Religion and Voting: A Study of the 1968 Canadian Federal Election in Ontario

L Y N N M c D 0 N A L D 1 McMaster University

On a cherchC A ddceler le genre de liaisons qui existaient entre certaines dimensions de la ferveur religieuse et les prdfdrences dans le vote A l’aide de donndes recueillies sur questionnaire dam la Province de 1’Ontario au moment de 1’Clection fCdCrale canadienne de 1968. Les dimensions de la ferveur religieuse sont les suivantes: engagement social dans la communautd religieuse, orthodoxie doctrinale, I’intensitC de la pratique religieuse, les attitudes vis-his les autres groupes religieux et la question des Ccoles dpardes, et l’affiliation religieuse des candidats. Les mesures de l’engagement social sont trks dtroite- ment relides A celles des prCfCrences dans le vote tandis que la religion des interrogks ne produit aucun rCsultat tangible. La liaison entre la religion et le vote est de m&me nature et intensit6 tant au niveau provincial que fCdCral.

Propositions on the association of a number of dimensions of religiosity with voting preferences were tested by survey data collected in Ontario at the time of the 1968 Canadian federal election. The religiosity variables include: social involvement in the religious community, doctrinal orthodoxy, devotionalism, attitudes to other religious groups and to the separate schools issue, and the religion of the candidates. Measures of social involvement had the strongest association with voting preferences while the religion of the candidate had no significant effect. The association between religion and voting was of the same kind and strength at the provincial level as at the federal.

AN O V E R V I E W

In Canada, research has shown voting preferences to be invariably associ- ated with religious mia t ion , and when comparisons are made, the associ- ation is at least as strong or stronger than with any other variable, such as social class or ethnicity. (Alford, 1963; Anderson, 1966; Regenstreif, 1965; G a p e and Regenstreif, 1967; Meisel, 1956; Cameron, 1966.) Re- ligious affiliation has also been found to have an important association with voting preferences wherever the subject of voting has been studied - in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries for the most part. The Canadian pattern is unusual only in that religion has an even greater influence than it has in other countries, and that social class (which is the most important influence on voting in most countries) is of less importance than religion in explaining Canadian voting behaviour.

Religious differences are particularly known to affect the social life of rural areas and small towns of Ontario. People have long been suspicious of the power and evil motivation of the other side. The Orange Lodge, an important organization for years in Ontario, is still active if no longer

Rev. canad. SOC. & AnthJCanad. Rev. SOC. & Anth. 6(3) 1969

129

powerful. In Meisel's Kingston study one quarter of the people vothg Conservative offered, without being asked directly, anti-French or anti- Catholic reasons for their party preference (Meisel, 1956).

Marriage across religious lines, although increasing, is still relatively uncommon. In Ontario, only 20 per cent of Protestants and 15 per cent of Catholics marry outside their religion (Heer, 1957). This is lower than in the United States, where estimates range between 30 and 50 per cent for Catholics marrying outside their church (Chancellor and Manahan, 1955; Duvall and Hill, 1953).

In other words the lines between Protestants and Catholics are fairly well drawn and the groups are relatively homogeneous. Despite the fact that Ontario is a highly urban, industrial province it should provide a reasonable setting for testing of hypotheses on religious influence.

Although the association of religion and voting is well established, it is curious that very little empirical work has been done to ascertain how or why religion has such an influence. And despite the fact that religion is the most important variable affecting voting in Canada there have been only a few studies exploring the nature of religious influence here (Meisel, 1956; Anderson, 1966; Gagne and Regenstrief, 1967).

In this paper we shall examine the relationship of several dimensions of religion to voting. These can be grouped to provide three basic types of explanation.

1. Religious groups are in effect interest groups. Just as different occu- pational groups have different interests and pursue different political goals, the different religious groups have different interests and accordingly they lean to different parties to advance their goals. Religious groups in Canada differ with respect to social class and ethnic composition as well as ideology and ritual. Social class and ethnic group status of course, afEect the stake members have in society, giving the members of the different religious groups cause to support different political parties. Given the durability of party identification, the present religion-voting association could be a carry-over from earlier conditions and could even occur without current (or with only minimal) social class and ethnic differences.

2. The different religious groups may have some distinctive beliefs that affect their political orientations. Concern about Catholic separate schools could make Catholics support the Liberal Party and disapproval of the separate system could make some Protestants favour the Conservative. The Protestant religion through a greater emphasis on individual responsi- bility may stimulate attitudes of economic conservatism, and eventually a disproportionately Conservative vote.

3. Finally, a simple reason (though only an explanation in a superficial sense) may be that people vote for the candidate of their own religion where they have a choice. Since the Liberal Party typically runs more Catholics and fewer Protestants than the Conservative, and the Conserva- tive Party more Protestant and fewer Catholics than the Liberal, this could account for the existing voting pattern. It would then be necessary to ex- 130

plain why voters considered it important to vote for a candidate of their own religion - which brings us back to the first two points.

T H E DATA

The data are drawn from a larger survey conducted at the time of the 25 June 1968 federal election. Interviews were obtained from 1916 eligible voters living in Ontario. The five northernmost constituencies, which con- tain 4.6 per cent of the population, were excluded as the cost of fieldwork would have been prohibitive. The interviews were conducted in the respon- dents' homes, mostly in the three weeks preceding the election, the re- mainder in July and early August. The survey fieldwork was carried out by a commercial market research firm.

Two samples were drawn,l both from the voters' list compiled for the Ontario provincial election of October, 1967. One was a stratified (by community size) random sample from which 1424 eligible voters, or 75.5 per cent of the original sample, were actually interviewed. The second was an additional sample of French-speaking persons in the ten counties with the highest proportion of Franco-Ontarians, and which account for 74 per cent of the French-speaking population of Ontario. The yield in this sample, which required a screening interview first to find out if there was a French-speaking voter in the household, was 88.9 per cent.

A comparison of voting intentions given in the survey with actual elec- tion results is shown in Table I.

TABLE I VOTING INTENTIONS OF ONTARIO RESIDENTS

Stated voting Popular intentions vote (per cent) (per cent)

Conservative 33 33 Liberal 50 47 N D P 17 20

N 1020" 2,785,264

a Includes respondents interviewed before the election, and only in the general sample.

Clearly, the sample is very similar to its population, the electorate. However, the Liberal vote was higher amongst respondents interviewed after the election than before, presumably because of the bandwagon effect of the Liberal victory. Voters interviewed after the election have been kept in the analysis as their elimination would have made the sample unrepre- sentative in terms of region. The effect of the over-reporting of Liberal voting is to diminish slightly correlations.

Before we go on to test the hypothesis on the effect of the various components of religiosity we should lirst show the effect of religious

1 By Dr Ivan Fellegi of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 131

affiliation itself. Table II indicates that Catholics vote disproportionately Liberal, Protestants Conservative, the consistent finding of Canadian voting studies.

TABLE II RELIGIOUS AFFILIATTON AND FEDERAL VOTING

Protestant-RC Protestant RC Jewb No religionb diference'

GENERAL SAMPLE (per cent)d British middle class Conservative 46.1 27.4 - 12.8 18.7= Liberal 46.5 65.2 - 73.1 18.7' NDP 7 . 4 7 .4 - 14.1 - Non-British middle class Conservative 39.5 12.7 6.2 13.1 26.8' Liberal 46.0 78.1 93.8 59.5 32.1' NDP 14.6 9 . 2 0.0 27.3 5 . 4 British working class Conservative 37.5 18.6 - 18.8 18.9" Liberal 36.3 62.1 - 41.5 25.8' NDP 26.2 19.2 - 39.7 7 . 0 Non-British working class Conservative 29.9 6 .7 0.0 17.0 23. 2c Liberal 34.9 82.9 100.0 35.6 48. Oc NDP 35.2 10.3 0.0 47.3 24.9'

N = 1558. ' a Since the cases are weighted the usual statistical tests cannot be applied. Instead variances

were computed for the proportions in the following tables. The difference between two proportions can be considered statistically sigruficant if it is at least as great as twice the standard deviation of the difference. This note also applies to Tables m, IV, VI, and MII. These figures are given for illustration only; the numbers are too low to be statistically significant.

There were not enough French-Canadian Protestants for any Protestant-Catholic comparison to be made within the French sample.

' Statistically significant differences.

T H E E F F E C T O F RELIGIOUS GROUP INTERESTS

Politics is essentially the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Where political parties are organized this cleavage is reflected in the party system.

The Liberal Party in Canada is the particular representative of have-not interests in terms of religion and ethnicity. However, in social class terms, its supporters actually constitute a representative cross-section of Canadian society, making it neither a party of the weak or the strong. But religion and ethnicity in Canada have particularly strong social class implications.

Non-Protestants and persons of non-British background are substantially under-represented in the economic, political and judicial elites of Canada (Porter, 1965). As people of this background do have a common dis- advantage, there is some scope for religious and ethnic cleavage (which largely reinforce each other) to be of importance in Canadian politics. 132

Religious afliliation does affect one’s basic power position in society; Protestants are disproportionately in a position they wish to preserve, Catholics in a position they wish to improve.

