^ you make a convincing argument. i suspect the plaintiffs in the court case made similar arguments. the appeal was argued in front of the ontario court of appeal, and the five judges ruled on it. according to the news article, there was a dissenting opinion, so the decision was not unanimous. perhaps the plaintiffs will appeal next to the SCC.
your argument that "those who shouldn't be voting have not been voting" would be turned upside down if voting were made easier (perhaps online voting in the near future) and suddenly there were one million new voters who may have no plans of ever living in canada again.
rules often have the effect of being unfair for some while serving a greater purpose. i do not know what the "greater purpose" may have been for enacting the five year rule in the first place. i assume both sides presented strong arguments, as it resulted in a split decision at the court of appeal.
if one were to ask "should one million individuals who have not lived in canada for over 5 years and who do not pay canadian taxes be allowed to vote in canada?" i expect a lot of people would say no, because they would be making the rule for the entire group of people, not the 6,000 for whom it may be most unfair.
Non-residency is NOT non-citizenship. I still carry a Canadian passport. I am in Canada every few years at the longest stretch. I am more connected to the news and politics than a large portion of Canadians who live in country. My family lives here. I was born here. One day, I will repatriate my accumulated wealth and will be taxed on that, as well as the property I am saving to buy. Political decisions made today affect my life then.
i expect if you said all this to the CRA, they would deem you to be a canadian resident, and you would be able to vote again. after you pay your Canadian income taxes of course.
