Should the whole world vote for who Becomes the US President?

[LeadSlead#2]

Hey, I got an idea!
Along with the whole world voting, let's allow people under 18 to vote too.
That way parents are representing their kids, so that a family of 7 gets more say than a family of 3.
Mickey Mouse, here we come!

 

[Kent]

Yeah, definately.
While we're at it, let's allow cell phone voting like american idol.

Also, if we could, I would like to do the same for every other country out there. I mean, fair's-fair right?
If the world could vote for the US president then maybe the US should be able to vote in the elections for every other country.

 

[Matt R]

I don't think any person knows enough about a country other than their own to place a knowledgeable vote.

 

[nk4e]

I read this post

And it says "No matter what your opinion is on Bush, saying that you'd like to see him dead is just not a good thing. You try his job for a day. Leading the world isn't easy."


Do you think its fair if Bush "is leading the world" and otehr people around the world don't have a say about who leads them?

I think thats the problem today , is for the US trying to fix everything wrong with this world , and I don't think it can be done really, as you can see I live in Saudi Arabia , the middleast has been just up and down for years , and we really don't what Bush has planned for the region which scares me to death....

I don't know if this is to the topic or not but may I remind you

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was a substantial alteration (called an "amendment") of the Monroe Doctrine by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. In its altered state, the Monroe Doctrine would now consider Latin America as an agency for expanding U.S. commercial interests in the region, along with its original stated purpose of keeping European hegemony from the hemisphere.

Back to the Topic shall we, but it would be funny to see Bush Rule the World. I don't think that he isn't a great president, but he is a good president that needs to be shown the right path, like a child.

 

[Talentless]

If US Presidents lead the world it's partially by default. Look within.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, you kinda have to blame the world for placing America at the lead of the world. Of course, WWII played a big role in that, but even Tocqueville recognised that America would become a world power in the 1830s...

 

[a6m5]

Well, you kinda have to blame the world for placing America at the lead of the world. Of course, WWII played a big role in that, but even Tocqueville recognised that America would become a world power in the 1830s...

Blame the world? Who's twisting the United States' arm to invest and have interests all over the world? U.S. has duties and roles around the world, because U.S. chose to. This is not some charity*.

*Before some smarty pants go, "yes it is, look at the Tsunami in Indonesia!"; I'm talking about the U.S. Foreign Policy in general. Even when the U.S. gives money away to somebody, it has strings attached.

 

[dbartucci]

Bill Clinton said something interesting the other day. To paraphrase him

During the cold war America provided defenses for the western hemisphere and therefore didn't have to provide aid, now that's changed and America should contribute more aid. He went as far as to say that America should provide the aid most American's think they do, around 0.7% of GDP or 60-70 billion USD, up from the current 10B now. He commented that this amount is cheaper than war. The Iraq war alone has cost Americans over 300B. We know a lot more about how to provide aid and targetted programs to improve Sub-Saharan Africa. The same strategies and aid programs that led to the rebound and growth in Korea and Germany will not work there, in part due to corruption and a lack of transparency by local and federal governments, but also due to a lack of infrastructure in physical capital and systems and processes of distribution.

 

[a6m5]

I think Bill Clinton is overrated. But now that we got that out of the way, I think he makes valid points.

 

[YSSMAN]

Blame the world? Who's twisting the United States' arm to invest and have interests all over the world? U.S. has duties and roles around the world, because U.S. chose to. This is not some charity*.

*Before some smarty pants go, "yes it is, look at the Tsunami in Indonesia!"; I'm talking about the U.S. Foreign Policy in general. Even when the U.S. gives money away to somebody, it has strings attached.

Well, it can be argued that if it was not for US leadership after World War II (one of the only major indusdrial powers not directly attacked during the war) Europe would have remained a bombed-out hell-hole. Thanks to things like the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan post WWII, we played into the hearts of our Allies by dumping money into nations worldwide.

Of course most of our worldwide involvement comes from the Cold-War era politics in which we were the "Defenders of Freedom and Liberty" from the Godless Commies. Look at conflicts like Hungary, Berlin, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc for what happened because people needed our help.

---

What I'm getting at is that there is always that feeling of either the US is doing too much, or not doing enough, and we can't ever get it right. I'd prefer it if we could reach a point in which it "isn't our problem," but given the way the world operates today, that won't happen any time soon...

But when you are the wealthiest, strongest, and most influential nation on Earth, there are responsibilities that are delegated to you that you may not enjoy.

Funny, as George Washington warned us of these "Entangling Alliances" that would cause more trouble than good. Forsight from a man who lead this young nation 230 years ago...

 

[a6m5]

What I'm getting at is that there is always that feeling of either the US is doing too much, or not doing enough, and we can't ever get it right. I'd prefer it if we could reach a point in which it "isn't our problem," but given the way the world operates today, that won't happen any time soon...

It is not something that will ever go away. If one nation is happy with the role U.S. plays, there will be another that thinks U.S. should do more, or do less, because we(everybody's governments) are all selfish. It's almost like complaining about crappy weather during the winter. You can't do anything about it.

