Two Groups, Two Flyers

Imagine sitting at your kitchen table, opening your mail, and finding a flyer that talks about “the future of the community.” Now imagine a second flyer with a very different tone — almost as if the two are describing entirely different neighborhoods. That’s what this past election felt like for many people, and I’m guessing you might have felt it too.

What I kept hearing afterward was: “Both sides seemed equally divisive.”

But when you put the flyers side by side, the styles, tone, and goals weren’t actually similar at all.

So let’s walk through them together — calmly, clearly, and without judgment — and you can decide what you notice.

How the Campaign Materials Communicated Differently

A comparison of tone, structure, and communication style

This installment focuses on tone, structure, and strategy, without assessing the factual accuracy of any statements. A separate article reviews the claims made in the materials.

Different Approaches to Tone

The “REAL Friends of Ken Lake” flyer uses an adversarial tone

This flyer frames the election through interpersonal conflict. It uses language such as:

• “behind-the-scenes insults and accusations”

• “hurtful and divisive tactics”

• “chaos over the past two years”

• “twist facts”

• “pseudo-attorney interpretations”

The language used in the flyer depicts its targets as destabilizing or dishonest. It emphasizes frustration, fear of decline, and the need to “restore” order.

This combination—warning about a threat while promising stability—is common in conflict-driven HOA elections.

---

The Friends of Ken Lake flyer uses an informational tone

This flyer focuses on:

• election logistics (ballot deadlines, VIS procedures),

• community values such as collaboration and environmental stewardship, and

• invitations to meet candidates or ask questions.

It does not describe specific residents or interpersonal disputes. Its tone is procedural and values-based, aiming to increase clarity, participation, and transparency.

---

Different Approaches to Strategy

The adversarial flyer organizes around contrast

Its central strategy is to draw a sharp distinction between:

• a “real” or “true” group of representatives, and

• an opposing group depicted as misleading, divisive, or harmful.

This is a classical political framing. It invites voters to choose sides based on loyalty, fear of change, or worries about conflict.

Messaging emphasizes:

• fear of increased housing density,

• anger over interpersonal disputes, and

• distrust of alternative communication channels (“no fancy website to twist facts”)

---

The informational flyer organizes around access and transparency

The Friends of Ken Lake flyer centers on:

• helping residents participate,

• providing contact information for VIS,

• explaining how to change a vote, and

• offering open, all-candidate invitations to events.

It uses a process-first rather than conflict-first approach, similar to municipal election outreach. Language such as “balanced solutions,” “represent you,” and “all candidates invited” signals inclusivity and shared purpose.

---

Different Approaches to Intent

Impact of the adversarial flyer

Because we do not want to assume intent, this subsection focuses on the effect the flyer has on a reader and on the election environment. 

Primary impact: Defines a moral conflict between their group and another faction, shaping the election around interpersonal grievances and fear of change.

Secondary impacts:

• It amplifies a narrative of chaos and promises a return to order, creating an emotional frame for decision-making.

• It casts doubt on other sources of information, encouraging residents to distrust competing communications.

• It shifts attention away from governance procedures and policy discussions, and toward judgments about trust, loyalty, and personal character.

Overall pattern:

The flyer operates within a narrative-first framework—using story, emotion, and identity contrast—rather than a systems-first approach grounded in process, documentation, or policy.

Intent of the informational flyer

Primary intent:

• To reduce confusion, increase turnout, and present a coherent set of community priorities.

Secondary intent:

• To explain election mechanics transparently.

• To provide tools for participation.

• To encourage open dialogue with all candidates.

• To present values without referencing interpersonal conflicts.

This is a procedural-first strategy.

---

Why These Differences Matter

After walking through all of this, I keep coming back to one simple question I’d love to ask you:

If you were described in Flyer A, even loosely, how do you think that would have felt?

Would you worry that someone might form an opinion before ever speaking with you?

Would it make it harder to join a conversation or share an idea?

And if you imagine yourself in Flyer B’s approach — being introduced through your values, your availability, and your willingness to talk — would that feel different? Would it feel safer? More grounded?

That’s why communication style matters. Not because one group is “good” or “bad,” but because tone and structure shape how welcome people feel participating in our community.

My hope is that future elections give everyone — including you — the chance to engage without worrying about how you will be portrayed.

A community grows stronger when neighbors can disagree without feeling unsafe, unheard, or misrepresented.

If you ever want to walk through other materials like this, I’m always happy to sit down with you and talk it through.

---

Is it Divisive? Quick-check List

These questions help distinguish messaging designed to inform from messaging designed to divide. You can use them for any election material, now or in the future.

1. Separate issue claims from personal claims. If a message focuses on character (e.g., “chaos,” “divisive,” “behind-the-scenes behavior”) rather than bylaws, policy, or process, treat it as emotional framing—not information.

2. Watch for identity labels. Phrases like “real friends,” “true representatives,” or “people like us” divide neighbors into camps. Ask what the message is trying to achieve with those labels.

3. Identify fear-based appeals. Statements about threats, decline, or danger (e.g., “high-density housing,” “protect our community”) should prompt you to check whether the risk is documented or merely implied.

4. Ask what the message wants you to do. 

A call to action can be:

• Process-based: vote procedures, deadlines, policies

• Emotion-based: defend, stop, restore, protect

  
  

Messaging designed to inform looks different from messaging designed to provoke.

5. Slow down your reaction. If a message makes you feel alarmed, pressured, or angry, pause. Strong emotional cues are often used to bypass critical thinking.

Our Thoughts

How I felt about the contrast of these flyers by Elle Burger

Participating in this election cycle was difficult. When a campaign narrative frames you as amoral, untrustworthy, or a source of “chaos,” it becomes extremely hard to engage constructively. When your work is described as “twisting facts,” there is no straightforward or effective way to respond without appearing defensive or escalating tensions. And when your platform is dismissed before anyone asks what your position actually is, the space for meaningful dialogue can feel very small.

What made it especially challenging was that the critiques weren’t about policy or process — areas where disagreements can be worked through — but about character and intent, which are much harder to address publicly without inflaming things further.

My hope is that future elections in Ken Lake can focus on our shared goals, our governance structures, and our diverse perspectives — not on personal narratives that make participation feel unsafe or unwelcoming.

The more we create an environment where people can contribute without fear of mischaracterization, the stronger our community will be.