<HTML>In a message dated 11/26/2003 2:48:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, jbujes@covad.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Accurate information isn't pedantry. I brought this subject up a couple of years ago and somebody looked it up: the results were (then) that in some states disenfranchisment was absolute and permanent; in some states there was no disenfranchisment; and in the rest there were varying waiting periods and a long path back to enfranchisement...applications to fill out,  bureaucratic hurdles to be jumped etc. To my mind, given the demographics of ex-felons, the folks in the last category are not likely to ever vote again. Perhaps a lot has changed since then. I don't know. Joanna </BLOCKQUOTE> Based on my continuing highly scientific ( ;-)  ), exhort the felons at the bus stop to go vote survey, I do not think much has changed. As a general comment about electoral participation, EVEN THOUGH I am consistently underwhelmed by the two major political parties, I think participation in elections is essential, and I usually aspire to the following ideas: --Campaign strongly and coherently enough about some topic, say real nationwide universal health insurance to make the major parties come to you for support. --Concentrate on voter registration, voter mobilization, restoration of voting rights to felons and other paths that bring traditionally underrepresented voices into the system but do not necessarily bring easy to poll, easy to count on servile adherents of any party. --Do everything I can to ensure the intergrity of the process. There would be a few other points but.... DoreneC </HTML>