If The World Could Vote

[Darth Rotor]

The best way to enlist the necessary cooperation is to give a damn what others think.

I slightly disagree. The best way to enlist the cooperation is to have something they want. From common interests can grow a deal.

What they think is a useless platitude, since within a given country, what people think varies, as it does in America.

 

[Ziggurat]

What they think is a useless platitude, since within a given country, what people think varies, as it does in America.

Furthermore, an online poll isn't even a useful indicator of such opinions. It's a completely uncontrolled sample, and has essentially zero reliability as an indicator of anything.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If the world could vote, we might see more numbnuts like John Bertrand Aristide and Hugo Chavez in office in the US.

Thanks, but no thanks. We have enough moonbats as it is.

 

[dudalb]

Anybody who takes a poll like this seriously is a fool,frankly.

 

[UserGoogol]

If the world could vote the Chinese and Islamists would fill the House and Senate with Communists and Saudi and Iranian-style Islamists (different flavor, same medieval philosophy).

What a silly question!

I think that idea is overstated. Certainly, there's a lot of unfree countries in the world, which presents a serious problem for anyone who wants to actually create a world government in the immediate future, but by various standards (Freedom House, for instance) comparatively liberal democracies rule a bit less than half of the world's population. There's obviously a bit of a difference between less than half and more than half, but I think that the unfree countries would have trouble falling behind particular candidates to implement tyrannical plans.

But I do think that the basic idea that the interests of other nations should be taken into account when picking political leaders (in both directions) is entirely reasonable. Internet polls are stupid, and there's a chunk of the population which has unreasonable political views, but the general idea seems valid.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
But I do think that the basic idea that the interests of other nations should be taken into account when picking political leaders (in both directions) is entirely reasonable. [..]

Especially if the leaders in question interfere so much in the political life of other nations..

 

[Skeptic]

The world would vote for kidnapping, imprisonment without any rights,
invading sovereign countries, war mongering, death-penalties and all
the other medieval philosophies??

Well, yes. Look how things are (or were) in Saddam's Iraq, Islamist Iran, most of the Arab world, China, most African countries, the USSR, etc., etc., etc.

The world seems to like such things. In any case it engages in them far, far more than the USA does.

 

[geni]

Well, yes. Look how things are (or were) in Saddam's Iraq, Islamist Iran, most of the Arab world, China, most African countries, the USSR, etc., etc., etc.

The world seems to like such things. In any case it engages in them far, far more than the USA does.

The example I normaly go to is ICANN. I do not like ICANN being under US control but I would prefer it under US control to it being under control of some international comittee (or any european goverment for that matter).

Control of ICANN is a rather less hypothical issue.

 

[Skeptic]

kidnapping, imprisonment without any rights,
invading sovereign countries, war mongering, death-penalties and all
the other medieval philosophies??

You've just described the USA in 1943. Okay, OKAY! Let Hitler keep Europe! Let Tojo keep China!

The USA wouldn't want to interfere with foreign contries by war mongering or anything, just because the idiot president thinks an unprovoked attacked on the USA is for some reason an act of war, and totally overreacted to it. He should have, instead, considered very carefully just what the USA had done to make Japan and Germany hate them--"root causes", you know.

And the USA certainly shoudln't have let a few lousy genocides of unwanted populations by such sovereign countries' dictators be a reason to be so judgmental against them, let alone use it in propaganda to make people hate Japanese and Germans. That's racist and all.

Sure, Hitler killed millions in Europe, and Tojo killed millions in China; but the USA has the death penalty, segregation, and even put Japanese-Americans in camps, so it has absolutely no right to tell others what to do.

So, Okay. You've convinced the USA. Enjoy your pick between life under Hitler or Stalin, Oliver. The USA had renounced its warmongering, sovereign-country-invading ways. It's only the rest of the world that hadn't done so.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Well, yes. Look how things are (or were) in Saddam's Iraq, Islamist Iran, most of the Arab world, China, most African countries, the USSR, etc., etc., etc.

The world seems to like such things. In any case it engages in them far, far more than the USA does.

Oh, boy!
If it is not black, it has to be white!!

 

[Morrigan]

No one in American should give a damn how other countries would vote for our President.

They don't live here. They don't contribute in any way. They won't have to deal with whatever changes are made within our own country.. laws, regulations, taxes. etc.

 

[GreyICE]

Please don't Godwin the thread.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[qimg]http://www.msxnet.org/humour/world-according-to-america.png[/qimg]

Ah! Ah!
Funny!!

 

[Morrigan]

Heh, his sort of ridiculously narrow, tunnel vision of his country and the world, all said with a completely straight face, just made me think of that pic.

 

[Ikarus]

Haha!

Hahaha!

Oh, Skeptic, you do not fear laws. Godwin; Poe. You eat them for breakfast. But not before you shave yourself with your trusted Hanlon Razor.

Ah yes, you have an interesting morning ritual. It is such a shame that you seem to spend the rest of your well-initiated days under a rock.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Seen this one?

http://iftheworldcouldvote.com/

Not sure if I agree with the "The president of the United States of America is the most powerful person in the world" statement but the world is watching to see how things play out.

Barack Obama 87.1% (383,019 votes)
John McCain 12.9% (56,885 votes)

Just gave me a great reason to vote for McCain.

Up yours, Rest of the World.

An American

Aside ETA: Where the hell is Pat Paulson when you need him?

 

[geni]

Heh, his sort of ridiculously narrow, tunnel vision of his country and the world, all said with a completely straight face, just made me think of that pic.

Most people have a somewhat slanted view of the world. Understanable to an extent. What is going on in berlin is more important to me on a day to day basis than say Montevideo.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, China, Russia, Iran, etc... aside,

I wonder what would happen if the ALLIES of the USA could vote. What would they say.

And of course, it is only a thought.

That said, it is very interesting to see how citizens of the most powerful country in the world react to such a notion. The anger almost bubbles up in some. How dare anyone in the rest of the world even make comment on who they think the leader of the free world should be.

You know, there may come a day, in the future, when the USA is not #1, and they may need help from the UK, or dare I say it...France. Some of the attitude seen in some of the posts above, is a great example of the same attitude that has found America's stature in the world drop.

TAM (A northerly neighbor)

 

[gtc]

Just gave me a great reason to vote for McCain.

My Conspiracy Theory says that this poll was set up by Karl Rove to get Americans behind McCain.

 

[Morrigan]

Most people have a somewhat slanted view of the world. Understanable to an extent. What is going on in berlin is more important to me on a day to day basis than say Montevideo.

Of course. But that's a far cry from saying that nobody in the rest of the world has ever had to "deal with whatever changes are made within our own country", especially when said country is the largest superpower. You only have to look at the economic crisis...