 .5 23.1 Longueuil 24039 13 .2 .2 23.3 Lotbinière 24040 12 .2 .2 23.5 Louis-Hébert 24041 35 .6 .6 24.2 Manicouagan 24042 12 .2 .2 24.4 Matapédia--Matane 24043 15 .3 .3 24.6 Mercier 24044 17 .3 .3 24.9 Mount Royal 24045 11 .2 .2 25.1 Outremont 24046 15 .3 .3 25.4 Papineau--Saint-Deni 24047 20 .4 .4 25.8 Pierrefonds--Dollard 24048 17 .3 .3 26.1 Pontiac--Gatineau--L 24049 27 .5 .5 26.5 Portneuf 24050 14 .2 .2 26.8 Québec 24051 16 .3 .3 27.1 Québec East 24052 20 .4 .4 27.4 Repentigny 24053 16 .3 .3 27.7 Richelieu 24054 13 .2 .2 28.0 Richmond--Arthabaska 24055 35 .6 .6 28.6 Rimouski--Mitis 24056 14 .2 .2 28.8 Roberval 24057 21 .4 .4 29.2 Rosemont 24058 14 .2 .2 29.5 Témiscamingue 24059 24 .4 .4 29.9 Saint-Eustache--Sain 24060 18 .3 .3 30.2 Saint-Bruno--Saint-H 24061 19 .3 .3 30.5 Saint-Hyacinthe--Bag 24062 19 .3 .3 30.9 Saint-Jean 24063 20 .4 .4 31.2 Saint-Lambert 24064 11 .2 .2 31.4 Saint-Laurent--Carti 24065 8 .1 .1 31.6 Saint-Léonard--Saint 24066 1 .0 .0 31.6 Saint-Maurice 24067 14 .2 .2 31.8 Shefford 24068 17 .3 .3 32.1 Sherbrooke 24069 23 .4 .4 32.5 Terrebonne--Blainvil 24070 19 .3 .3 32.9 Trois-Rivières 24071 21 .4 .4 33.3 Vaudreuil--Soulanges 24072 19 .3 .3 33.6 Verchères 24073 23 .4 .4 34.0 Verdun--Saint-Henri 24074 3 .1 .1 34.1 Westmount--Ville-Mar 24075 17 .3 .3 34.4 Algoma--Manitoulin 35001 12 .2 .2 34.6 Barrie--Simcoe--Brad 35002 25 .4 .4 35.0 Beaches--East York 35003 18 .3 .3 35.3 Bramalea--Gore--Malt 35004 14 .2 .2 35.6 Brampton Centre 35005 14 .2 .2 35.8 Brampton West--Missi 35006 14 .2 .2 36.1 Brant 35007 23 .4 .4 36.5 Broadview--Greenwood 35008 11 .2 .2 36.7 Bruce--Grey 35009 25 .4 .4 37.1 Burlington 35010 28 .5 .5 37.6 Cambridge 35011 18 .3 .3 38.0 Davenport 35012 6 .1 .1 38.1 Don Valley East 35013 10 .2 .2 38.2 Don Valley West 35014 17 .3 .3 38.6 Dufferin--Peel--Well 35015 16 .3 .3 38.8 Durham 35016 19 .3 .3 39.2 Eglinton--Lawrence 35017 19 .3 .3 39.5 Elgin--Middlesex--Lo 35018 20 .4 .4 39.9 Erie--Lincoln 35019 25 .4 .4 40.3 Essex 35020 25 .4 .4 40.8 Etobicoke Centre 35021 14 .2 .2 41.0 Etobicoke--Lakeshore 35022 21 .4 .4 41.4 Etobicoke North 35023 5 .1 .1 41.5 Glengarry--Prescott- 35024 20 .4 .4 41.8 Carleton--Gloucester 35025 19 .3 .3 42.2 Guelph--Wellington 35026 24 .4 .4 42.6 Haldimand--Norfolk-- 35027 23 .4 .4 43.0 Halton 35028 22 .4 .4 43.4 Hamilton East 35029 11 .2 .2 43.6 Hamilton Mountain 35030 14 .2 .2 43.8 Hamilton West 35031 9 .2 .2 44.0 Hastings--Frontenac- 35032 24 .4 .4 44.4 Huron--Bruce 35033 26 .5 .5 44.9 Kenora--Rainy River 35034 10 .2 .2 45.1 Kent--Essex 35035 20 .4 .4 45.4 Kingston and the Isl 35036 24 .4 .4 45.9 Kitchener Centre 35037 23 .4 .4 46.3 Kitchener--Waterloo 35038 24 .4 .4 46.7 Lambton--Kent--Middl 35039 26 .5 .5 47.2 Lanark--Carleton 35040 24 .4 .4 47.6 Leeds--Grenville 35041 15 .3 .3 47.8 London North Centre 35042 22 .4 .4 48.2 London--Fanshawe 35043 16 .3 .3 48.5 London West 35044 21 .4 .4 48.9 Markham 35045 12 .2 .2 49.1 Mississauga Centre 35046 11 .2 .2 49.3 Mississauga East 35047 7 .1 .1 49.4 Mississauga South 35048 11 .2 .2 49.6 Mississauga West 35049 13 .2 .2 49.9 Nepean--Carleton 35050 27 .5 .5 50.3 Niagara Centre 35051 16 .3 .3 50.6 Niagara Falls 35052 17 .3 .3 50.9 Nickel Belt 35053 9 .2 .2 51.1 Nipissing 35054 19 .3 .3 51.4 Northumberland 35055 18 .3 .3 51.7 Oak Ridges 35056 19 .3 .3 52.1 Oakville 35057 14 .2 .2 52.3 Oshawa 35058 14 .2 .2 52.6 Ottawa Centre 35059 18 .3 .3 52.9 Ottawa South 35060 24 .4 .4 53.3 Ottawa--Vanier 35061 27 .5 .5 53.8 Ottawa West--Nepean 35062 22 .4 .4 54.2 Oxford 35063 21 .4 .4 54.6 Parkdale--High Park 35064 13 .2 .2 54.8 Parry Sound--Muskoka 35065 27 .5 .5 55.3 Perth--Middlesex 35066 16 .3 .3 55.6 Peterborough 35067 25 .4 .4 56.0 Pickering--Ajax--Uxb 35068 18 .3 .3 56.3 Prince Edward--Hasti 35069 18 .3 .3 56.7 Renfrew--Nipissing-- 35070 22 .4 .4 57.1 Sarnia--Lambton 35071 17 .3 .3 57.4 Sault Ste. Marie 35072 17 .3 .3 57.7 Scarborough--Agincou 35073 7 .1 .1 57.8 Scarborough Centre 35074 6 .1 .1 57.9 Scarborough East 35075 13 .2 .2 58.1 Scarborough--Rouge R 35076 18 .3 .3 58.4 Scarborough Southwes 35077 13 .2 .2 58.7 Simcoe--Grey 35078 36 .6 .6 59.3 Simcoe North 35079 27 .5 .5 59.8 St. Catharines 35080 23 .4 .4 60.2 St. Paul´s 35081 13 .2 .2 60.4 Stoney Creek 35082 14 .2 .2 60.7 Stormont--Dundas 35083 21 .4 .4 61.1 Sudbury 35084 17 .3 .3 61.4 Thornhill 35085 16 .3 .3 61.6 Thunder Bay--Atikoka 35086 17 .3 .3 61.9 Thunder Bay--Nipigon 35087 29 .5 .5 62.5 Timiskaming--Cochran 35088 17 .3 .3 62.8 Timmins--James Bay 35089 15 .3 .3 63.0 Toronto Centre--Rose 35090 20 .4 .4 63.4 Trinity--Spadina 35091 16 .3 .3 63.7 Vaughan--King--Auror 35092 19 .3 .3 64.0 Victoria--Haliburton 35093 26 .5 .5 64.5 Waterloo--Wellington 35094 20 .4 .4 64.8 Wentworth--Burlingto 35095 16 .3 .3 65.1 Whitby--Ajax 35096 26 .5 .5 65.6 Willowdale 35097 15 .3 .3 65.8 Windsor--St. Clair 35098 19 .3 .3 66.2 Windsor West 35099 11 .2 .2 66.4 York Centre 35100 13 .2 .2 66.6 York North 35101 21 .4 .4 67.0 York South--Weston 35102 11 .2 .2 67.2 York West 35103 7 .1 .1 67.3 Brandon--Souris 46001 20 .4 .4 67.7 Charleswood--Assinib 46002 14 .2 .2 67.9 Churchill 46003 8 .1 .1 68.1 Dauphin--Swan River 46004 8 .1 .1 68.2 Portage--Lisgar 46005 22 .4 .4 68.6 Provencher 46006 22 .4 .4 69.0 Saint Boniface 46007 21 .4 .4 69.4 Selkirk--Interlake 46008 14 .2 .2 69.6 Winnipeg North Centr 46009 8 .1 .1 69.7 Winnipeg Centre 46010 21 .4 .4 70.1 Winnipeg South 46011 18 .3 .3 70.4 Winnipeg South Centr 46012 21 .4 .4 70.8 Winnipeg North--St. 46013 17 .3 .3 71.1 Winnipeg--Transcona 46014 24 .4 .4 71.5 Battlefords--Lloydmi 47001 19 .3 .3 71.9 Blackstrap 47002 14 .2 .2 72.1 Churchill River 47003 9 .2 .2 72.3 Cypress Hills--Grass 47004 13 .2 .2 72.5 Palliser 47005 17 .3 .3 72.8 Prince Albert 47006 12 .2 .2 73.0 Qu´Appelle 47007 11 .2 .2 73.2 Regina--Lumsden--Lak 47008 16 .3 .3 73.5 Saskatoon--Humboldt 47009 23 .4 .4 73.9 Saskatoon--Rosetown- 47010 13 .2 .2 74.2 Souris--Moose Mounta 47011 10 .2 .2 74.3 Wanuskewin 47012 11 .2 .2 74.5 Wascana 47013 23 .4 .4 74.9 Yorkton--Melville 47014 19 .3 .3 75.3 Athabasca 48001 18 .3 .3 75.6 Calgary Centre 48002 20 .4 .4 76.0 Calgary East 48003 63 1.1 1.1 77.1 Calgary Northeast 48004 9 .2 .2 77.2 Calgary--Nose Hill 48005 20 .4 .4 77.6 Calgary Southeast 48006 15 .3 .3 77.9 Calgary Southwest 48007 6 .1 .1 78.0 Calgary West 48008 14 .2 .2 78.2 Crowfoot 48009 30 .5 .5 78.8 Edmonton East 48010 36 .6 .6 79.4 Edmonton North 48011 21 .4 .4 79.8 Edmonton Southeast 48012 24 .4 .4 80.2 Edmonton Southwest 48013 20 .4 .4 80.6 Edmonton--Strathcona 48014 24 .4 .4 81.0 Edmonton West 48015 24 .4 .4 81.4 Elk Island 48016 18 .3 .3 81.7 Lakeland 48017 27 .5 .5 82.2 Lethbridge 48018 25 .4 .4 82.7 Macleod 48019 21 .4 .4 83.0 Medicine Hat 48020 19 .3 .3 83.4 Peace River 48021 34 .6 .6 84.0 Red Deer 48022 19 .3 .3 84.3 St. Albert 48023 23 .4 .4 84.7 Wetaskiwin 48024 18 .3 .3 85.0 Wild Rose 48025 24 .4 .4 85.5 Yellowhead 48026 20 .4 .4 85.8 Burnaby--Douglas 59001 16 .3 .3 86.1 Cariboo--Chilcotin 59002 23 .4 .4 86.5 Delta--South Richmon 59003 15 .3 .3 86.8 Dewdney--Alouette 59004 23 .4 .4 87.2 Esquimalt--Juan de F 59005 32 .6 .6 87.8 Fraser Valley 59006 28 .5 .5 88.3 Kamloops 59007 32 .6 .6 88.8 Kelowna 59008 27 .5 .5 89.3 Kootenay--Columbia 59009 16 .3 .3 89.6 Langley--Abbotsford 59010 28 .5 .5 90.1 Nanaimo--Alberni 59011 33 .6 .6 90.7 Nanaimo--Cowichan 59012 30 .5 .5 91.2 New Westminster--Coq 59013 17 .3 .3 91.5 Okanagan--Shuswap 59014 27 .5 .5 92.0 North Vancouver 59015 22 .4 .4 92.4 Okanagan--Coquihalla 59016 27 .5 .5 92.9 Port Moody--Coquitla 59017 27 .5 .5 93.4 Prince George--Bulkl 59018 26 .5 .5 93.8 Prince George--Peace 59019 25 .4 .4 94.3 Richmond 59020 19 .3 .3 94.6 Saanich--Gulf Island 59021 25 .4 .4 95.0 Skeena 59022 16 .3 .3 95.3 South Surrey--White 59023 16 .3 .3 95.6 Surrey Central 59024 26 .5 .5 96.1 Surrey North 59025 11 .2 .2 96.3 Vancouver Centre 59026 24 .4 .4 96.7 Vancouver East 59027 12 .2 .2 96.9 Vancouver Island Nor 59028 25 .4 .4 97.4 Vancouver Kingsway 59029 10 .2 .2 97.5 Vancouver Quadra 59030 13 .2 .2 97.8 Vancouver South--Bur 59031 19 .3 .3 98.1 Victoria 59032 32 .6 .6 98.7 West Kootenay--Okana 59033 22 .4 .4 99.1 West Vancouver--Suns 59034 29 .5 .5 99.6 Yukon 60001 7 .1 .1 99.7 Western Arctic 61002 16 .3 .3 100.0 . 25 .4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5616 Missing cases 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ER Economic region Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1010 57 1.0 1.0 1.0 1020 17 .3 .3 1.3 1030 32 .6 .6 1.9 1040 19 .3 .3 2.2 1110 31 .5 .6 2.8 1210 45 .8 .8 3.6 1220 38 .7 .7 4.3 1230 32 .6 .6 4.8 1240 36 .6 .6 5.5 1250 83 1.5 1.5 6.9 1310 38 .7 .7 7.6 1320 59 1.0 1.1 8.7 1330 49 .9 .9 9.5 1340 33 .6 .6 10.1 1350 25 .4 .4 10.6 2410 20 .4 .4 10.9 2415 43 .8 .8 11.7 2420 128 2.3 2.3 14.0 2425 83 1.5 1.5 15.5 2430 67 1.2 1.2 16.7 2435 228 4.0 4.1 20.7 2440 265 4.7 4.7 25.4 2445 57 1.0 1.0 26.5 2450 59 1.0 1.1 27.5 2455 79 1.4 1.4 28.9 2460 67 1.2 1.2 30.1 2465 42 .7 .7 30.9 2470 107 1.9 1.9 32.8 2475 60 1.1 1.1 33.8 2480 24 .4 .4 34.3 2490 6 .1 .1 34.4 3510 217 3.8 3.9 38.2 3515 91 1.6 1.6 39.9 3520 82 1.5 1.5 41.3 3530 573 10.2 10.2 51.5 3540 202 3.6 3.6 55.1 3550 224 4.0 4.0 59.1 3560 113 2.0 2.0 61.1 3570 110 2.0 2.0 63.1 3580 68 1.2 1.2 64.3 3590 113 2.0 2.0 66.3 3595 57 1.0 1.0 67.3 4610 24 .4 .4 67.8 4620 16 .3 .3 68.0 4630 23 .4 .4 68.4 4640 8 .1 .1 68.6 4650 143 2.5 2.5 71.1 4660 12 .2 .2 71.4 4670 5 .1 .1 71.4 4680 6 .1 .1 71.5 4710 58 1.0 1.0 72.6 4720 24 .4 .4 73.0 4730 64 1.1 1.1 74.1 4740 27 .5 .5 74.6 4750 35 .6 .6 75.3 4760 2 .0 .0 75.3 4810 51 .9 .9 76.2 4820 26 .5 .5 76.7 4830 170 3.0 3.0 79.7 4840 27 .5 .5 80.2 4850 27 .5 .5 80.7 4860 202 3.6 3.6 84.3 4870 41 .7 .7 85.0 4880 47 .8 .8 85.8 5910 181 3.2 3.2 89.0 5920 353 6.3 6.3 95.3 5930 121 2.1 2.2 97.5 5940 32 .6 .6 98.1 5950 47 .8 .8 98.9 5960 14 .2 .2 99.1 5970 9 .2 .2 99.3 5980 16 .3 .3 99.6 6010 7 .1 .1 99.7 6110 16 .3 .3 100.0 . 28 .5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5613 Missing cases 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CMACA Census Metropolitan Area Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1416 25.1 25.2 25.2 1 40 .7 .7 25.9 10 7 .1 .1 26.1 15 6 .1 .1 26.2 25 2 .0 .0 26.2 105 14 .2 .2 26.5 110 3 .1 .1 26.5 205 80 1.4 1.4 27.9 210 9 .2 .2 28.1 215 4 .1 .1 28.2 220 9 .2 .2 28.3 225 30 .5 .5 28.9 305 39 .7 .7 29.6 310 37 .7 .7 30.2 320 20 .4 .4 30.6 328 3 .1 .1 30.6 330 2 .0 .0 30.7 335 7 .1 .1 30.8 403 4 .1 .1 30.9 404 13 .2 .2 31.1 405 1 .0 .0 31.1 406 10 .2 .2 31.3 408 29 .5 .5 31.8 410 10 .2 .2 32.0 411 3 .1 .1 32.0 412 7 .1 .1 32.2 421 135 2.4 2.4 34.6 428 6 .1 .1 34.7 430 4 .1 .1 34.7 433 38 .7 .7 35.4 435 4 .1 .1 35.5 437 4 .1 .1 35.6 440 20 .4 .4 35.9 442 25 .4 .4 36.4 444 10 .2 .2 36.5 446 4 .1 .1 36.6 447 13 .2 .2 36.8 450 11 .2 .2 37.0 452 11 .2 .2 37.2 454 6 .1 .1 37.3 456 4 .1 .1 37.4 459 20 .4 .4 37.8 462 517 9.2 9.2 47.0 465 12 .2 .2 47.2 480 6 .1 .1 47.3 485 9 .2 .2 47.5 501 14 .2 .2 47.7 502 2 .0 .0 47.7 505 214 3.8 3.8 51.6 508 4 .1 .1 51.6 512 4 .1 .1 51.7 515 5 .1 .1 51.8 521 29 .5 .5 52.3 522 16 .3 .3 52.6 527 3 .1 .1 52.6 528 6 .1 .1 52.8 529 24 .4 .4 53.2 530 5 .1 .1 53.3 532 46 .8 .8 54.1 535 532 9.4 9.5 63.6 537 97 1.7 1.7 65.3 539 78 1.4 1.4 66.7 541 75 1.3 1.3 68.0 543 23 .4 .4 68.4 544 9 .2 .2 68.6 546 6 .1 .1 68.7 547 7 .1 .1 68.8 550 24 .4 .4 69.2 553 4 .1 .1 69.3 555 77 1.4 1.4 70.7 556 15 .3 .3 71.0 557 5 .1 .1 71.0 558 4 .1 .1 71.1 559 44 .8 .8 71.9 562 16 .3 .3 72.2 566 10 .2 .2 72.4 567 8 .1 .1 72.5 568 26 .5 .5 73.0 569 11 .2 .2 73.2 571 13 .2 .2 73.4 575 18 .3 .3 73.7 580 25 .4 .4 74.2 582 2 .0 .0 74.2 584 5 .1 .1 74.3 586 8 .1 .1 74.4 590 19 .3 .3 74.8 595 38 .7 .7 75.4 598 2 .0 .0 75.5 602 148 2.6 2.6 78.1 607 4 .1 .1 78.2 610 11 .2 .2 78.4 640 2 .0 .0 78.4 705 46 .8 .8 79.2 710 7 .1 .1 79.4 715 11 .2 .2 79.6 720 2 .0 .0 79.6 725 46 .8 .8 80.4 735 8 .1 .1 80.6 745 6 .1 .1 80.7 805 12 .2 .2 80.9 810 18 .3 .3 81.2 825 158 2.8 2.8 84.0 830 12 .2 .2 84.2 833 8 .1 .1 84.4 835 193 3.4 3.4 87.8 840 2 .0 .0 87.8 845 13 .2 .2 88.1 850 12 .2 .2 88.3 860 11 .2 .2 88.5 865 5 .1 .1 88.6 905 6 .1 .1 88.7 913 8 .1 .1 88.8 915 34 .6 .6 89.4 918 20 .4 .4 89.8 925 26 .5 .5 90.3 930 18 .3 .3 90.6 932 35 .6 .6 91.2 933 278 4.9 5.0 96.2 935 84 1.5 1.5 97.6 937 8 .1 .1 97.8 938 21 .4 .4 98.2 940 8 .1 .1 98.3 943 12 .2 .2 98.5 944 9 .2 .2 98.7 945 5 .1 .1 98.8 950 11 .2 .2 99.0 952 8 .1 .1 99.1 955 1 .0 .0 99.1 960 3 .1 .1 99.2 965 3 .1 .1 99.2 970 21 .4 .4 99.6 975 2 .0 .0 99.6 977 6 .1 .1 99.8 990 5 .1 .1 99.8 995 9 .2 .2 100.0 . 28 .5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5613 Missing cases 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q2A 2a. In what year were you born? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1903 1 .0 .0 .0 1905 1 .0 .0 .0 1907 2 .0 .0 .1 1908 2 .0 .0 .1 1910 1 .0 .0 .1 1911 3 .1 .1 .2 1912 4 .1 .1 .3 1913 2 .0 .0 .3 1914 10 .2 .2 .5 1915 9 .2 .2 .6 1916 7 .1 .1 .8 1917 22 .4 .4 1.2 1918 22 .4 .4 1.6 1919 22 .4 .4 2.0 1920 21 .4 .4 2.3 1921 32 .6 .6 2.9 1922 25 .4 .5 3.4 1923 32 .6 .6 4.0 1924 25 .4 .5 4.4 1925 39 .7 .7 5.1 1926 42 .7 .8 5.9 1927 52 .9 .9 6.8 1928 43 .8 .8 7.6 1929 56 1.0 1.0 8.6 1930 55 1.0 1.0 9.6 1931 75 1.3 1.4 11.0 1932 65 1.2 1.2 12.1 1933 59 1.0 1.1 13.2 1934 66 1.2 1.2 14.4 1935 61 1.1 1.1 15.5 1936 55 1.0 1.0 16.5 1937 73 1.3 1.3 17.8 1938 66 1.2 1.2 19.0 1939 72 1.3 1.3 20.3 1940 92 1.6 1.7 22.0 1941 90 1.6 1.6 23.6 1942 92 1.6 1.7 25.3 1943 88 1.6 1.6 26.9 1944 90 1.6 1.6 28.5 1945 89 1.6 1.6 30.2 1946 113 2.0 2.0 32.2 1947 117 2.1 2.1 34.3 1948 83 1.5 1.5 35.8 1949 114 2.0 2.1 37.9 1950 123 2.2 2.2 40.1 1951 115 2.0 2.1 42.2 1952 129 2.3 2.3 44.6 1953 130 2.3 2.4 46.9 1954 132 2.3 2.4 49.3 1955 124 2.2 2.2 51.6 1956 125 2.2 2.3 53.8 1957 113 2.0 2.0 55.9 1958 109 1.9 2.0 57.8 1959 138 2.4 2.5 60.3 1960 150 2.7 2.7 63.1 1961 139 2.5 2.5 65.6 1962 107 1.9 1.9 67.5 1963 124 2.2 2.2 69.8 1964 133 2.4 2.4 72.2 1965 117 2.1 2.1 74.3 1966 111 2.0 2.0 76.3 1967 110 2.0 2.0 78.3 1968 104 1.8 1.9 80.2 1969 106 1.9 1.9 82.1 1970 106 1.9 1.9 84.0 1971 74 1.3 1.3 85.4 1972 83 1.5 1.5 86.9 1973 78 1.4 1.4 88.3 1974 60 1.1 1.1 89.4 1975 69 1.2 1.3 90.6 1976 69 1.2 1.3 91.9 1977 89 1.6 1.6 93.5 1978 86 1.5 1.6 95.1 1979 78 1.4 1.4 96.5 1980 64 1.1 1.2 97.6 1981 71 1.3 1.3 98.9 1982 59 1.0 1.1 100.0 . 126 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5515 Missing cases 126 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q3 3. Generally speaking, how interested ar Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very interested 1 1127 20.0 20.1 20.1 Somewhat interested 2 2591 45.9 46.2 66.2 Not very interested 3 1238 21.9 22.1 88.3 Not at all intereste 4 657 11.6 11.7 100.0 . 28 .5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5613 Missing cases 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q4 4. And how interested were you in the 20 Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very interested 1 1377 24.4 24.4 24.4 Somewhat interested 2 2245 39.8 39.8 64.3 Not very interested 3 1301 23.1 23.1 87.3 Not at all intereste 4 633 11.2 11.2 98.6 Don´t know/No answer 9 81 1.4 1.4 100.0 . 4 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5637 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q5_1 5. In your opinion, why is turnout going Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Political parties (d 10 53 .9 1.1 1.1 Political parties (t 12 19 .3 .4 1.5 Political parties (a 13 66 1.2 1.4 2.9 Political parties (n 14 12 .2 .3 3.2 Political parties (l 15 7 .1 .1 3.3 Political parties (a 16 14 .2 .3 3.6 Politicians (dislike 20 143 2.5 3.0 6.7 Politicians (out of 21 14 .2 .3 7.0 Politicians (all the 22 36 .6 .8 7.7 Politicians (bad att 23 228 4.0 4.8 12.6 Politicians (no trus 24 390 6.9 8.3 20.9 Candidates (do not l 30 372 6.6 7.9 28.8 Candidates (all the 31 28 .5 .6 29.4 Candidates (no trust 32 18 .3 .4 29.7 Candidates (lack of 33 35 .6 .7 30.5 Party leaders (disli 40 94 1.7 2.0 32.5 Issues (dislike, dis 50 62 1.1 1.3 33.8 Issues (all the same 51 7 .1 .1 33.9 Issues (lack of info 52 4 .1 .1 34.0 Issues (taxes too hi 53 53 .9 1.1 35.2 Issues (No new ideas 54 5 .1 .1 35.3 Government (dislike, 60 81 1.4 1.7 37.0 Government (no trust 61 161 2.9 3.4 40.4 Government (dislike 62 54 1.0 1.1 41.5 Government (no notic 63 104 1.8 2.2 43.8 Government (no/weak 65 59 1.0 1.3 45.0 Government (single p 66 150 2.7 3.2 48.2 Government (people h 67 22 .4 .5 48.7 Electoral system (di 70 21 .4 .4 49.1 Electoral system (no 71 18 .3 .4 49.5 Electoral system (la 72 122 2.2 2.6 52.1 Electoral system (ne 73 8 .1 .2 52.3 Electoral system (ch 74 25 .4 .5 52.8 Electoral system (in 75 8 .1 .2 53.0 Regional discontent 76 90 1.6 1.9 54.9 Results are a forego 77 47 .8 1.0 55.9 Too many elections 78 4 .1 .1 55.9 Do not like the dire 80 3 .1 .1 56.0 No choices/options/a 81 170 3.0 3.6 59.6 Always the same thin 82 119 2.1 2.5 62.1 Meaningless/does not 83 324 5.7 6.9 69.0 Apathy, no interest, 84 860 15.2 18.3 87.3 Not affected by poli 85 6 .1 .1 87.4 People are satisfied 86 20 .4 .4 87.9 Interest/priority el 87 131 2.3 2.8 90.6 Disillusioned, disco 88 114 2.0 2.4 93.1 Youth not voting, no 89 98 1.7 2.1 95.1 Population ageing 90 10 .2 .2 95.3 People have had enou 91 38 .7 .8 96.2 Cannot make it out, 92 17 .3 .4 96.5 Polling sites too fa 93 10 .2 .2 96.7 Polling site problem 94 4 .1 .1 96.8 Bad time of the week 95 28 .5 .6 97.4 Media influence (too 96 23 .4 .5 97.9 Disagree 97 8 .1 .2 98.1 Do not know/no comme 98 58 1.0 1.2 99.3 Unclear response 99 33 .6 .7 100.0 . 933 16.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 4708 Missing cases 933 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q5_2 5. In your opinion, why is turnout going Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Political parties (d 10 29 .5 1.6 1.6 Political parties (t 12 12 .2 .7 2.3 Political parties (a 13 33 .6 1.9 4.2 Political parties (n 14 13 .2 .7 4.9 Political parties (l 15 2 .0 .1 5.0 Political parties (a 16 13 .2 .7 5.8 Politicians (dislike 20 35 .6 2.0 7.8 Politicians (out of 21 19 .3 1.1 8.8 Politicians (all the 22 29 .5 1.6 10.5 Politicians (bad att 23 143 2.5 8.1 18.6 Politicians (no trus 24 160 2.8 9.1 27.7 Candidates (do not l 30 58 1.0 3.3 31.0 Candidates (all the 31 7 .1 .4 31.4 Candidates (no trust 32 9 .2 .5 31.9 Candidates (lack of 33 12 .2 .7 32.6 Party leaders (disli 40 48 .9 2.7 35.3 Issues (dislike, dis 50 14 .2 .8 36.1 Issues (all the same 51 6 .1 .3 36.4 Issues (lack of info 52 2 .0 .1 36.5 Issues (taxes too hi 53 72 1.3 4.1 40.6 Issues (No new ideas 54 19 .3 1.1 41.7 Government (dislike, 60 14 .2 .8 42.5 Government (no trust 61 40 .7 2.3 44.8 Government (dislike 62 12 .2 .7 45.4 Government (no notic 63 55 1.0 3.1 48.6 Government (no/weak 65 35 .6 2.0 50.5 Government (single p 66 72 1.3 4.1 54.6 Government (people h 67 2 .0 .1 54.7 Electoral system (di 70 9 .2 .5 55.2 Electoral system (no 71 5 .1 .3 55.5 Electoral system (la 72 55 1.0 3.1 58.7 Electoral system (ne 73 10 .2 .6 59.2 Electoral system (ch 74 12 .2 .7 59.9 Electoral system (in 75 13 .2 .7 60.6 Regional discontent 76 43 .8 2.4 63.1 Results are a forego 77 32 .6 1.8 64.9 Too many elections 78 2 .0 .1 65.0 Do not like the dire 80 6 .1 .3 65.3 No choices/options/a 81 46 .8 2.6 68.0 Always the same thin 82 57 1.0 3.2 71.2 Meaningless/does not 83 180 3.2 10.2 81.4 Apathy, no interest, 84 145 2.6 8.2 89.6 Not affected by poli 85 6 .1 .3 90.0 People are satisfied 86 9 .2 .5 90.5 Interest/priority el 87 51 .9 2.9 93.4 Disillusioned, disco 88 35 .6 2.0 95.3 Youth not voting, no 89 43 .8 2.4 97.8 Population ageing 90 4 .1 .2 98.0 People have had enou 91 6 .1 .3 98.4 Cannot make it out, 92 9 .2 .5 98.9 Polling sites too fa 93 6 .1 .3 99.2 Polling site problem 94 1 .0 .1 99.3 Bad time of the week 95 10 .2 .6 99.8 Media influence (too 96 3 .1 .2 100.0 . 3878 68.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1763 Missing cases 3878 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q5_3 5. In your opinion, why is turnout going Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Political parties (d 10 7 .1 1.9 1.9 Political parties (t 12 3 .1 .8 2.7 Political parties (a 13 8 .1 2.2 4.9 Political parties (n 14 3 .1 .8 5.7 Political parties (l 15 1 .0 .3 5.9 Political parties (a 16 4 .1 1.1 7.0 Politicians (dislike 20 5 .1 1.3 8.4 Politicians (out of 21 2 .0 .5 8.9 Politicians (all the 22 4 .1 1.1 10.0 Politicians (bad att 23 32 .6 8.6 18.6 Politicians (no trus 24 26 .5 7.0 25.6 Candidates (do not l 30 9 .2 2.4 28.0 Candidates (all the 31 5 .1 1.3 29.4 Candidates (no trust 32 2 .0 .5 29.9 Candidates (lack of 33 1 .0 .3 30.2 Party leaders (disli 40 14 .2 3.8 34.0 Issues (dislike, dis 50 7 .1 1.9 35.8 Issues (taxes too hi 53 10 .2 2.7 38.5 Issues (No new ideas 54 4 .1 1.1 39.6 Government (dislike, 60 1 .0 .3 39.9 Government (no trust 61 4 .1 1.1 41.0 Government (dislike 62 2 .0 .5 41.5 Government (no notic 63 11 .2 3.0 44.5 Government (no/weak 65 7 .1 1.9 46.4 Government (single p 66 14 .2 3.8 50.1 Government (people h 67 1 .0 .3 50.4 Electoral system (di 70 4 .1 1.1 51.5 Electoral system (no 71 1 .0 .3 51.8 Electoral system (la 72 16 .3 4.3 56.1 Electoral system (ne 73 3 .1 .8 56.9 Electoral system (ch 74 8 .1 2.2 59.0 Electoral system (in 75 4 .1 1.1 60.1 Regional discontent 76 16 .3 4.3 64.4 Results are a forego 77 5 .1 1.3 65.8 Too many elections 78 2 .0 .5 66.3 Do not like the dire 80 1 .0 .3 66.6 No choices/options/a 81 2 .0 .5 67.1 Always the same thin 82 5 .1 1.3 68.5 Meaningless/does not 83 45 .8 12.1 80.6 Apathy, no interest, 84 33 .6 8.9 89.5 Not affected by poli 85 1 .0 .3 89.8 Interest/priority el 87 11 .2 3.0 92.7 Disillusioned, disco 88 6 .1 1.6 94.3 Youth not voting, no 89 11 .2 3.0 97.3 People have had enou 91 1 .0 .3 97.6 Polling sites too fa 93 2 .0 .5 98.1 Bad time of the week 95 2 .0 .5 98.7 Media influence (too 96 5 .1 1.3 100.0 . 5270 93.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 371 Missing cases 5270 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q6 6. Did you vote in the last federal elec Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 4553 80.7 80.8 80.8 No 2 968 17.2 17.2 97.9 Don´t know/No answer 9 116 2.1 2.1 100.0 . 