Implication of online voting in the future

> the direct democracy utopia offered by online voting poses some interesting and serious problems. i'm no expert on political theories of representation either, but the old Bernays quote about the "creation of consent" seems applicable here. representation of the "public" via political leadership could just as easily be replaced by media representations (more than it is now). this would be like giving polls the actual power to BECOME politics, and given the survey that twhid posted a while back (about US citizens' (lack of) knowledge regarding Iraq's (non)involvement in 9/11) how many of us are ready for "direct democracy" anyway. the relative insignifance of politically critical media to the "mainstream" at least gives a hint that more democracy doesn't necessarily mean more political involvement. Some of the recent political events in Europe (Le Pen, the Christian Democrats'popularity in Germany, another rise in xenophobia) show that populism moves right as easily as left.
while more chaotic politics generally means more democratic, the illusion of direct access offered by networked politics could just as easily lead to more authoritarianism (even through voting). not to mention those that could be excluded from the network in the first place.
of course, i'm in missouri and have no idea what i'm talking about… we voted in Jim Talent.

Let us ignore the 'hackability' of the system as a counter-reason for now, assuming that perfect security of online voting is indeed possible.

Like Ryan said, this idea has the potential to bleed into "pure" democracy, which is rather dangerous…i.e., demagogues and their opponents can spend so much effort arousing the masses that it becomes a whole media game…perhaps ultimately, a propaganda game.

Even without the contemporary media phenomenon, however, pure democracies have invariably failed throughout history (Ancient Greece, Italy circa 1848, etc.); they lack the stability of republics/representative democracies. This could point to demagoguery as even more fundamental than the media/mass communication level itself.

The "letting go" point in time after the election is crucial. The slippery slope of online voting is that we'd have to vote on everything, and, despite the convenience/accessibility of computers, it would still take a tremendous amount of time to make "informed decisions" –crucial to the survival of any brand of democracy. I mean, how much am I, Joe Citizen, going to read up on the history of the problem of this one kind of tax, or this particular allotment of funds for this-and-that public works, or the composition of such-and-such department, and, on top of that, have a stand on it, one sufficient to vote on it?

The types of decisions that would be subsumed under the politician's duties alone would gradually reduce more and more until he becomes a figurehead, and we have replaced our leaders with demagogues.

In some ways, that isn't a bad thing, really, because, let's face it, who wouldn't like to vote over issues over platforms, or, worse yet, people? Let's make a hypothetical man A. A likes ALL life. So he is pro-life, vegetarian, environmentalist, against the death penalty, and so on. There's no party that would support him! But A would survive, do well even, in a system where he could pick and choose his issues…ethically, even, it is better to have a body of TRULY "ELECTED" officials doing specific things, elected in that popular mandate put every last micromanaged thing into motion and somehow organized it into a functional state.

Sadly, the average voter is a far cry from "A." The majority of citizens, not to mention people, by -default- doesn't care about these issues. This is why you often see the phenomenon (which always irritates the press / gives them their job) of the voter that wants everything. The moment a politician commits to one thing, he has alienated the people in a certain way, even though he may have the best reasons for going the way he did. The voter sees it negatively, at what ISN'T happening or what ISN'T being done–what goes WRONG.

This online voting system that extends to all issues places an enormous burden upon the population, for it presumes a level of competence, education, maturity, and ethical-pragmatic intelligence that the most human beings simply don't have.


Vijay


> "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> RHIZOME_RAW: Implication of online voting in the futureDate: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:01:27 -0500
>Reply-To: "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]>
>
>Hi all,
>
>When it comes to civics, or American political system, I'm not by any means
>an expert. However, I am working on an essay where it explores the
>possibility of partially eliminating the concept of political representation
>by using the Internet. I ask those of you who are better versed in this
>subject, if my concept is sheer naivete.
>
>The concept of political representation seems to have arose for two reasons.
>1. Most of us cannot, or should not, be involved in politics at all times.
>Politics is a specialty which requires immense knowledge, experience, and
>wisdom. Beyond a certain point, it makes sense to delegate our political
>responsibilities to specialists who represent our political ideals.
>
>2. It is not practically possible to have the people vote on every issue
>that needs to be decided. Thus by political representation, we can reduce
>the number of votes to a practically manageable size.
>
>In the near future, the second reason will no longer hold true. Once we have
>a reliable online system where each voter can easily cast a vote on any
>pending issues, some of the needs to have political representation would be
>eliminated. This would give the people the power to veto. For instance, we
>can decide the number of votes required to be effective, say, 50% of the
>population. If this requirement is met, then the outcome of the votes rule
>over everything else, even the decisions of the president.
>
>For a situation like the current one with Iraq, where in most countries the
>majority of the citizens are opposed to the war, the people can decide for
>themselves what the appropriate action should be. It prevents, to a certain
>degree, politicians from abusing their power. Even after they are elected,
>they would still have to report to the people who would hold the final say
>on any issue.
>
>What do you think?
>
>-Dyske
>
>
>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————

Thank you, Vijay and Ryan, for your interesting analysis.

