Slashdot Mirror
Mock World Vote
beaverbrother writes "As an experiment, a group of engineers from around the world created us-election.com. People over 18 from around the world can vote on the site. Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint. Kerry leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is ahead in the U.S."
You have to think though, that most of the rest of the world doesn't have access to, or at least doesn't pay attention to most of the campaigning. Much of the rest of the world will go against Bush in a heartbeat based on one or two issues because the rest doesn't affect them. Americans though are the ones that have judge based on not only all of the issues, but also how they want to be represented.
oh yeah, fp
Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint.
It's only amazing if you haven't been paying any attention for the past 2.5 years or so.
However if you have, for example, watched some television news, you could probably predict the current state of their vote reasonably well.
no thanks
This is such a sham. I don't see a single rigged Diebold machine!
It seems to me that most peoples biggest problem with Bush is the fact that he invaded Iraq, yet it seems that Iraqies themselves prefer Bush by what would be considered a landslide. (I myself voted for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik)
"Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint."
I see no reason that a citizens and residents of foreign countries would vote in our best interest. Maybe they'd vote in their best interest, and maybe their best interest would coincide with ours, but that seems far from likely. It's almost like I decide to give you check rights on my bank accounts. Yeah, you might use those rights to pay my bills for me, but you might equally well use my account to pay your bills. Given human nature, I think that the latter is more likely than the former.
So, the fact that foreign countries concerned about U.S. "dominance" would elect a president going for some kind of vague international consensus before acting doesn't seem like a suprise at all.
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.
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.
You probably shouldn't click this.
The reality is that control of Congress is not going to change with this election. The current administration is too efficient at implementing its agenda. I'd be saying this if they were all Democrats, too.
Getting opposite parties between Congress and the Presidency is one simple, overriding reason to vote for Kerry. Extremes at both ends will get blocked out by one party or the other. What *really* needs to get done will get done because both will work together on it.
Most of what both left and right really want to get done, doesn't really need to be done. The *real and immediate* needs of the country *will* get done, under thread of the voters' wrath. Unfortunately those less obvious *needs* probably won't get done, but they probably wouldn't have under same-party rule, either.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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
[Insert pithy quote here]
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."
So far Kerry has 100% of the Cambodia vote. Must of made a really big impression during his Christmas visit there.
[Insert pithy quote here]
There's merit to that argument.
Your argument that the rest of the world is exposed to more of the issues in the American campaign is not only wrong but irrelevant.
Whatever issues they consider, Americans will choose based on what they think most likely to benefit themselves, Americans, and non-Americans will choose based what they think most likely to benefit themselves, non-Americans.
Whether correctly or not, the French and Russians tend to blame their waning importance in the world on America. Certainly the Chinese feel that if it weren't for America, the violent crushing of Taiwan's multiparty democracy would be a fait accompli. Yes, the choice of American President seems to have a big impact on them, so you think that means there's merit in letting them have some say in who should lead America.
By that argument, wouldn't there be some merit in letting the opposing team have some say in who your team's quarterback will be in the Superbowl? Wouldn't your choice have a big impact on them? Isn't that criterion sufficient to give the idea merit? I hear this silly blather all of the time from "enlightened" liberals. "Neanderthal" conservatives don't fall for it (though they fall for a lot of other foolishness).
And while it's true that there are many ways in which nations cooperate as well as compete, there is no reason to assume that the decisions of the vastly more numerous "happily uninformed, strongly-opinionated and emotionally-swayed peasants" in the rest of the world would put helping Americans high on their priority lists. There are plenty of people in the world who would argue that they were only being cooperative when they concluded that, "it would be better for BOTH of us if things were better for ME and worse for YOU."
It's not who is "exposed to more issues" or who is influenced in some way by the choice that matters. If you aren't motivated to help Americans, Americans shouldn't be very interested in your electoral preferences, except in the form of a warning. If the French, Russians, or Chinese felt that Kerry would be best for *them*, would that automatically make Kerry more likely to be best for Americans?
[And if you reply by simply bashing Bush, you are logic impaired. I OPPOSE Bush, but that is irrelevant to the above argument.]
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
"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.
Free press in the US? Give me a break!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.