4 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5637 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7A 7a) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 86 1.5 9.1 9.1 Fairly important 2 109 1.9 11.5 20.6 Not very important 3 195 3.5 20.6 41.1 Not at all important 4 558 9.9 58.9 100.0 . 4693 83.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 948 Missing cases 4693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7B 7b) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 119 2.1 12.9 12.9 Fairly important 2 64 1.1 7.0 19.9 Not very important 3 175 3.1 19.0 38.9 Not at all important 4 562 10.0 61.1 100.0 . 4721 83.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 920 Missing cases 4721 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7C 7c) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 188 3.3 19.7 19.7 Fairly important 2 181 3.2 19.0 38.7 Not very important 3 198 3.5 20.8 59.5 Not at all important 4 386 6.8 40.5 100.0 . 4688 83.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 953 Missing cases 4688 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7D 7d) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 274 4.9 28.8 28.8 Fairly important 2 192 3.4 20.1 48.9 Not very important 3 178 3.2 18.7 67.6 Not at all important 4 309 5.5 32.4 100.0 . 4688 83.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 953 Missing cases 4688 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7E 7e) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 159 2.8 16.8 16.8 Fairly important 2 191 3.4 20.2 37.0 Not very important 3 261 4.6 27.6 64.6 Not at all important 4 335 5.9 35.4 100.0 . 4695 83.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 946 Missing cases 4695 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7F 7f) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 59 1.0 6.2 6.2 Fairly important 2 69 1.2 7.2 13.4 Not very important 3 167 3.0 17.5 30.9 Not at all important 4 661 11.7 69.1 100.0 . 4685 83.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 956 Missing cases 4685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7G 7g) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 137 2.4 14.5 14.5 Fairly important 2 78 1.4 8.2 22.7 Not very important 3 160 2.8 16.9 39.6 Not at all important 4 573 10.2 60.4 100.0 . 4693 83.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 948 Missing cases 4693 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7H 7h) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 144 2.6 15.2 15.2 Fairly important 2 154 2.7 16.3 31.5 Not very important 3 190 3.4 20.1 51.5 Not at all important 4 459 8.1 48.5 100.0 . 4694 83.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 947 Missing cases 4694 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7I 7i) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 265 4.7 27.8 27.8 Fairly important 2 234 4.1 24.6 52.4 Not very important 3 196 3.5 20.6 73.0 Not at all important 4 257 4.6 27.0 100.0 . 4689 83.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 952 Missing cases 4689 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q7J 7j) Importance of reason: I didn´t vote Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very important 1 79 1.4 8.2 8.2 Fairly important 2 102 1.8 10.6 18.9 Not very important 3 274 4.9 28.6 47.5 Not at all important 4 503 8.9 52.5 100.0 . 4683 83.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 958 Missing cases 4683 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q8_1 8. What was the MAIN reason you did not Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of interest in 11 6 .1 .6 .6 Lack of trust/intere 12 94 1.7 9.9 10.6 No appealing candida 13 57 1.0 6.0 16.6 The election race wa 14 11 .2 1.2 17.8 Candidates/parties/i 15 20 .4 2.1 19.9 Lack of information 16 28 .5 3.0 22.8 No interest/do not l 17 10 .2 1.1 23.9 Did not like/disagre 18 29 .5 3.1 27.0 Lack of choice for c 19 12 .2 1.3 28.2 Could not choose/dec 20 13 .2 1.4 29.6 Never vote 21 3 .1 .3 29.9 Apathy, did not care 22 168 3.0 17.8 47.7 Forgot, never though 23 9 .2 1.0 48.6 Did not want to vote 24 10 .2 1.1 49.7 Disconnected from po 25 16 .3 1.7 51.4 Too complicated/diff 26 5 .1 .5 51.9 Was not aware there 27 8 .1 .8 52.7 Vote would be meanin 28 64 1.1 6.8 59.5 Regional discontent 29 3 .1 .3 59.8 Do not like politics 30 7 .1 .7 60.6 Not on the list, not 31 28 .5 3.0 63.5 Did not receive a VI 32 9 .2 1.0 64.5 Error on the list, w 34 3 .1 .3 64.8 Arrived too early/to 41 3 .1 .3 65.1 Did not know/find ou 42 21 .4 2.2 67.3 Out of riding (work, 43 3 .1 .3 67.7 Too busy with work/s 51 117 2.1 12.4 80.0 Away from the riding 52 93 1.6 9.8 89.9 Just finished/in the 53 4 .1 .4 90.3 Moved and did not kn 54 5 .1 .5 90.8 Personal reason 55 1 .0 .1 90.9 Health issues 61 32 .6 3.4 94.3 Religious issues 62 16 .3 1.7 96.0 Transportation issue 63 7 .1 .7 96.7 Did not qualify to v 64 11 .2 1.2 97.9 Military personal 65 2 .0 .2 98.1 Unclear response 71 13 .2 1.4 99.5 Does not remember 72 1 .0 .1 99.6 No reason 73 4 .1 .4 100.0 . 4695 83.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 946 Missing cases 4695 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q8_2 8. What was the MAIN reason you did not Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of trust/intere 12 24 .4 17.1 17.1 No appealing candida 13 15 .3 10.7 27.9 The election race wa 14 4 .1 2.9 30.7 Candidates/parties/i 15 13 .2 9.3 40.0 Lack of information 16 10 .2 7.1 47.1 Did not like/disagre 18 2 .0 1.4 48.6 Lack of choice for c 19 1 .0 .7 49.3 Could not choose/dec 20 4 .1 2.9 52.1 Never vote 21 1 .0 .7 52.9 Apathy, did not care 22 12 .2 8.6 61.4 Forgot, never though 23 1 .0 .7 62.1 Did not want to vote 24 1 .0 .7 62.9 Disconnected from po 25 1 .0 .7 63.6 Too complicated/diff 26 5 .1 3.6 67.1 Vote would be meanin 28 23 .4 16.4 83.6 Regional discontent 29 4 .1 2.9 86.4 Do not like politics 30 1 .0 .7 87.1 Not on the list, not 31 1 .0 .7 87.9 Unable to register 33 1 .0 .7 88.6 Arrived too early/to 41 1 .0 .7 89.3 Too busy with work/s 51 9 .2 6.4 95.7 Away from the riding 52 2 .0 1.4 97.1 Health issues 61 2 .0 1.4 98.6 Military personal 65 1 .0 .7 99.3 Does not remember 72 1 .0 .7 100.0 . 5501 97.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 140 Missing cases 5501 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q8_3 8. What was the MAIN reason you did not Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of trust/intere 12 1 .0 11.1 11.1 No appealing candida 13 1 .0 11.1 22.2 Apathy, did not care 22 2 .0 22.2 44.4 Disconnected from po 25 1 .0 11.1 55.6 Vote would be meanin 28 2 .0 22.2 77.8 Regional discontent 29 1 .0 11.1 88.9 Away from the riding 52 1 .0 11.1 100.0 . 5632 99.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 9 Missing cases 5632 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q9 9. Was your name on the list of Electors Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 1640 29.1 83.8 83.8 No 2 165 2.9 8.4 92.3 Don´t know/No answer 9 151 2.7 7.7 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q10A 10a) Remember experiencing problem: Maki Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 141 2.5 7.2 7.2 No 2 1742 30.9 89.1 96.3 Don´t know/No answer 9 73 1.3 3.7 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q10B 10b) Remember experiencing problem: Find Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 166 2.9 8.5 8.5 No 2 1760 31.2 90.0 98.5 Don´t know/No answer 9 30 .5 1.5 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q11_1 11. Could you provide details on the reg Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of trust/faith/ 11 2 .0 1.0 1.0 Did not like/disagre 12 2 .0 1.0 1.9 Could not choose/dec 13 2 .0 1.0 2.9 Lack of/did not rece 14 3 .1 1.4 4.3 Apathy, did not care 21 8 .1 3.8 8.1 Was not aware there 22 3 .1 1.4 9.6 Forgot, never though 23 3 .1 1.4 11.0 Did not want to vote 24 2 .0 1.0 12.0 Received no informat 25 14 .2 6.7 18.7 Never voted 26 1 .0 .5 19.1 Not on the list/regi 31 22 .4 10.5 29.7 Wrong voter informat 32 4 .1 1.9 31.6 Had to call to get m 33 6 .1 2.9 34.4 Unsure where/how to 34 5 .1 2.4 36.8 Did not receive a VI 35 4 .1 1.9 38.8 Missed/did not see r 36 4 .1 1.9 40.7 Was sent to another 41 2 .0 1.0 41.6 On-site logistical p 42 2 .0 1.0 42.6 Site not easily acce 43 1 .0 .5 43.1 Polling site was clo 44 1 .0 .5 43.5 Long distance to tra 45 6 .1 2.9 46.4 Polling sites at dif 46 6 .1 2.9 49.3 Did not know/had dif 47 30 .5 14.4 63.6 Misleading informati 48 4 .1 1.9 65.6 Out of riding (work, 49 9 .2 4.3 69.9 Too busy with work/s 51 6 .1 2.9 72.7 Away from the riding 52 4 .1 1.9 74.6 Just finished/in the 53 15 .3 7.2 81.8 Moved and did not kn 54 9 .2 4.3 86.1 Transportation issue 61 2 .0 1.0 87.1 Military personnel 62 1 .0 .5 87.6 Did not encounter an 71 15 .3 7.2 94.7 No reason 72 4 .1 1.9 96.7 Unclear response 73 7 .1 3.3 100.0 . 5432 96.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 209 Missing cases 5432 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q11_2 11. Could you provide details on the reg Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Did not like/disagre 12 1 .0 3.6 3.6 Could not choose/dec 13 1 .0 3.6 7.1 Apathy, did not care 21 4 .1 14.3 21.4 Was not aware there 22 1 .0 3.6 25.0 Did not want to vote 24 1 .0 3.6 28.6 Received no informat 25 3 .1 10.7 39.3 Not on the list/regi 31 4 .1 14.3 53.6 Had to call to get m 33 1 .0 3.6 57.1 Unsure where/how to 34 1 .0 3.6 60.7 Was sent to another 41 1 .0 3.6 64.3 On-site logistical p 42 1 .0 3.6 67.9 Site not easily acce 43 1 .0 3.6 71.4 Long distance to tra 45 1 .0 3.6 75.0 Polling sites at dif 46 1 .0 3.6 78.6 Did not know/had dif 47 4 .1 14.3 92.9 Too busy with work/s 51 2 .0 7.1 100.0 . 5613 99.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 28 Missing cases 5613 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q11_3 11. Could you provide details on the reg Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of/did not rece 14 1 .0 50.0 50.0 On-site logistical p 42 1 .0 50.0 100.0 . 5639 100.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 2 Missing cases 5639 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q12 12. Still thinking of the last general e Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 1352 24.0 69.1 69.1 No 2 511 9.1 26.1 95.2 Don´t know/No answer 9 93 1.6 4.8 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q13 13. Can you tell me if you remember havi Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very clear 1 551 9.8 40.8 40.8 Clear enough 2 605 10.7 44.7 85.5 A little confusing 3 66 1.2 4.9 90.4 Very confusing 4 17 .3 1.3 91.6 Don´t know/No answer 9 113 2.0 8.4 100.0 . 4289 76.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1352 Missing cases 4289 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q14 14. Thinking of the 2000 federal electio Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very competitive 1 370 6.6 21.1 21.1 Somewhat competitive 2 709 12.6 40.5 61.6 Not very competitive 3 443 7.9 25.3 86.9 Not at all competiti 4 230 4.1 13.1 100.0 . 3889 68.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1752 Missing cases 3889 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q15 15. How about the 2000 federal election Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very competitive 1 290 5.1 16.5 16.5 Somewhat competitive 2 726 12.9 41.3 57.9 Not very competitive 3 496 8.8 28.2 86.1 Not at all competiti 4 244 4.3 13.9 100.0 . 