Mock World Vote 262
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."
Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:5, Insightful)
oh yeah, fp
Not really... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:1, Insightful)
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 !
Bush not ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm voting for Badnarik [badnarik.org] and the Libertarian Party [lp.org].
Chris
Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:5, Insightful)
Different Incentives, Different Results (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
There's merit to that argument.
Stupid site not worthy of slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
- 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'mnotdisclosi
n 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.Forget biases, plans, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (Score:1, Insightful)
Betcha anything that the "Iraqis" who voted are actually American Republicans trying to change perceptions.
Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:3, Insightful)
Do some research, go to Kerry's Website [johnkerry.com] 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.
Before the comments start... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:3, Insightful)
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"!
Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
An internet poll is never accurate... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Fear... Anger... Aggression (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
What nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel". (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel". (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.