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

Thank YOU, us-elections.com

[captnitro]

This website brought new light to the many third parties we have in this country. I, for one, will be voting for Charles Jay, boxing promoter, and Marilyn Chambers, porn star, for the next President and Vice President of the United States.

God bless democracy.

Re:Thank YOU, us-elections.com

[GuanoBoy]

What's strange, however, is that the National Barking Spider Resurgence Party is not even mentioned.

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

[nharmon]

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

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[pruneau]

Nice Troll, sucker.

Now what:
"Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint."

WTF ? That bush moron and his family/host of politial friends are establishing a military dictature and waging war on foreign countries.

I wonder what that difference might based upon, no really.

Yeah, that really feels like karma burning/let's launch a flamewar day !

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[cs02rm0]

I don't think the rest of the world has as much access to the campaigning but should be aware of more than one or two issues with Bush. The website provides links to their websites for the campaign propaganda.

I wasn't surprised Bush had so little vote from the UK, we all think he's thick as pig shit. What did surprise me was that in France and Germany, who politically were so set against the war in Iraq he has a sizable chunk of the vote - I believe 36% in France, 45% in Germany.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[mattgorle]

It's true that we don't have much access to your presidential campaign materials. More accurately, we don't see the US Presidency candidates marching up and down the counties of England (and a good thing too!).

Saying that though, we (being outside of the United States) are perfectly capable of reading about what's going on in the US. In fact, I come across a staggering amount of American news in my day -- staggering not because it's there, but because there's so much of it for a country that's so far away. By contrast, I rarely hear about what's going on in other parts of the EU (in which I live).

So, to come to my point, I agree that those of us outside the US would vote based on less issues than an informed person inside the US. However, I disagree that not paying attention to most of the campaigning has a lot to do with it. We're perfectly capable of reading manifestos and proposed policy documents which, in my case, is preferable anyway.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[N3WBI3]

Well put, I am so sick of people both in the US and around the world thinking that who China wants elected should matter..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[nes11]

"We're perfectly capable of reading manifestos and proposed policy documents"

Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that the information wasn't available & that you couldn't look at it. Just that most probably don't. Why would you want to? I don't know anything about political candidates in most other countries.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[ericspinder]

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.

Yes, the rest of the world are focused on only one one or two issues, but so do most Americans. Few people look at the big picture. That's why there is much talk about Kerry's need to focus on a single main issue.

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

[N3WBI3]

How so Kerry's plan is to send more US troops over..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[nharmon]

Poll around my office: Nobody here cares who China elects.

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

[mschaef]

"That's why there is much talk about Kerry's need to focus on a single main issue. "

But Kerry has focused on a single main issue: that he's not George Bush.

The problem with the issue he picked is that, while it does a hell of a job energizing his base, it does nothing to tell moderate swing voters like myself why they should vote for him.

Of course, this all probably stems from the monomaniacal dedication of all of the Democrats during the primary cycle to be "Not Bush".

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[maja33]

You are right. In the Netherlands there is only interest for the international issue's of the Bush/Kerry campaign. It is very informative to see all those other viewpoints and candidates.
At the last US elections my co-workers joked that we (Dutch/rest of the world) should be able to vote 'because it is our President too'.

Personally, I thought I would vote for the Socialist Party USA because a party with that name must be like the Social Democrats in the Netherlands. I was very wrong; too (left-)extreme.

I probably would vote Nader because Kerry is too conservative, or even the Libertarian Party ('alien'for a Social Democrat voter but some very good points).

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.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[N3WBI3]

And yet people point at the fact that Kerry is winning in the world as if it matters

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[ericspinder]

But Kerry has focused on a single main issue: that he's not George Bush.

No, that's what you have focused on, perhaps becuase that what the news outlets you view focus on. Have you ever heard him speak, almost always he goes over a number of issues, and in fact took great pains not to even mention Bush in the Democratic Convention. On the other hand Bush has been running very negitive ads against Kerry for months now, in fact a Bush ad on FoxNews.com was worded "Keep Kerry Out [give Bush $50]", and he was negitively mentioned many, many times by every Republican speaker.

Do some research, go to Kerry's Website and find out what he stands for, rather than waiting for it to be spoon feed to you by some poster on a tech forum.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[mooingyak]

The rest of the world is welcome to try to become states within the US, but unless they do, no, there isn't really much merit to that argument.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Bombcar]

And look how many people from the Vatican have already voted!

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[N3WBI3]

Kerry has at least announced a timeframe to try and get troops out. (4 years) The mere existence of a withdrawal time, the fact that the US plans to NOT have an indefinite occupation, might itself help things there.

Thats not a plan, I can say I have a plan to get out in two weeks. Anyone who has followed John Kerry knows a four year promise is worthless because he always has a reason to change his mind (ala Yucca Mountain, and kerrys yes vote on the screw nevada bill)..

Frace has nobody in Iraq and yet there citizens are in danger because of a head scarf ban, do you really think us saying well only be here 4 years will stop the few people still doing suicide bomb attacks...

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[N3WBI3]

WTF ? That bush moron and his family/host of politial friends are establishing a military dictature and waging war on foreign countries.

Yea cause its not like Iraq invaded a neighbor, was defeated and then violated the terms of a cease fire..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[mschaef]

"No, that's what you have focused on, perhaps becuase that what the news outlets you view focus on."

Could it also be that _every_ Democrat I've spoken with has emphasized that they'd vote for anybody but Bush. That's been the theme this entire election cycle, back to before the first primary.

"Have you ever heard him speak, almost always he goes over a number of issues, and in fact took great pains not to even mention Bush in the Democratic Convention."

Which I did watch (along with the GOP convention).

"Do some research, go to Kerry's Website [johnkerry.com] and find out what he stands for,"

I have found out what he stands for: a bunch of bad ideas, equally as bad as Bushies'.

"rather than waiting for it to be spoon feed to you by some poster on a tech forum. "

While it might be easier for you to believe that I don't have a validly formed and researched opinion, I assure you that if I was waiting to here it from "some poster on a tech forum", I wouldn't be posting my opinion, I'd be reading it.

For what it's worth, I was really hoping Kerry would at least scare the hell out of Bush this cycle. Bush, despite his 2000 campaign, has turned out extreme enough (likely thanks to his staff) he needs to be counterbalanced.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[fini]

I was quite surprised too when I first saw Bush votes on the Continent and then 2 things occured to me:
- The sample size is small and easy to manipulate. (well, duh)
- France and Germany have become so anti-american that they actually wish 4 more years of Bush for America.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Marxist Hacker 42]

and then violated the terms of a cease fire..

I'd point out that it's never been proven that Iraq actually violated the terms of the cease fire- only that Saddam wanted to. Intention is not equal to action, no matter how much you want it to be.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[pudge]

It is not that the stats do not mean "much," it is that they mean nothing at all.

Setting aside the obvious point that what people of other nations think about who should be the U.S. leader is completely irrelevant on every level, self-selected samples are entirely invalid, period. The results are completely meaningless on a statiscal level.

I call on us all to "Mock" this "World Vote"!

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[fini]

Gee, do not be so partisan ! I'm not saying anything on how Iraqi would vote. Actually, I have no idea on how they would vote, the news coverage on Iraq being so bad. I'm just pointing to the fact that, right now, the POTUS as much more influence on the life of the ordinary Iraqi than on the life of the average American. That's that. No point being shrill...

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[nes11]

good point. i guess my response was more aimed at so many of the other posts that bash bush first, then think about it later. if you support the guy, it's hard to not to be overly defensive around here.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[N3WBI3]

The weapons inspectors they kicked out *WERE* a condition of the cease fire. Also in 1998 I did not see crying and gnashing of teeth when Clinton used the same thing to bomb Iraq..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[(trb001)]

Um, no. First, I'm not going to go to either candidates side and let them list all the ways they are great. That's ridiculous.

Second, I have listened to many, many speeches by John Kerry and most of them (I'll give him credit in a few) follow the same format; Kerry is "for" something. He's for healthcare for everyone. He's for better education. He's for better foreign relations. He's for a tougher war on terror.

I'm "for" better tasting beer, however, I have no clue how I am going to go about that anymore than how Kerry is going to go about implementing his policies.

Being "for" stuff is great, but you need to follow that up with "...and this is how I'm going to do it". That hasn't happened with Kerry. Except for rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which won't NEARLY cover his healthcare plan, he hasn't laid out any specifics.

--trb

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The weapons inspectors they kicked out *WERE* a condition of the cease fire.

The only people kicking the weapons inspectors out was the Bush Administration- Saddam was attempting to comply with them within the limits of his political ability. So no- that doesn't prove that Saddam was the one who violated the cease fire.

Also in 1998 I did not see crying and gnashing of teeth when Clinton used the same thing to bomb Iraq..

Because in 1998- Saddam was the one who kicked out the weapons inspectors. Also, we didn't have an incomplete more important mission in 1998 either- where in 2002 we did (and still do. Worse than that, given recent Taliban activity in Afghanistan, we seem to have failed completely at that second mission).

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[mschaef]

"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."

No there's not. The U.S.' representative government represents U.S. citizens. Imagine that.

I can't even begin to imagine the hell other countries would raise if we requested some kind of voting rights in countries on the UN Security Council or in the G8 economic summit.

Hey Jean-Pierre, U.S. citizens should have a say in the next French election... :-)

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[PatHMV]

No, Kerry went to great lengths to avoid mentioning President Bush by name. Almost every convention speech was full of barely-veiled suggestions that he has lied or misled us into the Iraq war.