3885 68.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1756 Missing cases 3885 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q16 16. In the 2000 federal election, how mu Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 215 3.8 11.2 11.2 Some 2 386 6.8 20.1 31.4 A little 3 638 11.3 33.3 64.6 None 4 678 12.0 35.4 100.0 . 3724 66.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1917 Missing cases 3724 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q17 17. How much chance was there that your Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 324 5.7 17.0 17.0 Some 2 518 9.2 27.2 44.2 A little 3 572 10.1 30.0 74.2 None 4 491 8.7 25.8 100.0 . 3736 66.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1905 Missing cases 3736 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q18 18. During the 2000 federal election cam Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 677 12.0 36.4 36.4 No 2 1182 21.0 63.6 100.0 . 3782 67.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1859 Missing cases 3782 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q19 19. Were you contacted in other ways by Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 1 1550 27.5 81.8 81.8 No 2 344 6.1 18.2 100.0 . 3747 66.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1894 Missing cases 3747 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q20 20. Do you remember whether you voted in Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes, voted 1 1118 19.8 57.2 57.2 No, did not vote 2 485 8.6 24.8 82.0 Don´t remember 3 179 3.2 9.2 91.1 Was not eligible 4 144 2.6 7.4 98.5 Don´t know/No answer 9 30 .5 1.5 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q21 21. Do you remember whether you voted in Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes, voted 1 1204 21.3 61.6 61.6 No, did not vote 2 540 9.6 27.6 89.2 Don´t remember 3 118 2.1 6.0 95.2 Was not eligible 4 74 1.3 3.8 99.0 Don´t know/No answer 9 20 .4 1.0 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q22 22. Try to picture yourself ten years ag Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot more intereste 1 267 4.7 16.9 16.9 A little more intere 2 273 4.8 17.3 34.2 About the same level 3 573 10.2 36.3 70.5 A little less intere 4 187 3.3 11.9 82.4 A lot less intereste 5 262 4.6 16.6 99.0 Don´t know/No answer 9 16 .3 1.0 100.0 . 4063 72.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1578 Missing cases 4063 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q23A_1 23a) What do you think is the main reaso Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Helping out/do some 11 3 .1 .6 .6 Chance to have a say 12 2 .0 .4 .9 Opportunity for chan 13 8 .1 1.5 2.5 Able to see the impo 14 8 .1 1.5 4.0 Politics have greate 21 40 .7 7.5 11.5 More time to focus o 22 48 .9 9.1 20.6 Older in age 23 173 3.1 32.6 53.2 Politics directly im 24 26 .5 4.9 58.1 Greater interest in/ 31 41 .7 7.7 65.8 More attention to wh 32 9 .2 1.7 67.5 More exposure to pol 33 6 .1 1.1 68.7 Personal or family p 34 8 .1 1.5 70.2 Concerns for the fut 41 9 .2 1.7 71.9 Concerns for the you 42 16 .3 3.0 74.9 Heightened domestic/ 51 28 .5 5.3 80.2 Heightened economic 52 10 .2 1.9 82.1 Heightened foreign p 53 2 .0 .4 82.5 Concerns about the e 55 9 .2 1.7 84.2 Need new/improved op 61 3 .1 .6 84.7 The candidates 63 1 .0 .2 84.9 New/more interesting 64 8 .1 1.5 86.4 Don´t like the probl 67 29 .5 5.5 91.9 Developments in prov 68 4 .1 .8 92.6 Want to retain the g 69 3 .1 .6 93.2 Do not like/change t 70 19 .3 3.6 96.8 Unclear response 71 10 .2 1.9 98.7 Religious reasons 72 2 .0 .4 99.1 No interest 73 5 .1 .9 100.0 . 5111 90.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 530 Missing cases 5111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q23A_2 23a) What do you think is the main reaso Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Chance to have a say 12 5 .1 4.3 4.3 Opportunity for chan 13 3 .1 2.6 7.0 Able to see the impo 14 3 .1 2.6 9.6 Politics have greate 21 21 .4 18.3 27.8 More time to focus o 22 5 .1 4.3 32.2 Older in age 23 10 .2 8.7 40.9 Politics directly im 24 7 .1 6.1 47.0 More active role in 25 1 .0 .9 47.8 Greater interest in/ 31 9 .2 7.8 55.7 More exposure to pol 33 7 .1 6.1 61.7 Personal or family p 34 1 .0 .9 62.6 Concerns for the fut 41 1 .0 .9 63.5 Concerns for the you 42 7 .1 6.1 69.6 Heightened domestic/ 51 13 .2 11.3 80.9 Heightened economic 52 8 .1 7.0 87.8 Heightened foreign p 53 2 .0 1.7 89.6 57 1 .0 .9 90.4 Need new/improved op 61 1 .0 .9 91.3 New/more interesting 64 2 .0 1.7 93.0 Don´t like the probl 67 3 .1 2.6 95.7 Developments in prov 68 2 .0 1.7 97.4 Do not like/change t 70 3 .1 2.6 100.0 . 5526 98.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 115 Missing cases 5526 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q23A_3 23a) What do you think is the main reaso Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Politics have greate 21 2 .0 13.3 13.3 Politics directly im 24 1 .0 6.7 20.0 More active role in 25 1 .0 6.7 26.7 More exposure to pol 33 1 .0 6.7 33.3 Personal or family p 34 1 .0 6.7 40.0 Concerns for the fut 41 1 .0 6.7 46.7 Concerns for the you 42 1 .0 6.7 53.3 Heightened domestic/ 51 3 .1 20.0 73.3 Concerns about the e 55 2 .0 13.3 86.7 Don´t like the probl 67 2 .0 13.3 100.0 . 5626 99.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 15 Missing cases 5626 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q23B_1 23b) What do you think is the main reaso Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Parties keep changin 12 1 .0 .2 .2 Too many/lack of par 13 2 .0 .5 .7 No viable/strong opp 14 6 .1 1.4 2.1 Single party dominat 15 17 .3 3.9 6.0 Lack of faith/confid 17 23 .4 5.3 11.2 The politicians/part 18 20 .4 4.6 15.8 No choices/options 19 5 .1 1.1 17.0 Do not relate to/lik 20 30 .5 6.9 23.9 Lack of information 21 3 .1 .7 24.5 Do not like the cand 22 30 .5 6.9 31.4 Do not like the part 23 6 .1 1.4 32.8 Like the way things 25 1 .0 .2 33.0 Parties/issues/possi 26 5 .1 1.1 34.2 The governing party 27 5 .1 1.1 35.3 Public not being ser 31 28 .5 6.4 41.7 Selfish politicians, 32 7 .1 1.6 43.3 Unprofessional/immat 33 3 .1 .7 44.0 Controversy/dirty po 35 14 .2 3.2 47.2 False promises/disho 38 39 .7 8.9 56.2 Votes do not matter/ 41 44 .8 10.1 66.3 Always the same thin 42 20 .4 4.6 70.9 Apathy, laziness, le 43 12 .2 2.8 73.6 Disillusionment/cyni 44 19 .3 4.4 78.0 Regional discontent 45 6 .1 1.4 79.4 No concern for polit 46 17 .3 3.9 83.3 Not important/always 47 6 .1 1.4 84.6 Forced to strategica 48 2 .0 .5 85.1 Other things at stak 51 50 .9 11.5 96.6 Religious issues 53 1 .0 .2 96.8 Problems with readin 54 1 .0 .2 97.0 Unclear response 61 12 .2 2.8 99.8 Do not know 62 1 .0 .2 100.0 . 5205 92.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 436 Missing cases 5205 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q23B_2 23b) What do you think is the main reaso Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Too many/lack of par 13 2 .0 2.3 2.3 No viable/strong opp 14 2 .0 2.3 4.6 Single party dominat 15 4 .1 4.6 9.2 Nothing/no one new o 16 1 .0 1.1 10.3 Lack of faith/confid 17 2 .0 2.3 12.6 The politicians/part 18 5 .1 5.7 18.4 No choices/options 19 2 .0 2.3 20.7 Do not relate to/lik 20 4 .1 4.6 25.3 Do not like the cand 22 2 .0 2.3 27.6 Do not like the part 23 3 .1 3.4 31.0 Politicians are too 24 1 .0 1.1 32.2 Like the way things 25 1 .0 1.1 33.3 Parties/issues/possi 26 2 .0 2.3 35.6 Public not being ser 31 7 .1 8.0 43.7 Selfish politicians, 32 5 .1 5.7 49.4 Controversy/dirty po 35 7 .1 8.0 57.5 Lack of interest in 36 1 .0 1.1 58.6 False promises/disho 38 8 .1 9.2 67.8 Votes do not matter/ 41 10 .2 11.5 79.3 Always the same thin 42 5 .1 5.7 85.1 Apathy, laziness, le 43 2 .0 2.3 87.4 Disillusionment/cyni 44 3 .1 3.4 90.8 Regional discontent 45 2 .0 2.3 93.1 No concern for polit 46 2 .0 2.3 95.4 Not important/always 47 1 .0 1.1 96.6 Other things at stak 51 3 .1 3.4 100.0 . 5554 98.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 87 Missing cases 5554 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q23B_3 23b) What do you think is the main reaso Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Do not relate to/lik 20 1 .0 9.1 9.1 Do not like the part 23 2 .0 18.2 27.3 Like the way things 25 1 .0 9.1 36.4 The governing party 27 1 .0 9.1 45.5 False promises/disho 38 3 .1 27.3 72.7 Apathy, laziness, le 43 1 .0 9.1 81.8 Regional discontent 45 1 .0 9.1 90.9 Forced to strategica 48 1 .0 9.1 100.0 . 5630 99.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 11 Missing cases 5630 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q24_1 24. What might happen in the next few ye Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More information on 11 18 .3 1.2 1.2 More information abo 12 12 .2 .8 2.0 More information/cov 13 35 .6 2.3 4.3 More information/adv 14 25 .4 1.7 6.0 15 3 .1 .2 6.2 Changes to the votin 21 1 .0 .1 6.2 Internet voting 22 1 .0 .1 6.3 Change the system 31 11 .2 .7 7.0 More meaning to a vo 32 4 .1 .3 7.3 Democratic reform 33 20 .4 1.3 8.6 Electoral boundary r 34 3 .1 .2 8.8 New candidates with 41 145 2.6 9.6 18.5 New parties/platform 42 133 2.4 8.8 27.3 New party leaders 43 93 1.6 6.2 33.5 New governing party 44 50 .9 3.3 36.8 More/improved compet 45 34 .6 2.3 39.1 More/improved choice 46 6 .1 .4 39.5 Developments in prov 47 7 .1 .5 39.9 Stronger opposition 48 44 .8 2.9 42.9 Youthfulness in poli 49 10 .2 .7 43.5 More contact with th 50 72 1.3 4.8 48.3 More honesty, respon 51 125 2.2 8.3 56.6 Change in politician 52 24 .4 1.6 58.2 Noticeable change/di 53 45 .8 3.0 61.2 Pay cuts/cap on pens 56 3 .1 .2 61.4 Remove the influence 57 2 .0 .1 61.5 Noticeable achieveme 61 15 .3 1.0 62.5 More/less attention 62 19 .3 1.3 63.8 Change/improve/resum 63 20 .4 1.3 65.1 Major national crisi 64 17 .3 1.1 66.2 More attention to so 65 107 1.9 7.1 73.4 More attention to ec 66 68 1.2 4.5 77.9 More attention to en 67 3 .1 .2 78.1 More attention to fo 68 12 .2 .8 78.9 New/better issues 70 38 .7 2.5 81.4 More interest in/con 71 30 .5 2.0 83.4 Age, getting older 72 14 .2 .9 84.3 More time (retiremen 73 12 .2 .8 85.1 Family issues 74 16 .3 1.1 86.2 Finishing university 75 3 .1 .2 86.4 Personally play a mo 77 9 .2 .6 87.0 Joining a political 78 8 .1 .5 87.5 79 1 .0 .1 87.6 No 81 132 2.3 8.8 96.3 Unclear response 91 25 .4 1.7 98.0 I do not know 92 12 .2 .8 98.8 Already have interes 93 14 .2 .9 99.7 94 1 .0 .1 99.8 96 3 .1 .2 100.0 . 4136 73.