I found an interesting tidbit in my encyclopedia that I was not aware of
before.
(For those of you who weren't sleeping in your history and civics classes in
high school like I was, these tidbits are probably common knowledge.)

"Although often used interchangeably, the terms democracy and republic are
not synonymous. Both systems delegate the power to govern to their elected
representatives. In a republic, however, these officials are expected to act
on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country. The
officials in a democracy more generally and directly reflect the known or
ascertained views of their constituents, sometimes subordinating their own
judgment."

According to this, Tony Blair is going by the definition of republic, not
democracy, since he obviously is going against the majority consensus.

Another historical tidbit:

"The democracies of the city-states of classical Greece and of Rome during
the early years of the Republic were unlike the democracies of today. They
were direct democracies, in which all citizens could speak and vote in
assemblies that resembled New England town meetings. Representative
government was unknown and unnecessary because of the small size of the
city-states (almost never more than 10,000 citizens)."

I agree with the dangers of the direct (or "pure") democracy, but they exist
even now. I'm sure many people who are deeply involved in politics would
consider the majority of the registered voters to be too ignorant to be
qualified to vote. And, though it is subjective, I'm sure there is a truth
to that. The vast majority of the American voters base their decisions on
what they see on TV. In this sense, the current situation is already nothing
short of a "propaganda game."

There are good reasons to protect the government from ill-informed voters,
especially when it comes to specific issues. I feel that the online voting
system that I'm suggesting already has a natural protection from this. If
you set a minimum required votes relatively high (like 50% of the entire
voting population), for the vast majority of issues, it would never reach
that number. (Just to be clear: By 50%, I mean the percentage of the people
who voted among the entire population, not the percentage of any particular
side of the issue.) For any specific issues like dividend tax, most people
will not bother voting, and if you do vote, chances are, you are relatively
well-informed about the issue.

The advantage of this system is that:
1. If more than half of the population is concerned about any particular
issue, they can make decisions themselves, rather than having a small number
of politicians decide for them. If England had this system currently, there
will be no need to have peace demonstrations to put pressures on Blair. The
people can simply veto his decisions by voting on the issue.

2. Even for those issues that did not make the minimum percentage
requirement, it is still helpful for the politicians to know the opinions of
those who are concerned about the issues.

3. The citizens have freedom of choice in terms of what issues they want to
be involved in. Unlike a referendum system where the issues to be decided by
referendum is not a choice made by the citizens, this online voting system
will let the citizens dynamically decide on any issues.

4. Your political involvement does not have to be compromised by voting for
a politician whose views you only partially agree with. Say politician A is
pro-choice and anti-immigration. You are pro-choice also, but you believe in
a liberal immigration policy. If you felt strongly about both issues, and if
you voted for politician A, your total accomplishment would be nothing.

I still feel that this voting system would be an effective supplemental
tool.

Any thoughts?

