Re: PRESS RELEASE DRAFT

From: Robert Rapplean <robert_at_rapplean_dot_net>
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 10:45:15 CST

In the past few elections, they've even extended "disenfranchised" to
mean those people whose vote wouldn't matter even if they were to go
cast it. Among those who follow voting, it's actually a pretty vicious
term. When you take the mechanics of voting out of the picture, you're
talking about the people who truly do not or feel that they do not have
any say in government, whether this is because their right to vote is
being denied to them, or whether it is because corporations outspend
citizens in the election process by more than ten to one.

David Mertz wrote:

> 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