The Liberal Party’s Catholic, non-British associations are well enough known that it is legitimate to assume that people of that background make the association between their status and the Liberal Party, The Liberal Party has run non-Wasp candidates more than the Conservative. The Liberal Party has encouraged immigration from non-Wasp countries more than the Conservative, another factor which publicizes the Liberal-non- Wasp association.

The NDP is ineligible for much of the have-not vote of Catholics it might otherwise merit on social class grounds. It still has something of a reputation, on account of its materialistic doctrines, for being an anti- Catholic if not anti-Christian movement. Indeed in Montreal until 1944 it was officially a sin for a Catholic to vote for the predecessor of the NDP,

the CCF (Ballantyne, 1963). Consequently the Liberal Party may get some of its support from Catholics by default.

Hypothesis 1: Religious Group Zdentification and Voting We shall hypothesize that anything that increases Catholic awareness of their group identity and interests will increase the Liberal vote amongst Catholics, and anything that increases Protestant awareness of their group identity and interests will increase their Conservative voting.

The specific indicators of religious group involvement are : membership in parish and other church organizations; communalism (Lenski, 1961 : 23) 2; anti-Catholic attitudes3; social distance from Catholics4; frequency of attendance at services5

Two other indicators of more traditional aspects of religiosity have also

2 Degree to which relationships with friends and relatives are within own religious group.

3 The construction of this index is described in another paper, “Attitudes and Voting: A Study of the 1968 Canadian Federal Election in Ontario,” 1969. The items on the index are: Catholics tend to be less objective in their thinking than Protestants; Protestants who go to the public schools are bound to be more tolerant than Catholics who go to the Catholic separate schools; if you had to choose between having the top leaders in the country all Catholic or all Protestant, it would be better to have them all Protestant; Catholics here are more prejudiced against Protestants than Protestants are against Catholics; what kind of financial support do you think the government should give the Catholic separate schools in Ontario?

4 The Bogardus social distance concept is followed here (1933). Respondents were asked to sort cards on to a board marked into three sections of distance they would want to have from the person described on the card. The hypothetical persons described included all combinations of Protestant or Catholic, French, English or Italian Canadian, and doctor or truck driver. The religious social distance score is the distance preferred from Catholics minus distance preferred from Protestants.

5 Church attendance is treated here as a social dimension although it is more than that. Previous studies have shown social class membership and membership in formal organizations generally to be associated with frequency of church attendance. (Glock, 1965: 188; Fukuyama, 1961: 16; Demerath, 1965). Also Lenski found attendance to increase with Americanization (1963:45). Thus it would seem reasonable to group attendance with the social variables rather than with devotionalism or orthodoxy. 133

TABLE UI RELIGIOSITY SCALES’ A N D VOTING

Commu- Devotion- nalism alism Orthodoxy difference difference difference

Church attendance Membership difference difference 1

~~ ~~ ~

GENERAL SAMPLE (per cent) British Protestant middle class Conservative -1.7 -1.8 14.7 NDP -2.6 -0.8 8.4b Non-British Protestant middle class

NDP 6.0 5.6 11.7 British Protestant working class Conservative - 2.1 15.5 19.7 NDP 5.9 2.1 -2.9 Non-British Protestant working class Conservative 1.7 -4.3 -0.6 NDP -18.6 8.3 -19.1

Conservative - 12.4 17.0 -3.5

British Roman Catholic middle cfass Liberal 16.4 -6.4 9.1 NDP 10.5 -8.8 9.9 Non-British Roman Catholic middle class Liberal -1.4 -1.4 6.3 NDP -5.3 12.1” ll .lb British Roman Catholic working class Liberal -2.1 -5.0 -20.9 NDP -4.7 -5.7 4.2 Non-British Roman Catholic working class Liberal 4.4 2.3 21. 3” NDP 1.6 0.4 12.9b FRENCH SAMPLI!

