The poll of 34,330 people older than 15 from all regions of the world found that the majority or plurality of people from 32 countries prefer Kerry to Bush.
According to the poll, Bush beats Kerry only in Nigeria, Poland, and the Philippines.
At first glance this seems like an awfully silly thing to report. Kind of like wondering how good the Packers would have been in the early 1990s if they'd drafted Barry Sanders* instead of Tony Mandarich. It's moot. They didn't draft Sanders, and people in other countries can't vote in our elections.
Taking a longer view, though, I wonder how long it will be before someone seriously suggests that the citizens of other nations should be allowed to vote in the U.S. presidential election.
The arguments: the U.S. is so powerful, so wealthy, we consume so much, stick our noses into everything. Our actions have far-reaching consequences not just for us alone, but for the entire world. Thus, everyone should have a voice in the direction U.S. policy takes.
If this was a really well-read blog, I bet somebody would link us to something from the UN or another such useless group, suggesting this very thing.
*which I quite clearly advised them to do at the time.
9 comments:
From the lead point in your post, I think that is a very scarey thing... that such a high number of people outside of the US would want Kerry as Pres of the US. I do not like Bush, or his international policies, or his attitude to the ROW. But that does sure NOT mean that I would (given the chance) vote for Kerry.
I think "NONE OF THE ABOVE" would at the moment be my first choice.
Which raises the question "What is there about the US political system that it constantly, or at least regularly, throws up such poor candidates at all levels?"
That's a little off the subject, Progiblio. I think there's already a lot of pressure for the U.S. to conform to "international opinion," whatever that is.
It's true that U.S. policy has more worldwide effect than the policies of (probably) any other single nation. I'm speculating that it won't be long before somebody says other nations should get more say in what direction our policy takes, by giving citizens of other nations a vote in our presidential election.
I meant probligo. Sorry about that. Hey, you're in New Zealand? Do you get a lot of news about our elections?
I meant probligo. Sorry about that. Hey, you're in New Zealand? Do you get a lot of news about our elections?
"*which I quite clearly advised them to do at the time." Do you have documented proof of that?
I want America to continue to lead the world as an economic powerhouse and limit her military adventures within the bounds of protecting our borders, people and, as far as commerce is concerned, the sea and air lanes. Of course, in my view that wouldn't preclude anything Bush has done with our military, but it would have precluded almost all of what Clinton did.
Al, if you'd put a tinfoil pyramid on your head like both Lance and Todd do, you would have all the documentation you'd need. Move into the enlightened millenium, will ya?
The Probligo: Low quality political candidates? Is that a Kiwicentric slap at the U.S. population? Please name some high quality political candidates from any generation anywhere and explain why you think they are superior. At first glance your question sounds like something akin to a late night talk show host pandering cheap humor. (And I know that you're not of that ilk.)
:D Not kiwicentric at all!! In fact probably the observation could be taken as universal. It certainly conforms to my experience with politics in this country...
As you ask the question.
Not in my mind when I made the comment, but two NZ examples of *good* politicians
Vern Cracknell - first Social Credit politician elected. Came from the electorate where I was living in the Far North. Succeeded in having the two major highways in the area tar-sealed. How did he achieve that as a lone and somewhat ridiculed voice in the House? He was re-elected for a second term because he was so successful. The reason for his success was the fact that the government wanted the seat back for their buddy...
The second was a government MP, centre right, from Hamilton. Local hero and all round good guy. As honest and as straight as you could get. He *just* lasted out his first term in the House. He was rejected by the party electoral committee and a car salesman replaced him. The reason for his sacking by the party? He spoke his mind about the then PM, honestly.
Lance, yes we get a reasonable level of coverage of the elections. Two major items in Saturday's paper, dealing mainly with the "service" debate.
But, don't you look for news outside of the US? I certainly look whereever I can find *reliable* sources...
Probligo, we get a reasonable amount of international political news, although it's not nearly as prevalent as, say, the opening weekend of NFL football. It's not hard to find news on big elections in other major nations, although at this moment, I couldn't probably name more than ten (wait....nope, only got four) top executives of other nations. I'm always a little surprised at how much people from other countries seem to know about the U.S.
Post a Comment