From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 22:05:32 CST

On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:06 PM, Fred McLain wrote:
> Frankly I haven't taken the time to read this press release yet. On
> this one point I'd say that 'disenfranchised' or even worse,
> 'disenfranchisement' isn't something that resonates. It sounds like
> we're trying to start a Burger King(tm).
> How about "didn't vote"?

Nah... "disenfranchised" has a specific meaning that is not difficult
to find. It means something much less general than "didn't vote."
"Prevented from voting" is a bit closer, but even that is a bit too
vague--for example, it includes people who were legitimately told of
their ineligibility.

If you get to a bit longer phrase "Eligible voters who were prevented
from voting or for whom voting was made substantially more difficult
than for other voters" it comes pretty close. But it's far less
mellifluous than a single precise term.
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:31 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST