That's a turnout: Election Night, June 8, 1908, on Bay Street, Toronto.

From the Second World War until the end of the 20th century, roughly 75 percent of eligible voters consistently cast ballots in federal elections. During the Jean Chrétien era, however, that number began to drop and has been declining ever since.

There are many theories as to why this is the case: the increased frequency of elections, less civic obligation, increased skepticism about government’s efficiency, proliferation of negative campaign advertisements, decline in socialization, and administrative changes, like the move from voter enumeration to a permanent electors list. Each exhibits empirical validity, but none entirely explains the downward trend.

It’s not just Canada—voter turnout has declined around the world, and it has been declining steadily by generation. This is particularly troubling because we know that voting is a life skill which needs to be learned early. Disengaged youth today become disenchanted taxpayers tomorrow.

Changing voting rules to allow multiple ballots, transferable ballots, or proportional representation are frequently advanced as improvements Canada should consider. Each has merits and each would improve voter turnout, but only modestly.

It’s time to consider a more drastic move: making voting mandatory.

During the 2000 election, when turnout dipped to 61.2 percent, the chief electoral officer was asked if he would consider proposing to Parliament that voting be made compulsory, as it is in several jurisdictions around the world. He said at the time that he did not support the idea, but if voting dropped below 60 percent he would reconsider his position. In the last federal election the turnout was 58.8 percent. It’s time for a public debate on the idea.

Voting is compulsory in a number of countries, including Australia, which shares our basic political system, constitutional framework, and colonial history. We already make a large number of civic duties obligatory, such as jury duty. So why not voting? There is no reasonable argument that a few minutes out of a citizen’s day every four years or so to make them visit a local polling station is an unfair burden for living in a democracy.

It needs to be clear that what is compulsory is not voting; only spending a few minutes at a polling station. Voters are free to destroy their ballot. In fact, in most countries with compulsory voting, there is a box one can check to state “none of the above”.

With the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, the turnout went from less than 60 percent to over 91 percent overnight.

Public opinion polls suggest Canadians do not currently support the idea of making voting compulsory (though there is evidence that resistance to the idea is lessening), but the majority of Australians also said they were opposed prior to its introduction. Now, a majority of Australians say they strongly support the law.

Nevertheless, Canadian politicians may be reluctant to lead public opinion. That is why, in 2002, I suggested an alternative: offering a tax credit for voting. Use a carrot instead of the stick.

This is a very Canadian approach, as we have a long history of using taxation to encourage behaviour, including the funding of political parties. A tax credit would provide an incentive to vote. More importantly, it would offset some of the costs associated with voting that disproportionately affect lower-income Canadians. It could be means-tested, and thus paid only to those whose income level is likely to be a barrier to civic participation.

Working people used to be paid to vote by their employers, who were obligated by law to give time off work on election day, but this obligation has been lessened due to the staggering of hours for polling stations. Even when it was provided, paid time off to vote never helped people whose employment was piecemeal, shift work, temporary, or casual—the least affluent members of our society.

There are tangible costs associated with voting, such as transportation, hiring a babysitter, and time spent collecting information and following the issues. These costs affect people differently based on their socio-economic circumstances. In the U.S. mid-term elections in November, for example, it was found that the economic situation had deterred a large number of low-income African-Americans from voting simply because of the administrative costs associated with registration.

To date, the Liberal party of Alberta is the only political party to adopt my idea of a voter tax credit, and no political party in Canada has endorsed compulsory voting.

It is probably a safe bet that the Conservative party of Canada will not introduce compulsory voting on its own, given its fear of all things compulsory (like the long-gun registry and the long-form census), or support a voter tax credit because it will be afraid it might benefit another political party. But there is no evidence that compulsory voting benefits either side of the ideological spectrum.

A higher turnout lends the elected political leaders legitimacy. Low turnout leads to divisive elections and a dissatisfied populace.