Dyske






> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Vijay Pattisapu
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:06 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Implication of online voting in the future
>
>
> Let us ignore the 'hackability' of the system as a counter-reason
> for now, assuming that perfect security of online voting is
> indeed possible.
>
> Like Ryan said, this idea has the potential to bleed into "pure"
> democracy, which is rather dangerous…i.e., demagogues and their
> opponents can spend so much effort arousing the masses that it
> becomes a whole media game…perhaps ultimately, a propaganda game.
>
> Even without the contemporary media phenomenon, however, pure
> democracies have invariably failed throughout history (Ancient
> Greece, Italy circa 1848, etc.); they lack the stability of
> republics/representative democracies. This could point to
> demagoguery as even more fundamental than the media/mass
> communication level itself.
>
> The "letting go" point in time after the election is crucial. The
> slippery slope of online voting is that we'd have to vote on
> everything, and, despite the convenience/accessibility of
> computers, it would still take a tremendous amount of time to
> make "informed decisions" –crucial to the survival of any brand
> of democracy. I mean, how much am I, Joe Citizen, going to read
> up on the history of the problem of this one kind of tax, or this
> particular allotment of funds for this-and-that public works, or
> the composition of such-and-such department, and, on top of that,
> have a stand on it, one sufficient to vote on it?
>
> The types of decisions that would be subsumed under the
> politician's duties alone would gradually reduce more and more
> until he becomes a figurehead, and we have replaced our leaders
> with demagogues.
>
> In some ways, that isn't a bad thing, really, because, let's face
> it, who wouldn't like to vote over issues over platforms, or,
> worse yet, people? Let's make a hypothetical man A. A likes ALL
> life. So he is pro-life, vegetarian, environmentalist, against
> the death penalty, and so on. There's no party that would support
> him! But A would survive, do well even, in a system where he
> could pick and choose his issues…ethically, even, it is better
> to have a body of TRULY "ELECTED" officials doing specific
> things, elected in that popular mandate put every last
> micromanaged thing into motion and somehow organized it into a
> functional state.
>
> Sadly, the average voter is a far cry from "A." The majority of
> citizens, not to mention people, by -default- doesn't care about
> these issues. This is why you often see the phenomenon (which
> always irritates the press / gives them their job) of the voter
> that wants everything. The moment a politician commits to one
> thing, he has alienated the people in a certain way, even though
> he may have the best reasons for going the way he did. The voter
> sees it negatively, at what ISN'T happening or what ISN'T being
> done–what goes WRONG.
>
> This online voting system that extends to all issues places an
> enormous burden upon the population, for it presumes a level of
> competence, education, maturity, and ethical-pragmatic
> intelligence that the most human beings simply don't have.
>
>
> Vijay
>
>
> > "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> RHIZOME_RAW: Implication of online voting in the futureDate: Mon,
> 17 Feb 2003 17:01:27 -0500
> >Reply-To: "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]>
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >When it comes to civics, or American political system, I'm not
> by any means
> >an expert. However, I am working on an essay where it explores the
> >possibility of partially eliminating the concept of political
> representation
> >by using the Internet. I ask those of you who are better versed in this
> >subject, if my concept is sheer naivete.
> >
> >The concept of political representation seems to have arose for
> two reasons.
> >1. Most of us cannot, or should not, be involved in politics at
> all times.
> >Politics is a specialty which requires immense knowledge, experience, and
> >wisdom. Beyond a certain point, it makes sense to delegate our political
> >responsibilities to specialists who represent our political ideals.
> >
> >2. It is not practically possible to have the people vote on every issue
> >that needs to be decided. Thus by political representation, we can reduce
> >the number of votes to a practically manageable size.
> >
> >In the near future, the second reason will no longer hold true.
> Once we have
> >a reliable online system where each voter can easily cast a vote on any
> >pending issues, some of the needs to have political
> representation would be
> >eliminated. This would give the people the power to veto. For
> instance, we
> >can decide the number of votes required to be effective, say, 50% of the
> >population. If this requirement is met, then the outcome of the
> votes rule
> >over everything else, even the decisions of the president.
> >
> >For a situation like the current one with Iraq, where in most
> countries the
> >majority of the citizens are opposed to the war, the people can
> decide for
> >themselves what the appropriate action should be. It prevents,
> to a certain
> >degree, politicians from abusing their power. Even after they
> are elected,
> >they would still have to report to the people who would hold the
> final say
> >on any issue.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >-Dyske
> >
> >
> >
> >+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> >-> post: [email protected]
> >-> questions: [email protected]
> >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >+
> >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
> ————————————————————
> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
>
>
> ———————————————————————
> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
> http://www.bigmailbox.com
> ———————————————————————
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Hi,

> "The democracies of the city-states of classical
> Greece and of Rome during
> the early years of the Republic were unlike the
> democracies of today. They
> were direct democracies, in which all citizens could
> speak and vote in
> assemblies that resembled New England town meetings.

these "direct democracies" also functioned in the way
that Samuel Huntington views democracy - as something
necessarily needing control over who consititutes a
"citizen." Both the historical examples relied on a
class-like system that denied the civic presence of
certain people, whether women, slaves, etc. the
process could be (and is) said to function very
similarly now in the US, only it's not opaque.