And it was hardly an accident that Michael Moore was seated next to former President Jimmy Carter. All these things were part of a carefully calculated (but ineffective) attempt by the Democrats to let the nasty heavy lifting of calling Bush a liar be done by surrogates such as Moore and Whoopi Goldberg, or by indirection, so that they could be negative without getting labelled as being negative.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Marxist Hacker 42]

2nd reply- even though it was Bush that kicked out the Weapons Inspectors, I always thought that we should have been arming the weapons inspectors with a combination laser range finder and GPS transciever- so that if they were denied access to a builting, it would be very simple to "paint" the building for later demolition by cruise missile.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Lars T.]

Like his stand on environmental issues? His rather odd view of what is "free trade"? Those two would have kicked him from 1st place before 9/11.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[ericspinder]

I'm "for" better tasting beer, however, I have no clue how I am going to go about that anymore than how Kerry is going to go about implementing his policies.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics! First you need to bone up on the essentials, and realize that the (U.S.) President only has the ability to sign stuff into law (including budgets). One of his top jobs is Cheerleader-in-Chief, a guy who pushes congress to make a bill that he want to sign.

Universal Healthcare is done by most other wealthy countries. In fact on of the biggest out of control healthcare expenses is the growing cost of administration, including increasing numbers of uninsured people who cannot pay thier bills and the costs of dealing with literally thousands of different plans and forms. Persciption Drugs prices suck because they prohibit the International free market from working. There are a number of reasons why our health care needs a major overhaul, but it will take a lot of guts to stand up and demand it.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Darth_Burrito]

I particularly like how preslashdot, according to the story, Bush was ahead in the US... and post slashdot it is like 70% Kerry - 20% Bush.

I mean how accurate can a survey be when it's posted on slashdot and not immediately reduced to a pile of smoldering rubble.....

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[tommyServ0]

Why is this modded 5?

First the poster makes some claim that the rest of the world knows more about issues than the American people do--that people in Portugal can begin to know the details of tort reform, flat taxes, social security lockboxes, the unique immigration issues that Americans face among many other issues? Are you saying a Chilean farmer can tell me how Social Security works and what I should do about the rising cost of medical insurance? Nice unsubstantiated claim, guy.

And then to follow that up with some idea that the rest of the world should vote to determine the American leader? You have read the constitution and understand what a Republic is, right?

Sheesh, what is this world coming to?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[David McBride]

[...] self-selected samples are entirely invalid, period [...]

Aren't all elections self-selected samples? By definition?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Delrath]

Except for the fact the weapons inspectors were from the UN and supposed to uninvolved with the military part of the conflict. This being part of the reason they could go in there without being killed under suspicion of being spies for the U.S. If they were to paint buildings to be exploded this would be considered a military action which was clearly not allowed.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But the UN does military actions all the time, under the guise of "PeaceKeeping". One could argue that if UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed to do this- followed up with a NATO barrage- they'd be a lot more effective and there's be less ability to block them from seeing what they need to see.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[ColaMan]

Aren't all elections self-selected samples? By definition?

Only if your country doesn't have mandantory voting.
Oh, the US doesn't? Oh dear.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[StenD]

I'd point out that it's never been proven that Iraq actually violated the terms of the cease fire- only that Saddam wanted to.

In the cease-fire agreement, UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq agreed to provide a list of all chemical and biological weapons (8.a), and all ballistic weapons with a range of greater than 150km (8.b), to the Secretary-General within 15 days (9.a), and to turn the chemical and biological weapons over to the UN for desctuction (9.b.ii). Years later Iraq was still supplementing the list it was required to submit within 15 days, and then rather than turn some of the chemical and biological weapons which it declared over, it claimed that it destroyed them. Would you care to explain how that was not a violation of the terms of the cease-fire? Yes, Iraq may have destroyed the weapons, but it may also have hidden them - how much easier would it have been to bury tanker trucks deeply enough that the sand hasn't blown off yet than it was to bury aircraft - or shipped them elsewhere?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Did it ever occur to anybody that a government like Hussien's was pathologically incapable of either generating such a list or maintaining it?

After all, it appears (from the difference between weapons found since we invaded and weapons claimed on the list and weapons we thought he had from our own intelligence- these are three distinct sets) that Hussien's own scientists were lying to him about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons- and Iraq apparently never had anything other than the Sarin Gas that Bush, Chenney, and Rumsfield provided him back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

And if they buried them in sand- good luck getting either those aircraft to fly or those trucks to start again, burying them is as good as destroying them.

But all of this is beside the REAL point- that we haven't caught bin Laden yet because instead of pouring more troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan to look for him after he escaped, we went to Iraq instead. THAT alone is a major strategic blunder in the War on Terror- enough of one that Bush deserves to be impeached for gross incompetance and treason.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[pudge]

We're talking methodology here. If you want to know what a larger group thinks by talking to a smaller group, then you must have a sufficiently random sample, which a self-selected sample cannot be. For an election, you don't care what the larger group thinks, you only care about the people who actually vote.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[kaffiene]

Those results mean a hell of a lot. It lets you know how pissed off the rest of the world is with what GW has done for world "security"

Like it or not (we dont) US presidents have a large baring on world affairs, and despite the fact that the rest of us poor buggers don't get to vote in the US elections, we suffer the outcomes none the less.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Teancum]

Why should you get to vote for the leader of a country you are not in. I guess you are angry with the fact that the USA in general has a huge effect on world politics. Would having the 3rd largest national population of the world (just behind China and India) and the 4th largest land area have anything to do with that?

America is where America is because of historical reasons and in some cases pure luck and a lot of very hard work.

There isn't a "President of the World", and frankly I don't think the UN Secretary-General fills that role either. Until that happens, there isn't too much to complain about, or even moan about the gubinitorial elections of California or Texas, or who the new PM of the UK is. I don't live in any of those areas, but those elections also have a fairly direct impact on my own life.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Teancum]

All I can say is simply: Amen.

There are a number of issues that ordinary Americans face on a day to day basis that are brought up in these elections.

All of this attention is also ignoring the fact that 33 Senators and all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are also up for an election (many going for reelection). Also you got Governors, members of the state legislature, city coucil, and at least where I live several issues on the ballot that aren't even for political office but instead are new laws up for vote and changes to the state constitution.

There is absolutely no way that somebody in Portugual or Lithuania could know about all of those issues better that somebody who is physically living where the issue are being decided.

America doesn't really pick political parties but instead picks specific political leaders that happen to belong to some political parties (mainly for fundraising efforts and the ability to get assistance to put together a campaign).

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Teancum]

One thing that you ignore with that is by virtue of the Veto power of the U.S. President, any President (even if he/she were of the Green Party or the American Nazi Party) would control directly 1/6th of both houses of Congress. That is a larger block of votes in Congress than most lobbying groups could ever hope to get, and it is absolute. You don't even have to worry about deal making holding out because if the President says he will vote one way, that is it.

Still, all a U.S. President can do is to politely lobby somebody from Congress (usually their own party) to introduce legislation that is favorable to their viewpoint.

What is surprising about Kerry is that every single proposal that he could come up with could be sent to Congress directly for a vote (as he is a member of the Senate). When Kerry complains about the fact that all of his potential proposals are all theoretical, I might buy that if he were a governor. But as a Senator, he could at least submit any good idea (from his viewpoint) into a bill tomorrow if he really cared for it. If he is elected President, he might even have the opportunity to even sign the bill he wrote into law (often things like this take more than one session of Congress to complete). How come he hasn't done this (submitted proposals to Congress, even if they won't get approved by a Republican controled Congress)?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[CGP314]

While I don't agree that the rest of the world should be able to vote on the president of the United States, I will agree that since I moved to London and have been exposed to people from all over the world it seems that non-Americans know more about America than Americans do.

I remember once having a conversation where a French friend of mine explained all the details of the California Recall vote to me. I didn't have the slightest idea how it worked : \

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[(trb001)]

Check out exactly what closing those loopholes will do. Kerry released his economic plan yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, citing the $12 billion in loopholes he would close. Seem a little low? Here's why. That $12 billion is a drop in the bucket of our multi-trillion dollar budget because less than 10% of all businesses actually pay the corporate tax. So Kerry is talking about closing a loophole for less than 10% of businesses, who are then expected to go out and use all this extra cash to hire workers. It's a longshot, at best, since I doubt all $12 billion will actually go back to the companies, and I doubt all 8% of those companies will use all that money to hire people.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Adroni]

In the not-too-distant future, China will be telling you who your next president is. Be of good cheer.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[ericspinder]

Ok, now you have the essentials correct (veto power), lets move into the high school understanding, spending bills are introducted where? oh yea, the House of Representives! Before the government can do anything they need to fund it. There are times that the House and Senate will work together on a bill, but that usually only happens when they come to an impass on a bill that both chambers think is important.

Senators do have the ability to introduce other types of legislation, and can 'push' for certain bills. Kerry has introduced legislation, for example (even Bush's example) he proposed a 50 cent tax increase on gasoline to discorage consumption and to fund road repair (to make them more effecient). Ever single member of congress has legistation tied to their names (a least as a co-signer), and I find it hard to believe that anyone who considers themselves well informed can believe that Kerry hasn't done so. Kerry like every other member of Congress has introduced (and championed) a number of legistative inititives, but, again, I am not going to spoon feed you the info.

Besides, the real power of the President is his ability to use the money funded by Congress to run the day to day operations of our government. Including such things as stem-cell research.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Merk]

Are you sure?

Aside from the obvious examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole lot of Mexicans (in Mexico) who are affected by US policy than the average American.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Merk]

Well, considering the president has to deal with "them", it is useful to know if they want to work with him.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Merk]

Yeah, good luck passing the quiz, Chilean boy!

What, there's no quiz before you vote?

