Showing posts with label 2002 Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002 Elections. Show all posts

Friday, October 11, 2002

Political parties: In Web we trust

Political parties: In Web we trust
By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer CNET News.com
October 11, 2002, 10:43 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961768.html


Political parties are using the Web more aggressively to reach voters and gather personal information such as e-mail during this election season, an indication of the Internet's growing importance on the campaign scene.

A new study by political consultants PoliticsOnline and RightClick Strategies praised the major political parties for their continuing embracement of the Web as a vehicle for getting their message out. The report examined how official sites of the Republican and Democratic parties are communicating, fund raising and organizing this campaign season.

Researchers found that the Democratic National Committee did a better job of collecting e-mail addresses of voters, but the Republican National Committee excelled in selectively targeting and sending more information to people whose e-mails it had.

However, the study criticized the parties' sites overall for several shortcomings, including not providing search features, being difficult to navigate, and failing to keep their sites fresh.

"With the election approaching, and the political arena a hotbed for news in general, it is not for lack of material that the committees do not provide daily updates to their respective sites," researchers wrote. "It was not uncommon during the course of this study for material on home pages to be more than two weeks old."

The Web has been slowly encroaching upon the political scene since it became a mass medium.

Back in 1996, even the presidential candidates posted little more than political pamphlets on their sites. Things, and fortunes, changed by the 2000 election--which took place amid the backdrop of the go-go dot-com era. Much ballyhooed sites such as Pseudo.com exploded onto the scene, taking their place in political convention skyboxes next to the networks, offering voters features and access only possible via the Web. Citizens could chat with candidates online, get a behind-the-scenes 3D view of political events, and organize real-time get-out-the-vote efforts.

However, many of the sites' political ambitions flamed out soon after they appeared on the scene, their fortunes declining as the dot-com bubble burst. Some even shut their doors before voting day.

Now, with sites such as Pseudo.com little more than a footnote in campaign history books, political consultants are looking back at the era--and examining how the Web has evolved since then--to try to figure out what works.

Campaigns are finding that the Internet provides a more efficient tool to narrowly target voters than television, and the Web can make fund-raising efforts cheaper and easier.

The PoliticsOnline study offered a lengthy list of methods to improve campaign sites. Many of them draw upon the latest Web marketing techniques from the corporate world.

Researchers suggest making it extremely easy for voters to submit their e-mail and other personal information by providing them with sign-in boxes as often as possible. The sites also need to inform voters about the frequency and content of any e-mails they will receive. In addition, the study suggests capturing e-mail address through two tried-and-true features in the corporate word: sweepstakes and the "e-mail to a friend." The study praised the Web as a fund-raising platform, proposing that parties take advantage of the feature by asking for donations on every page.

Researchers also suggest that campaigns personalize communications as much as possible with individually tailored greetings (such as "dear Mrs. Smith") and by letting people sign up for e-mails based on their interests in topics such as the economy or education.

On the content front, the report makes several suggestions for a robust campaign site, including offering television and radio ads for downloads, updating the site frequently, providing links to archival material, and options that make it easy to find personalized information about a candidate such as a calendar of events and a search-by-zip-code feature.



Copyright ©1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 07, 2002

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

" Web Usage Grows Across Globe,"

Mariano, Gwendolyn:
Web Usage Grows Across Globe,
CNET News.com,
June 10, 2012.
Last Accessed
June 11 2002 @ http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-934655.html
Internet usage is increasing worldwide, with more people logging on for greater lengths of time, according to a report released Monday by Nielsen/NetRatings.
"The number of people with Internet access at home grew 16 percent from April 2001 to April 2002, reaching 422.4 million home users in the 21 countries surveyed by the research firm. The number of people actively using the Web from home climbed 18 percent to 241.4 million in the same period, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.
The audience measurement firm added that between April 2001 and April 2002, the time spent online per month rose nearly 13 percent and the number of sessions per month increased nearly 9 percent. Nearly a quarter of the Internet population surfs through a high-speed connection at home, Nielsen/NetRatings reported.
"The strong increases in time spent online and monthly Internet sessions go a step further to show that surfers are making more time to include the Internet in their daily media diet," Richard Goosey, international chief of measurement science at Net Ratings, said in a statement.
Nielsen/NetRatings' global Internet usage report was based on 21 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The company said its tracking system is not established in other countries.
Nielsen/NetRatings added that the top global Web properties for April showed Yahoo in the lead spot, followed by MSN, AOL Time Warner, Microsoft and Lycos Network. This ranking has remained unchanged for the past three months."