Roman Catholic middle class Liberal 9.9 2.9 -2.9 NDP 2.4 -0.4 0.1 Roman Catholic working class Liberal -2.5 2.4 9.5 NDP 3.1 2.2 12. 3” Total N 1364 1411 1357

3.2 14.1 2.1 0.5

20.9” -5.8 11.5 -17.5

17.0b 9.9 3.9 8.8

5.7 -5.2 10.9 -5.5

11.5 36.1 1.8 7.7

1.4 -1.1 5.0 -3.1

-15.6 -31.8 -16.3 -7.4

2.6 8.3 3.4 10.9”

18.9’ 15.7b 21.7” 14.3”

11.7 15.0 15.0” 12.7b 1360 1493

Membership difference 2d

4.7 3.5

24.2” 19. 1”

19. 1” 2.4

-4.0 12.4

-3.5 12.5

-9.7 2.3

1.6 6.0

10.9 10.8”

2.9 3. I

4.8 7.3

1473

Per cent scoring high in religiosity voting for party, minus per cent scoring low, except that for the NDP predictions it is per cent scoring low minus per cent scoring high. A minus sign in all cases indicates a finding opposite to that predicted.

Membership in local church group. Membership in any religious group (including Masons, Orange Lodge etc.).

” Statistically significant differences.

been included so that the effects of social involvement can be compared with those of non-social dimensions. These are: devotionalism (Lenski, 1961:57),s and orthodoxy (Lenski, 1961:56).7

For the indicators reported in Table III there should be a higher Liberal vote among the more committed Catholics, and a higher Conservative vote among the more committed Protestants than among the less committed 6 Frequency of prayer and frequency with which God‘s help is sought in important

decisions. 7 Belief in: God, as Heavenly Father, life after death, hell, saviour, answered prayers,

134 and that God expects weekly formal worship.

~~

TABLE IV RELJGIOSrrY SCALES‘ AND VOTING

Anti-Roman Separate Social Catholic school distance direrenee difference difference

~ ~

GENERAL SAMPLE (per cent) British Protestant middle class Conservative 17.9b 9 . 9 Liberal 17.7b 4.0 Non-British Protestant middle class Conservative 13.3 -7 .3 Liberal 17.9 4 . 9 British Protestant working class Conservative 6 . 7 8 . 3 Liberal 8 . 2 1 .o Non-British Protestant working class Conservative 20 .6 8 .3 NDP 4 . 0 0.7 British Roman Catholic middle class Conservative 17.6a 40.2’ Liberal 15.3 38.4” Non-British Roman Catholic middle class Conservative 10.4 -12.6 Liberal -4.4 - 12.7 British Roman Catholic working class Conservative 16.8 12.3 Liberal 19. lb -7 .8 Non-British Roman Catholic working class Conservative 0 . 3 -5 .7 Liberal 8 .1 -7 .7 FRENCH SAMPLE

Roman Catholic middle class Conservative -2 .1 4 . 8 Liberal - 1 . 9 12.3 Roman Catholic working class Conservative - 3 . 5 -7 .5 Liberal -4 .1 0 .6 Total N 1361 1370

7 .7 2 . 9

-12.7 -15.9

4 .9 9 . 7

22.9b 8 . 0

17.6 16.6

4 . 8 -2 .0

33. 7b 5 .5

4.0 -0 .8

3 .3 -4.9

6 .1 3 . 5

1482 ~ ~~

a Amongst Protestants per cent scoring high voting Con- servative, minus per cent scoring low who vote Con- servative; amongst Catholic per cent scoring high voting Liberal minus per cent scoring low who vote Liberal. Statistically significant differences.

groups respectiveIy. NDP voting should be higher among less committed Protestants and Catholics.

As the indicators reported in Table IV are of partisan religiosity, the hypotheses have to be tested differently. There should be a higher Liberal vote and a lower Conservative vote among the “more Catholic” Catholics, and a higher Conservative and lower Liberal vote amongst the “more Protestant” Protestants. Since NDP voting k not affected by Protestant- Catholic differences, dimensions which intensify these differences should not affect NDP voting.

Table III which reports most of the results shows that there is only 135

partial support for these hypotheses. Religious communalism failed to be significantly associated with voting behaviour. Church attendance did show some association, especially in the French sample and among Protestants in the general sample. This variable (the only one to have been put to a test previously in Canada) has already been shown to have some effect on voting (Gagne and Regenstreif, 1967; Anderson, 1966; Meisel, 1965).

Membership in parish organizations had a significant association in the French sample, and in one group in the general sample. Membership in any kind of organization with a religious connection (such as the Masons, and Orange Lodge) had an effect in the general sample, but not in the French.

Devotionalism was not related to voting behaviour but orthodoxy was as strongly associated as the social involvement indices. Thus, there is at least one dimension of religiosity, apart from social relationships, associated with voting choices.