But then how do we know that American voters know about social boxes, or tart reforms or taxing flats?

What? Some of them don't?

Are you serious? Some of them think they do, because they watched Fox News?

And nobody checks that with some kind of quiz before they vote?

Hrm... maybe that Chilean farmer does know more about things than Americans do. Heck, I bet he knows more about immigration!

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[tommyServ0]

Boy I don't recall making the argument that all Americans understand the issues.

Yes, you'll find Americans that don't understand the issues before they vote.

But it's a far cry from "Yes, there are some Americans who don't understand Social Security, etc." than to say "Because there are some Chileans that don't understand Social Security and because there are some Americans who don't understand Social Security, then the rest of the world knows more about the issues than Americans"

It's a flawed argument at best.

Regardless of what news channel anyone watches. At least Fox News doesn't present faked memos as fact, after having them analyzed by "expert" witnesses.

In fact, a recent study by Tim Groseclose (UCLA) and Jiff Milyo (University of Chicago) found that media outlets Fox News Channel and Drudge Report are far closer to the center than all the other news outlets surveyed (including New York Times, CBS Evening News, USA Today, ABC World News Tonight).

I find it funny that people love to portray Fox News as a bumbling conservative network, but they never offer evidence of this bias.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Teancum]

I don't know of any major piece of legislation that is directly associated with John Kerry, despite him being in the Senate for what, 20 yeears. Yeah, a few minor pieces here and there, but nothing like what the other senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, is particularly well known for (who even did some stuff jointly with Orrin Hatch... if that isn't bizzare or what). Things like McCain-Feingold or Taft-Hartly (two very famous pieces of legislation that are still being discussed) are examples of senators who have made a name for themselves by what they've done in Congress. I just don't see that with Kerry.

Kerry is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I havn't seen any substantive intelligence reform packages come from him. I mean, it is almost his primary duty in the Senate to come up with such proposals in high detail, as that is what his committee is all about. Other senators would have to Kerry just to get the bill put in through the committee hearings. Really.

Your comment about stem-cell research shows that you don't realize that even day-to-day issues of financing government must come from congressional authorizations. Things such as stem-cell research are mainly what the President will articulate as a policy goal of the executive department. In that case, bio-research was already approved for general cancer therapies and President Bush simply gave some ethical guidelines where previously there were none. That is precisely what the President should do, although congress can even then clearly change that policy decision by simply passing a new law.

And again here, since this is not an issue of appropriation, Kerry could introduce legslation dealing with that issue as well.

I'm just saying that most of what Kerry complains about is part of his current job duties as opposed to foreign policy decisions (which the Senate deals with only very lightly, and mainly as a body to ratify a treaty). That Kerry might have done something a little different than Bush in going into Iraq may be true, but even then since Kerry voted for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq, unless he is changing he tune again it shows that he would have sent US soldiers into Kuwait even if he were President. All that would have been different is the timing for the invasion and who would have been in control of Iraqi territory after the war. I fail to see much of a difference here.

IMHO under a President Gore (or hypothetically a President Kerry), I think the casulties in Iraq would have been considerably higher, and there would have been major terrorist incidents in the continental USA since 9/11 as well.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[el-spectre]

That's what makes this interesting... it shows how perceptions vary by region of the world.

Altho, to be fair, most americans (and voters in general, maybe???) probably vote based on a few "key" issues anyway.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[True Grit]

I can say I have a plan to get out in two weeks.

And Bush said he had a plan for the "peace" in Iraq too. Heck, forget that, just the fact he thought everyone there would welcome us with open arms is enough make me realize he's too stupid to be a President, regardless of his other political positions.

ala Yucca Mountain

And the Republican Big Lie machine strikes yet again.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[kaffiene]

The simple fact that from the viewpoint of a New Zealander, who the British elect to PM is of little relevance to our lives (despite the fact that we are still part of the Commonwealth and technically Elizbeth is still our Queen) Whereas, the president of the USA has a much greater ability to cause NZ soldiers to die.

In that regard, the world has much more interest in whom the US elects as it's president. I'm not saying that the US should feel sorry that it has such an effect on the rest of the world - just understand that it does, and for that reason the rest of the world does have a legitimate interest in the outcome of your elections.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[N3WBI3]

Well lets see what he says now:

This time John Kerry is promising what Gore didn't -- to keep nuclear waste out.

vs what he did when the screw Nevada Bill came up "screw Nevada" bill. Kerry did vote for the budget measure, and Nevada's senators opposed it because of that one provision. The budget measure was adopted 61-28 on Dec. 21, 1987. However, it was not a straight up-or-down vote on Yucca Mountain.

What this bill did was to make yucca mountain the only site that could even be studied..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[DAldredge]

Do you get this upset at the fact that Clinton lied when he said our troups would be out of Bosnia by Christmas?

If not, why not?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[True Grit]

How many casualties did we have in Bosnia?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[ericspinder]

Did you actually research his 20 year Senate history? I don't think so. McCain (who I have a warm spot for) has called Kerry hard working and a good Senator. While McCain has publically endorsed his fellow Republican, he has been far more critical on a day to day basis of Bush.

In that case, bio-research was already approved for general cancer therapies and President Bush simply gave some ethical guidelines where previously there were none.

No, he used an executive order to stop development of more stem cell lines. It was a bad comprimise with the reliqous right. Since you seem to believe that he gave the process needed "ethical guidelines", I guess that you are one of them.

IMHO under a President Gore (or hypothetically a President Kerry), I think the casulties in Iraq would have been considerably higher, and there would have been major terrorist incidents in the continental USA since 9/11 as well.

More FUD, and there is nothing 'humble' about it. You pretend to know what changing the past woulddo. Maybe if the Supreme Court had appointed Gore leader, Sept 11 wouldn't have happened! One thing that we know about Bush, he has real problems reading his own intellegence reports.

The way the Bush admin has been fighting Iraq, it has become a recruiting tool. However, invading Afganistan was the right choice, that is is the war on terror, it helped push Bin Laden into hiding. Too bad that Bush was pulling troops from Afganistan (for Iraq) just when we were closing in on him. The one campain promise that I'd like to see Kerry make is "Within my first term, Bin Laden will be either dead or in jail, or I won't run for a second term."

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Teancum]

While an interest in the outcome of elections in the USA might be one thing, and certainly it is a big deal in regards to the actions of many other nations, an interest does not directly imply that you should have a vote.

In the case of New Zealand, I certainly hope that you are voting for your own parliment and choosing leaders who know when to give support to the USA (such as if Chinese troops land in California) and when to say "screw you" or some other more diplomatic phrase if the US President is telling you that the USA is going in to invade France again, this time to conquor the French Government and put in something in place more to the liking of the USA, and he is expecting to activate the ANZUS alliance over this invasion.

New Zealand is clearly an independent nation and does not have a direct stake in the outcome of the President of the USA. On the other hand, by my living in Utah, I do have to worry about what laws he signs and when the President sends my friends and co-worker to war (with hopfully the approval and declaration of the Senate...an important but seemingly forgotten safeguard even in the U.S. Senate).

BTW, as an American, I find that the selection of PM in England is of significance, and the popular news media here does indeed cover it, together with the selection of Presidents of Russia and France or even the Prime Minister of India. Whenever the head of state for a nuclear war power changes, it should be of concern to the rest of the world for a good reason, not to mention that all of these countries are all significant economically as well.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[kaffiene]

I'm quite sure I never claimed that non Americans should be able to vote in the US elections.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though

[Teancum]

That is precisely what this site, from my view, is trying to imply. Also, in California there are some bills before the state legislature to grant the vote to illegal aliens, or even green card holders. I think this is an incredibly stupid idea, but even so, the concept is being thrown around.

Dumb

[jacoberrol]

The overwhelming majority of votes are from North America, where Kerry supposedly holds a commanding lead. This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.

Re:Dumb

[pilybaby]

This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.

Give it time, you get better results with the more people who vate, and so far that's very little. Also remember that posting on slashdot may bias the results because it'll get hit so much and slashdotters may fall into a particular pidgeon hole with regards to political views.

Re:Dumb

[jacoberrol]

I disagree. The only people who particiapate are volunteers who have an internet connection and happened to see a link to this site. This is not exactly a cross-section of the world population.
Furthermore, of the 5,198 votes cast, 4,476 are from the US. If this were a true indicator of public opinion, the results should be much closer to reality (ie 52-41)

Re:Dumb

[Boglin]

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.

Not really...

[PeteyG]

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.

Re:Not really...

[Baloo Ursidae]

Only 2.5 years? Longer than that! Heck, hop the border into Canada and prepare yourself for more Yankee jokes at your expense than you knew existed.

Re:Not really...

[VoidWraith]

When I looked at the site, the US data replicated the World data almost exactly. Kerry had about 3x the votes Bush did. (~3,000 and ~1,000).

There's either a big fluctuation, or some misinformation (and I'm not saying it can't be on my part).

Don't forget the Net-Savvy bias

[phyy-nx]

Sites like this always bug me. Sure Kerry is winning outside of the US... among people who have a) have internet access b) have heard of kerry/bush c) have stumbled accross the website for some reason d) care enough about either party to actually take time to cast a vote (this is known as polarization bias).

Seriously, how can you compare this to a real poll among a representive portion of U.S. population (even if there is a "people who own phones" bias in our polls)?

Bush not ahead

[alatesystems]

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

Re:Bush not ahead

[Urox]

And currently, he has a whopping 4%. I have to say that is a pretty damn good start, especially when you consider it is a fifth of Bush's backing. :)

Must be the slashdot effect ...

[snowtigger]

But already after 5 posted comments, Kerry leads overwhelmingly with 72% against 20% for Bush in the US as well ...

