I've already forgotten half of what he ran through.
Certainly in terms of the issue of changing where you have your polling stations to a more commercial nature, the joke I was making was about the change from citizen into consumer. And that's one of the things that's been happening here. If you look through some of the research and some of the comments, there is this whole concern that people are changing to be more consumers and less citizens with a duty. Duty and obligation are big parts of voting.
Some people say we need to have better education to get people to vote. Some people point to political efficacy as a reason why people don't vote. They think their vote doesn't matter, and so on. And there are some studies, as Mr. Dewar acknowledged, that indicated that a different voting system results in a higher turnout. There are others who say that it's a competitive election that results in a higher turnout. If they think it's a foregone conclusion, they don't vote. There's cynicism. All these things are different factors, and we can go through them all.
I simply think you can't solve all those problems all at once, and there are all kinds of good debates about why you may or may not want to do that, but the reality is, whether you go with a proportional system or stick with our first-past-the-post system, whether it's a close election or not, the fact that we will be making this change I think will have a positive impact regardless of what other changes you do make.
I don't think it's a sin to look at it in isolation. I think it's fine to look at it, and I don't think it's a sin to give someone the opportunity to vote on Sunday, as long as you're not obliging them to vote on Sunday.