I think what would encourage non-voters to vote would be to make voting quasi-mandatory. ''Quasi'' because, not voting would mean losing all social benefits such as health care and income tax refunds etc. In other words, you'd be allowed not to vote, but you'd lose so much that nearly everybody would vote. People would be allowed to spoil their ballot if they desire to do so, but they would still have to make the effort to move their ass and go scribble on that little paper called a voting ballot.
That may sound drastic but perhaps this is what people need to stop taking their democracy for granted.
A less drastic measure would be a simple 100$ penalty on income tax for not voting. I'm sure just that would do the trick.
But do you really want a non-voter totally out of tune with what's going on voting? The best favour they can do us is stay at home. If you don't know what it's all about, please don't come out to vote.
I heard Harper speak on the radio yesterday and he summed up three important plans- 1. No increase in taxes 2. Reducing spending and 3. Pay down the debt. Sounds good to me.
Sounds good, but in the wrong order, and that's what worries me. I would have put it this way:
1. Reducing spending,
2. Pay down the debt, and
3. No increase in taxes.
It might come across as the same on the surface, and I'm sure many will look at it and think it's just the same list in a different order. There is a subtle difference however, and I'll explain it below:
Let's suppose he gets another minority next election, and the opposition pushes him to raise spending on some front or other, or some other event or combination of events (in this case even if he has a majority) such as a series of natural disasters, war, etc. should put some new pressure on the budget and something has to give, then according to the first list, he'd sacrifice the debt first, reducing spending being the next sacrifice, and not raising taxes being the last one. In other words, in such a non-ideal scenario, he'd abandon paying the debt and would raise spending, but without raising taxes, meaning more debt, inflation, etc.
Re-ordering the priorities gives us different results. As per the new order I gave it, in the event of such less than ideal surprise scenarios:
He'd stand firm on paying off the debt, and would be more likely to raise taxes if necessary, thus ensuring, let's say there's another war, that we all make a sacrifice and not just the soldiers and the future generation.
I like his ideas, but they're all in the wrong order.