Certainly not a true indicator...

[jbarr]

...because of its inherent flaws:

-you have to know about the site as opposed to the General Election where basically EVERYONE knows how and where to vote

-there is no true validation of age, so you will no doubt see many votes representing MANY underaged voters

-you could vote multiple times because there is no specific validation

Not ahkurate!

[clambake]

This is such a sham. I don't see a single rigged Diebold machine!

Re:according to the site right now....

[nes11]

well, 72 is bigger than 20. so kerry leads on the site. but actual polls of the public in the US show Bush leading.

Re:according to the site right now....

[russelldad]

>> how does this match the story text of "Kerry >> leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is >> ahead in the U.S."? I think the author means that in the actual US polls (as opposed to the website in question) Bush has a slight lead.

Plus the site is really, really biased...

[PatHMV]

Read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.

While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".

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)

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[grm_wnr]

"The Iragis themselves" being the 64 people who took part in this poll?

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Betcha anything that the "Iraqis" who voted are actually American Republicans trying to change perceptions.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[britrock]

It does not suprise me that the very small percentage of people in iraq that have internet access would vote for bush. In the US and other similar contries you can argue that an internet poll is at least a little bit acurate. That is most definitally false in a country like iraq though.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[Jesrad]

...or, the 64 persons who voted as Irakis are american soldiers stationed there.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[Universal Nerd]

This isn't very useful information considering a universe of 65 votes.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry

[daviddennis]

Most of the insurgents are foreigners, linked to Al Queda. The Iraqi-on-the-street appreciates our role in getting rid of Saddam, but is cynical about how we are doing at combatting the insurrections.

The consensus in-country seems to be that we're not tough enough on them.

See Iraq the Model and other Iraqi blogs for supporting evidence.

D

Different Incentives, Different Results

[mschaef]

"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.

Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.

You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".

How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

Actually, I don't remember that. Would you kindly provide a link to your charge against Hannity?

Also, the charges of a liberal bias in the mainstream media have been well-documented by objective reviewers. Some 34% of journalists in national media identify themselves as "liberal", while only 7% say they are "conserative." The general public self-identifies as 20% liberal, 33% conservative. Do you have any statistics to back up your charges against Fox News?

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[rosie_bhjp]

here ya go:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=bi JR J8OVF&b=138711

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[rosie_bhjp]

Sorry, /. munged the url.
here

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

Thank you for the citation. I first read the document that Podesta was trying to get Hannity to confront. Personally, I think it has some good points (such as the very good James Madison article about the Congressional chaplains), and some bad points (claiming that Hannity was wrong in claiming that Bush inherited a recession, when in fact the recession officially began in March 2001, a mere 2 months after he took office).

As for the transcript you cite, I disagree that the edited version is terribly distorted. Hannity cited Dean as saying the pre-9/11 theory was an "interesting theory". And in fact Dean did say it was an interesting theory. Yes, he also said he himself didn't believe it, but if he doesn't believe it, why does he even bringing it up? Bringing it up suggests that it is possible. It asks his supporters to consider the possibility, no matter how much he may say he himself, of course, would never dream that an actual president could do such a thing. So in fact it was Podesta being inaccurate in this precise exchange:

HANNITY: Howard Dean advanced the theory. He said it was an interesting theory.
JDP: He never said that, Sean.

And I would note 2 other things. First, even the clip you complain about does in fact leave in Podesta stating that he doesn't agree with Dean if Dean were in fact saying it was a possibility. Second, there is no context for where this clip was actually taken. I can't even tell whether it came from an official abcradio or Sean Hannity web site. The American Progress story makes it sound like Hannity altered the full transcript or full recording of the exchange. The clip sounds to me like it's just a brief web sound clip, which you would expect to be edited to a very short length, not purporting to be a full transcript.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[Veridium]

I don't know anything about that, but I do know that Fox, the bastion of journalistic truth telling integrity, has argued in court they have a right to distort news.

I think everyone who listens to any of the major media outlets and imagine themselves listening to a reliable news source is greatly deceived. They should think long and hard on these proverbs:
Bad is called good when worse happens.
Because we focused on the snake, we missed the scorpion.
Believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see.

Take the red pill already.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

You really should acknowledge that 5 other major media companies sided with the legal arguments made by Fox in that case: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. (which are cited in the web site you linked to).

It's not a matter of supporting fraudulent reporting, it's a matter of whether the courts can, consistently with the First Amendment, second-guess the editorial decisions made by a free press.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[True Grit]

Yes, he also said he himself didn't believe it, but if he doesn't believe it, why does he even bringing it up?

Shouldn't that question be left to the listener? Only how is the listener suppose to know that Dean did later in the same interview say he "didn't believe it" if you cut that out of the clip? If you want to fairly represent both sides, you leave all the stuff in that the opposition believes supports their case, you don't delete it.

Of course I figured out real quick that Hannity isn't interested in representing both sides, only his own, and that basically goes for Fox News too.

Its also interesting to compare your reaction to Hannity's manipulation of evidence and what CBS allegedly did, for which every conservative is screaming for Dan Rather's head. But you give Hannity a pass for the same thing, nice consistency there.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[True Grit]

I can't believe you're defending this.

1) You break into a liqeur store and rob it with five of your friends. Are you any less guilty because you weren't alone?

2) This wasn't about "editorial decisions", its about whether news organizations can willfully print lies and get away with it. Not controversies, not subjective things, but known facts and evidence.

3) That you could read this article and not be disgusted with Fox and the other organizations who supported them really scares the hell out of me. In the name of conservativism and Bush Jr, anything goes?

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

In the first place, the issue with Fox News is not nearly as clear-cut as the anti-growth-hormone movement makes it out to be. Here is a slightly less biased article on the affair which appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review. According to it, the TV station was trying to navigate difficult legal and editorial decisions, while:

"the people at WTVT trying to work with the correspondents regarded them, especially Wilson, as combative, contentious, insulting, and unprofessional. The Fox lawyer participating in the editorial review complained to them that they were stating "in almost every way possible that you are fed up with our process of legal and editorial review."

In the second place, does your opinion mean that you believe the Beef Industry's lawsuit against Oprah should have succeeded?

And of course many non-Fox news organizations have out-and-out fabricated major components of stories before. Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, and (of course) 60 Minutes II and Dan Rather.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

Let's see... Dan Rather claimed in prime time, several times over several different days, that documents discovered by CBS News proved George Bush had disobeyed a direct order when in the Texas Air National Guard. Then it turns out that the documents were forged, and CBS's own analysts had warned them they were likely forged. And you claim this is the same as posting some random promotional clip somewhere on the web?

Where does that clip of Hannity come from? Does it claim to be a full or representative recording of the entire interview, or simply a brief promo? If ABC, NBC, or CBS air a 5 second clip of President Bush to promo a news story coming up after the commercial, is this bias? Did Fox News reair the Hannity interview in the abbreviated format, while claiming it was the entire interview? If they did that, then I agree it's very wrong. But I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that they actually did that. I tried to check the archives of the show, but it only goes back to sometime in August.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[Veridium]

Actually I don't think I have to acknowledge any such thing. It doesn't change the fact that FOX argued for that, nor does it make it right.

If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that while I mentioned FOX specifically, which was appropriate given the post I was replying to, I also advised not trusting any media outlet. You can sugar coat what that case was about all you want, those guys want their right to spin news and be misleading. Just go through a list of the things they reported that were totally wrong before and during the early days of the Iraq war, all of them designed to instill fear through sensationalized news reporting. Those are the easiest examples to find in a collection that I know of.

Fox is not a trustworthy outlet for news and neither is anyone else. The best you can hope for is to get your news from as many different sources as possible and come to your own conlusions. Anyone trusting just one source can look forward to being misled. It is their "constitutional right" to mislead you after all.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[PatHMV]

You are correct, I overlooked the part of your post condemning the other news media. I agree that you must sift through the news reported by ANYBODY very carefully in order to get to the truth in any given circumstance.

Given the choice of: 1) a news media free and unfettered by government oversight; and 2) a news media where the courts or the government can impose its version of the "truth" on us, I'll take the free and uncensored version any time.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[Veridium]

Given the choice of: 1) a news media free and unfettered by government oversight; and 2) a news media where the courts or the government can impose its version of the "truth" on us, I'll take the free and uncensored version any time.

I largely agree, provided it's taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Personally, I think all news programs should have to show disclaimers at the beginning of their shows which basically say "This program is under no legal obligation to provide accurate or unbiased information." I think that would be a very fair "regulation" to have and I think it would be very beneficial to our people to be hit with that every time they watch the news.

Re:Site is incredibly biased...

[rtb61]

Imagine you are connected to the internet and you go to a website to place a psuedo vote for the US election - why would your news come from the BBC. It is just one of many news sites on the internet and I like most people draw news from multiple sources, for multiple specialities and from multiple regions.

For news I use a local content site for a local viewpoint, BBC for a european viewpoint, the sigapore times for an asian viewpoint and the new york times for an american viewpoint. Also non-main stream news sites for a non-commercial viewpoint of the news.

The site is bound to be biased, as it only targets internet enabled and politically interested people and it true geeks hate Bush (no matter which country the come from).

Top 10 Reasons

[funny-jack]

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think.
9. He's got better hair.
8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election.
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical!
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best.
2. Didn't he get some medals in Vietnam?
1. He's Not George Bush! (TM)


Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

10. George Bush is Tough on Terrorism.(TM)
9. He supports educating children.
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes.
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001.
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes.
4. Those CBS memos were forged, duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.
2. He's not as rich as John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe.

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[Oriumpor]

Any top 10 reasons to vote for a candidate should not include reasons why not to vote for any other candidate. It is superfluous and shows how little your candidate has to offer the voters.

