Whoa, how do they do that?

Can you map two dimensional news footage onto a three-d rendered head and then track that head over a real human being's head? Maybe the sides and the backs of the heads always stay the same (still image, not a video), so the computer can render them turning, and only the face is mapped from actual video news footage?

It's a neat trick. If it's easy to do, I'd expect to see a lot more of that sort of thing.

yeah. that was pretty fucking sweet.

It is my patriotic duty to inform you that I have had more pleasant interactions with the Somerville elections office and think I might actually get my ballot in afterall (for a mere 28$ in cross border express mailing). The clerk assured me it would indeed "count" and would be processed with the rest of the ballots on the 4th at the polls. It's fitting because I'm doing a presentation that day on the "transnational" nature of Boston immigrants.

Nice, Annie! I hope you voted yes on 2!

Wait, you can vote in both Canada AND Somerville? That seems wrong.

Does it seem wrong to be a citizen in two countries? What else would that mean?

A#1: It does sort of seem wrong to be a citizen of more than one country. I can't be a citizen of both California and Nevada, even if I have a home in both places and spend exactly half the year in each -- I have to declare one as my home for the purpose of citizenship. Why doesn't the same rule apply for international citizenship?

B#2: Similar to the point above, I can never vote in two districts within the United States during one electoral cycle, even if I have a very strong interest in the outcome of both elections. For example, if I lived exactly half the year in Nevada and half in California, I would presumably be very interested in state and local elections for both of my homes, and yet in America we decree that you can only vote in one place per election cycle. Again, why doesn't the same rule apply for international voting?

In the same way that voting in more than one place in the US gives an individual an extra electoral voice (and this is a voice that will disproportionately favor the wealthy who will likely have more access to multiple homes), voting in more than one country will give Annie an extra electoral voice. She, as a single person, gets to have two votes towards the path of world politics.

Now, there is a pretty clear distinction between international voting and national voting in that in national voting it's presumably possible to have extra voice in the same electoral body (two votes for different members of congress, for example) which is the biggest problem with multi-district voting. International voting doesn't (yet) create this problem since there are no internationally elected representative bodies (the UN is sort of a gray area here).

So, yes, I acknowledge that the biggest objection, multiple votes towards one political body, is avoided, but still, there just seems something downright un-American (ha ha) about being able to vote more than once in one electoral cycle, even in different countries. If it ever got much more popular, it would give the rich access to two or more votes on the international stage, which just seems wrong.

Well, I have many thoughts on this issue. The percentage of dual citizens is quite small (3% of Canadians while 20% of Canadians are foreign-born which is a higher rate than in the US, so I suspect there is a smaller percentage of American dual-citizens, considering they have the lowest rate of getting naturalized as Canadian citizens when eligible). I don't know the percentage of dual citizens who exercise the right to vote in two nations. I suspect it's higher for Americans living abroad than for Canadians or any other nation. Second of all, while I realize I have the luxury of dual citizenship, it is literally as confusing to me as having one Mom and one Dad and therefore I have a stake in each. While I suspect that you are right that dual citizens are "rich" by global standards and by the standards of their sending nations, but I think that in the receiving nations of Canad and the US, dual citizens most likely cut across the socio-economic spectrum. One thing I do know is that in Canada you can vote in more than one municipal election if you have a second residence and pay taxes to that municipality. They are looking into giving permanent residents the vote in municipal elections as well, considering almost 50% of Toronto is foreign-born, paying taxes with no say.

On a personal level, I have voted twice in both federal elections (2000 and this year) and abstained from voting in a Canadian federal election while I was living in the states because I didn't feel like I knew the issues (though I watched the debates and followed the coverage somewhat). I wasn't sure that I would vote upon arriving this fall, but I came to realize that I was informed about the issues, am paying taxes to both countries this year, and would vote. My reservation was about voting in Canada, not in the US. And frankly, I'll never feel guilty about voting in the American elections, even if I never return to live there, because the US has such a profound effect on the rest of the world, that we should be handing out ballots around the world since we march in and inflict our concept of democracy on them anyways. It's embarassing how closely everyone around the world has to follow our politics and economic ups and downs and so I vote in reflection of them too.

With so many eligible people choosing not to vote and the historical and contemporary disenfranchisement of many groups, I will never turn down an opportunity to vote!

I would never argue that you shouldn't vote if given the opportunity to do so, it's not your job to create your own international voter registration regime, I'm just sort of confused by the fact that we give dual citizenship holders the option to vote in either or both nations.