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

Thompson, Nicholas.

Machined Politics. How the Internet is really, truly-seriously-going to change elections.

Washington Monthly Online. May 2002. Last accessed Sept. 1 2002 @ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.thompson.html.

Saturday, March 30, 2002

Mandate for the Middle: By Sen. JAMES M. JEFFORDS

November 30, 2002

Mandate for the Middle

By JAMES M. JEFFORDS
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/opinion/30JEFF.html


WASHINGTON
I have listened to a lot of people discuss what went right and what went wrong in the 2002 midterm elections. In the final tally, there is no question that President Bush did a masterful job engineering victories for the Republican Party.

But I worry that the list of issues that dominated the election season was woefully incomplete. As we respond daily to the latest threats of terror highlighted by the administration, I believe other issues that bear directly on the security of our homeland are being dangerously obscured.

Our slumping economy, our threatened environment, our underfunded schools, our corporate scandals — these are not issues that you will hear discussed by the White House, but they are being talked about by people who don't have the power to define the nation's agenda.

In Congress we have just passed a law that will bring about the largest restructuring of our government since World War II. We are telling the American people that a new Department of Homeland Security will protect them. But Americans are losing their jobs and their ability to support their families. In less than two years, more than two million private sector jobs have been lost, while our economic growth is the weakest it has been in 50 years.

We should be addressing that homeland security issue.

Too many hard-working people are stuck in low-wage jobs, wondering how they will make the rent payment and cover child-care costs. The Census Bureau's recent income and poverty report stated that 1.3 million Americans slipped below the poverty line in the last year. This increase means that 11.7 percent of the United States population is living in poverty. The Census Bureau also reported that median household income decreased for the first time since 1991.

What's more, many workers who are fortunate enough not to have to worry about their jobs are now worrying about their savings. More than 50 percent of Americans have investments in the stock market, and they have seen the value of those investments decline by more than $4.5 trillion since last January.

We should be addressing that homeland security issue.

Coal plants in the Midwest continue to spew toxic pollutants into the air, yet the administration does not see the wisdom in regulating these emissions, preferring to rely on the good-faith efforts of plant owners to police themselves. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are dying prematurely every year from such pollution.

I was proud to work with President George H. W. Bush on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. He called our work "a new chapter in our environmental history, and a new era for clean air." Now, President George W. Bush insists on moving us backward, undoing his father's legacy and our nation's environmental policy. Last week the administration issued regulations to ease clean air rules to allow power plants to avoid having to install new antipollution equipment when they modernize their plants.

We should be addressing that homeland security issue.

The lack of funding for our schools is disgraceful. Of the major industrial nations, the United States ranks among the lowest in terms of financing education at the federal level, providing only 7 percent of the cost. The president's education plan is long on new federal mandates but short on the resources to make them work. The government promised more than 25 years ago to pay 40 percent of special education costs for children with disabilities; it now covers only 18 percent.

There's no question that we are living in a dangerous time. Some of the threats we face are being met with judgment and careful deliberation. But others, namely the steady erosion of economic opportunity here at home, are being ignored.

If the new, razor-thin Republican majority abuses its power and moves forward with an extreme agenda that overlooks the concerns of the many and benefits only the privileged few, there will be repercussions.

Since the election, my decision to leave the Republican Party last year has been subject to new scrutiny. The attention on my personal decision, while understandable, is misplaced. If the Republicans read the recent election results as a rejection of moderation and a mandate to steamroll opposition from within the party, they will be making a grave mistake.

James M. Jeffords, an independent, is the junior senator from Vermont.


Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy

Thursday, February 28, 2002

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, #S.1731,

The FARM BILL of 2002 .
~~ by technopolitical ~~ ` `

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, #S.1731, passed by the Senate on February 13, 2002, ( and vernacularly known as the “2002 Farm Bill”), is far-reaching and elaborate legislation touching on most every facet of the American agriculture industry. The Farm Bill regulates the prices of America’s staple crops, livestock, and dairy products. Payments of subsidies to farmers of corn, wheat, and cotton, comprise the bulk of the bill’s total expenditures, estimated at $171 billion over the next 5 years. [Miller]. The bill also includes issues of conservation, land / water rights and usage, and allots $800 million more per year for food-stamp payments and nutrition programs than current levels. [AP]

It is important to note that there are not fixed amounts of money distributed by the Farm Bill, only the “mechanisms” of how the money is paid out is fixed. Many factors that affect crop prices are beyond human control. So specific payments can vary according to volatile economy of the agriculture industry. Weather factors, like drought, flood, and early frosts can reduce crop productions, while good weather conditions can cause bumper crops. A main function of the farm bill is to insulate farmers from major price fluctuations by stabilizing their earnings with subsidies.

The passage of a Farm Bill is a forgone conclusion, as the legislation is the centerpiece of domestic agricultural policy. The battle becomes what will be in the Farm Bill. As we will see a Senator’s foremost concern is what they can get included into the bill for their home state.

While the final vote on the bill broke mostly on partisan lines --with 48 Democrats voting for and 38 Republicans voting no--- the bills sponsor and prime architect Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) hailed the outcome as a “bipartisan” victory. (The word bipartisan appears no less than 5 times in the bill’s brief press release on Harkin’s official website.)

In reality, the Farm Bill is a parochial piece of legislation. Senators and their home state farm interests tended not look into the big picture of the national bill, but more just how much money came to their state. Nine Republicans voted for the bill, and two Democrats voted against it. Here we will highlight a few of these swing Senators, who split from their party leaders, as they give an excellent overview of the issues involved in the Farm Bill’s particulars.

Six of the nine Republican yes votes came from just three states-- Alabama, Maine, and Virginia— where both senators are Republican and both voted for the bill.

Of the three other Republicans who voted yes, two--- Chuck Grassly of Iowa and Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois--- come from states that fair well with the Farm Bill. The votes of Grassly, whose co-senator Democrat Tom Harkin was the bills Prime Sponsor, and Fitzgerald, whose co-senator is Democrat Dick Durban, were never really in doubt.

(Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, was the only Republican ‘yes’ vote whose co-senator did not also vote yes, as fellow Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum voted against the bill.)

******

The technology of the Internet greatly affected the shaping of the debate of this year’s Farm Bill, by way of a single group called the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Using the freedom of information act, the EWG compiled comprehensive statistics on exactly to whom and to where subsidies from the previous Farm Bill went from 1996-2001 and posted them on their website for all to see. [www.ewg.org] The data posted on the EWG site became embedded into the debate on the bills formation, and provided Senators, interest groups, and reporters covering the bill, with volumes of statistical information. (Most every article used to research this paper mentioned the role and/or contained statistics from EWG.) A New York Times article published a week after the Senate’s vote summed up the impact of the EWG website:

“Throughout the angry Senate debate about whether to limit subsidies to wealthy farmers, lawmakers kept referring to ‘the Web site’ to make their points. ‘You can see on the Web site — 10 percent of the farmers get most of the money,’ said Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma. ‘I looked up Indiana on the Web site,’ said Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, ‘and very few Indiana farmers would be affected by a modest limit.’ [Becker]

EWG revealed that 75 percent of farm subsidies from 1996-2001 went to only 15 states. As well, EWG showed that many of the largest recipients of payments via the 1996 Farm Bill were to Fortune 500 Corporations who own major farming concerns.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) put together what was dubbed the “Eggplant Caucus”, a bi-partisan coalition of mostly northeastern senators whose goal was to bring regional equity to federal farm subsidies. (This caucus included Maine’s two Republican senators whose votes in favor of the final bill were crucial to its passage and will be highlighted below.)

