Re: Don't think of an elephant.

From: Keith Copenhagen <k_at_copetech_dot_com>
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 15:21:17 CST

Ouch, OK let me be more more clear...

I think that OVC (and especially the long term players), have the real
opportunity and real responsibility to develop and use a non-technical
vocabulary that can present the issues and help open voting to succeed.

George Lakoff, is currently getting a lot of press as an expert in this
area. I suspect that he is more available to us, than someone like a
Frank Luntz, who arguably does the same, albeit with opposite rotation.

>Hello Keith:
>
> Your suggestion will make more sense when members read the
following:
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/opinion/15mon3.html>
>
>Please note that I'm including this article solely to illustrate how
OVC might benefit. I do not necessarily advocate his postions or
suggest that OVC do so.
>
>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
>=============================================================
>>
>>Keith Copenhagen <k@copetech.com> wrote:
>>** Accidentally cross posted to voting-project not OVC-discuss **
>>** use ovc-discuss for follow ups **
>>
>>I propose, to this august body, that we/OVC approach George Lakoff
>>of the Rockridge Institute, for suggestions on phrasing to use to
>>describe phrasing of the OVC goals & components. This "Framing of
>>Issues" is a key component to modern political discourse and may be
>>the most important contribution we can make to the discussion of
>>electronic voting.
>>
>>-Keith
>>
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:32 2004

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