Technically speaking -- due to the electoral system -- people living in certain states are ALREADY "disenfranchised."
For example, if you live in WA, OR, CA, Nevada, Illinois, NY, NJ, Maryland, D.C. or some New England states, a vote for Romney won't help beat Obama in those states.
And frankly, if you live in most Western states; most Midwestern states; all Southern states (except FL)...your vote against Obama won't mean anything more...Obama stands 0% chance to win in those states.
So...if the argument would be consistent...you'd have to admit that "franchisement" ONLY exists in genuine swing states.
Do you confess that?
It's going to be so tight here that I expect both Obama and Romney to be there at my precinct to meet me and beg for my vote.
And I will tell them "Where were you when I wanted to vote for Newt in the March Primary" ~ and they will say "We were there Master ~ we were there, looking after your interests, carving out new policies you would find pleasing" and I will look them both in the eye and say "Out you faithless ministers of politics ~ I'm voting for a Good Man, and you'all can go into the bottomless pit from which none escape".
“Confess”...? Sure, if you live in a state where you are certain Obama is going to win, or where you are certain your vote isn’t needed to beat him, then move to a state where you can make a difference. I happen to live where my vote counts. Not only that, there are other ways to support or defeat a candidate, as in verbal support, or financial support. If you live in California where your vote isn’t going make difference, encourage people who live in swing states to make a real vote against Obama. This election might surprise a few voters in a few states where they think they won’t make a difference. Your logic doesn’t change the fact that there are two choices at the table that matter.