Grow up and stop the DNC/GOP politicking and vote third party.

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[Cecil]

I think that was the idea behind the original post, get your sarcasm meter checked.

Besides that, I'm with you. Vote third party. Even if they don't win, it's the only way you'll actually create change. It's a long term goal, not a win-this-election goal. If democracy is only really open to people with a few specific sets of ideas, that's not democracy, it's a game of 'pick your poison'.

Up until lately, I felt the same way about Canadian politics. Despite our 4 major parties, the floor was very much closed to the voices on the edges (never underestimate the people at the ends of the political spectrum, they may not be big, but they literally *define* the center) and even to the two smaller major parties. However, I was heartened by the fledgling Green party's good showing in the last election, as well as the two smaller parties, so I have some hope for the system again.

Anyway, good luck USA, we're all worried about you. :P

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[Oriumpor]

I wish english still was able to diferrentiate between you and ye. It's a whole lot more difficult on the forum to say YOU and get across the meaning as being ya'll rather than ye.

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[Scott Wood]

Ye is plural as well, but is the subjective (rather than objective) pronoun. The singulars were thou (subjective) and thee (objective).

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.

The next time you use a bottle of Heinz ketchup (catsup) for your "freedom fries", check to see where it has been bottled. (Hint: it's probably not inside the U.S.)

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[BCoates]

The next time you use a bottle of Heinz ketchup (catsup) for your "freedom fries", check to see where it has been bottled. (Hint: it's probably not inside the U.S.)

My bottle of Heinz ketchup says

MFD. IN U.S.A. BT HEINZ NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION OF H.J. HEINZ CO., L.P., PITTSBURGH, PA 15222

Snopes agrees.

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[Hard_Code]

You mean newsmax could be *wrong*? UNFATHOMICATIONABLE!

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[CGP314]

George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.

I must have missed the part were GWB went into Iraq by himself and -- matrix style -- fought his way past Sadam's Republican Guard, and then stole the key's to Abu Ghraib and let everyone out.


-Colin

Re:Top 10 Reasons

[CGP314]

3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.

So if your sister was dating a guy who abused her, would you be happy to see her keep dating him just because the family hates him?


-Colin

And the Carribean votes... Parker?!?!?

[BrynM]

Did anyone else notice that Parker was winnin by a landslide in the carribean? What's up with that? Is Parker from that area of the world or is he famous there?

Re:And the Carribean votes... Parker?!?!?

[BigBadaboom]

Err... go back to the site and have another look at the pictures of the candidates. Notice anything different about Parker?

Re:And the Carribean votes... Parker?!?!?

[BrynM]

Err... go back to the site and have another look at the pictures of the candidates. Notice anything different about Parker

It's pretty Californian of me not to notice that he was the only African-American (a misnomer to be saved for another discussion) cantidate. It didn't even occur to me until you pointed it out... sorta. Or could it be that he's pro-Stalinist Communism and pro-Cuba? It just struck me as very odd that some guy I've never heard of would utterly demolish the numbers for the Two Standard Choices(TM) even in this very un-scientific poll.

Bad sampling

[poincaraux]

It's hard to believe that the sampling is any good when this site's results have Kerry up 72% to 20% among USA voters..

Re:Bad sampling

[Enucite]

A web-only survey with bad sampling?

That's impossible!

Fear... Anger... Aggression

[Slime-dogg]

George W. is a feared man. He doesn't lay any bed of crap about what his intentions are, or what he's going to do. We've gone through these four years knowing exactly what he was up to, and he's done it whether we protest it or not. This is the reason for fear.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to aggression, aggression leads to the dark side. They fear him, they are angry with him, and now, albeit puny, they've aggressively "voted" against him.

It's amusing, though. The votes online are mostly from the US, where it's more likely that the web surfing learned are going to put in a vote for Kerry, and the untech people don't have that representation.

As long as the dems don't pass a law that makes it legal for non-citizens to vote, we'll be ok. Take everything else with a grain of salt, and a shrug of the shoulders. In American politics, the opinion of the rest of the world amounts to about the same as toilet water.

Stupid site not worthy of slashdot

[fnord123]

The mock world vote site is a stupid waste of time for many reasons:

• 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'mnotdisclosin 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.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot

[Electrum]

The source country can be manipulated if one has access to computers in different geographics.

No, the source country can be manipulated simply by picking a country from the drop-down list.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot

[fnord123]

You are right, no need for the gymnastics I described. The site is even more stupid than I thought.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot

[photon317]

More importantly, even if all of the above issues were addressed, you're really getting a picture of how internet-connected probably engineering minded individuals sprinkled around the world that happened to catch wind of this site would have voted, which is nothing like the true population of the entire world would vote, I'm sure.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot

[TheLink]

But it's ok. Most voters are stupid/ignorant.

As long as the smart ones walk away with disgust (and don't stuff/trash the votes) the results will be fairly accurate.

You'd be surprised how many people would never consider trying something different.

Forget biases, plans, etc

[dpilot]

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.

Biased by promotion...

[thejuggler]

This is the first time I heard about this. I'm thinking it is being promoted in more liberal circles.

Also shows that these web polls are very inaccurate and can be padded just by promoting in certain places.

Post this same link on Rush Limbaugh's website and watch the numbers change in the other direction.

True, however

[autopr0n]

66% of respondents who claim to be from Iraq say they prefer bush. In fact, it's the only other country other then Israel where a majority are Bush supporters (the US tally now sits at 70% Kerry).

I don't think that's too accurate, though.

By the way, anyone else think it's ironic that this site only comes in English?

Re:True, however

[recursiv]

Respondents to what? If I may ask, what are your source for those figures? This is not a passive aggressive way of saying I doubt it, but I am quite curious about that issue, and haven't been able to find much trustworthy info that doesn't have an obvious bias one way or another.

Re:True, however

[recursiv]

Hm.. 69 respondents at the time of this writing with no authentication to make sure respondents are who they say they are? Are you (greatgrandparent) taking these numbers seriously? Because that's a pretty shitty basis on which to make generalizations.

Re:True, however

[autopr0n]

Respondents to what? If I may ask, what are your source for those figures? This is not a passive aggressive way of saying I doubt it, but I am quite curious about that issue, and haven't been able to find much trustworthy info that doesn't have an obvious bias one way or another.

Respondents to this 'world poll' that were talking about right now, you idiot. The 'source' is to click on the middle east region on the map, and then iraq, on the new ME map that pops up. You can see for yourself.

I have no idea who the average Iraqi wants to win. I doubt it's very many.

Re:True, however

[csguy314]

Those respondents from Iraq total to 69 votes. With a population of some 25 million (most of which don't have proper access to electricity right now, let alone an internet connection) I doubt that it's representative.

Vote early and Vote often

[ericspinder]

Of course web polls are self-selective, and this poll even asks where you live, so someone living in Iowa could vote 20 times as a Frenchman just because, it'd be funny to see Bush 'winning' in France. Hell, I even gave it a thought, (and I support Kerry!). With so few people voting you can make some intersting results and completely dominate some smaller countries. Of course the posting on Slashdot has probally doubled the results (a least), but it's still kinda fun.

Oddly enough most of the U.S. election poll are based on result from interviews with less than 1,000 people.

Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

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.

Re:Before the comments start...

[PatHMV]

Here's the thing. The attacks on the WTC were planned well before George Bush won the election, much less took office. The earlier attack on the WTC took place during the Clinton administration, as did the Cole bombing and numerous embassy bombings around the world.

Frankly, prior to 9/11, George W. Bush was an isolationist, and was dramatically lessening the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East. We tried the "let's be nice" method. It didn't work. It caused worse things to happen to us. So President Bush had little choice other than to change our response.

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

I wouldn't quite say we were doing the let's be nice thing. I don't think anyone has done it yet.

but you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world into not attacking us.

i am not saying clinton did it right. i'm not saying bush did it wrong. i'm saying someone needs to do it differently and bush isn't going to.

Re:Before the comments start...

[PatHMV]

I think it is far too early to tell whether we are doing it right or wrong yet. Before the Iraq war, there were predictions of massive anti-American uprisings in the "Arab street". That hasn't happened. There have been no more terrorist incidents in the United States since the Iraq war. All of the terrorists seem to be coming together nicely in one country, Iraq, where we can take strong action against them.

This is such a huge problem that no solution will be immediate. It will take years if not decades to fix the problems. And one of the things terrorists and rogue states are watching is to see whether the U.S. will maintain its resolve, or whether it will cut and run when things get difficult. Showing weakness and wavering right now will not make us safer.

Re:Before the comments start...

[dspfreak]

but you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world into not attacking us.

Wasn't that what the Cold War was all about?

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

What? Cut and run? I didn't suggest cutting and running from anything.

And no more terrorist attacks? We have 1000 soldiers dead. Several thousand wounded. Almost every attack has been considered by terrorists. We can deal with them so long as they are in Iraq? Not yet.

I am not saying cut and run. I'm saying that the rest of the world is mad at us _for a reason_ and not just because they "hate our freedom."

madaline albright's quote about half a million dead iraqi children being a reasonable cost is still quoted today. us supporting saddam in the 80s didn't give us many brownie points either. i have to run but the list could go on forever.

i think that along with the aide we need to dish out we also need to have a sustainable foreign policy. why did we attack iraq? now we don't have the resources to attack elsewhere should it become necessary. the rest of the axis of evil, for instance.

i would say a more sustainable policy would be to make the U.N. more effective and then enforce its resolutions swiftly and firmly. with U.N. garb.

we can't take on the world. anyone who has tried has lost. if we do we will too. it might take 50 years but we can't be king of the world forever. creating a new system is necessary just for our survival.