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1505 Missing cases 4136 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q24_2 24. What might happen in the next few ye Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More information on 11 2 .0 .6 .6 More information abo 12 4 .1 1.3 1.9 More information/cov 13 4 .1 1.3 3.1 15 2 .0 .6 3.8 Changes to the votin 21 1 .0 .3 4.1 Internet voting 22 1 .0 .3 4.4 Change the system 31 1 .0 .3 4.7 More meaning to a vo 32 2 .0 .6 5.3 Democratic reform 33 4 .1 1.3 6.6 New candidates with 41 27 .5 8.5 15.0 New parties/platform 42 27 .5 8.5 23.5 New party leaders 43 14 .2 4.4 27.9 New governing party 44 4 .1 1.3 29.2 More/improved compet 45 6 .1 1.9 31.0 More/improved choice 46 1 .0 .3 31.3 Developments in prov 47 3 .1 .9 32.3 Stronger opposition 48 9 .2 2.8 35.1 Youthfulness in poli 49 4 .1 1.3 36.4 More contact with th 50 21 .4 6.6 42.9 More honesty, respon 51 32 .6 10.0 53.0 Change in politician 52 10 .2 3.1 56.1 Noticeable change/di 53 7 .1 2.2 58.3 Pay cuts/cap on pens 56 2 .0 .6 58.9 Remove the influence 57 3 .1 .9 59.9 Noticeable achieveme 61 1 .0 .3 60.2 More/less attention 62 8 .1 2.5 62.7 Change/improve/resum 63 2 .0 .6 63.3 More attention to so 65 53 .9 16.6 79.9 More attention to ec 66 29 .5 9.1 89.0 More attention to en 67 4 .1 1.3 90.3 More attention to fo 68 4 .1 1.3 91.5 New/better issues 70 17 .3 5.3 96.9 More interest in/con 71 3 .1 .9 97.8 Age, getting older 72 2 .0 .6 98.4 More time (retiremen 73 2 .0 .6 99.1 Family issues 74 1 .0 .3 99.4 Personally play a mo 77 1 .0 .3 99.7 Joining a political 78 1 .0 .3 100.0 . 5322 94.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 319 Missing cases 5322 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q24_3 24. What might happen in the next few ye Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More information on 11 1 .0 2.2 2.2 New candidates with 41 4 .1 8.9 11.1 New parties/platform 42 4 .1 8.9 20.0 New party leaders 43 2 .0 4.4 24.4 New governing party 44 1 .0 2.2 26.7 Stronger opposition 48 1 .0 2.2 28.9 Youthfulness in poli 49 1 .0 2.2 31.1 More contact with th 50 4 .1 8.9 40.0 More honesty, respon 51 3 .1 6.7 46.7 Change in politician 52 3 .1 6.7 53.3 Pay cuts/cap on pens 56 1 .0 2.2 55.6 More/less attention 62 1 .0 2.2 57.8 Change/improve/resum 63 1 .0 2.2 60.0 Major national crisi 64 2 .0 4.4 64.4 More attention to so 65 7 .1 15.6 80.0 More attention to ec 66 3 .1 6.7 86.7 More attention to en 67 1 .0 2.2 88.9 More attention to fo 68 1 .0 2.2 91.1 New/better issues 70 4 .1 8.9 100.0 . 5596 99.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 45 Missing cases 5596 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q25 25. How likely are you to vote in the ne Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very likely 1 1112 19.7 56.9 56.9 Somewhat likely 2 440 7.8 22.5 79.3 Not very likely 3 166 2.9 8.5 87.8 Not at all likely 4 195 3.5 10.0 97.8 Don´t know/No answer 9 43 .8 2.2 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q26_1 26. Is there anything that would make yo Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More information 11 4 .1 1.5 1.5 More information abo 12 3 .1 1.1 2.5 More information fro 14 1 .0 .4 2.9 More information abo 15 2 .0 .7 3.6 Closer polling stati 21 3 .1 1.1 4.7 Internet voting 22 2 .0 .7 5.5 Corrections made to 23 1 .0 .4 5.8 Changes to the votin 24 1 .0 .4 6.2 Transportation issue 25 1 .0 .4 6.5 Change the system 31 1 .0 .4 6.9 Proportional represe 33 2 .0 .7 7.6 A referendum 34 2 .0 .7 8.4 Change/new candidate 41 25 .4 9.1 17.5 Change/new parties/p 42 15 .3 5.5 22.9 Change/new party lea 43 8 .1 2.9 25.8 Change/new governing 44 3 .1 1.1 26.9 Change/new social po 45 14 .2 5.1 32.0 Change/new economic 46 7 .1 2.5 34.5 Change/new environme 47 1 .0 .4 34.9 Change/new governmen 48 2 .0 .7 35.6 Change/new issues 49 8 .1 2.9 38.5 More competition/deb 50 3 .1 1.1 39.6 More democratic 51 1 .0 .4 40.0 Eliminate the partis 53 2 .0 .7 40.7 Less pay for the gov 54 1 .0 .4 41.1 Stronger opposition 55 2 .0 .7 41.8 Change 56 5 .1 1.8 43.6 Government had more 62 2 .0 .7 44.4 Government related/k 63 2 .0 .7 45.1 More interest in/con 64 4 .1 1.5 46.5 More confidence in g 65 2 .0 .7 47.3 More honesty 66 7 .1 2.5 49.8 Have a more responsi 67 4 .1 1.5 51.3 Receive help from th 68 1 .0 .4 51.6 Change in politician 69 2 .0 .7 52.4 Noticeable change/di 70 2 .0 .7 53.1 Nature of the promis 71 2 .0 .7 53.8 No 81 106 1.9 38.5 92.4 No, because nothing 82 1 .0 .4 92.7 No, no interest, no 83 4 .1 1.5 94.2 No, because of natur 84 1 .0 .4 94.5 No, because of my re 85 1 .0 .4 94.9 Change to personal/f 91 1 .0 .4 95.3 Big political event 92 1 .0 .4 95.6 Receive personal ben 93 3 .1 1.1 96.7 Unclear response 94 8 .1 2.9 99.6 No need to vote 95 1 .0 .4 100.0 . 5366 95.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 275 Missing cases 5366 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q26_2 26. Is there anything that would make yo Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More information abo 13 1 .0 4.2 4.2 Change the system 31 1 .0 4.2 8.3 More meaning to a vo 32 1 .0 4.2 12.5 Change/new candidate 41 1 .0 4.2 16.7 Change/new parties/p 42 2 .0 8.3 25.0 Change/new party lea 43 1 .0 4.2 29.2 Change/new social po 45 3 .1 12.5 41.7 Change/new economic 46 4 .1 16.7 58.3 Change/new issues 49 2 .0 8.3 66.7 More competition/deb 50 1 .0 4.2 70.8 More choices 52 1 .0 4.2 75.0 Government had more 62 1 .0 4.2 79.2 More honesty 66 2 .0 8.3 87.5 Change in politician 69 1 .0 4.2 91.7 Noticeable change/di 70 1 .0 4.2 95.8 Nature of the promis 71 1 .0 4.2 100.0 . 5617 99.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 24 Missing cases 5617 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q26_3 26. Is there anything that would make yo Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Change/new social po 45 1 .0 50.0 50.0 Noticeable change/di 70 1 .0 50.0 100.0 . 5639 100.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 2 Missing cases 5639 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q27 27. Level of satisfaction with the way f Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very satisfied 1 328 5.8 23.5 23.5 Somewhat satisfied 2 721 12.8 51.6 75.1 Not very satisfied 3 211 3.7 15.1 90.2 Not at all satisfied 4 137 2.4 9.8 100.0 . 4244 75.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1397 Missing cases 4244 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q28 28. Between federal, provincial or munic Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Federal 1 505 9.0 25.8 25.8 Provincial 2 771 13.7 39.4 65.2 Municipal 3 388 6.9 19.8 85.1 None 4 173 3.1 8.8 93.9 Ne sait pas/Pas de r 9 119 2.1 6.1 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29A 29a) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 646 11.5 33.5 33.5 Something 2 793 14.1 41.1 74.6 Not much 3 489 8.7 25.4 100.0 . 3713 65.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1928 Missing cases 3713 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29B 29b) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 791 14.0 41.1 41.1 Something 2 538 9.5 27.9 69.0 Not much 3 597 10.6 31.0 100.0 . 3715 65.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1926 Missing cases 3715 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29C 29c) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 511 9.1 27.1 27.1 Something 2 743 13.2 39.4 66.5 Not much 3 632 11.2 33.5 100.0 . 3755 66.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1886 Missing cases 3755 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29D 29d) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 260 4.6 13.7 13.7 Something 2 660 11.7 34.7 48.4 Not much 3 981 17.4 51.6 100.0 . 3740 66.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1901 Missing cases 3740 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29E 29e) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 295 5.2 15.2 15.2 Something 2 555 9.8 28.7 43.9 Not much 3 1085 19.2 56.1 100.0 . 3706 65.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1935 Missing cases 3706 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29F 29f) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 859 15.2 44.4 44.4 Something 2 719 12.7 37.2 81.6 Not much 3 357 6.3 18.4 100.0 . 3706 65.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1935 Missing cases 3706 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29G 29g) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 390 6.9 20.4 20.4 Something 2 481 8.5 25.2 45.6 Not much 3 1040 18.4 54.4 100.0 . 3730 66.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1911 Missing cases 3730 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29H 29h) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 713 12.6 37.0 37.0 Something 2 719 12.7 37.4 74.4 Not much 3 493 8.7 25.6 100.0 . 3716 65.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1925 Missing cases 3716 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q29I 29i) How much it means to respondent: El Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent A lot 1 497 8.8 26.1 26.1 Something 2 640 11.3 33.6 59.7 Not much 3 769 13.6 40.3 100.0 . 3735 66.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1906 Missing cases 3735 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q30A 30a) Level of agreement: Generally, thos Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 575 10.2 29.9 29.9 Agree 2 919 16.3 47.9 77.8 Disagree 3 374 6.6 19.5 97.3 Strongly disagree 4 52 .9 2.7 100.0 . 3721 66.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1920 Missing cases 3721 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q30B 30b) Level of agreement: Those elected t Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 130 2.3 7.0 7.0 Agree 2 880 15.6 47.3 54.3 Disagree 3 616 10.9 33.1 87.5 Strongly disagree 4 233 4.1 12.5 100.0 . 3782 67.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1859 Missing cases 3782 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q30C 30c) Level of agreement: People like me Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 462 8.2 24.0 24.0 Agree 2 704 12.5 36.6 60.6 Disagree 3 620 11.0 32.2 92.9 Strongly disagree 4 137 2.4 7.1 100.0 . 3718 65.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1923 Missing cases 3718 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q30D 30d) Level of agreement: Sometimes polit Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 409 7.3 21.1 21.1 Agree 2 796 14.1 41.1 62.2 Disagree 3 559 9.9 28.8 91.0 Strongly disagree 4 174 3.1 9.0 100.0 . 3703 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1938 Missing cases 3703 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q30E 30e) Level of agreement: I don´t think t Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 490 8.7 25.5 25.5 Agree 2 760 13.5 39.6 65.1 Disagree 3 575 10.2 30.0 95.1 Strongly disagree 4 94 1.7 4.9 100.0 . 3722 66.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1919 Missing cases 3722 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q30F 30f) Level of agreement: Most of the tim Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 70 1.2 3.6 3.6 Agree 2 762 13.5 39.5 43.1 Disagree 3 709 12.6 36.7 79.8 Strongly disagree 4 389 6.9 20.2 100.0 . 3711 65.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1930 Missing cases 3711 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31A 31a) Level of agreement: All political p Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 289 5.1 15.0 15.0 Agree 2 674 11.9 35.1 50.1 Disagree 3 826 14.6 43.0 93.1 Strongly disagree 4 133 2.4 6.9 100.0 . 