One further test of the social involvement hypothesis could be made. If social involvement affects voting, then differences between Protestants and Catholics in voting preferences should be greater among those who are highly committed to their group than between those who are less com- mitted. A test of this proposition requires controlling for extent of involve- ment, as well as ethnicity and social class, and making religious affiliation the independent variable. When differences in voting in the low involve- ment group were subtracted from the differences in voting found in the high involvement group, Protestant-Catholic differences were found to be strong in both the high and the low commitment groups. The differences were substantially stronger in the more committed group only in the case of church attendance. Consequently, this hypothesis must be rejected.

By controlling for extent of religious commitment we could insure that the association between religious affiliation and voting was not a spurious one due instead to the effect of another dimension of religiosity. There are fairly substantial differences between Protestants and Catholics particularly in orthodoxy and church attendance. Thus the greater Catholic vote for the Liberal party could have been due to greater orthodoxy. Since we are stressing the importance of the social aspects of religiosity it is essential that we make clear that those associations are not due to such non-social variables as orthodoxy or devotionalism, or any other indicator of religious commitment.

T H E EFFECT OF RELIGION THROUGH SPECIFIC ISSUES

Religious differences put people on different sides of disputes over certain issues. This may be due to certain social aspects of religion as discussed above, or for reasons of doctrine or for some other reason. Although the issue itself may ultimately be solved to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties, there is a tendency for people to continue to support the side they 136

took during the actual crisis. The issue of concern for our purposes is that of separate school education.

Historical studies of early Canadian politics are replete with instances of inter-religious struggles over education. Over the years, the parties have advocated dserent positions at different times in different provinces. There have been compromises on both sides. There have been internal disputes as well. One of the most bitter and long lasting of the disputes, the Mani- toba schools question, saw Laurier, the Liberal leader and a Catholic, opposed to the Conservatives and the Catholic bishops. However, even with certain qualiiications the Liberal Party has generally supported the Catholic position and the Conservative Party, the Protestant, The Liberals have favoured either a separate school system or at least some public support for the Catholic schools or other accommodation to Catholic education. The Conservative Party has more often favoured a completely non-sectarian public school system, with no public support for any school outside it. The issue is an old one, clearly ante-dating Confederation. The BNA Act attempted to avoid religious conflict over schools by guaranteeing minority religious groups with already established schools the right to continue to have them. At the present time there are either separate school systems or some method of assigning public tax support to separate schools in all the provinces but British Columbia.

However, conflict has erupted to some extent in most provinces at some time. In only two of the provinces, however, has the schools question caused prolonged and bitter division - Ontario and Manitoba. Both these disputes became national issues of long lasting importance. The Ontario question, which was a problem of language as well as of religion, created immensely bitter feelings which affected French-English, Catholic-Protes- tant relations in other matters. The conflict was fought in the courts, the House of Commons, the provincial legislature and local school boards for years. The profoundly divisive conscription issue in 1917 was made more critical by the conflict over the schools issue the preceding five years. The federal elections of 1919 and 1921 were affected by the issue also.

The major conflicts took place decades ago. However, there have been enough minor events in the intervening years to ensure that the problems have not been forgotten. British Columbia Catholics still work intermit- tently for some public support for their parochial schools. Ontario Catho- lics are presently trying to extend the separate school system, which now ends at grade ten, through to the end of high school. Opposition to this attempt has come mainly from the Orange Lodge.

Issues of very great importance affect voting patterns long after they cease to be critical as issues. The effects of the Depression on voting in the United States were still easily noticeable in the 1950s ,and are prob- ably still of some importance. (Campbell, 1960.) The conscription issue in Canada in 1917 caused a major realignment in voting patterns, which has never since been reversed. (The Diefenbaker swing in 1958 brought 137

some of the Quebec vote back to the Conservative Party, but only tem- porarily.)

We cannot ascertain whether or not the struggle over schools affected people’s party identification at the time of one or other of these crises. We can hypothesize that people’s present views on separate school support is associated with their present voting preferences, a weak proxy for the question of interest.

Hypothesis 2: Opinions on Separate School Support and Voting It is hypothesized that there will be a higher proportion of Conservative voting and lower Liberal voting among persons opposed to increased financial support for separate schools than those who favour it, controlling for religion, ethnicity and social class.

The data, reported in Table IV shows that this issue did not have the predicted association. Protestants who opposed the extension of financial aid to Catholic separate schools were no more likely to vote Conservative in the 1968 federal election than those who approved it. Catholics who wanted to see this aid extended were no more likely to vote Liberal than those who were satisfied with the present level. However since education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction any effect of views on separate schools might be had rather at the provincial level. But the relationship of provincial voting choices and attitudes on separate schools was in fact no greater than at the federal.