I just think it must be a small percentage of eligible people who take up the opportunity and they clearly have bigger logistical issues to deal with (or not deal with). Citizenship comes with all the rights and responsibilities and once they grant it, they can't qualify it for certain groups. I do know that less than 100 nations offer dual citizenship and of course not all countries have reciprocal agreements (ie. you can't be dual American-Cuban).

I don't think there's any intrinsic problem with limiting citizenship. We do it for felons. We do it for those under 18. We do it for those who don't register. I think we could constitutionally do it for those who have, or will, vote in a different national election.

I'm not sure that we should, but I think we could.

I think anyone who goes to the trouble of voting in two elections probably has a stake in both those elections. Many Americans just can't fathom having allegiances elsewhere, but it's entirely possible. Because they are two sovereign federal governments, and not a supranatural body as you point out, I don't see it as a conflict. All this said, I wouldn't be surprised if the American federal government objects in principle since I know that to work in the federal government they ask you to suspend or renounce (I don't know how they word it) your dual citizenship during the duration of your employment, although I do think it's a don't ask, don't tell policy on the lower security levels at least.

Felons haven't lived up to their responsibilities, so don't get the rights of voting (although I'd take issue with this); under 18 is a different issue, although I'm all for lowering the voting age, which would hopefully get young people used to the idea/process of voting.

I have less of a problem with voting and more of an issue with cross-border raising funds for "terrorist" groups abroad or moving funds for tax evasion; but again, this is not an issue that is restricted to the small number of dual citizens.

Why would only the rich become dual citizens? I am an Italian citizen. I would guess it cost me under 60 bucks.

Well, I don't see anything wrong with dual citizens voting in both countries, but let's say I did. How do we get proof that someone like Annie voted in another country? Because I'm quite sure that we shouldn't disenfranchise anyone for this without proof. And it seems like Canada might exercise its sovereign right to refuse to turn over voter rolls.

LAA - I assume there are two major groups of dual-citizenship people - those whose parents are of two different citizenships (this group will not necessarily be wealthy), and those who can afford to have multiple homes in multiple countries and are wealthy enough that the second country would be willing to grant them citizenship. I figured this second group would be big, though I have no particular reason for thinking so.

Lorelei - The government doesn't need to be able to prove it, they can simply ask you whether you have dual citizenship, and if yes, whether you have, or intend to, vote in a foreign election this year. If you say yes, you can't vote in America. Sure, you could lie, but you can do that in America too... do you think Nevada checks their voter registration roles against the roles in California to ensure no duplicates? In the election in my hometown that ended in a tie, it later turned out that someone had in fact "accidentally" voted in two separate local elections during the same election cycle. Whoops! When I was home in NY last week, I got a jury duty summons. I haven't lived there since 1997... there's not a lot of good person tracking in this country.

My grandmother got jury duty 5 years after she died.

It is basically true that immigrants and therefore dual citizens are "rich" on the global scale. Those who make it over (even refugees) have some sort of human capital that allows them to come (or accounts for why they are sponsored--education, language proficiency, medical exam, and a certain amount of cash to settle. Basically we do "sell" citizenship therefore. And you have to have a certain amount of "know-how" and access to go to the foreign website to apply for citizenship or visit your local immigration agency.

By the way, I did find out that the US officially ignores dual citizenship but permits it. They do not officially keep track, and estimates vary between 500,000 to 5 million Americans, which is still under 5% (it was 2.6% in Canada in 2006). I do know that at the border here I am cross-listed, because I sometimes hand over both passports and let them sort it out. Maybe I shouldn't do that.

Anyhow, I've been looking for a term paper idea--maybe I'll do multiple citizenships. I just think there isn't a lot of research out there though. I'll get back to you...

Lorelei, you hit the nail on the head. I am in the midst of studying these very issues of nationality and citizenship right now in law school. Simply put, there is no way that any government in the world could keep track of who votes where. How can you prove that Philip Duguay in Montreal voted or not. There's a million of Philip Duguay's in Montreal.

If you have dual or even tri-citizenship, you can vote in your 'nations'. I do not know what fantastic state department agency is going to keep track of voter records in foreign countries, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to work there. Let's face it, the US government is struggling to conduct even the most simple of functions today.

Frankly, it's a non-issue, and I proudly vote in both countries. And yes, because of a global taxation policy I will pay taxes in the USA in the future.

Something that does interest me, a difference between Canada and the USA is the concept of "jus soli" whereby if you are born on American soil, no matter if your mother was entering illegally or on a visitors visa, you're American. This is not the case in Canada, where you have to have a residence permit for your children to be born as Canadians. This means that we are not dividing families in Canada. Frankly, I'm not saying the policy is better, I rather like the notion of "jus soli" from a philosophical standpoint, and three of my Senegalese host sisters gave birth to at least one of their children in the USA for this very reason (of course, they had the means to go and then return to Senegal, with US documentation in hand for their children's future). What do you folks think about this issue? I'd be interested to know...