3719 65.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1922 Missing cases 3719 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31B 31b) Level of agreement: Political parti Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 130 2.3 6.8 6.8 Agree 2 996 17.7 52.3 59.2 Disagree 3 628 11.1 33.0 92.2 Strongly disagree 4 149 2.6 7.8 100.0 . 3738 66.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1903 Missing cases 3738 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31C 31c) Level of agreement: The political p Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 445 7.9 23.4 23.4 Agree 2 1086 19.3 57.0 80.4 Disagree 3 352 6.2 18.5 98.9 Strongly disagree 4 21 .4 1.1 100.0 . 3737 66.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1904 Missing cases 3737 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31D 31d) Level of agreement: Political parti Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 41 .7 2.2 2.2 Agree 2 945 16.8 51.0 53.2 Disagree 3 754 13.4 40.7 93.9 Strongly disagree 4 114 2.0 6.1 100.0 . 3787 67.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1854 Missing cases 3787 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31E 31e) Level of agreement: During electora Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 202 3.6 10.6 10.6 Agree 2 1242 22.0 65.3 76.0 Disagree 3 394 7.0 20.7 96.7 Strongly disagree 4 63 1.1 3.3 100.0 . 3740 66.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1901 Missing cases 3740 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31F 31f) Level of agreement: Political parti Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 685 12.1 36.3 36.3 Agree 2 917 16.3 48.6 84.9 Disagree 3 263 4.7 13.9 98.8 Strongly disagree 4 23 .4 1.2 100.0 . 3753 66.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1888 Missing cases 3753 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q31G 31g) Level of agreement: Too many politi Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 379 6.7 20.4 20.4 Agree 2 999 17.7 53.7 74.1 Disagree 3 451 8.0 24.2 98.3 Strongly disagree 4 31 .5 1.7 100.0 . 3781 67.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1860 Missing cases 3781 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q32 32. In your view, how important is it th Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Essential 1 741 13.1 38.2 38.2 Very important 2 725 12.9 37.4 75.6 Somewhat important 3 372 6.6 19.2 94.8 Not at all important 4 100 1.8 5.2 100.0 . 3703 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1938 Missing cases 3703 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q33_1 33. Why do you think young people are le Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of information/ 11 79 1.4 4.5 4.5 Lack of understandin 12 274 4.9 15.7 20.2 Distance from politi 13 167 3.0 9.6 29.8 Do not believe that 14 77 1.4 4.4 34.2 Political parties do 15 60 1.1 3.4 37.6 The false promises/d 16 30 .5 1.7 39.3 Lack of trust/faith/ 17 55 1.0 3.2 42.5 Do not like candidat 19 68 1.2 3.9 46.4 Lack of/no interest/ 21 458 8.1 26.2 72.6 Disillusion/discoura 23 41 .7 2.3 75.0 Too complicated/diff 25 7 .1 .4 75.4 Not affected, concer 26 111 2.0 6.4 81.7 No one listens to th 27 23 .4 1.3 83.0 Would be meaningless 28 97 1.7 5.6 88.6 Lack of patriotism 30 2 .0 .1 88.7 They are smart 31 7 .1 .4 89.1 Too busy/no time 41 26 .5 1.5 90.6 Mobility issues 42 1 .0 .1 90.7 They are irresponsib 51 48 .9 2.7 93.4 No foresight, no vis 52 13 .2 .7 94.2 No encouragement at 53 20 .4 1.1 95.3 No encouragement at 54 27 .5 1.5 96.8 Unclear response 61 22 .4 1.3 98.1 Do not know 62 6 .1 .3 98.5 Do not agree 63 25 .4 1.4 99.9 No comment 64 2 .0 .1 100.0 . 3895 69.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1746 Missing cases 3895 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q33_2 33. Why do you think young people are le Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of information/ 11 23 .4 4.4 4.4 Lack of understandin 12 86 1.5 16.4 20.8 Distance from politi 13 59 1.0 11.3 32.1 Do not believe that 14 32 .6 6.1 38.2 Political parties do 15 29 .5 5.5 43.8 The false promises/d 16 5 .1 1.0 44.7 Lack of trust/faith/ 17 14 .2 2.7 47.4 Do not like candidat 19 15 .3 2.9 50.3 Lack of/no interest/ 21 71 1.3 13.6 63.9 Disillusion/discoura 23 6 .1 1.1 65.0 Too complicated/diff 25 6 .1 1.1 66.2 Not affected, concer 26 39 .7 7.5 73.6 No one listens to th 27 12 .2 2.3 75.9 Would be meaningless 28 48 .9 9.2 85.1 Lack of patriotism 30 5 .1 1.0 86.0 They are smart 31 1 .0 .2 86.2 Too busy/no time 41 18 .3 3.4 89.7 They are irresponsib 51 18 .3 3.4 93.1 No foresight, no vis 52 11 .2 2.1 95.2 No encouragement at 53 16 .3 3.1 98.3 No encouragement at 54 9 .2 1.7 100.0 . 5118 90.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 523 Missing cases 5118 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q33_3 33. Why do you think young people are le Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Lack of information/ 11 3 .1 5.5 5.5 Lack of understandin 12 9 .2 16.4 21.8 Distance from politi 13 7 .1 12.7 34.5 Do not believe that 14 2 .0 3.6 38.2 Political parties do 15 1 .0 1.8 40.0 Do not like candidat 19 1 .0 1.8 41.8 Lack of/no interest/ 21 5 .1 9.1 50.9 Not affected, concer 26 8 .1 14.5 65.5 No one listens to th 27 1 .0 1.8 67.3 Would be meaningless 28 6 .1 10.9 78.2 Lack of patriotism 30 1 .0 1.8 80.0 Too busy/no time 41 2 .0 3.6 83.6 They are irresponsib 51 4 .1 7.3 90.9 No foresight, no vis 52 3 .1 5.5 96.4 No encouragement at 53 2 .0 3.6 100.0 . 5586 99.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 55 Missing cases 5586 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q34_1 34. What do you think should be done to Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More/better candidat 11 49 .9 3.3 3.3 Younger candidates/p 12 80 1.4 5.5 8.8 More/different issue 13 179 3.2 12.2 21.0 Better understanding 14 147 2.6 10.0 31.0 Development of the p 15 10 .2 .7 31.7 Recruitment/involvem 16 94 1.7 6.4 38.1 More community expos 17 6 .1 .4 38.5 Treat youth like adu 18 2 .0 .1 38.7 Elders talking about 20 3 .1 .2 38.9 More dialog/educatio 21 126 2.2 8.6 47.5 More dialog/educatio 22 268 4.8 18.3 65.8 More dialog/educatio 23 25 .4 1.7 67.5 More dialog/educatio 24 1 .0 .1 67.5 More exposure to the 25 30 .5 2.0 69.6 Politicians visit th 26 26 .5 1.8 71.4 Youth oriented elect 27 15 .3 1.0 72.4 Make politics easier 28 45 .8 3.1 75.4 More exposure/educat 29 7 .1 .5 75.9 Youth talking about 30 6 .1 .4 76.3 More confidence, hon 31 101 1.8 6.9 83.2 Electoral system ref 32 14 .2 1.0 84.2 Reform democratic sy 33 15 .3 1.0 85.2 Noticeable achieveme 34 6 .1 .4 85.6 Noticeable change/di 35 17 .3 1.2 86.8 Change in politician 36 19 .3 1.3 88.1 Make the political p 37 16 .3 1.1 89.2 Give them rewards, r 41 12 .2 .8 90.0 Get youth into the w 42 6 .1 .4 90.4 Create more opportun 43 27 .5 1.8 92.2 Understanding of the 51 40 .7 2.7 95.0 Maturity/discipline 52 6 .1 .4 95.4 Less strict with/tou 53 3 .1 .2 95.6 Nothing 61 18 .3 1.2 96.8 Do not know 62 18 .3 1.2 98.0 No comment 63 8 .1 .5 98.6 Unclear response 64 21 .4 1.4 100.0 . 4175 74.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1466 Missing cases 4175 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q34_2 34. What do you think should be done to Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent More/better candidat 11 6 .1 1.9 1.9 Younger candidates/p 12 10 .2 3.2 5.1 More/different issue 13 37 .7 11.8 16.9 Better understanding 14 29 .5 9.2 26.1 Development of the p 15 2 .0 .6 26.8 Recruitment/involvem 16 29 .5 9.2 36.0 More community expos 17 1 .0 .3 36.3 More dialog/educatio 21 16 .3 5.1 41.4 More dialog/educatio 22 34 .6 10.8 52.2 More dialog/educatio 23 6 .1 1.9 54.1 More exposure to the 25 13 .2 4.1 58.3 Politicians visit th 26 12 .2 3.8 62.1 Youth oriented elect 27 6 .1 1.9 64.0 Make politics easier 28 10 .2 3.2 67.2 More exposure/educat 29 6 .1 1.9 69.1 Youth talking about 30 2 .0 .6 69.7 More confidence, hon 31 22 .4 7.0 76.8 Electoral system ref 32 3 .1 1.0 77.7 Reform democratic sy 33 4 .1 1.3 79.0 Noticeable achieveme 34 2 .0 .6 79.6 Noticeable change/di 35 7 .1 2.2 81.8 Change in politician 36 7 .1 2.2 84.1 Make the political p 37 2 .0 .6 84.7 Give them rewards, r 41 1 .0 .3 85.0 Get youth into the w 42 3 .1 1.0 86.0 Create more opportun 43 14 .2 4.5 90.4 Understanding of the 51 29 .5 9.2 99.7 Less strict with/tou 53 1 .0 .3 100.0 . 5327 94.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 314 Missing cases 5327 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q34_3 34. What do you think should be done to Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Younger candidates/p 12 2 .0 4.3 4.3 More/different issue 13 2 .0 4.3 8.7 Better understanding 14 5 .1 10.9 19.6 Development of the p 15 1 .0 2.2 21.7 Recruitment/involvem 16 6 .1 13.0 34.8 More community expos 17 1 .0 2.2 37.0 More dialog/educatio 21 2 .0 4.3 41.3 More dialog/educatio 22 4 .1 8.7 50.0 More dialog/educatio 23 2 .0 4.3 54.3 More exposure to the 25 1 .0 2.2 56.5 Politicians visit th 26 2 .0 4.3 60.9 Youth oriented elect 27 1 .0 2.2 63.0 Make politics easier 28 2 .0 4.3 67.4 More confidence, hon 31 5 .1 10.9 78.3 Reform democratic sy 33 1 .0 2.2 80.4 Noticeable achieveme 34 1 .0 2.2 82.6 Noticeable change/di 35 1 .0 2.2 84.8 Change in politician 36 1 .0 2.2 87.0 Create more opportun 43 2 .0 4.3 91.3 Understanding of the 51 4 .1 8.7 100.0 . 5595 99.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 46 Missing cases 5595 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q35 35. In general, how satisfied are you wi Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very satisfied 1 558 9.9 28.5 28.5 Somewhat satisfied 2 975 17.3 49.8 78.4 Somewhat dissatisfie 3 232 4.1 11.9 90.2 Very dissatisfied 4 128 2.3 6.5 96.8 Neither/depends 5 7 .1 .4 97.1 Don´t know/No answer 9 56 1.0 2.9 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q36 36. How supportive would you be to intro Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very supportive 1 436 7.7 22.3 22.3 Somewhat supportive 2 824 14.6 42.1 64.4 Somewhat opposed 3 319 5.7 16.3 80.7 Very opposed 4 174 3.1 8.9 89.6 Neither/depends 5 22 .4 1.1 90.7 Don´t know/No answer 9 181 3.2 9.3 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q37 37. In some countries, people are requir Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very supportive 1 337 6.0 17.2 17.2 Somewhat supportive 2 429 7.6 21.9 39.2 Somewhat opposed 3 436 7.7 22.3 61.5 Very opposed 4 715 12.7 36.6 98.0 Neither/depends 5 12 .2 .6 98.6 Don´t know/No answer 9 27 .5 1.4 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q38A 38a) Level of agreement: Schools should Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 857 15.2 43.8 43.8 Agree 2 748 13.3 38.2 82.1 Disagree 3 214 3.8 10.9 93.0 Strongly disagree 4 104 1.8 5.3 98.3 Don´t know/No answer 9 33 .6 1.7 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q38B 38b) Level of agreement: The voting age Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly agree 1 139 2.5 7.1 7.1 Agree 2 289 5.1 14.8 21.9 Disagree 3 864 15.3 44.2 66.1 Strongly disagree 4 632 11.2 32.3 98.4 Don´t know/No answer 9 32 .6 1.6 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q39A 39a) Likelihood of using the Internet to Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very likely 1 586 10.4 30.0 30.0 Somewhat likely 2 486 8.6 24.8 54.8 Not very likely 3 296 5.2 15.1 69.9 Not at all likely 4 541 9.6 27.7 97.6 Don´t know/No answer 9 47 .8 2.4 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q39B 39b) Likelihood of using the Internet to Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very likely 1 706 12.5 36.1 36.1 Somewhat likely 2 294 5.2 15.0 51.1 Not very likely 3 266 4.7 13.6 64.7 Not at all likely 4 664 11.8 33.9 98.7 Don´t know/No answer 9 26 .5 1.3 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q40 40. When you were growing up, how often Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Often 1 626 11.1 32.2 32.2 Sometimes 2 634 11.2 32.6 64.7 Seldom 3 432 7.7 22.2 86.9 Never 4 255 4.5 13.1 100.0 . 