T H E E F F E C T O F “ P R O T E S T A N T E T H I C ” ATTITUDES

Religious affiliation could affect voting through intervening attitudes on the welfare state. Protestants may subscribe more to the protestant ethic, one of the consequences of which could be political and economic conserva- tism. Lenski found Protestant-Catholic differences in a number of these respects in the Detroit Area Study (Lenski, 1961). However, in this study Protestants were only very marginally less favourable to welfare state provisions than Catholics. Consequently analysis as to the effect of welfare state attitudes on voting would have been pointless.

Religious differences clearly do not appear to have had any association with voting through orientations on specific issues. So far the effect of religion has been seen to occur almost entirely through the social aspects of involvement in a religious group.

T H E E F F E C T O F T H E C A N D I D A T E ’ S R E L I G I O N

Political parties believe that if they run a Catholic candidate he will draw Catholic voters from other parties but may lose former Protestant sup- porters, while a Protestant will draw Protestant voters, or at least lose Catholic. Although the hypothesis could not be more simple it is dficult to test. Since the Conservative and New Democratic Parties simply do not 138

TABLE V DISTRIBUTION OF CANDIDATES BY RELIGION

Ontario Conservative Liberal NDP population’

Protestant 84 % 60 60 63 Catholic 10 31 10 30 Jewish 2 5 6 2 Unitarian 0 1 7 5 b

No religion 0 2 15 Not known 4 1 2 N 87 88 88 6.236.092

’ 1961 census. Unitarian, no religion and not known are included in “other” in cemus.

run many Catholic candidates, it is difficult to compare the relative draw- ing power of Catholic and Protestant candidates.

Table v shows that the Liberal Party candidates very accurately reflect the religious cross-section of the population, while the other two parties do not. The NDP is faithful to its anti-Catholic and anti-religious image. Fifteen per cent of the NDP candidates volunteered they had no religion, or called themselves “agnostic” or “religion of mankind” on a question- naire sent to candidates. (The candidates had not been offered a “no religion” category on the questionnaire. ) Also several NDP candidates gave a denomination but qualified it, for example, by saying they had not attended since Sunday School. None of the Conservatives claimed “no religion” and only two Liberals did. However, along with the strong non- religious sector in the NDP is a contingent of eight clergymen. The Liberals ran one and the Conservatives three.

The hypotheses have to be broken down into several particular com- parisons.

Hypothesis 3: The Candidate’s Religion and Voting (a) That among Catholics there will be a higher proportion voting for Liberal candidates who are Catholic than Liberal candidates who are Protestant, for Conservative candidates who are Catholic than for Con- servative who are Protestant, and for NDP who are Catholic than NDP

who are Protestant. (b) That among Protestants there will be a higher proportion voting for Conservative candidates who are Protestant than Conservative candidates who are Catholic, for Liberal candidates who are Protestant more than Liberal who are Catholic, and for NDP who are Protestant more than NDP

who are Catholic. These hypotheses are clearly discodirmed by the data. The lack of

popularity of Catholic Conservatives among Catholic voters is explainable in that seven of the nine Catholic Conservatives were running against Catholic Liberals. However, basically the data show that voters did not 139

TABLE M CANDIDATES RELIGION A N D VOTING

Protestant voters Catholic voters (per cent) (per cent)

Conservative candidates Protestant Catholic Predicted Difference Liberal candidates Protestant Catholic Predicted Difference NDP candidates Protestant Catholic Redicted Difference "Jewish "No Religion "Protestant Clergymen

37.8 25.5 yes

41.8 53.2 no

16.2 12.7 yes

37.3

17.3

14.4

12.0 10.7 no

78.0 72.2 no

15.7 5.5 no

16.7

9.8

4.0

a NO differences were predicted for these categories.

prefer a candidate of their own religion over a candidate of another. Protestants voted more often for Protestant candidates than Catholic, but that is because Protestants are disproportionately Conservative and the Conservative Party runs mostly Protestants. When the Conservative Party runs a Catholic he will get the same support as a Protestant. The religion of the candidate may have had an effect earlier in forming party identifica- tion; and that is an important question that this research simply cannot answer. At the moment the religion of the candidate does not appear to have any measurable effect.

It is widely believed, by candidates and campaign managers even more fervently than by the public, that candidates of no religion are suspect to believers of all religious persuasions. Some candidates said they had no religious affiliation but did not want this information released (with their names attached to it). Several specifically said they thought they would lose votes if their lack of church membership were widely known. Most candidates do state a religion on the personal information they release and many mention activity in church organizations as well.

