Slashdot Mirror
Mock World Vote
beaverbrother writes "As an experiment, a group of engineers from around the world created us-election.com. People over 18 from around the world can vote on the site. Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint. Kerry leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is ahead in the U.S."
You have to think though, that most of the rest of the world doesn't have access to, or at least doesn't pay attention to most of the campaigning. Much of the rest of the world will go against Bush in a heartbeat based on one or two issues because the rest doesn't affect them. Americans though are the ones that have judge based on not only all of the issues, but also how they want to be represented.
oh yeah, fp
Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint.
It's only amazing if you haven't been paying any attention for the past 2.5 years or so.
However if you have, for example, watched some television news, you could probably predict the current state of their vote reasonably well.
no thanks
According to the results at the current moment, bush only has 20%, while Kerry has 72%. I guess the slashdotting brought in the liberal(progressive) crowd to the site.
I'm voting for Badnarik and the Libertarian Party.
Chris
It seems to me that most peoples biggest problem with Bush is the fact that he invaded Iraq, yet it seems that Iraqies themselves prefer Bush by what would be considered a landslide. (I myself voted for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik)
"Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint."
I see no reason that a citizens and residents of foreign countries would vote in our best interest. Maybe they'd vote in their best interest, and maybe their best interest would coincide with ours, but that seems far from likely. It's almost like I decide to give you check rights on my bank accounts. Yeah, you might use those rights to pay my bills for me, but you might equally well use my account to pay your bills. Given human nature, I think that the latter is more likely than the former.
So, the fact that foreign countries concerned about U.S. "dominance" would elect a president going for some kind of vague international consensus before acting doesn't seem like a suprise at all.
- As with all web polls, it is totally unscientific.
- There is no real protection from people setting up vote-bots. Even kapchas (sp) don't offer real protection.
- There is no protection from people lying about their age, gender, or other factors.
- The source country can be manipulated if one has access to computers in different geographics. At most large companies this is easy - In my case I just change the proxy firewall my browser goes through to proxy.(country).(mycompanynamewhichi'mnotdisclosi
n g).com and voila, I am a voter from UK, or Israel, or any of several other countries our intranet spans.
Given all the above, and the lack of information or facts the site gives, posting it by the story pickers shows at best poor judgement for story selection, or at worst the story pickers are as desparate about Kerry's implosion as the main stream media is and are frantic to put up anything that supports Kerry.The reality is that control of Congress is not going to change with this election. The current administration is too efficient at implementing its agenda. I'd be saying this if they were all Democrats, too.
Getting opposite parties between Congress and the Presidency is one simple, overriding reason to vote for Kerry. Extremes at both ends will get blocked out by one party or the other. What *really* needs to get done will get done because both will work together on it.
Most of what both left and right really want to get done, doesn't really need to be done. The *real and immediate* needs of the country *will* get done, under thread of the voters' wrath. Unfortunately those less obvious *needs* probably won't get done, but they probably wouldn't have under same-party rule, either.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I have had this discussion with many people already. It goes something like this:
"I just read a study that showed that some tremendous number of people abroad would vote for Kerry over Bush" (some university of maryland professor did that study.)
"Huh? It's OUR election."
"Yes, but what the rest of the world thinks DOES matter."
"Not in our election."
"Yes if the votes will influence how the world will see us. Fewer people hating us is a good thing. Both for better security and for better economic relations. Image is everything. Ask any businessman."
"Explain."
"People have to be persuaded to hate us and want to kill us. They are not born that way. If it is really obvious that we are a wonderful nation -- so obvious that any susceptible kid will likely realize it -- then we are making the population of to-be-terrorists-and-general-america-haters smaller. That is good. As for economics -- the more people like america the more they are willing to buy american stuff and sell stuff to america. pretty simple stuff."
"but we shouldn't have to buy everyone's love. why should we spend money helping them? it's not our fault they are poor and can't even govern themselves!"
"okay. simple math. if we can reduce the need for future wars by half (by bettering our image) then any amount we spend that is less than 1/2 the cost of a war is us spending less money in the long term. not to mention the lives saved."
"hmm... but you can't know that it will reduce future wars."
"true. we can't really know. a lot of things are not quantitative. the reduced possiblity of war due to our money spent to improve our image is one of the. that doesn't mean they are not important. it just means that more people need to think about it so we can come up with a better estimate and an even better appreciation for it. wars might be easier to calculate mathmatically... but they also cost a considerable amount more both monetarily and in terms of human life."
sometimes it works. sometimes it doesn't. i don't have a lot of time so i don't know if i'll respond to any responses but i promise i'll read them. please try to stay civil.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
I'm just always made so sad when the Constitution Party, the party that takes seriously the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the importance of limited constitutional governemnt loses to the socialists... Sigh.
