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
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)
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.
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."