The Eggplant Caucus secured the major provision of the Senate 2002 Farm Bill that greatly lowered the cap on subsidy payments. The 1996 Farm Bill contained a cap of $460,000 per farm, while the 2002 Senate bill places the cap at $275,000 per farm. [Zremski] This cap reduction is designed to make more money available to be distributed to states --outside the Midwest---- that in the past have received fewer moneys.

Maine’s republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins joined Northeast Democrats in voting yes and were important swing votes, with Collins in the undecided camp until just a few days before the Senate’s final vote. The prime motivating factors for the Snowe and Collins vote, was how it would affect the dairy industry in Maine, which has lost one-fifth of it dairy farms in the past decade. [Jensen]

The Farm Bill of 1996 included price supports for milk, but the program expired last September 30, and Maine’s senators battled vigorously to reacquire those moneys plus some. Senator Snowe was instrumental to the addition of $2 billion a year for payments to dairy farmers within the bill. $500 million of which would be divided among the Northeast states. [ibid]

It is important to note that subsidy payments for a particular product—in this case milk—are not uniform and varies from state to state. Republican Pete Domenci of New Mexico, claimed that in final Senate bill New Mexico farmers would get only 6 cents per 100 pounds for milk, while Maine farmers would average 90 cents per 100 pounds. [ibid]

Senator Snowe’s fight for this milk money also put her at loggerheads with Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana whom as the ranking Republican on the Agriculture committee was a prime opponent of the final bill. Lugar singled out the milk issue for criticism saying, “there is no sound policy reason for this disparity.” [ibid]

Whether or not the milk price support system is sound fiscal policy, it was part of the “pork” that Maine’s Republican senators demanded in return for their support of the Senate Farm Bill.

Senator Collins held out her support of the bill until Sponsor Tom Harkin agreed to include an experimental savings program intended to help insulate farmers from price drops. Under this program the government would match the first $5,000 that farmers put aside into their savings accounts.

As well, Maine’s senators won major increases in money available for conservation. The 1996 Bill gave Maine $4.6 million a year for conservation, while the 2002 bill will give the state least $12 million per year and maybe as much as $29 million per year [ibid].

Alabama’s two Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby also voted for the bill because of what they got for their homestate. Sessions was able to get four additional Alabama counties added to Delta Regional Authority, which provides grants to farmers in eligible counties.

"I am pleased the Senate voted to add these four counties to the 16 Alabama counties already included in the Delta Regional Authority," Sessions said. "These counties will benefit from DRA grants to improve their infrastructure and draw jobs to those areas. I am hopeful that conferees will work expeditiously, so President Bush can sign this bill as soon as possible. Planting season is quickly approaching and our farmers need the certainty that a new five-year farm bill provides. [Sessions]

The only two Democrats who voted against the bill; Sen.Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Sen. Jon Cozine of New Jersey, each had different specifics of why they opposed the legislation, but the common factor was that that saw the bill as bad for the folks back home. After her no vote Lincoln stated: “My support for the Senate farm bill was dependent upon what it did for my state, and I voted against this bill because it unfairly inhibits Arkansas farmers and ranchers.” (AP-1)

Sen. Lincoln opposed the final bill because it contained a provision that prohibited meat-packers from also owning the cattle within 14 days of slaughter. Lincoln argued that this provision would prevent the Arkansas meat-packers from running at full capacity at all times. [ibid]

Meanwhile, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Jon Carzine saw the Farm Bill as unfair to Jersey farms as “the overwhelming bulk of subsidies in this bill will go for commodities that, by and large are not produced in the Garden State” [Miller].

The Farm Bill clearly demonstrates the axiom that “all politics are local.” Despite its massive size and scope, in the end legislation got an individual up or down vote from our swing senators solely on what the bill did for that Senator’s home state. Loyalty to homestate interests outweighed all other factors in the formation and passage of the legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------END OF PAPER

See here for more ;

http://technopolitical.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_technopolitical_archive.html#_ednref82


-----------------end ---END of paper >>>>>>

NOTES :


AP

“Senate Passes Farm Subsidies Bill” by The Associated Press

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com . 13 February 2002.