Not accurate for anything other than registering the views of those who choose to participate, at any rate. There is an extreme self-selection bias, for one thing.
And most such polls on hotly-contested issues such as the U.S. presidential race can be quickly overwhelmed and influenced by campaign activists for each side.
But who fears President Bush? I would suggest that those that have had deals with countries that support terrorists.
It has been proven beyond all doubt that France, Germany Russia and many other members of the U.N. (Including Kofi Annan) were profiting from the 'Oil for Food' program. The two main countries not involved in the 'Oil for Food' scam were the U.S. and the U.K. Also not involved are the 30 some other countries that are supporting the U.S. in it's 'unilateral' action to stop terrorists.
To those that suggest that George W. Bush and his supports hold the minority opinion should remember this quote by Andrew Jackson: "One man with courage makes a majority."
There's merit to that argument.
Your argument that the rest of the world is exposed to more of the issues in the American campaign is not only wrong but irrelevant.
Whatever issues they consider, Americans will choose based on what they think most likely to benefit themselves, Americans, and non-Americans will choose based what they think most likely to benefit themselves, non-Americans.
Whether correctly or not, the French and Russians tend to blame their waning importance in the world on America. Certainly the Chinese feel that if it weren't for America, the violent crushing of Taiwan's multiparty democracy would be a fait accompli. Yes, the choice of American President seems to have a big impact on them, so you think that means there's merit in letting them have some say in who should lead America.
By that argument, wouldn't there be some merit in letting the opposing team have some say in who your team's quarterback will be in the Superbowl? Wouldn't your choice have a big impact on them? Isn't that criterion sufficient to give the idea merit? I hear this silly blather all of the time from "enlightened" liberals. "Neanderthal" conservatives don't fall for it (though they fall for a lot of other foolishness).
And while it's true that there are many ways in which nations cooperate as well as compete, there is no reason to assume that the decisions of the vastly more numerous "happily uninformed, strongly-opinionated and emotionally-swayed peasants" in the rest of the world would put helping Americans high on their priority lists. There are plenty of people in the world who would argue that they were only being cooperative when they concluded that, "it would be better for BOTH of us if things were better for ME and worse for YOU."
It's not who is "exposed to more issues" or who is influenced in some way by the choice that matters. If you aren't motivated to help Americans, Americans shouldn't be very interested in your electoral preferences, except in the form of a warning. If the French, Russians, or Chinese felt that Kerry would be best for *them*, would that automatically make Kerry more likely to be best for Americans?
[And if you reply by simply bashing Bush, you are logic impaired. I OPPOSE Bush, but that is irrelevant to the above argument.]
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Yeah, North America is really skewing the results here. Once Brazil and Argentina weight in, all those damn democrats in Mexico will get cancelled out.
"DUI means "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol. A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime, a crime that endangers everyone on the road, a crime that often kills people. A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder."
A DUI isn't a felony in the United States, and back when W and Cheney got them, they were mild misdemeanors. Now saying that a DUI means the driver felt a strong need to be drunk is bullshit.
A DUI means someone had some drinks and they were stopped and either ticketed or arrested because the officer thought they were drunk. Back in the 70s it was the cop's word against yours and since it was a minor crime, people plead guilty.
Saying that "A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder" is flamebait and inaccurate.
Everytime someone gets into a vehicle there is a chance of murder. And remeber, where W and Cheney got thier tickets in the 70s, one could drink while driving.
"Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?"
Ask yourself, why didn't you read the fuckin' article?
"Both women are 19. Texas law prohibits anyone under 21 from buying or drinking alcohol."
When I was 19 I was buying all the time, because I wanted a beer or some rum, it's no big deal.
A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime [...]
Great, now I have to vote for Bush, since a vote for Kerry will be an endorsement of this neo-prohibitionist MADD bullshit.
Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?
Because that's what teenagers do, break stupid laws. You could learn something from them.
They want the hand outs which are going away under Bush
Hand outs to pretty much every country that gets them from the U.S. have gone up under Bush.
Not sure if we can call the 200 billion spent in Iraq so far a handout, but at least some of it is intended to be.
It is odd because Conservatives use to want smaller cheaper government, and with how many people today I see liking a Libertarian slant to the way things are run, how can any of them still support Bush? He spends and increases the size of government like a socialist, but simply doesn't say he is going to provide any more gov't services and will not increase taxes.