i think what these narratives indicate is that it's ultimately up to the ex-pat to decide whether they're engaged or not. it's a kind of a strange argument. if people aren't interested or aware, there's not much chance that they're going to go through the lengthy process of registering and casting a ballot. the fact that they're jumping through these hoops largely indicates that they are actually engaged and informed.

all those headaches kind of have the effect of separating out the people that have left the country permanently from the people that are gone for a bit and are planning on coming back. the hypothetical of an individual who has no interest in canada and never plans on coming back, but wants to vote, is sort of untenable.

i think this is just fallout from the ignatieff attacks. it's not a specific vote altering scheme. it's just an attempt to maintain a narrative.

and, i do believe that the supreme court will overturn this.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-expats-cant-vote-1.3204664

Sue Russell
how do you know that maybe they just want media on them?

Jessica Murray
there's some things you can't know for sure, but can carefully rule out as unlikely. most things, really.

TruthUponYou
they shouldn't even get 5 years cause they have no riding to vote in, they are not residents in any riding, how do they pick and choose which riding they vote in?

Jessica Murray
they would generally vote in the riding they last lived in, which is also the riding they're likely to return to. generally, coming home means coming home, not migrating across the country.

TruthUponYou
Canadians only maintain residency for 3 months,

even if they are likely to return there are some point in the future, doesn't matter, its 3 months.

unless you keep a residence in that riding you can't vote there unless you leave the country but should be 3 months and not 5 years.

Jessica Murray
well, i think that's the point of contention.