There were enough candidates in the NDP stating no religion that the hypothesis that the irreligious candidate fares worse than the reiigious could be tested, at least to a degree. This could not be done for the Liberal and Conservative parties. (c) It is hypothesized that amongst Catholics and Protestants alike there will be a lower proportion voting for NDP candidates of no religion than for candidates stating a religion. Reference to Table VI indicates that this hypothesis is also disconbed. The irreligious candidates were no less favoured than the religious. The Jewish NDP candidates actually did the best, and the Protestant clergymen the worst (among both Catholics and 140

Protestants). However, as the numbers involved here are especially small not much weight should be put on these remarks.

T H E E F F E C T OF T H E CANDIDATE’S RELIGION I N A HYPOTHETICAL E L E C T I O N

One further test of the effect of the candidate’s religion could be made. A small survey of one constituency, Hamilton West, was done several months after the federal election. The interviewers were students and the main purpose of the project was instruction. However, one new method of eliciting information from voters was tried - hypothetical campaign literature. At the end of the interview the respondent was given three hand-outs, designed to look like campaign advertising. He was asked which candidate he would vote for on the basis of the information given.

The set of hand-outs relevant to this particular hypothesis was for a municipal election, so no party names were given. The religion of the candidates (Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) was explicitly stated on the hand-out, for example by stating the candidate was an elder of St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church. Ethnicity was varied on this as well between British, Dutch and Italian. So there were nine combinations: British Catholic, British Protestant, British Jew etcetera. All the other information given on the candidates (alderman for five years, president of the Rotary Club) had been through several pre-tests to ensure that each candidate was equally popular. Thus the only variables were religion and ethnicity. (d) It is hypothesized that a higher proportion of Catholics will vote for a hypothetical Catholic candidate than for a Jewish or Protestant candi- date. Similarly it is hypothesized that a higher proportion of Protestants will vote for a hypothetical Protestant candidate than for a Catholic or Jewish candidate.

TABLE VII HYPOTHETICAL CANDIDATES’ RELIGION AND VOTING

Per cent selecting

Protestant Catholic Jewish candidate candidate candidate N P

Protestant British 38.7 45.3 16.0 75 <0.005 Protestant non-British 54.8 22.6 22.6 31 <0.05 Catholic British 35.3 35.3 29.4 17 N.S. Catholic non-British 31.4 42.9 25.7 35 <0.001

_____

NOTE: Respondents were randomly selected from the 1968 federal voters’ list from

This hypothesis is only partially confirmed. Non-British Protestants clearly preferred the Protestant candidates over the Catholic, but British Protestants did not. Similarly non-British Catholics preferred the Catholic candidates over the others but British Catholics did not. Jewish candidates were voted for the least by both Protestants and Catholics. (However,

Hamilton West.

141

note that in the real election Jewish NDP candidates actually fared better than the others.)

Since no party affiliation was given for the hypothetical candidates the effect of the candidate's religion should have been particularly strong. A Catholic Liberal wanting to vote for a Catholic did not have to vote against his party.

V O T I N G A T T H E P R O V I N C I A L L E V E L

The question whether religious affiliation affects provincial voting in the same way as federal has never been examined in much detail. Except for Meisel's Kingston constituency study, voting studies have dealt only with federal or provincial elections (1956). That study found higher Conserva- tive voting amongst Catholics at the provincial level than at the federal, but did not focus on the federal-provincial comparison.

It would be reasonable to expect religious differences to be more im- portant at the provincial level than at the federal. Education is under provincial jurisdiction and the dispute over Catholic education has been the main issue that has set Catholics and Protestants against each other in Canada.

Hypothesis 4: The Relative Eflects of Religion at the Provincial and Federal Levels It is hypothesized that Protestant-Catholic differences in voting preferences will be stronger at the provincial level than at the federal, Catholics dis- proportionately preferring the Liberal Party, Protestants, the Conservative.

Table VIII reports the data on the effect of religion at the provincial level compared with that at the federal. The provincial data show that the effect is of the same type as at the federal level, and of about the same ~~

TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF RELIGION ON FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL VOTING

SAMPLE (per cent) Federal voting Provincial voting

British middle class Conservative: Protestant-Rc 18.7' 18.3' Liberal : Rc-Protestant 18.7" 10.3" NDP: Protestant-Rc 0.0 - 8 . 0

Non-British middle class Conservative: Protestant-Rc 26.8" 32.0" Liberal: Rc-Protestant 32.1' 32.3' NDP: PrOteStant-RC 5 . 4 0 . 3

Conservative : Protestant-Rc 18.9' 9 . 8 Liberal: Rc-Protestant 25.8" 25. 8' NDP : Protestant-Rc 7 . 0 15.9'

Conservative : Protestant-Rc 23.2' 31.8" Liberal: Rc-Protestant 48.0" 42.7° NDP: Protestant-Rc 24. 98 10.9

British working class

Non-British working class

142 a Statistically significant differences.

strength. The hypothesis that it would be greater at the provincial must be rejected. More Catholics vote Conservative at the provincial level than at the federal, but so do more Protestants. More Protestants vote Liberal federally than they do provincially, but so do Catholics.