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

yes -- but those were states. these are individuals. i should have said, "you can't possibly think that you can scare the entire world's population into not attacking us."

hell, if i wanted to i could walk outside and stab a few of my neighbors. terrorist attacks don't have to be planes into buildings. it could just be a slow buildup of u.s. residents with the previously developed plan to attack some number of years later when enough people had moved in. get a bit of a gun stockpile. buy a couple hummers. you wouldn't take over the country but you sure could kill a lot of people. what would be worse, 9/11 or 30 cities losing 100 people each in suicide and kamakazi attacks?

Re:Before the comments start...

[PatHMV]

That all sounds wonderful.

But how does one actually do it? How do you "make the U.N. more effective and then enforce its resolutions swiftly and firmly. with U.N. garb", when the United Nations is clearly unwilling to do so? How do we deal with an organization that allows Sudan to retain its current seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights at the very time that Sudan is committing genocide (or, in the words of the U.N.'s own High Commissioner for Human Rights, "a disturbing pattern of disregard for basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law, which is taking place in Darfur for which the armed forces of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible."

This is, of course, the same U.N. Commission on Human Rights that was chaired by Libya in 2002 at the same time Libya was defying U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on it to turn over the terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 and answer for other terrorist attacks around the world.

Look, I would like the support of the rest of the world. But I have absolutely no faith in the U.N.'s ability to actually resolve conflicts which involve dictators (all of whom, of course, are members of the U.N. itself) and terrorists. The U.N. almost presupposes a certain amount of rationality and good will among its members when it tries to end conflict. This is just not always the case, and when it isn't, the U.N. is organizationaly incapable of dealing with it effectively.

Remember that one of the main reasons President George H. W. Bush did not invade Baghdad during the first Gulf war was because he did not have unanimous support from the international community to do so. That didn't pan out so well.

Again, I agree that your goals are laudable. But I don't see how to change it in the current global situation, and I certainly don't think we will make it better by refusing to do what me must to defend ourselves.

And in terms of the current presidential race, if John Kerry were saying how corrupt the U.N. was and his first job would be to bring about U.N. reform so that it would actually have the will and desire to enforce its own resolutions, then I might support him. But he has offered no vision other than his own ability to somehow persuade our allies to go along with us in the future.

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.

Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.

does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.

so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.

this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.

we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.

my .02

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

This is a good point. I will post a response i wrote to another post. but in short -- it will certainly scare countries that are harboring terrorists. but we are supporting so many sketchy governments (pakistan -- musharref), arming them and training them. just like iraq -- at one time were friends of ours and then flipped. but we trained them. we armed them (partially.) our policy needs to be sustainable and not be so focused on today that we ruin tomorrow for ourselves.

There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.

Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.

does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.

so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.

this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.

we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.

my .02

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

A few things. I'll respond to your post and I'll post another post of mine that I think summarizes things well.

note one -- in the past we have made the U.N. uneffective. rwanda was a great example. those 800,000 people died because WE vetoed resolution after resolution to go in. there's a good documentary on the entire conflict on Frontline.

sudan is a similar story. watch what we've been doing. we wouldn't call it genocide for a LONG time. and powel had to "go it alone" when using the word. so we're as bad as the rest of them in that regard.

we need to educate the american people that international organizations are necessary and that we need to give our money and our men to it. the "in U.N. garb" means that instead of spending _forever_ trying to give the fewest troops we have to to U.N. missions we have some designated "U.N.-ready" force that is ready to enforce U.N. resolutions. we can take that initiative. we should.

now general things. the U.N. does have a premise of good will. one of the "problems" with the U.N. is that it is meant to support the status quo. just like our congress it is very easy to make NOTHING happen. but that is a premise of the U.N. -- global stability. i can agree that that premise could use _some_ modification. but if it is too modified then it loses the small foundation on democracy it already has. if you read the U.N. charter and large resolutions you can see that it's good stuff. i think that the foundation is pretty solid.

but i think we need to accept something -- change happens slowly in the world. and anything faster is bad. why? because we wouldn't want a system that allows too fast action. if we had it then people could decide that we are doing something wrong and attack us or one of our allies. wouldn't happen? not today, no. but in 50 years we might not be the strongest power. that's why creating a sustainable international system is so necessary now -- when a good power is the superpower.

as for kerry -- i agree. i don't consider kerry a revolutionary leader. i just think he's both more open to ideas and generally is on a better track already.

read my following post. i think i point out some important elements.

old post:
There are short term plans and long term plans. You have to get who you have to get today and you have to plan to defeat those you want to tomorrow or twenty years from now.

Do I think we should have just said, "hey. you bombed us. have some money?" no! but war is today's solution, not tomorrows. so we have to come up with something to remove the threat from the future.

does that mean tighter security? yes. does that mean we need to have a tougher hand? yes. does that mean we have to stop associating ourselves with sketchy governments and arming them so they can help us in the "war on terror" (but have so many corrupt elements that a good chunk of those arms are going to head off to "rogue states?" yes. does it mean we have to improve the U.S.'s image abroad? yes.

so it's not about "being nice." it's about having a sustainable policy. we can't attack every country we think might be developing WMD. case in point: iran and north korea. we just don't have the might necessary. so we should make sure that the international organizations that are supposed to monitor such agencies are well equipped and otherwise effective. at the very least we will then know which is the gravest threat. at best they will act as proper deterants.

this is just one example in one thousand. the point is that i don't think the "tomorrow" part of the picture is very clear. we aren't doing things any differently then we did in the 80s (which saddam was our friend) -- we are befriending states that seem to benefit us today but that tomorrow will be pools of resources for people unfriendly to us. pakistan is certainly an example.

we are the most powerful country in the world. we will not be forever. other countries will catch up. we have to create a sustainable policy now so tomorrow we will not have created a situation where we'll have to "go it alone" but not have the means to do so.

my .02

Re:Before the comments start...

[Script0r]

Maybe a good solution would be to start drilling the vast supplies of oil that are located here in the states. That way we wouldn't have to deal with all of these "sketchy" middle eastern governments. Oh wait, liberals in america criticized Bush for trying that too. When are the democrats in america going to drop their "have your cake and eat it too" attitude and start trying to come up with realistic solutions.

Re:Before the comments start...

[dalutong]

Okay...

realistic like saying "hey we have to use less sketchy oil so let's develop technology that is less dependent on oil?" or "we have to have a sustainable culture too and right now we use way more resources then the world can produce indefinitely?"

sorry -- that was just too partisan. at least the other posts were constructive.

Another site

[rakerman]

BetaVote.com does the same thing.

Sad

[JCMay]

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.

Re:Sad

[bgackle]

That's because smart people that take seriously the ideas of the founding fathers and the importance of limited national goverment all voted libertarian. And THEY didn't lose to the socialists.

Rest of the world doesn't have free press

[jgardn]

Considering the the we are one of the very few countries that has the freedom of the press written into our core documents, and even one of the fewer yet whow actually respect that right, I am not surprised that the rest of the world thinks John Kerry is better.

For one, the rest of the world doesn't have access to the opposition voice of CNN and CBS. That means they never hear the other side of the story. For another, the rest of the world is actually submitted to the press that their government endorses, if not writes itself.

One of the freest societies in the world - South Korea - even has problems with the press. For instance, several stories of key importance to the South Korean people have never reached their ears. Take the latest scandal over the gold medal in the Olympics. All of my relatives and friends in South Korea never heard that the judges missed an extra turn by the South Korean that would've docked the South Korean by even more points. In other words, they should be grateful that the judges stood by their decision.

And personally, as an American, I am upset that we would even ask what the rest of the world thinks! This isn't a beauty contest, this is about securing our freedom now and in future generations. Let the other countries worry about their own freedom, because we have enough on our plate right now.

Re:Rest of the world doesn't have free press

[Jesrad]

Few countries have true free press ? You might want to revise your judgement a bit.

Re:Rest of the world doesn't have free press

[fiannaFailMan]

Considering the the we are one of the very few countries that has the freedom of the press written into our core documents....

Then perhaps you can point me in the direction of the American media that reported that Hugo Chavez of Venezuala didn't resign but was actually kidnapped during the failed coup attempt (allegedly CIA-backed) several years back? Perhaps you can tell me where in the American press I can read about in-depth investigations into the theft of the Florida election in 2000? I'd love to know because so far I've had to get that info from the BBC!

Free press in the US? Give me a break!

Re:Rest of the world doesn't have free press

[kaffiene]

What a pile of utter crap. The US media is utterly biased. Having seen what the media is like in several countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New guinea, Argentina and Chile) I'd have to conclude that the US media is the least interested in world affairs and most likely to chant the party line.

The fact that you can blindly assert the superiority of your media would be funny if the ramifications weren't so serious.

Re:Rest of the world doesn't have free press

[Teancum]

Perhaps you think that the New York Times and USA Today constitute the entirety of the American Press? Or that Television news is considered reliable?

The fact is that any U.S. citizen can start their own news agency. Just look at Matt Drudge (regardless of what you think of his political viewpoint). What is interesting is that alternative media outlets are indeed where news is being distributed now within America, such as here with /. or AM Radio (and not all radio hosts are conservative either).

As far as the US media not interested in world affairs, I think there are a couple of things to consider. One, that life does exist outside of Europe (I know, a common misconception), and two, that the USA is a large enough country that most Americans hardly ever meet somebody from another country unless they are a tourist or an immigrant, with the possible exception of Canada and Mexico as common destinations for ordinary Americans.

