TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
It would definitely get the vote out.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the turnout would be dramatically higher than for a presidential election, although probably well below the 93% (or whatever it was) turnout Scotland had.
ReplyDeleteThe Aussies have it right: elections are held on Saturday and participation is compulsory.
ReplyDeleteAlso, they have IRV (this seems familiar, can't remember if it was one of your threads). Anyway, more US voters might bother turning out if they felt like their vote might actually count for something. Right now it's the lesser of two evils, and it's pretty darned evil.
ReplyDelete