RD, don't you think the scenario you suggest would just result in voter-disenfranchisement lawsuits against the federal government? Plus widespread lying by dual citizens.

Phil, thanks. An anecdote: When I was growing up in San Diego, I had a friend whose parents intentionally delivered her in Tijuana (about a 20-minute drive away from our neighborhood) rather than in the U.S., so they could own land in Mexico. (They were not Mexican by descent. Only later did I realize how big of a deal this must have been to her mom.) I have never heard of Mexico getting upset about this sort of thing. My guess is that they probably like it when Americans of any descent go down there and pump money into their economy, although maybe they don't like the end run around the citizenship/property rule so much.

However, as you probably know, the reverse (Mexicans coming to border cities to have babies) is roundly criticized by the anti-immigration crowd. I'm not too psyched about paying for it via Medicare, but I don't have any problem with it if they pay for it themselves.

Lorelei - Voter disenfranchisement lawsuits are potentially survivable (again, we don't let 18 year olds, non-state citizens or felons vote, why are dual citizenship holders different?).

If we don't have widespread lying for people who want to vote twice in the US, why would we have it for people who want to vote in multiple national elections? In this case lying would be voter fraud and a felony, something people generally don't like to engage in all that much.

I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how dual citizenship and voting in two countries disqualifies an otherwise qualified voter (or is inherently voter fraud). You yourself pointed out why the analogy to voting at two different residences/states doesn't hold. I think it just bugs you at a gut level.

As for the lying, again, I think there are practical problems with catching anyone in that lie. And my understanding is that lying about dual citizenship itself is consequence-free.

1) Why didn't the thread where I first brought this up get all the traffic? I feel cheated -- I was the first one to come out against double voting.

2) RD said "we don't let 18 year olds, non-state citizens or felons vote". I think of those three sets, only felons are ever barred from voting, right? You can vote from abroad if I'm not mistaken. No idea what Guamanians do.

By the way, why does nobody ever get upset about the disenfranchisement of felons? Being a felon and voting seem like really different concepts to me. Now maybe someone convicted of voter fraud should lose the right to vote, but what about a rehabilitated ex-felon? For that matter, why not a current felon? I think it's just there's no political advantage to backing such a change.

I think some people do get all sorts of upset about the fact that felons are excluded from voting.

It bothers me, but it's not an issue I've ever had any say in (I don't recall any candidate ever being in favor of felon voting), so I shrug it off for the time being.

We have 47 ballot measures in California, how come none of them are about felon voting?

PS - wouldn't it be great to see a candidate campaigning in a prison?

I'm pretty sure, that if any of you guys moved to another country at this point in your lives and lived there for the rest of your lives, qualified for their citizenship after 3-5 years, you would vote at the first opportunity, because you'd have a stake and some interest in their local and national politics. For example, I have no doubt Jon, that after visiting Sweden for a few days, you probably asked *some* questions about politics, formed an opinion about local news, statistics on immigration, quality of roads, tax rates, service delivery, education, etc. Now if you were doing a postdoc there and raising your children there, you would likely want to vote. Would you then relinquish your right to vote in the states? I would suspect not right away, because you'd still be calling your parents, considering moving back at some point, following CM's blog, watching Euro CNN, reading your daily CT digest, registering your children as Americans abroad, etc. The US politics would interest you less and less, but in the beginning, you'd vote.

You'd have a stake in both, you'd vote in both and I don't find it morally, politically, or personally confusing. But basically, I think the governments see it as "don't ask; don't tell." I can tell you that they're getting a good deal by having dual citizens.

If you endorse international dual voting, you should likewise endorse intranational dual voting, at least at the local and state levels (though arguably on the federal level as well).

As long as you support both, I have no objection. If you favor only international, I have an objection.

Well, I guess I support voting in two municipalities if you are paying taxes to both (even though I can see how in beach towns for example, this gives the rich a vote over the locals). But I don't support intranational voting when you are voting for rep in the same bodies (House/Senate). In Canada, you are also not voting for a federal leader, you are voting for the Member of Parliament from your riding so it's a bit different.

After reading what the US government thinks about dual citizenship (it basically doesn't care) I am somewhat softened on international dual voting. And I thus think it's perfectly acceptable to be pro-international dual voting and anti-intranational dual voting when one is legal and one is not (as is the case in the US).