> There are good reasons to protect the government
> from ill-informed voters,
> especially when it comes to specific issues.

i kinda ambivalent on this. while i think many people
are ill informed about many crucial issues, an
unstable situation has to be more democratic - why not
let things get really chaotic? on the other hand, the
"freedom" that i think many libertarians, anarchists,
and "natural law" proponents rhetorically speak of are
based on social darwinian pronciples that are far from
"natural" and emancipatory. for example if the ayn
rand libertarian dream came true, i think things would
move from "free markets" to military totalitarianism
real quick, once it became a "survival of the fittest"
scenario with the "fittest" being those with the most
weapons. this is a sci-fi kind of myth, but it does
happen on micro scales all the time. (the reaction by
"free marketers" after the 92 LA riots is a good case
study)
i think your point about online voting "weeding" out
the uninterested/uninformed seems to make sense. but
then, how does that change anything? as vijay
suggested, does this lead to the elimination of the
need for officials, and their replacement with policy
technicians that just carry out the orders of the
"people"? with the trajectory that media has been
following, there would be a danger of essentializing
the political process - i.e. the majority rule could
easily follow social darwinist ideology, with few ways
to challenge it. how do you protest the "will of the
people," without creating civil war?
or does it pretty much leave the system in tact, but
create an even more manageable civic body as a
technocracy (a new way to regulate citizenship)?
thanks for sharing your research! some very
interesting concepts to mull over…
ryan


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

> i think your point about online voting "weeding" out
> the uninterested/uninformed seems to make sense. but
> then, how does that change anything?

Hi Ryan,

I'm not seeing this as something that would fundamentally change our
political system. Rather, it is a supplemental system to make the system
work more accurately and efficiently.

I'm also thinking that as this voting system evolves, we could have a
mini-site for each issue where various politicians can publish their
opinions, data, and facts, as well as discussion boards where anyone can
voice their opinions. This will help us learn about the issues, if we decide
to be involved.

Although I too joined the peace demonstration in NYC, I personally see such
demonstrations to be manifestations of the inefficiency of our political
system. In the end, mass protests are publicity stunts (or "propaganda
game") to psychologically pressure politicians and those with opposing
views. And, they too rely on mass media for their activities to be
effective, the very institutions many activists criticize for being biased,
sensational, or manipulative.

I'm trying to think of a way, not to solve these problems, but to move in
the right direction towards where less of these publicity stunts would be
necessary. If this system existed, I would not have joined the protest,
because I'm not interested in persuading others to change their minds, but
rather for my voice to be taken into consideration in the decision making.
For those who are interested in persuading others, this system will not take
care of their problems; they will still need to generate some amount of
publicity. But for people like myself whose concern is for their votes to be
taken into consideration, this system will be a big help.

-Dyske

Hi Dyske,


'I personally see such demonstrations to be manifestations of the inefficie=
ncy of our political system'

- which of course is very true. One problem with mediative domination is th=
at the audience always remains the receiver, and demonstrations can turn th=
is type of ratio on its head.

In the end, mass protests are publicity stunts (or "propaganda > game") to =
psychologically pressure politicians and those with opposing > views.

- this may be true to those who organize it and those who are much involved=
iin the media, but to many it was a place to declare their emotional frust=
ation also. Let's not forget that there other things at play here…

And, they too rely on mass media for their activities to be
> effective, the very institutions many activists criticize for being biase=
d,
> sensational, or manipulative.

True again, to a point. Yet when all you've got is the galdiator's arena to=
survive in, you become a gladiator. There has been no official platform fo=
r debate around what has been happening, these marches are a very natural o=
utcome of millions of people's frustations that they are being lied to all =
the time via handed down default and pompus rank-pulling.

So there are many more factors happening in such marches that relate to peo=
ple in a personal way, other than the obvious 'method', propoganda. The sta=
ge we all stand on can only hold so many…so like you are advocating, crea=
ting another place for such a palce is essential.

marc




> > i think your point about online voting "weeding" out
> > the uninterested/uninformed seems to make sense. but
> > then, how does that change anything?
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> I'm not seeing this as something that would fundamentally change our
> political system. Rather, it is a supplemental system to make the system
> work more accurately and efficiently.
>
> I'm also thinking that as this voting system evolves, we could have a
> mini-site for each issue where various politicians can publish their
> opinions, data, and facts, as well as discussion boards where anyone can
> voice their opinions. This will help us learn about the issues, if we dec=
ide
> to be involved.
>
> Although I too joined the peace demonstration in NYC, I personally see su=
ch
> demonstrations to be manifestations of the inefficiency of our political
> system. In the end, mass protests are publicity stunts (or "propaganda
> game") to psychologically pressure politicians and those with opposing
> views. And, they too rely on mass media for their activities to be
> effective, the very institutions many activists criticize for being biase=
d,
> sensational, or manipulative.
>
> I'm trying to think of a way, not to solve these problems, but to move in
> the right direction towards where less of these publicity stunts would be
> necessary. If this system existed, I would not have joined the protest,
> because I'm not interested in persuading others to change their minds, but
> rather for my voice to be taken into consideration in the decision making.
> For those who are interested in persuading others, this system will not t=
ake
> care of their problems; they will still need to generate some amount of
> publicity. But for people like myself whose concern is for their votes to=
be
> taken into consideration, this system will be a big help.
>
> -Dyske
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

