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."

Comments

Those stats don't really mean much though

[nes11]

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

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[recursiv]

I'd wager that there are plenty of people in occupied Iraq whose lives would be more affected than mine will.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[fini]

Not to mention, Americans have a vested interest. Whoever wins the elctions effects our lives much more than most foreigner

Err, go say that to all those fine people in Bagdad. What the POTUS thinks and does has much more influence on them than on me, here in Kalifornia (yeah, we pick Autrian bodybuilders as ubersupremo over here but at least we have a say). I'm sure lots of Iraqi would love to vote on Nov 2nd and that it would greatly matter to them :).

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[4of12]

Americans though are the ones that have judge based on not only all of the issues

There is the possibility - and I know it's remote - that the rest of the world actually gets exposed to more of the issues than the American public does. As an American, I've noticed my fellow citizens being as happily uninformed, strongly-opinionated and emotionally-swayed as the peasants anywhere else in the world.

This argument has been brought up previously:

that the leader of the US has such an influence on the remainder of the world that it would be appropriate, in the representative democratic sense, for the remainder of the world to have some say on the choice of the American leader.

There's merit to that argument.

Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[voisine]

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)

What nonsense

[GCP]

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.]