There's a time and place for literary nitpicking, and this probably isn't it

[devi]

I'm off out to vote shortly. Just to make sure I haven't missed anything crucial, I had another look at the manifestos of the two parties I've been vacillating between.

Is it wrong to feel more affectionate towards one party because their manifesto is snappy, specific, well-written and has nice fonts and nice graphic design, while the other is full of densely packed, long, rambly sentences of vague upper-manglement-speak that made my head swim?

Never mind foreign affairs, education or the economy! Check out the use of sans-serif!


Edit (back now): And I didn't realise UKIP's logo was a pound sign. Ew, how tacky.

Comments

[ar-gemlad.livejournal.com]

Think of this situation:
You're applying for a credit card, and have narrowed it down to two companies. One has clear, easy to read literature, including Terms & Conditions in English you don't have to get a dictionary to read, and the other has literature with no clear fonts, no pictures, 7pt text with T&Cs at 5pts.

Which one appeals more?
Which do you trust more?
Who looks like they give a monkeys about your money and custom?

Should it be different when voting? I think not.

Oh, and I don't mean this to be a capitalist argument.