Right, I can understand arguments for "you shouldn't lose the vote in that case", but that's a separate issue from "given that her vote wasn't valid, she was disenfranchising someone".
And "no franchise" does not imply "not human", unless you're saying that every country should allow foreigners to vote in their election or else they're deeming them non-human.
It's not a word game; it's progressed into forcing the OP into clarifying why disenfranchisement can be such an atrocity but not "hurting" in any relevant sense, or (if I understand you) why all non-physical crimes should have some really low cap on punishment. Seems like progress to me, and unlike a word game.
And "no franchise" does not imply "not human", unless you're saying that every country should allow foreigners to vote in their election or else they're deeming them non-human.