The turnout in U.S. mid-term elections is usually around 40 percent, one of the lowest for an industrialized democracy. The disproportionate impact of the right-wing Tea Party movement is only possible because of this low turnout.

In ancient Athens, voting was compulsory and people were financially compensated for taking time off to participate. This became the largest item in the government’s budget, but it was a new experiment in government in which they believed strongly—clearly more strongly than we do 2,000 years later.

For the last few years, the same crop of news stories seem to run. Many say that Earth Hour is a genuinely useful tool of social change, raising awareness of climate change and encouraging people to think about the effects of their energy usage. A minority—and I reluctantly put myself in their camp—regard it as a publicity stunt with limited environmental effect. They (we?) grumble it could even be harmful to the broader cause of environmental sustainability, encouraging a “been there, done that” attitude among citizens who are quick to flick the lights back on as soon as their 60 minutes is up, consciences cleared but energy-use patterns essentially unchanged.

I’m honestly torn, and wanted to see what everyone thinks of Earth Hour. Are you participating? Am I just being a big Grinch? Vote in the poll or leave a comment and let us know what you think.

Unlike oil spills, which produce sensational images of oil-covered ducks, uranium tailings spills are under-reported and quietly insidious. Here are some of the stories you might have missed:

Elliott Lake, Canada

Spill: Accidental. In August of 1993 a power failure at the Rio Algom’s Stanleigh mine allowed uranium tailings to spill into McCabe Lake and contaminate the water source.
Contamination: Two million litres of tailings entered McCabe Lake.
Effects: Tailing spills had devastated 90 kilometres of the Serpent River by the late 1970s. The Serpent River First Nations indigenous territory is thoroughly contaminated with radioactive waste.
Punishment or resolution: The Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada charged Rio Algom with one count of failure to provide proper training for employees, and one count of failure to prevent a spill. The mine has been decommissioned.

Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan

Spill: Pending. Kyrgyzstan was one of the primary sources of uranium for the U.S.S.R.’s Cold War arms race. Two million tonnes of toxic waste sits in 23 open pits around Mailuu-Suu. The tailings sit atop a mountainous fault line, making a toxic disaster nearly inevitable.
Contamination: In 2005, a landslide caused 300,000 cubic metres of material to spill into the Mailuu-Suu river, dangerously close to one of the tailing piles. The Mailuu-Suu river connects to water sources for civilians in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Effects: Over 23,000 people are at immediate risk of overexposure to radon, with a potential risk for millions. Some cancer rates in the area are twice as high as the national average.
Punishment or resolution: None. In 2008 The Kyrgyz government created a special agency to deal with the cleanup of the tailings with the help of NATO and the World Bank, but to date little progress has been made.

Mounana , Gabon

Spill: Intentional. During 40 years of uranium mining in this former colony, French nuclear giant Cogéma opted to dump radioactive tailings into Ngamaboungou creek, polluting Mounana’s water supply.
Contamination: More than two million tonnes of uranium tailings were disposed of in the Ngamaboungou river valley.
Effects: To date the only data on the impact of tailings disposal is from Cogéma itself, who claim there was no real impact. Cogéma calculated that area residents, however, are exposed nearly three times the international guidelines for occupational exposure.
Punishment or resolution: None.

Kakadu, Australia

Spill: Accidental, repetitive.
Contamination: Over the course of its lifetime, the Ranger uranium mine in Northern Australia has released over 2000 cubic metres of contaminated water into the wetland and waterways surrounding Kakadu National Park. A trucking accident near the mine earlier this year spilled 17,000 litres of sulphuric acid into the wetlands—the largest chemical spill in local history.
Effects: Uranium levels in the nearby Corridor Creek are now 4,000 times the recommended drinking water standard. One recent government study found cancer rates among the Aboriginal population in the Kakadu region are twice as high as those living elsewhere.
Punishment or resolution: Ineffective. The Ranger mine has been repeatedly fined for failing to meet standard regulations, between $82,500 and $150,000 per incident. But tailing breaches continue to occur.