I would also suggest that you look at the ratings and circulation figures for news outlets. Traditional newspaper circulation has been dropping in the USA for several decades now, which is why most American cities only have a single newspaper. Even television news programs like the CBS Evening News have been losing out to reruns of "The Simpsons" during the same time period. What I'm trying to say here is that what you are comparing for US media is losing ground and losing the attention of ordinary Americans in part because it is so awful. We (Americans) know it and are making it irrelevant.

What is so neat, and wasn't always so true even less than 100 years ago, was that a free press is historically a rather unusual thing. That you can point to several countries like Argentina and Chile where you would have been shot for critizing the leader of the respective countries even less than 50 years ago.

I will also say that if you look around the world and see the countries where freedom is prevalent, the former British colonies are actually in pretty good shape (Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa), while the former colonies of other countries, even the USA (like Cuba and the Phillipines or Liberia), are in worse shape. Truly awful are former French colonies (like Vietnam or much of Africa).

Re:Rest of the world doesn't have free press

[Teancum]

The CIA gets blamed for so much that it is litterally impossible to seperate out fact from fiction when you are talking about what they are accused of.

While ordinary Americans may not know everything that the CIA does, when something serious does occur you had better believe that we do hear about it. The problem that you are mentioning is more a result of domestic politics in the USA trying to do something that corrupts the CIA.

Besides trying to act like James Bond, most of what the CIA does is more like journalists anyway, where they simply try to gather information and report it back to their boss. The some of the problem that the USA has had with Arab or indeed most Moslem nations is that there were no CIA employees in any of those countries that did something simple like gathering local newspapers and buying food in the local food markets to see what ordinary people thought of their government. That occasionally some James Bond type stuff does occur is true, but it is so rare that most CIA agents rarely if ever participate in such activities.

Please put away your tin hat in this case. It isn't quite as bad as you think.

Kerry wins!

[rlp]

Latest values on site show Kerry WAY out front in every country INCLUDING the U.S. So, looks like it's in the bag for Kerry. Yup, he's got it made. It's a done deal. Slam-dunk. Touch-down. Game-over. Might as well start planning the inauguration. Or running for re-election.

See ya on November 3rd ...

Whew!

[jwriney]

Thank God we live in America, not "the world".

--riney

Re:Whew!

[fiannaFailMan]

Thank God we live in America, not "the world".

Er, you do live in "the world."

Re:Whew!

[TheLink]

I think he was right by evidence of his statement alone. ;).

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression

[Slime-dogg]

Heh. Have it one way, he's cowering in a classroom. Have it another, and he's not paying attention to education.

He was safe enough in a classroom, I imagine. There isn't much anyone could have done during the attack. I think that his actions following were appropriate enough.

More odd...

[greppling]

...is that in a German web poll, nearly 70% of the voters believed that John Kerry will win the election. (And I believe that to be representative, it coincides with the general sentiment around here.)

So whereas Europeans (rightfully!!! --Added so that someone can mod me flamebait if he wants to) like to blame US citizens for their ignorance of the rest of the world, this shows that my fellow Germans are not much better informed about US politics.

So what?

[Experiment 626]

People outside the U.S. have a different agenda. What they want has no correlation to what is best for the citizens of the United States. For instance, someone with a dislike of America might favor a weak, incompetent candidate in the hopes that he might diminish America's position in the world. Likewise, Americans might favor a candidate for the French presidency who would be a yes-man and kowtow to all of the United States' policies. A French voter, however, would likely not share this priority.

An internet poll is never accurate...

[PatHMV]

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.

Re:Cheaters prosper, yet Bush fears your votes.

[BandwidthHog]

Because truth is infectious.

I used to think so, too.

This is ludicrous

[ickypoo]

Who would have known that people in New Caledonia loved David Cobb so much?

Amazingly, they don't. Why? Because some jackhole from the US just registered a vote as though he lived there. Hell, I did it twice.

Real useful, this site is.

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression

[thejuggler]

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."

diff

[Cokelee]

Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint.

Yeah, _real_ amazing.

Cambodia

[rlp]

So far Kerry has 100% of the Cambodia vote. Must of made a really big impression during his Christmas visit there.

Re:Cambodia

[dspfreak]

Yeah, but it's 100% of one vote.

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.]

Re:What nonsense

[4of12]

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.

Only because I believe - like the founders of America believed - that the governed, the people who are impacted by the decisions of governmental authority - should have some say in the selection of those who exert authority over them.

Recall the American colonies actually rebelled because we didn't get sufficient representation of our interests from an overseas government authority.

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.

No. Actually, the more compassionate and forward-thinking Americans, and foreigners, will choose based on what they think most likely to benefit not just themselves, but other Americans, and their children in the future and, yes, even people in other parts of the world.

If I was strictly choosing for myself, I'd vote to continue the tax cuts (from which I benefitted handsomely) and to let social Darwinism take its course as the unfit, the unhealthy, the very old and very young and the impoverished died in the streets.

But I tend to believe there's merit in a system that provides overall benefit to more than just myself. It's not logical, I know, but it's what I believe.

My fellow citizens are blissfully unaware of the impact of American authority abroad. They figure them crazy furriners are jealous of our Merican freedoms and prosperity and that must be the reason we're hated.

They have no idea how American power and influence are being used thousands of miles from home by our government or by our large multinational corporations.

IMHO, it's almost as bad as the delusions that North Koreans operate under. When their people ask their government how come all the famine relief bags of rice had "USA" stamped on the outside there was a simple answer: "The Americans admire and fear us, so they're sending tribute." Now, go back to listening to the state-controlled media.

Re:What nonsense

[fiannaFailMan]

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?

Newsflash. We're not talking about a game of American Football.

Re:What nonsense

[GCP]

I believe - like the founders of America believed - that the governed, the people who are impacted by the decisions of governmental authority - should have some say in the selection of those who exert authority over them

You're either intentionally or unintentionally confused about the distinction between entities that make decisions that impact us, for better or worse, and entities chosen by us to make decisions and act on our behalf.

Americans are impacted by what the Chinese, the European Union, the French, the Mexicans, the Canadians, the Japanese, etc., do. That doesn't give America the right to choose their leaders for them. (And, yes, on that basis I believe that the US had no right to take some of the actions it has taken.)

I claimed that, "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."

You flatly contradict that with a "No", and as evidence of my incorrectness you explain what the "more compassionate and forward-thinking Americans, and foreigners" would do.

Again, your muddled logic makes it difficult to even discuss this issue with you. Are you proposing limiting voting rights to only those you consider the "more compassionate and forward-thinking" subset? If so, you didn't mention it, and cherry picking electors means choosing the outcome, so why bother with an election at all?

If everyone gets to vote, then what one subset of voters might do does not refute my claim regarding who the electorate would choose unless that subset is the majority.

But if these "compassionate and forward-thinking" ("CFT") Americans you mention were in the majority, you wouldn't need the foreign "say" in the election, because the election would come out the way the foreigners wanted anyway. Since you think foreign electors are a good idea, you must not think the majority of American voters are CFTs, which means Americans would vote for their own interests, which is what I said.

So maybe your "No" only refers to non-Americans as a whole, as an electorate, being "compassionate and forward thinking", not to Americans. That would be the sort of position I've come to expect from a liberal argument, and without that position, adding their votes to the US election would be either irrelevant or bad.

I stick to my position that if the French, Russians, and Chinese could vote in a US election, they would put weakening the US as a competitor ahead of helping Americans on their priority list. They consistently take positions, both officially and in their popular press, that reflect these priorities.

What if Mexican citizens were all allowed to vote in the US (instead of just lots of them, with the help of US liberals)? Would you think they would approve of extending US taxpayer funded benefits to all Mexican nationals or to oppose it as being "too expensive"?

What would a billion Chinese voters do to any proposed human rights or labor standards or job protectionism legislation proposed *by US liberals* that the gov't of China told them was designed to "weaken China"? They'd be impacted by it. Are you sure you'd want their votes?

My vote against Bush is based on my disgust with the way he has damaged our international relations, the disrespect he has shown to other nations' peoples, and the net loss of international goodwill toward us that I blame him for. This, however, does nothing to make me think that your idea has any merit whatsoever.

Re:What nonsense

[GCP]

If you know anybody with a dictionary, ask him to look up the word "analogy" for you.

Re:What nonsense

[fiannaFailMan]

"False analogy" would be more appropriate.

Re:What nonsense

[tomee]

You are saying the system would have flaws. Well obviously it would, EVERY system so far has its flaws, this one would be no exception. The comparison to the superbowl teams is just plain wrong, since one team OPPOSES the other. It would be an accurate comparison if voters from other countries were trying to actively hurt the country in order to beat them, which is certainly not the case.

I do however think it would be unfair to have foreigners have a say on things that don't have influence on them. In my opinion there should be a compromise: The president should rule the USA and the USA only, whereas another (potentially the same) person should be in charge of the worldwide issues, and THAT person should be decided by someone worldwide. I would like to see this kind of system implemented in every country. In my view that would be the only truly democratic way to do it.

At least they show the vote counts

[JavaRob]

I noticed that Kerry and Bush are neck-and-neck in Mexico. Then I noticed that each had 13 votes -- that's even more meaningless than the US vote count at the moment.

So not that it matters much (and I suspect the numbers the site comes up with won't get too much media play)... but does anyone know what measures they're using to prevent ballot-stuffing, or lying about the country you're in?

Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel".

[Wyatt Earp]

"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.

I think it is a big deal.

[Futurepower(R)]

I know someone who was part of Dick Cheney's social circle when he worked at Halliburton. She said he was a heavy drinker and womanizer.

George Bush has said he had a serious problem with alcohol.

Both have the personalities of people who are dry alcoholics. Stopping drinking does not completely change the alcoholic's personality.