C O N C L U S I O N S

We have considered three ways that religion could be associated with voting behaviour: through the strengthening of commitment to a distinct social group with distinct interests, through separating members of those groups on specific issues, and through the religion of the candidates run- ning. The specific issues (support for the Catholic separate school system and attitudes on the welfare state) showed no measureable effect at all. The religion of the candidate showed some influence, however only in a hypothetical municipal level election. The religion of the candidates in the 1968 federal election appeared to have had no effect. The candidate’s religion is not strong enough an inducement to break the effect of party identification. (It is of course possible that the reIigion of candidates running in the past might have influenced the initial formation of party identification, a point on which we could gather no information.)

The dimension of religiosity having the strongest association with voting proved to be social involvement in the religious community, although even here more of the predicted relationships failed to appear than actually did. The process of socializing informally, off church premises, presumably made people more aware of their secular, socio-economic interests. For Catholics this heightened awareness of the interests of working class people and for Protestants this increased awareness of the interests of business and professional people.

Religious differences have the same kind and degree of effect on voting at the provincial level as at the federal.

The list of non-findings in this study turns out to be longer than the list of hdmgs. Insofar as that is the case the research has failed to meet its objectives. The material has not taken us very far in answering the funda- mental question about the nature of the effect of religion, although it has given some direction on the choice of variables for further work. It sug- gests that such obvious and convenient explanations as issues and the religion of the candidate should be avoided. It clearly indicates that the area to explore further for increasing understanding of the religious effect is that of social involvement.

R E F E R E N C E S

Alford, R. R. 1963 Party and Society. Chicago: Rand, McNally. Anderson, G. M. 1966 “Voting behaviour and the ethnic-religious variable: a study of a

federal election in Hamilton, Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 32: 27-37. 143

Ballantyne, Murray, G. 1963 “The Catholic Church and the CCF.” Historical Association Report. Bogardus, E. S. 1933 “A social distance scale.” Sociology and Social Research 17: 265-27 1. Campbell, Angus, et al. 1960 The American Voter. New York: John Wiley. Cameron, D. M. 1966 An electoral analysis of democratic socialism in Ontario: CCF-NDP

voting patterns, 1934-1963. Unpublished Phil. M. thesis, University of Toronto.

Chancellor, L. E. and T. P. Monahan 1955 “Religious preference and interreligious mixtures in marriages and

Courtney, John C. (ed.) 1967 Voting in Canada. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall. Demerath, N. J., 111 1965 Social Class in American Protestantism. Chicago: Rand, McNally. Duvall, E. M. and R. Hill 1953 When you Many. New York: D. C. Heath. Fukuyama, Yoshio 1961. Styles of Church Membership. New York: United Church Board

for Homeland Ministries. Gage, Wallace and Peter Regenstreif 1967 “Some aspects of New Democratic Party urban support in 1965.”

Glock, Charles Y. and Rodney Stark 1965 Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand, McNally. Heer, D. M. 1962 “The trend of interfaith marriages in Canada: 1922-1957.” American

Lenski, Gerhard 1961 The Religious Factor. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Lipset, S. M. 1968 Revolution and Counterrevolution. New York: Basic Books. Meisel, John (ed.) 1964 Papers on the 1962 Election. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Meisel, John 1956 “Religious affiliation and electoral behaviour: a case study.” Canadian

Meisel, John and Gilles Paquet 1962- “Some quantitative analyses of Canadian election results: an exercise 1963 in the testing of hypotheses.” Papers and Proceedings of the Canadian

Political Science Association Conference on Statistics. Porter, John 1965 The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Regenstreif, Peter 1965 The Diefenbaker Interlude. Toronto: Longmans. Sissons, C. B. 1959 Church and State in Canadian Education. Toronto: Ryerson.

divorces in Iowa.” American Journal of Sociology 61 :233-239.

’

Mimeo, University of Rochester.

Sociological Review 27: 245-255.

Journal of Economics and Political Science 22:481-496.

144