Disillusionment isn’t apathy: political engagement cannot be measured by ballots alone 
Mississauga’s mayoral election raises questions about youth disengagement, political accountability, and whether elected officials are doing enough to earn young people’s trust.

Listen to the audio version of this article here!*

Young people are often told that if they want change, they need to vote for it. But what happens when they do not believe that the candidates vying for their votes truly represent their views and desires for change? For many students, politics feels increasingly disconnected from everyday life. Housing remains expensive, the living cost continues to put pressure on young adults, higher education can feel like an inescapable debt sentence for those without financial privilege, and decisions directly affecting our communities can feel far removed from the people who will live with their consequences. It is easy to understand why we question whether voting makes a difference. However, Mississauga’s recent mayoral election raises a more important question: are young people truly disenchanted with politics, or are they tired of a political system that has not adequately represented them?

On October 26, Mississauga elected Alvin Tedjo as mayor, defeating incumbent Carolyn Parrish and former mayor Bonnie Crombie. According to the City of Mississauga’s unofficial election results, only 33.9 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot. This raises the questions about who participates in local democracy and whose priorities ultimately shape the city. Although turnout alone cannot explain why people chose not to vote, it should prompt a conversation about whether residents feel sufficiently represented by their municipal government.

For students, municipal politics is not some distant debate between politicians. It affects how much we pay for housing, how efficiently we get to campus, which public spaces we access, and whether communities facing disproportionate levels of hate crime—such as anti-South Asian racism, islamaphobia, and anti-Semitism—can afford to feel safe in the city they call home. When rent consumes a significant portion of a student’s income, public transit is essential to getting to class and employment, and entry-level wages struggle to keep up with expenses, local government decisions become personal. These are not minor concerns that can be postponed until young people graduate or enter the workforce. They shape our lives now.

Consider the debate surrounding hyperscale data centres in Mississauga. In July, city council moved to study a temporary pause on new data centre development while examining potential effects on infrastructure, electricity, water consumption, and the environment. As the city explained in its announcement, the proposal reflected concerns about the potential local impacts of these facilities. Although data centers support digital services and economic activity, their development also raises questions about resource consumption and long-term sustainability. Young residents, who will live with the consequences of today’s decisions, deserve a meaningful voice in these types of discussions.

The same principle applies to affordability and housing. Students are expected to invest in their education and prepare for their futures, yet many are already struggling to afford the present. Municipal governments cannot solve every economic problem, but they influence planning, housing development, public transit and local services. Candidates should therefore be judged not only by their promises, but also by whether their plans address the realities facing younger residents. 

Still, it would be too simplistic to blame young people for disengaging. Statistics Canada’s research on youth political participation found that in the 2021 municipal election, 53 per cent of Canadians aged 18 to 30 reported voting, compared with 78 per cent of those aged 47 and older. Although these figures are not specific to Mississauga or the 2026 mayoral elections, they illustrate a longstanding participation gap. Importantly, the same research found that young people also participate in politics outside elections. Political engagement cannot be measured by ballots alone. 

Protests, petitions, community organizing, public advocacy, and alternative solidarity networks and economies can all improve community living standards, challenge institutions, and demand accountability. The problem is not that young people question the political system, because questioning those in power is a necessary part of democracy. The problem arises when frustration becomes a belief that nothing can change, leaving decisions to others who may not share our priorities.  

Recent elections around the world also complicate the idea that voters have simply given up. In Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva won the October 25 presidential election against Flavio Bolsonaro, demonstrating that electoral outcomes can remain competitive even amid deep political divisions—especially on a continent that has recently seen a far-right turn. Meanwhile Olivia Chow won a second term as Toronto mayor, following a campaign which featured prominently housing affordability and public services. These elections do not prove that a single political movement represents all young people, nor that election victories automatically produce meaningful change. They do, however, challenge the assumption that dissatisfaction inevitably leads to political withdrawal. 

Perhaps the question is not whether young people are disenchanted, but what their disillusionment is telling us. A generation concerned about affordability, environmental sustainability, and its future may not be rejecting politics itself. It may be demanding a form of politics that responds more directly to the urgency of these concerns. That distinction matters because dismissing disengaged young people as apathetic ignores the possibility that their frustration reflects a genuine gap between political promises and lived experiences.

In the U.S. alone, many left-leaning folks hold the view that electoral politics will never be capable of producing the long-lasting change we need. This type of reductionist narrative risks misdiagnosing the real frustrations fueling our political landscapes today. I believe that recognizing the reasons beyond disengagement does not mean abandoning electoral participation. Elections are not the only way to create change, but they remain one mechanism—among many—through which residents can influence local leadership and hold elected officials accountable. Refusing to vote does not automatically communicate dissatisfaction to politicians, particularly when that absence can be interpreted in many different ways. It can also reduce the incentive for candidates to address the needs of communities whose participation they do not expect.

The responsibility, however, cannot rest entirely on young voters. Candidates must do more than encourage students to participate when election day approaches. They need to engage with students before campaigns begin, explain their policies clearly, consult young residents on decisions that affect them, and report publicly on whether their promises are fulfilled. Representation should not end when the votes are counted.

Mississauga’s elections have concluded, but the debate about political representation has not. The real test for its new mayor and council will be whether they can turn campaign commitment into decisions that residents can see and evaluate. For students, the responsibility is to remain informed, ask difficult questions and hold those officials accountable beyond election day. 

Young people do not owe politicians their trust simply because voting is considered a civic duty. That trust must be earned . But neither should we assume that withdrawing from the political process is the only way to reject the status quo. Disillusionment can be a reason to demand better politics, not a reason to surrender our influence over it.

*AI-Generated Audio Transcription Disclaimer

The audio transcription included in this article was generated using artificial intelligence (AI) technology with the purpose of improving accessibility for our readers and providing an alternative opportunity to engage with The Medium‘s content. Please note that AI-generated transcriptions may contain errors or inaccuracies in pronunciation, wording, or interpretation.

The original written article remains the authoritative version of the content. If you notice an error in the audio transcription, please contact social@themedium.ca so we can conduct further reviews and corrections.