The Bush daughters have serious problems with drugs, not minor teenage experimentation problems, like you seem to have had.

Being an alcoholic is very different from being a teenage experimental drinker.

Re:I think it is a big deal.

[Wyatt Earp]

"The Bush daughters have serious problems with drugs, not minor teenage experimentation problems."

You have proof that George W. Bush's daughters have serious drug problems?

Where is it?

/. the damn election, then!

[interactive_civilian]

Well, if you can do it on a mock election site, then how about getting your (not just the parent, all of you /.ers in the US) asses off your chairs and /.ing the actual election ?

To quote the parent:

I mean how accurate can a survey be when it's posted on slashdot and not immediately reduced to a pile of smoldering rubble....

Now, imagine replacing the word survey with the word election, and then not caring about the accuracy but rather about the changes you can make.

Of course, I'm sad to see the candidate I would vote for in the real election only has 5% of the vote. After reading the summaries of all of the candidates, Nader is getting my vote this time around (it was Brown in the last election).

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression

[fiannaFailMan]

In American politics, the opinion of the rest of the world amounts to about the same as toilet water.

You sound just like your president.

Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel".

[b-baggins]

---
How do you feel about the fact that Bush's education improvements in Texas were at least partly Fraud?
---

Because we all know that CBS is the absolute pinnacle of journalistic integrity and that they would never, ever use questionable sources for a story.

This is such important information

[b-baggins]

Because we all know that other countries around the world have only the best interests of the U.S. at heart and would vote for the man who would make America even more powerful and prosperous.

Most of the insurgents are foreigners

[Catullus]

Really? Can you provide any information to back this up? ie. actual statistics, as opposed to blogs. I'd heard exactly the opposite.

Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel".

[BCoates]

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.

Iraqi results

[j1m 5n0w]

For Iraq it's now sitting at 43 Bush to 26 Kerry. Many of the asian countries show a lead for Bush, but this may be because most asians have never heard of Kerry, or Nader, or Badnarik. A large proportion of the asian votes are registered from India, which is leaning strongly towards Kerry.

This would be far more informative if they used approval voting: for each candidate, do you approve or disapprove? Maybe there should be a no opinion option as well. It would be nice to see each candidate's approval rating by region independent of the other candidates who might be running.

I also wonder how many respondents in Iraq are really American military personnel or contractors (or ballot stuffers who don't really live in Iraq). It is possible that Bush is popular with a few of the less vocal non-AK47-weilding demographic of Iraq.

Here are the results of an actual (controversial) poll of iraqis. One interesting result:

Looking back, more Iraqis think the invasion was right than wrong, although 41% felt that the invasion "humiliated Iraq".

-jim

Re:Is this a surprise?

[kaffiene]

Actually... quite the opposite is true. In NZ most people oppose Bush, yet its well known that the Republican party is more likely to agree to a free trade deal than the Democrats.

*Despite* the Democrats being worse for NZ's financial well being, the vast majority of NZr's want to see Bush out.

Embarrassing Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read the two provided bios of Bush and Kerry; there's not any doubt that the site is heavily tilted toward the latter:

(Particularly one-sided parts are bolded)

Bush:

President Bush has built his re-election campaign around his War on Terror and an economic plan based on his consistent support of tax cuts and opposition to new taxes despite the increasing budget deficit.

He supports:

* A Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between two people of the same sex
* Pre-emptive military action anywhere in the world to prevent potential threats toward the United States
* Addressing the budget deficit, if at all, by cutting government spending (except for defense spending) rather than raising taxes
* Delivering Federally funded social services and poverty aid through religious and other non-profit organizations
* Opening more forests in the US to logging and opening more Federal land to oil exploration, including the Arctic National Wilderness Reserve

He opposes:

* Permitting US citizens to be held accountable by international institutions that infringe on the sovereignty of the US, such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague
* Abortion, except where necessary to save the mother's life
* Most restrictions on gun ownership although he favors renewal of the current ban on assault weapons

Kerry:

Senator John Kerry became a national political firgure in the 1970's, when he was one of the organizers of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. A war hero himself, his called the Vietnam War a "mistake" and demanded that the US leave Vietnam. As a Senator, he has supported free trade. He led the floor fight for permanent normal trade relations with China and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million per year to a fund to fight AIDS in Africa. He has won the support of most labor and environmental groups.

He also supports:

* a woman's personal right to choose whether to have an abortion
* President Bush's War on Terrorism
* Restoring the Bush cuts to the Clean Air Act
* Increasing use of solar and wind power
* Some increased restrictions on guns and firearms, such as limits on sales of guns at gun shows
* Earned legalization of status for illegal immigrants to the US who work and pass a background check with amnesty for any illegals in the US for more than 5 or 6 years
* Repeal of part of President Bush's tax cuts to help pay down the deficit
* A continued but declining American presence in Iraq until multi-national organizations are prepared to provide the needed stability

He opposes:

* Same sex marriage
* Unilateralism in international affairs, favoring a multilateral approach with international institutions like the United Nations and with America's traditional allies
* The increased trade embargo with Cuba
* Limitations on welfare benefits for the children of legal immigrants

Re:Embarrassing Bias

[xTown]

How is "pre-emptive" one-sided? Hasn't the administration used exactly that term in its own rhetoric?

Re:Embarrassing Bias

[OMEGA Power]

The vast majority of the statements you put in bold are mere statements of fact, if they appear one-sided it is because of the horrible job the Bush administration has done and the right-wing bias in much of the American media (now, that was a one-sided statement, but I'm not claiming to be impartial).

As for what you refered to:

• despite the increasing budget deficit. When George W Bush took office there was a $236.4 Billion surplus (Source: Congressional Budget Office.) The budget deficit of $446 billion (Source: CNN.) In addition, the national debt has incressed from $5,674,178,209,886.86 to $7,347,867,800,168.01 during the Bush administration (Source: US Treasury Dept. Office of hte Public Debt)
• [Bush Supports] Pre-emptive military action anywhere in the world to prevent potential threats toward the United States " we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country...To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." -The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, written by The National Security Council and approved by George W Bush (Sept. 2002) The statement which you claim is one sided says exactly the same thing as Bush's own office policy documents.
• [Bush Supports] addressing the budget deficit, if at all, by cutting government spending (except for defense spending) rather than raising taxes "Many of the tax cuts - including the new, low 10 percent tax bracket, the reduction in the marriage penalty, the doubling of the child tax credit, the phase-out of the death tax, and the increase in small business expensing - are set to expire. This tax relief must be made permanent so families and businesses can plan for the future with confidence." Source: The Bush Line: President Bush's Record of Cutting Taxes from George W Bush's Offical Campaign Website) That sure doesn't sound like he wants to raise taxes and the only other way to balance the budget would be by cutting spending.
• [Bush Suppoorts] Opening more forests in the US to logging and opening more Federal land to oil exploration "President Bush will seek to promote environmentally sound domestic oil production" (Source: A Plan for Creating Opportunity for America's Workers, George W Bush's Offical Campaign Website) and signed the ironically named "Healthy Forest Initative" which opened a huge amount of public land for logging.

This should keep you busy for a while. I'll post more latter if I feel like it.

In foreign elections...

[SeniorDingDong]

I wonder who is running on the "I hate the Bush and the US" ticket.

If I could vote in the US

[BlightThePower]

I'd vote for the Prohibition Party because I don't like Americans.

Just kidding.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[mbrod]

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.

Missing Option: Cowboy Neal!

[CrkHead]

Seriously, the US numbers put Kerry ahead of Bush 3-1, which makes it about as reliable as a /. poll.

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression

[Slime-dogg]

And what's wrong with that? If we were continuously at the beck and call of the rest of the world, we'd no longer have our freedom. The US is the most powerful country in the world. I think that instead of bitching about it, maybe the other countries would try to notice the reasons why we are the most powerful.

Face it. If the opinion of the rest of the world mattered in American politics, the US would effectively be flushed down the toilet.

As that age-old joke goes ...

[c.ecker]

... it's OK to talk to yourself, but when you start having a conversation with yourself, it's time to either switch shrinks or up your dosage ...

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression... poser cowboys

[Slime-dogg]

My, what a savage troll.

Ask a few alcoholics. I did.

[Futurepower(R)]

You don't know alcoholics, I think. Call AA and ask them if you can speak to a recovered alcoholic.

Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel".

[True Grit]

Nice way to avoid answering the question.

The difference here, of course, is that CBS actually talked to the kids who dropped out that the Texas schools said never dropped out.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that CBS wasn't the first to report this? They were just following the New York Times, who in turn were going by a Texas Education Agency probe into some Houston schools. A google would have given you this, but nah, when it comes to protecting Bush, anything goes right?

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression

[Elkboy]

Not beyond all doubt. There is good evidence suggesting the food for oil program "scandal" was blown out of proportion by conservative anti-UN media, possibly as a diversion from shady coropate involvement.

The blame lies not with the UN, but the member states, who set up the program and knew the contracts very well. They monitored the program and ran the comittees. So said Dennis Halliday, former UN Undersecretary for humanitarian aid. French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte noted in the LA Times that the full contracts were only circulated to the United States and Britain, which had expressly asked to review them. The UN's complicity in the scandal is based on an accusation by Ahmed Chalabi, based on documents found in the Iraq Oil Ministry, that are still to be made publically available, AFAIK. Also forgotten is that the program did actually save lives that would've been lost during the harsh sanctions. Investigations into corporate connections in the "scandal" have allegedly been obstructed by the Bush administration.

Also, please make a distinction between the governments of the countries you list and their citizens. Although I am personally opposed to Bush and many of his beliefs, I do not make the mistake of assuming all americans are of his mindset.