Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government

Mock World Vote 262

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-does-everyone-else-think dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mock World Vote

Comments Filter:
  • by captnitro (160231) * on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:33PM (#10268270)
    This website brought new light to the many third parties we have in this country. I, for one, will be voting for Charles Jay [charlesjay.com], boxing promoter, and Marilyn Chambers, porn star, for the next President and Vice President of the United States.

    God bless democracy.
    • by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:58PM (#10268607) Homepage
      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 [wired.com] 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" [johnkerry.com] 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 [washingtonpost.com] in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths [washingtonpost.com], but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.
  • by nes11 (767888) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:33PM (#10268274)
    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
    • Not to mention, Americans have a vested interest. Whoever wins the elctions effects our lives much more than most foreigners.
    • 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.
      • 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. elec

    • 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 awa

    • 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 $ [wired.com]
      • 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 real
    • 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.

    • by 4of12 (97621) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:10PM (#10268751) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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 tha
      • What nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GCP (122438) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @05:52PM (#10271606)
        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.]


        • 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 interest

          • Re:What nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)

            by GCP (122438)
            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 Fre
        • 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.
    • And look how many people from the Vatican [us-election.com] have already voted!
    • 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"!
    • 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.
    • by Darth_Burrito (227272) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @05:02PM (#10271110)
      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.....
      • 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

  • Dumb (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jacoberrol (561252)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Boglin (517490)
      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... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PeteyG (203921) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:35PM (#10268300) Homepage Journal
    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... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Baloo Ursidae (29355)
      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.
  • Bush not ahead (Score:2, Insightful)

    by alatesystems (51331)
    According to the results [us-election.com] 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 [badnarik.org] and the Libertarian Party [lp.org].

    Chris
  • by snowtigger (204757) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:44PM (#10268428) Homepage
    But already after 5 posted comments, Kerry leads overwhelmingly with 72% against 20% for Bush in the US as well ...
  • ...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
  • by clambake (37702) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:45PM (#10268441) Homepage
    This is such a sham. I don't see a single rigged Diebold machine!
  • by voisine (153062) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:50PM (#10268510)
    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)
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • This isn't very useful information considering a universe of 65 votes.
    • 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 [iraqthemodel.com] and other Iraqi blogs for supporting evidence.

      D
  • by mschaef (31494) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:57PM (#10268600) Homepage
    "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.
  • Top 10 Reasons (Score:5, Informative)

    by funny-jack (741994) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:01PM (#10268636) Homepage
    Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

    10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think [guardian.co.uk].
    9. He's got better hair [msn.com].
    8. John Kerry will personally create [msn.com] thousands of jobs in America.
    7. He has a plan [kansascity.com] for America's future. I think.
    6. George Bush stole the last election [florida2000election.com].
    5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam [johnkerry.com].
    4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical! [cbsnews.com]
    3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best [cbsnews.com].
    2. Didn't he get [johnkerry.com] some [johnkerry.com] medals [johnkerry.com] in Vietnam?
    1. He's [anybodybutbush2004.com] Not [anythingbutbush2004.com] George [anybodybutbush.info] Bush! [50megs.com] (TM) [moveon.org]


    Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

    10. George Bush is Tough [usatoday.com] on Terrorism [whitehouse.gov].(TM)
    9. He supports educating children. [csmonitor.com]
    8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people [216.239.41.104]. Personally.
    7. He will lower your taxes [cnn.com].
    6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001 [september11news.com].
    5. John Kerry's medals are fakes [freerepublic.com].
    4. Those CBS memos were forged [typepad.com], duh.
    3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most [cbsnews.com].
    2. He's not as rich as [factcheck.org] John Kerry.
    1. George Bush will keep America safe [msn.com].
    • 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 (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cecil (37810)
        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
        • 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.

    • 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.) [newsmax.com]
  • 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?
  • 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..
  • 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

    • 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
    • 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.
  • by fnord123 (748158) * on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:13PM (#10268784)
    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.
  • by dalutong (260603) <djtansey@g m a i l . c om> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:52PM (#10269263)
    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.
    • 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
      • 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.
        • 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 t
  • Another site (Score:3, Informative)

    by rakerman (409507) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:06PM (#10269457) Homepage Journal
    BetaVote.com [betavote.com] does the same thing.
  • Sad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JCMay (158033)
    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.
  • 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,
  • Kerry wins! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:28PM (#10269712)
    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 ...
  • by jwriney (16598)
    Thank God we live in America, not "the world".

    --riney
  • More odd... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by greppling (601175) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:53PM (#10270137)
    ...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.

  • 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.

  • by Cokelee (585232)
    Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint.

    Yeah, _real_ amazing.

  • Cambodia (Score:4, Funny)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @05:18PM (#10271292)
    So far Kerry has 100% of the Cambodia vote. Must of made a really big impression during his Christmas visit there.
  • 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.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...