3694 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1947 Missing cases 3694 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q41 41. How about now? How often do you talk Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Often 1 663 11.8 34.0 34.0 Sometimes 2 749 13.3 38.4 72.4 Seldom 3 371 6.6 19.0 91.4 Never 4 167 3.0 8.6 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing Don´t know/No answer 9 6 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1950 Missing cases 3691 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q42 42. Which of these two statements comes Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Agree with statement 1 1060 18.8 58.3 58.3 Agree with statement 2 758 13.4 41.7 100.0 . 3823 67.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1818 Missing cases 3823 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43A 43a) Level of participation: A political Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 58 1.0 3.0 3.0 Belong (not active) 2 157 2.8 8.1 11.0 Do not belong 3 1731 30.7 89.0 100.0 . 3695 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1946 Missing cases 3695 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43B 43b) Level of participation: A trade uni Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 398 7.1 20.5 20.5 Belong (not active) 2 253 4.5 13.0 33.5 Do not belong 3 1295 23.0 66.5 100.0 . 3695 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1946 Missing cases 3695 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43C 43c) Level of participation: A church or Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 521 9.2 26.7 26.7 Belong (not active) 2 374 6.6 19.2 45.9 Do not belong 3 1056 18.7 54.1 100.0 . 3690 65.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1951 Missing cases 3690 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43D 43d) Level of participation: A sports gr Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 659 11.7 33.8 33.8 Belong (not active) 2 157 2.8 8.1 41.8 Do not belong 3 1134 20.1 58.2 100.0 . 3691 65.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1950 Missing cases 3691 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43E 43e) Level of participation: A charitabl Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 433 7.7 22.3 22.3 Belong (not active) 2 191 3.4 9.8 32.1 Do not belong 3 1320 23.4 67.9 100.0 . 3697 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1944 Missing cases 3697 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43F 43f) Level of participation: A neighbour Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 293 5.2 15.1 15.1 Belong (not active) 2 177 3.1 9.1 24.2 Do not belong 3 1475 26.1 75.8 100.0 . 3696 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1945 Missing cases 3696 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43G 43g) Level of participation: Artistic, m Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 272 4.8 13.9 13.9 Belong (not active) 2 135 2.4 6.9 20.9 Do not belong 3 1545 27.4 79.1 100.0 . 3689 65.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1952 Missing cases 3689 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q43H 43h) Level of participation: Environment Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Active member 1 114 2.0 5.8 5.8 Belong (not active) 2 129 2.3 6.6 12.5 Do not belong 3 1707 30.3 87.5 100.0 . 3691 65.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1950 Missing cases 3691 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44A 44a) Likelihood of doing: Sign a petitio Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 784 13.9 40.3 40.3 Done in more distant 2 619 11.0 31.9 72.2 Might do it 3 392 6.9 20.2 92.4 Never do it 4 148 2.6 7.6 100.0 . 3698 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1943 Missing cases 3698 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44B 44b) Likelihood of doing: Join in a boyc Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 114 2.0 5.9 5.9 Done in more distant 2 205 3.6 10.6 16.6 Might do it 3 659 11.7 34.2 50.8 Never do it 4 947 16.8 49.2 100.0 . 3716 65.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1925 Missing cases 3716 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44C 44c) Likelihood of doing: Attend a demon Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 140 2.5 7.2 7.2 Done in more distant 2 276 4.9 14.2 21.5 Might do it 3 582 10.3 30.0 51.5 Never do it 4 939 16.6 48.5 100.0 . 3704 65.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1937 Missing cases 3704 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44D 44d) Likelihood of doing: Write a letter Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 148 2.6 7.6 7.6 Done in more distant 2 278 4.9 14.3 21.9 Might do it 3 821 14.6 42.2 64.0 Never do it 4 700 12.4 36.0 100.0 . 3694 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1947 Missing cases 3694 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44E 44e) Likelihood of doing: Call-in to a t Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 76 1.3 3.9 3.9 Done in more distant 2 126 2.2 6.5 10.4 Might do it 3 432 7.7 22.2 32.6 Never do it 4 1308 23.2 67.4 100.0 . 3699 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1942 Missing cases 3699 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44F 44f) Likelihood of doing: Attend a polit Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 182 3.2 9.4 9.4 Done in more distant 2 413 7.3 21.3 30.7 Might do it 3 561 9.9 29.0 59.7 Never do it 4 780 13.8 40.3 100.0 . 3705 65.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1936 Missing cases 3705 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q44G 44g) Likelihood of doing: Join in a poli Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Done in past year 1 69 1.2 3.6 3.6 Done in more distant 2 36 .6 1.9 5.4 Might do it 3 406 7.2 20.9 26.3 Never do it 4 1429 25.3 73.7 100.0 . 3701 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1940 Missing cases 3701 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q45A 45a) How close do you feel to Your neigh Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very close 1 612 10.8 31.5 31.5 Somewhat close 2 896 15.9 46.1 77.5 Not very close 3 254 4.5 13.1 90.6 Not at all close 4 183 3.2 9.4 100.0 . 3696 65.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1945 Missing cases 3696 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q45B 45b) How close do you feel to Your town/ Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very close 1 583 10.3 30.1 30.1 Somewhat close 2 914 16.2 47.2 77.3 Not very close 3 275 4.9 14.2 91.5 Not at all close 4 164 2.9 8.5 100.0 . 3705 65.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1936 Missing cases 3705 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q45C 45c) How close do you feel to Your provi Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very close 1 529 9.4 27.3 27.3 Somewhat close 2 922 16.3 47.6 74.8 Not very close 3 308 5.5 15.9 90.7 Not at all close 4 180 3.2 9.3 100.0 . 3702 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1939 Missing cases 3702 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q45D 45d) How close do you feel to Canada? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very close 1 846 15.0 43.7 43.7 Somewhat close 2 682 12.1 35.2 78.8 Not very close 3 231 4.1 11.9 90.8 Not at all close 4 179 3.2 9.2 100.0 . 3703 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1938 Missing cases 3703 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q45E 45e) How close do you feel to North Amer Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very close 1 384 6.8 20.0 20.0 Somewhat close 2 834 14.8 43.4 63.4 Not very close 3 408 7.2 21.2 84.6 Not at all close 4 295 5.2 15.4 100.0 . 3720 65.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1921 Missing cases 3720 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q45F 45f) How close do you feel to The countr Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very close 1 383 6.8 20.3 20.3 Somewhat close 2 581 10.3 30.7 51.0 Not very close 3 421 7.5 22.3 73.2 Not at all close 4 506 9.0 26.8 100.0 . 3750 66.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1891 Missing cases 3750 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q46 46. Which value do you believe is more p Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Community 1 704 12.5 38.1 38.1 Individuality 2 1146 20.3 61.9 100.0 . 3791 67.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1850 Missing cases 3791 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q47 47. Do you currently have access to the Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent At work only 1 184 3.3 9.4 9.4 At home only 2 590 10.5 30.2 39.6 Both at home and at 3 624 11.1 31.9 71.5 Neither 4 551 9.8 28.2 99.6 Don´t know/No answer 9 7 .1 .4 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q48A 48a) Activity frequency: Surf the Intern Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Every day 1 483 8.6 25.7 25.7 A couple of times a 2 467 8.3 24.9 50.6 A couple of times a 3 311 5.5 16.6 67.2 Less than that 4 615 10.9 32.8 100.0 . 3765 66.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1876 Missing cases 3765 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q48B 48b) Activity frequency: Watch the news Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Every day 1 1261 22.4 64.7 64.7 A couple of times a 2 469 8.3 24.1 88.8 A couple of times a 3 110 2.0 5.6 94.4 Less than that 4 109 1.9 5.6 100.0 . 3692 65.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1949 Missing cases 3692 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q48C 48c) Activity frequency: Listen to news Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Every day 1 1105 19.6 57.0 57.0 A couple of times a 2 412 7.3 21.2 78.2 A couple of times a 3 162 2.9 8.4 86.5 Less than that 4 261 4.6 13.5 100.0 . 3701 65.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1940 Missing cases 3701 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q48D 48d) Activity frequency: Read newspapers Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Every day 1 859 15.2 44.1 44.1 A couple of times a 2 682 12.1 35.0 79.0 A couple of times a 3 221 3.9 11.3 90.4 Less than that 4 188 3.3 9.6 100.0 . 