hi marc and dyske,
i think marc's comments about the personal stake in
"political" expression is a necessary component to all
of this. the non-rational desires behind political
decisions must be taken into account, especially if
we're talking about expanding the base for democratic
decision making.
and if protests are merely PR, than that is what the
political sphere has become - something that i think
may go along with a mediated democratic system.
notions of similacra aside, is/was there ever a form
of unmediated civic life?
the notion that demonstrations would become obsolete
if onine, direct voting was possible, is kinda scary!
the idea of a political process so dependent on an
infrastructure as questionable as the Internet… i
don't know. but i guess we're not really talking about
that, but rather of supplementary activities. either
way, there would have to be much more transparency and
equity in politics than we currently have in the US.
best, ryan

> In the end, mass protests are publicity stunts (or
> "propaganda > game") to psychologically pressure
> politicians and those with opposing > views.
>
> - this may be true to those who organize it and
> those who are much involved iin the media, but to
> many it was a place to declare their emotional
> frustation also. Let's not forget that there other
> things at play here…
>
> And, they too rely on mass media for their
> activities to be
> > effective, the very institutions many activists
> criticize for being biased,
> > sensational, or manipulative.
>
> True again, to a point. Yet when all you've got is
> the galdiator's arena to survive in, you become a
> gladiator. There has been no official platform for
> debate around what has been happening, these marches
> are a very natural outcome of millions of people's
> frustations that they are being lied to all the time
> via handed down default and pompus rank-pulling.
>
> So there are many more factors happening in such
> marches that relate to people in a personal way,
> other than the obvious 'method', propoganda. The
> stage we all stand on can only hold so many…so
> like you are advocating, creating another place for
> such a palce is essential.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

I think on top of Ryan's comment on direct democracy's tendency towards civil war is the idea of the "filter puzzle"–whereby 1)delay, 2)deliberation, 3)consensus happens in a republic, "filtering" out the specious and overreactionary extremes of proposed bills, etc.

Time and Beaurocratic Delay are Key– Convenience could lead to rash decision-making…


Vijay

>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:55:53 -0800 (PST)
> Ryan Griffis <[email protected]> RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Implication of online voting in the future Dyske Suematsu <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]
>Reply-To: Ryan Griffis <[email protected]>
>
>Hi,
>
>> "The democracies of the city-states of classical
>> Greece and of Rome during
>> the early years of the Republic were unlike the
>> democracies of today. They
>> were direct democracies, in which all citizens could
>> speak and vote in
>> assemblies that resembled New England town meetings.
>
>these "direct democracies" also functioned in the way
>that Samuel Huntington views democracy - as something
>necessarily needing control over who consititutes a
>"citizen." Both the historical examples relied on a
>class-like system that denied the civic presence of
>certain people, whether women, slaves, etc. the
>process could be (and is) said to function very
>similarly now in the US, only it's not opaque.
>
>
>> There are good reasons to protect the government
>> from ill-informed voters,
>> especially when it comes to specific issues.
>
>i kinda ambivalent on this. while i think many people
>are ill informed about many crucial issues, an
>unstable situation has to be more democratic - why not
>let things get really chaotic? on the other hand, the
>"freedom" that i think many libertarians, anarchists,
>and "natural law" proponents rhetorically speak of are
>based on social darwinian pronciples that are far from
>"natural" and emancipatory. for example if the ayn
>rand libertarian dream came true, i think things would
>move from "free markets" to military totalitarianism
>real quick, once it became a "survival of the fittest"
>scenario with the "fittest" being those with the most
>weapons. this is a sci-fi kind of myth, but it does
>happen on micro scales all the time. (the reaction by
>"free marketers" after the 92 LA riots is a good case
>study)
>i think your point about online voting "weeding" out
>the uninterested/uninformed seems to make sense. but
>then, how does that change anything? as vijay
>suggested, does this lead to the elimination of the
>need for officials, and their replacement with policy
>technicians that just carry out the orders of the
>"people"? with the trajectory that media has been
>following, there would be a danger of essentializing
>the political process - i.e. the majority rule could
>easily follow social darwinist ideology, with few ways
>to challenge it. how do you protest the "will of the
>people," without creating civil war?
>or does it pretty much leave the system in tact, but
>create an even more manageable civic body as a
>technocracy (a new way to regulate citizenship)?
>thanks for sharing your research! some very
>interesting concepts to mull over…
>ryan
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php




————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————