It is difficult for anyone living in Hong Kong not to see reminders tell them that the District Council "elections" will be held on December 10. (Country parks may be the only place without such banners — one may wonder if Chan Tong-Kai, prime suspect of a murder who triggered the city's downward spiral, can see such reminders "in the wilderness" where he lives.) The word election are in quotes because only 20% of new councilors are elected by the public, whereas 40% appointed by the government, which knows what we want better than we do, and the remaining 40% are elected by members of 3 committees (District Fight Crime Committees, District Fire Safety Committees and Area Committees), appointed by the government, which knows what we want better than we do. Even candidates for the directly-elected seats have to receive nominations from 3 members of each of the 3 committees and have their candidacy reviewed by a board consisting of members appointed by the government, which knows what we want better than we do.
Most expect the "election" will have a low, possibly record-breaking, turnout. Government officials have repeatedly stated that turnout doesn't matter, saying nonsense such as "low turnout is a sign of stability", "look at the high turnout in the last election and what kind of councilors were elected". One may wonder if the last statement would depress, rather than boost, turnout, since the officials are implying that Hong Kongers have elected the "wrong" candidates in the last election. If those elected in the last election did nothing constructive and everything destructive (as claimed by government officials and their sycophants), we would vote them out.
In spite of that, government officials are trying to boost turnout by all means necessary. (One official stated that they would "stop at nothing to promote the election".) Get-out-the-vote activities include handing out phamlets, pop-up ads on government website, ads by celebrities and government officials (not sure the latter's appearances would boost or depress turnout, but the officials are taking full advantage of the opportunity to live out their acting fantasies), free museum admission, sporting exhibitions, variety shows (which forces a hospital's telethon to postpone a week) on the eve of the election, limited-time screensavers on government computers (are they as interesting as flying toasters?), subsides to elderly homes and community centres to bus senior citizens to polling stations (it's not illegal as long as no one tells them who to vote for).
The public, for now at least, have tuned out, perhaps due to overexposure. Since officials have stated that they would stop at nothing to promote the election, perhaps the government should consider other means to encourage Hong Kongers to cast a ballot. To start, the government can provide voters with (electronic) spending vouchers, which can be redeemed when a voter receives a ballot. Since the vouchers, in theory, can be used anywhere which accepts electronic payment, the government can limit where the vouchers can be used to avoid "abuse" such as using the money at "yellow" (supporting the city's democracy movement) stores. To prevent that, the vouchers may be limited to government-related payments such as taxes, traffic fines, school fees, sporting/performing venue rental, public housing rental, etc.
The government can also waive the salary or profit (one can only choose one) taxes of those who cast a vote on election day. To encourage them to continue voting in future elections, the waiver would remain effective until the next election. To make things interesting, the government can hold a lucky draw and anyone who casts a ballot would automatically enter the draw. The grand prize winner would receive lifetime income tax-exempt status. Other prizes include 20-, 10-, or 5-year tax-exempt status, increased tax exemption, public housing units (regardless of whether the winner is eligible to apply for them), a fast pass to medical specialists at public clinics (the specialty at the prize winner's choosing), free-tuition at public institute of higher education, or even a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card (the prize would be voided if the charge is related to "national security").
Since those who cast a ballot will be rewarded, those who don't should be punished. To distinguish those who vote from those do not, there are rumours that people will receive a pin along with a ballot at the polling station. Since the pin may be shared among family members, friends, neighbours, coworkers, perhaps even strangers, poll workers can instead apply temporary tattoos or watertight stamps (such as those used at theme parks) to those who cast a ballot. Anyone without such marks will lose the basic tax exemption or have their tax rate doubled (or tripled). The tax increase would remain in place until the next election. For those who don't pay income taxes (because they are paid in cash, don't make enough to pay taxes), they will see the tuition (if they are in school), rent (if they live in public housing) or government rent (if they own a home) doubled. That way the government can recover the cost associated with the giveaways described earlier. Better still, those who are hesitant to vote would rush to the polling station to avoid paying extra taxes. Should anyone who fails to show up to vote decides to seek support from the newly-elected councilors, the tax rate would further increase two-fold — "why should I help you? You didn't support the new and improved district council".
If there are anyone who don't pay taxes, pay government rent, live in public housing, enrolled in school, there is the ultimate deterrent to not voting. National security police would pay such people a visit in the early morning on December 11, confiscate their travel documents, and take them to the nearest detention centre for an indefinite stay without bail. In case the detained exceeds the detention centres' capacity, the detained may be randomly selected to join a trip to the mainland to experience the motherland's greatness and the mainland's "justice under the sunlight".
With such incentives in place, record-breaking turnout is guaranteed. After all, who would want to pay extra to the government or labelled a threat to "national security"? The only question is why didn't officials consider them?