-------------------------------------

AP-1

“Arkansas Senators vote no on bill.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire. 13 February 2002

(Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March 2002)

-------------------------------------------------------

Becker, Elizabeth

“Web Site Helped Change Farm Policy” The New York Times 24 February 2002

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com , accessed 24 February 2002

(Available via Lexis-Nexis)

------------------------------------------------------

EWG

Environmental Working Group website www.ewg.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jansen, Bart

“Farm Bill Supports Dairy Farmers, Conservation” Maine Sunday Telegram. 17 February 2002

Sec: Insight; Washington Politics: page 2C.

(Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March 2002)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sessions, Jeff. United States Senator. “Senate Farm Bill Would Add Four Alabama Counties To Delta

Regional Authority” Posted at : www.sessions.gov/headlines/farmrelease.htm and last accessed

5 May 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------

Miller, Micheal.

“More Aid Unlikely For NJ Farmers.” The Press of Atlantic City. 25 February 2002

(This article was obtained through it’s posting at: http://sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=6604 )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zremski, Jerry

“Farm Bill Aims for Level Playing Field; Congress is Poised to Correct A Disparity in Federal

Aid That Has Overwhelmingly Favored the South and Midwest.” The Buffalo News.

19 February 2002. Sec: Local, p. B1 (Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March

2002)

>>>>


END... END .......END ..........END..... END ..........END -----------------------

Wednesday, January 16, 2002

US Net users turning to egovernment

eMarketer: US Net users turning to egovernment

http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905357561&rel=true

Jan 16 2002: "According to eMarketer, 55 percent of adult Internet users in the US visited a government website in 2001.

This statistic is from a study conducted by the Robert H Smith School of Business in the University of Maryland.

The study also found that 50 percent of online adults visited a state or local government site, and 33 percent visited a federal government site.

Sixteen percent conducted business with state or local government online, and 11 percent conducted business with federal government online.

In all categories, men were more likely than women to visit government websites and to conduct business on those sites. Suburban users were more likely than urban or rural users to visit a government site, but rural users were the most likely to conduct government business online."

,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,

Friday, December 21, 2001

"Net News Lethargy"

Features Posted December 21, 2001

Net News Lethargy
"Most sites fail to make use of the medium's main strength – speed"

http://ojr.usc.edu/content/story.cfm?request=676

By Amy Langfield, OJR Contributor

"For purposes of this story, the 15 most-trafficked news Web sites were examined on a routine basis during the past three weeks and more closely as breaking news happened. Those top 15 sites were chosen based on Jupiter Media Metrix' September ratings of news sites with the most unique visitors.

They are as follows:
1] CNN.com,

2] MSNBC.com,
3} Time.com,
4} ABCNews.com,
5} NYTimes.com,
6} WashingtonPost.com,
7] USAToday.com,
8] Slate.com,
9] FoxNews.com,
10] LATimes.com,
11] AP.org,
12] Boston.com,
13] Miami.com,
14] USNews.com,
15] WSJ.com.

In addition, several other wildcards were thrown in,
including BBCi, CBS.com, the DrudgeReport, CSMonitor.com, NandoTimes.com and the Guardian."


OOOOOO…………….OOOOOOO

Thursday, December 13, 2001

E-Mail Gets the Cold Shoulder in Congress, December 13, 200I

Mr. Larry Neal, deputy chief of staff for Senator Phil Gramm (Republican-Texas), in response to a New York Times reporter on the impact of e-mail lobby campaigns stated:

"The communication that Sen. Gramm values most certainly does not arrive by wire. It is the one where someone sat down at a kitchen table, got a sheet of lined paper and a No. 2 pencil, and poured their heart into a letter." [69]

It is axiomatic in the lobbying game that a hand-written letter by a concerned constituent has by far the strongest impact on an elected representative.


As well, the more personal and relevant to the voter’s life the communication is, the more likely the letter will elicit a genuinely interested response from the representative's office.


When a family without health insurance and mounting medical bills writes to their elected representative about Health Care Legislation, they will most surely get a personalized response.


Other personalized contacts from the home district[70] like impassioned telephone calls and even hand written postcards also carry some weight.