3691 65.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1950 Missing cases 3691 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q49 49. How many children under 18 years old Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 1185 21.0 61.5 61.5 1 310 5.5 16.1 77.5 2 283 5.0 14.7 92.2 3 109 1.9 5.7 97.9 4 27 .5 1.4 99.3 5 9 .2 .5 99.7 6 3 .1 .2 99.9 9 1 .0 .1 99.9 17 1 .0 .1 100.0 . 3713 65.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1928 Missing cases 3713 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q50 50. Are you currently married, living wi Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Married 1 912 16.2 46.6 46.6 Living with a partne 2 262 4.6 13.4 60.0 Divorced 3 148 2.6 7.6 67.6 Separated 4 79 1.4 4.0 71.6 Widowed 5 96 1.7 4.9 76.5 Never married 6 443 7.9 22.6 99.2 Don´t know/No answer 9 16 .3 .8 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q51 51. Would you say that you live in a lar Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Large city centre ov 1 1587 28.1 28.5 28.5 Smaller city 2 1704 30.2 30.6 59.1 Town 3 1109 19.7 19.9 79.0 Village 4 416 7.4 7.5 86.4 Rural (outside a cit 5 756 13.4 13.6 100.0 . 69 1.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5572 Missing cases 69 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q52A 52a. How long have you lived in your cur Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Up to 6 months 1 71 1.3 4.7 4.7 7 to 12 months 2 75 1.3 5.0 9.7 13 months to 3 years 3 254 4.5 16.9 26.6 4 or 5 years 4 174 3.1 11.6 38.2 6 to 10 years 5 226 4.0 15.0 53.2 11 years or more 6 699 12.4 46.5 99.7 Don´t know/No answer 9 4 .1 .3 100.0 . 4138 73.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1503 Missing cases 4138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q52B 52b. How long have you lived in the comm Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Up to 6 months 1 9 .2 2.1 2.1 7 to 12 months 2 9 .2 2.1 4.2 13 months to 3 years 3 38 .7 8.8 13.0 4 or 5 years 4 38 .7 8.8 21.9 6 to 10 years 5 73 1.3 17.0 38.8 11 years or more 6 262 4.6 60.9 99.8 Don´t know/No answer 9 1 .0 .2 100.0 . 5211 92.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 430 Missing cases 5211 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q53 53. What is your mother tongue, that is, Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent English 1 1269 22.5 64.9 64.9 French 2 478 8.5 24.4 89.3 English and French 3 8 .1 .4 89.7 Other 77 196 3.5 10.0 99.7 Don´t know/No answer 99 5 .1 .3 100.0 . 3685 65.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 1956 Missing cases 3685 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q53_1 53. What is your mother tongue? 1st ment Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Algonquin 11 1 .0 .5 .5 Alikamek 12 1 .0 .5 1.0 Gwich´in 13 2 .0 1.0 2.0 Inuptitu 14 1 .0 .5 2.5 Ojibway 15 3 .1 1.5 4.0 Sioux 16 1 .0 .5 4.5 Dene 17 1 .0 .5 5.0 Somali 18 1 .0 .5 5.5 Canadian 19 2 .0 1.0 6.5 Creole 20 1 .0 .5 7.0 Korean 21 3 .1 1.5 8.5 Chinese 22 11 .2 5.5 14.1 Mandarin 23 5 .1 2.5 16.6 Cantonese 24 3 .1 1.5 18.1 Lao 25 1 .0 .5 18.6 Vietnamese 26 1 .0 .5 19.1 Cambodian 27 2 .0 1.0 20.1 Indonesian 28 1 .0 .5 20.6 Tagalog 29 4 .1 2.0 22.6 Burmese 30 1 .0 .5 23.1 Hindi 31 1 .0 .5 23.6 Punjabi 32 3 .1 1.5 25.1 Urdu 33 3 .1 1.5 26.6 Tamil 34 1 .0 .5 27.1 Gujarati 35 5 .1 2.5 29.6 East Indian Language 36 1 .0 .5 30.2 Persian 37 1 .0 .5 30.7 Hebrew 38 1 .0 .5 31.2 Arabic 39 6 .1 3.0 34.2 Dutch 40 6 .1 3.0 37.2 German 41 35 .6 17.6 54.8 Low German 42 1 .0 .5 55.3 Gaelic 43 1 .0 .5 55.8 Scottish 44 1 .0 .5 56.3 Swedish 45 2 .0 1.0 57.3 Finnish 46 1 .0 .5 57.8 Lithuanian 47 1 .0 .5 58.3 Estonian 48 1 .0 .5 58.8 Hungarian 49 3 .1 1.5 60.3 Romanian 50 2 .0 1.0 61.3 Polish 51 8 .1 4.0 65.3 Ukrainian 52 7 .1 3.5 68.8 Armenian 53 2 .0 1.0 69.8 Russian 54 6 .1 3.0 72.9 Albanian 55 1 .0 .5 73.4 Croatian 56 2 .0 1.0 74.4 Serbian 57 3 .1 1.5 75.9 North Slavic 58 1 .0 .5 76.4 Greek 59 3 .1 1.5 77.9 Spanish 60 7 .1 3.5 81.4 Italian 61 21 .4 10.6 92.0 Portuguese 62 8 .1 4.0 96.0 Sign Language 63 1 .0 .5 96.5 Newfoundland English 64 1 .0 .5 97.0 European 65 1 .0 .5 97.5 English plus other 66 1 .0 .5 98.0 French plus other 67 1 .0 .5 98.5 Disayen 68 1 .0 .5 99.0 Duncon 69 1 .0 .5 99.5 Tgrigna 70 1 .0 .5 100.0 . 5442 96.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 199 Missing cases 5442 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q53_2 53. What is your mother tongue? 2nd ment Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Chinese 22 1 .0 11.1 11.1 Cantonese 24 1 .0 11.1 22.2 Hindi 31 1 .0 11.1 33.3 Ukrainian 52 3 .1 33.3 66.7 Russian 54 1 .0 11.1 77.8 English plus other 66 2 .0 22.2 100.0 . 5632 99.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 9 Missing cases 5632 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q54_1 54. To which ethnic or cultural group wo Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Inuit 11 2 .0 .4 .4 Metis 12 3 .1 .5 .9 Dene 13 1 .0 .2 1.1 Ojibway 14 1 .0 .2 1.3 Algonquin 15 1 .0 .2 1.4 Huron 16 1 .0 .2 1.6 Cree 17 1 .0 .2 1.8 Cherokee 18 1 .0 .2 2.0 Native 19 3 .1 .5 2.5 First Nations 20 1 .0 .2 2.7 Aboriginal 21 2 .0 .4 3.1 Egyptian 22 1 .0 .2 3.3 Somali 23 2 .0 .4 3.6 South African 24 2 .0 .4 4.0 Berber 25 1 .0 .2 4.2 East African 26 1 .0 .2 4.3 African 27 1 .0 .2 4.5 Acadian 28 5 .1 .9 5.4 French Canadian 29 14 .2 2.5 8.0 Canadian 30 257 4.6 46.6 54.5 Venezuelan 32 1 .0 .2 54.7 Latin/Latino 33 6 .1 1.1 55.8 Caribbean/West Indie 34 2 .0 .4 56.2 Armenian 35 2 .0 .4 56.5 Israeli 36 1 .0 .2 56.7 Jewish 37 1 .0 .2 56.9 Arab 38 3 .1 .5 57.4 Indian 39 2 .0 .4 57.8 East Indian 40 1 .0 .2 58.0 Pakistani 41 2 .0 .4 58.3 Filipino 42 4 .1 .7 59.1 Indonesian 43 1 .0 .2 59.2 Cambodian 44 2 .0 .4 59.6 Hindu 45 1 .0 .2 59.8 Sikh 46 1 .0 .2 60.0 Buddhist 47 1 .0 .2 60.1 South Asian 48 2 .0 .4 60.5 South East Asian 49 1 .0 .2 60.7 Korean 50 3 .1 .5 61.2 Fijian 51 1 .0 .2 61.4 Asian 52 5 .1 .9 62.3 Belgian 53 2 .0 .4 62.7 Dutch 54 2 .0 .4 63.0 German 55 3 .1 .5 63.6 Swiss 56 1 .0 .2 63.8 French 57 6 .1 1.1 64.9 Irish 58 2 .0 .4 65.2 Scottish 59 3 .1 .5 65.8 British 60 21 .4 3.8 69.6 Celtic 61 2 .0 .4 69.9 Danish 62 1 .0 .2 70.1 Lithuanian 65 1 .0 .2 70.3 Ukrainian 66 5 .1 .9 71.2 Hungarian 67 1 .0 .2 71.4 Romanian 68 4 .1 .7 72.1 Albanian 69 1 .0 .2 72.3 Bulgarian 70 1 .0 .2 72.5 Serbian 71 2 .0 .4 72.8 Croatian 72 1 .0 .2 73.0 Slavic 73 1 .0 .2 73.2 Spanish 74 2 .0 .4 73.6 Italian 75 1 .0 .2 73.7 Pentecostal 76 1 .0 .2 73.9 Mennonite 77 5 .1 .9 74.8 Christian 78 1 .0 .2 75.0 Catholic 79 7 .1 1.3 76.3 United 81 1 .0 .2 76.4 Caucasian 82 29 .5 5.3 81.7 White 83 45 .8 8.2 89.9 Black 84 2 .0 .4 90.2 W.A.S.P. 85 6 .1 1.1 91.3 Anglo-Saxon 86 1 .0 .2 91.5 Loyalist 87 1 .0 .2 91.7 Multiple, mix 88 4 .1 .7 92.4 No Affiliation 89 22 .4 4.0 96.4 Unclear response 90 8 .1 1.4 97.8 Cantonese 91 1 .0 .2 98.0 European 92 4 .1 .7 98.7 Guarta 93 1 .0 .2 98.9 Anglo 94 1 .0 .2 99.1 Don´t know 95 3 .1 .5 99.6 North African 96 2 .0 .4 100.0 . 5089 90.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 552 Missing cases 5089 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q54_2 54. To which ethnic or cultural group wo Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Canadian 30 12 .2 25.0 25.0 North American 31 1 .0 2.1 27.1 Jewish 37 1 .0 2.1 29.2 Arab 38 1 .0 2.1 31.3 German 55 1 .0 2.1 33.3 French 57 2 .0 4.2 37.5 Irish 58 3 .1 6.3 43.8 Scottish 59 3 .1 6.3 50.0 British 60 2 .0 4.2 54.2 Swedish 64 1 .0 2.1 56.3 Ukrainian 66 1 .0 2.1 58.3 Italian 75 1 .0 2.1 60.4 Catholic 79 1 .0 2.1 62.5 Protestant 80 3 .1 6.3 68.8 Caucasian 82 5 .1 10.4 79.2 White 83 2 .0 4.2 83.3 W.A.S.P. 85 1 .0 2.1 85.4 Anglo-Saxon 86 4 .1 8.3 93.8 Multiple, mix 88 1 .0 2.1 95.8 European 92 2 .0 4.2 100.0 . 5593 99.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 48 Missing cases 5593 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q54_3 54. To which ethnic or cultural group wo Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Canadian 30 2 .0 25.0 25.0 North American 31 1 .0 12.5 37.5 Irish 58 1 .0 12.5 50.0 British 60 1 .0 12.5 62.5 Lithuanian 65 1 .0 12.5 75.0 Ukrainian 66 1 .0 12.5 87.5 Catholic 79 1 .0 12.5 100.0 . 5633 99.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 8 Missing cases 5633 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q55 55. Were you born in Canada or outside C Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent In Canada 1 4906 87.0 87.3 87.3 Outside Canada 2 715 12.7 12.7 100.0 . 20 .4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5621 Missing cases 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q56 56. What is the highest level of formal Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Primary/elementary s 1 195 3.5 3.5 3.5 Some high school 2 728 12.9 13.0 16.5 High school graduate 3 1284 22.8 23.0 39.5 Some college includi 4 506 9.0 9.1 48.6 Some university 5 387 6.9 6.9 55.5 College graduate inc 6 1027 18.2 18.4 73.9 University graduate 7 1090 19.3 19.5 93.4 Post graduate 8 368 6.5 6.6 100.0 . 56 1.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5585 Missing cases 56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q57 57. Total household income for the year Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Less than $25,000 1 960 17.0 19.8 19.8 $25,000 to $34,999 2 726 12.9 15.0 34.8 $35,000 to $44,999 3 629 11.2 13.0 47.8 $45,000 to $54,999 4 600 10.6 12.4 60.2 $55,000 to $64,999 5 463 8.2 9.6 69.8 $65,000 to $74,999 6 386 6.8 8.0 77.8 $75,000 to $99,999 7 517 9.2 10.7 88.5 $100,000 and over 8 558 9.9 11.5 100.0 . 802 14.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 4839 Missing cases 802 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GENDR Gender Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Male 1 2419 42.9 42.9 42.9 Female 2 3218 57.0 57.1 100.0 . 4 .1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 5641 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 5637 Missing cases 4 16 Oct 03 Explaining the turnout decline..., 2003 Page 3 11:11:42 UofT Library IBM RS6000 AIX Preceding task required 236.00 seconds CPU time; 2.53 seconds elapsed. 7 0 descriptives variables=id weight 152 bytes of memory required for the DESCRIPTIVES procedure. 8 bytes have already been acquired. 144 bytes remain to be acquired. 16 Oct 03 Explaining the turnout decline..., 2003 Page 4 11:11:46 UofT Library IBM RS6000 AIX Number of valid observations (listwise) = 5637.00 Valid Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N Label ID 2912.96 1728.32 1 5973 5641 Identification number WEIGHT 1.00 .32 .15 2.68 5637 Weighting factor 16 Oct 03 Explaining the turnout decline..., 2003 Page 5 11:11:46 UofT Library IBM RS6000 AIX Preceding task required 83.00 seconds CPU time; 4.20 seconds elapsed. 8 0 execute Preceding task required .00 seconds CPU time; .00 seconds elapsed. 9 0 finish 9 command lines read. 0 errors detected. 0 warnings issued. 725 seconds CPU time. 11 seconds elapsed time. End of job.