Well, from the number of votes their candidates are getting, we know that it's not encouraging people to turn out to vote. I think it could potentially discourage people at the margins from turning out, because who wants to wade through 200 names in a general election or a by-election—which already suffer from low turnout—when it looks like a farce?
It raises the accessibility issues we've talked about. It makes life more difficult for everyone and irritates people. As we know, every time you introduce a bit of a barrier, the turnout is going to go down. It's just the very rational calculation of, “Okay, it's going to be a little more work to do this. Do I really want to put that work in?” It's already a problem that people are deciding they don't want to turn out, especially young people. When you look at the distribution of who turns out and who doesn't, and you say, “Well, you know, we got a 60% turnout”, it's because you have 80% of older folks and 20% of younger folks. I don't think they're going to be bothered to turn out when they're staring down something like this.
Ultimately, the way I see this problem is that we're trying to balance the right of an individual to get on the ballot versus the right of an elector to cast their ballot, and that's the core balance that needs to be struck. If the longest ballot thing continues, it's going to make life more difficult for people to cast their ballots, and that's the last thing we need right now.