Mass snail-mail-letters and postcards, where people just sign at the bottom of a form are weighed much less by elected officials. E-mails as we shall see are practically "mass-less", carrying almost no political weight. ~~ Technopolitical

Notes:
[69] Raney, New York Times . E-Mail Gets the Cold Shoulder in Congress, December 13, 200I

Accessed on date of publication @ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/technology/circuits/13CONG.html

Available via Lexis –Nexis (Or you could pay the NYTimes.com $2.95)

[70] I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough as a major flaw of e-mail campaigns is that they often come from outside a legislators district rendering them as meaningless.

Wednesday, December 12, 2001

"Asian-Americans and the Internet: The Young and the Connected"

Asian-Americans and the Internet: The Young and the Connected

For release at noon (Eastern), December 12, 2001

http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=52

34% of Asian-American users get the day’s news online during a typical day, compared with 22% of whites, 20% of Hispanics and 15% of African-American Internet users.


78% of Asian-American users have sought travel information online.


53% of Asian-American users have sought financial information online.


49% of Asian-American users have sought political information online.


68% of Asian-American users have used the Internet for school research, compared with 51% of white users;


59% of Asian-American users have gone online for work-related reasons, compared with 50% of white users.

A table comparing Asian-Americans’ use of the Internet with other groups is on page 10 of this report…………………//////////


*****


Online Asian-Americans are voracious consumers of information, especially on a typical day.

www.pewinternet.org


http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/reports.asp?Report=52&Section=ReportLevel2&Field=Level2ID&ID=352


" The most popular form of information gathering is simply accessing the day’s news – about three-fifths of Internet users of different races have ever gotten the news online.


However, Asian-American users are much more likely to have made getting the news online a part of their daily lives.


Just over a third (34%) of users get the news online on a typical day. In comparison, 22% of white users get the news daily, along with 15% of African-American users and 20% of Hispanics online.


Asian-American users are also more likely than other Internet users to have gotten news on the financial markets, sought travel information, looked up information about their hobbies and gotten political news on a daily basis. Much like others with Internet access, online Asian-American users frequently turn to the Internet to find the answer to a question. Fully three-quarters of Asian-American users have done so at one time or another, and about a fifth do so on a typical day."

*******
********

Saturday, March 31, 2001

The Case of Minnesota E-Democracy, by Lincoln Dahlberg

Extending the Public Sphere through Cyberspace: The Case of Minnesota E-Democracy

by Lincoln Dahlberg
First Monday, volume 6, number 3 (March 2001),
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_3/dahlberg/index.html

Copyright ©2001, First Monday

"Over the last decade a lot has been said about the possibilities of the Internet enhancing the public sphere. The two-way, decentralized communications within cyberspace are seen as offering the basis by which to facilitate rational-critical discourse and hence develop public opinion that can hold state power accountable.

However, this potential has largely gone unrealized. Instead, cyber-interaction is dominated by commercial activity, private conversation, and individualized forms of politics. In this paper I investigate how the present Internet may be used to more fully facilitate the public sphere.

To do this I evaluate Minnesota E-Democracy, an Internet-based initiative that attempts to develop online public discourse. Drawing upon a model of the public sphere developed from Jürgen Habermas' work, I show how the initiative structures discourse to overcome many of the problems that presently limit democratic deliberation online.

While some significant limitations do remain, I conclude that Minnesota E-Democracy provides a basis from which online deliberative initiatives can, given adequate resourcing and further research, extend the public sphere through the Internet."


{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

Saturday, January 06, 2001

Get Out the Vote: The Web has become a must tool for most political lobbyists. Some do it better than others

"Get Out the Vote: The Web has become a must tool for most political lobbyists. Some do it better than others"

By MICHAEL TOTTY

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1018650866755190720,00.html

"The Congress Online Project, a research program by George Washington University and the Congressional Management Foundation, last year completed a study of the use of e-mail by members of Congress. While the study found that all but about two dozen House and Senate offices regularly used e-mail to communicate with constituents, it also found that Congress was unable to keep pace with a flood of electronic missives: Representatives received more than 48 million messages from constituents in 2000, up from 20 million in 1998, and the numbers are rising by an average of a million messages a month."


&&&