Remember those tumultuous days of 2009? Perhaps we could have a repeat here in Cranbrook.

Our most recent federal election took place in October, 2008. That was followed in short order by British Columbia municipal elections in November. A B.C. provincial election took place in May, 2009, and Cranbrook held a referendum on boundary expansion later that fall. So in the space of just over one year, British Columbians went to the polls three times, while in Cranbrook, we got the chance to cast ballots four times - a considerable feat in the exercise of the democratic franchise.

Each of these contests was marked with voter turnouts so low they bordered on the historic - 59 per cent in the federal election (Canada-wide), 30.5 in the municipal (Cranbrook), 50 per cent in the provincial (B.C.-wide), and 35 per cent in the Cranbrook referendum. One could say to achieve consistent historic lows is also a considerable achievement, of the negative sort, especially in light of what's taking place in the Arab world these days.

We are by default establishing for ourselves a voter class - between 50 and 30 per cent of the eligible population - which, while you can't describe it as an elite, certainly does end up deciding what form of government the rest of us will get. A distopian view of the future (Robert Heinlein) once separated the two groups as "citizens," who get to participate in governance, and "civilians," who go along for the ride.

Now it appears likely we are headed towards another year of hard voting. There will almost certainly be a federal election in May, 2011. A municipal election is guaranteed for November, 2011. Also confirmed for June, 2011, is the B.C.-wide referendum on the Harmonized Sales Tax.

And many pundits are saying a provincial election this year is not out of the question, perhaps as early as before the summer of 2011, depending on the polls and other shifts in the political faultline.

So voters again could have the opportunity to get involved in the political process as much as four times in one year. A significant achievement.

Here is a year of opportunity to decide which class we belong to - citizen or civilian.

***

Concussion-causing shots to the head - in hockey as well as other sports - are getting all the attention these days when it comes to athletes' health. But the recent horrific injury to Manny Malhotra of the Vancouver Canucks, who took a puck in the eye, should draw some attention to the serious risks hockey players face in this regard, and the ease with which they could be protected.

After all, shots to the head could be lessened significantly by modifying player behaviour, through rule changes. In Malhotra's case, the puck to the eye - a serious injury which could not only end a player's career but have a great impact on his or her life - could arguably have been prevented by the wearing of a visor.

A visor rule could easily be mandated by the NHL, or other professional or semi-pro leagues. After all, all players coming out of Junior or University hockey is in the habit of wearing one. It's mandatory in the junior leagues. But many players, upon making the bigs, choose to forgo visors (many pro hockey players, of course, keep wearing them). Just as helmets are mandatory wear, the addition of a visor would be a change so insignificant as to cause little comment.