Funny, as George Washington warned us of these "Entangling Alliances" that would cause more trouble than good. Forsight from a man who lead this young nation 230 years ago...

I didn't learn much in school, but that one did stick with me since school. I always keep that theory in mind.

 

[Pako]

No, sorry. It should be a closed vote to US citizens. That doesn't mean that other countries can't offer financial support for who they want in office.

 

[Omnis]

Bill Clinton said something interesting the other day. To paraphrase him

During the cold war America provided defenses for the western hemisphere and therefore didn't have to provide aid, now that's changed and America should contribute more aid. He went as far as to say that America should provide the aid most American's think they do, around 0.7% of GDP or 60-70 billion USD, up from the current 10B now. He commented that this amount is cheaper than war. The Iraq war alone has cost Americans over 300B. We know a lot more about how to provide aid and targetted programs to improve Sub-Saharan Africa. The same strategies and aid programs that led to the rebound and growth in Korea and Germany will not work there, in part due to corruption and a lack of transparency by local and federal governments, but also due to a lack of infrastructure in physical capital and systems and processes of distribution.

OR they could just invest the damn money into places IN THE US that need it.

 

[ledhed]

What an insane idea . Why shouldnt the US vote for who gets to run other countries instead..the world would be a hellava lot more peacefull like ...: )

 

[TheCracker]

Maybe we can vote on who we don't as US President?

 

[Speedy Samurai]

I thought it was a rhetorical question pointing out someone's idea of america's role in the world.

As for the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' idea; America has done some outstanding things, such as rebuilding Europe from the pile of rubble that was left after WW2, to doing some terrible things, such as spraying foilage killing chemicals all over vietnam, etc. I think the problem now lies in that the things that America is doing are difficult to determine as good or bad.
It could be said that removing Saddam was a good thing (of course, it was), which is overshadowed by the lack of foresight concerning post-Saddam Iraq and the insurgency and bloodshed bad).Too many things are grey and there is no real-clear good or bad anymore. Well, there is; genocide, for one, is bad. But no one cares about Africa.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well the best part about the Africa issues is that the world "demands" that something should be done and then everyone turns to the United States as if it was our problem directly. Quite frankly, it is a travesty what occurs on that continent, but we have bigger fish to fry...

So where are the Europeans in all of this? The Chinese? How about any major South American power?

If it is a "world issue" then the world needs to stand up and fight what is going on, not just look to the one country that tends to do stuff to do it once again.

 

[IH8GWB]

why should the whole world vote?

 

[nk4e]

why should the whole world vote?

So that they don't complain. That is what Diddy is also telling us but do we listen...nooooooooo.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Well the best part about the Africa issues is that the world "demands" that something should be done and then everyone turns to the United States as if it was our problem directly. Quite frankly, it is a travesty what occurs on that continent, but we have bigger fish to fry...

So where are the Europeans in all of this? The Chinese? How about any major South American power?

If it is a "world issue" then the world needs to stand up and fight what is going on, not just look to the one country that tends to do stuff to do it once again.

I agree with everything you just said.

 

[Casio]

Since the arguement that only Americans should vote has been thrown up a few times, however, a large percentage don't (Didn't only 20% of America vote for GWB?).

I'd be interested on hearing your opinions on compulsory voting, like here in Australia?

 

[TheCracker]

Well the best part about the Africa issues is that the world "demands" that something should be done and then everyone turns to the United States as if it was our problem directly. Quite frankly, it is a travesty what occurs on that continent, but we have bigger fish to fry...

So where are the Europeans in all of this? The Chinese? How about any major South American power?

If it is a "world issue" then the world needs to stand up and fight what is going on, not just look to the one country that tends to do stuff to do it once again.

Well the EU does give $20billion pa to africa and will increase this to $30bn within the next 5 years.

Whilst the US gives $4.3bn which will rise to $8.6bn within the next 5 years.

 

[YSSMAN]

Since the arguement that only Americans should vote has been thrown up a few times, however, a large percentage don't (Didn't only 20% of America vote for GWB?).

I'd be interested on hearing your opinions on compulsory voting, like here in Australia?

In 2004 over 60 Million people voted for Bush, giving him just over 50% of the popular vote, and enough votes to win the Electoral College. Now given that I don't have the numbers on how many eligible voters there are in the US, the figures get kinda screwey with a few missing pieces.

Either way, Bush beat Kerry fair and square this time, as we went without the crap that happened in 2000 between him and Gore.

...Compulsory voting? I can't happen in America (given the constitution and bill of rights), but I can't say I'm completely against it.

---

Well the EU does give $20billion pa to africa and will increase this to $30bn within the next 5 years.

Whilst the US gives $4.3bn which will rise to $8.6bn within the next 5 years.

Thanks for the figures, as I assumed we gave less overall compared to the EU. However, I think that you may not have recognized that porportionally speaking, Europe itself is giving out less money than the US. So if I was to split the costs evenly between the 25 members at the maximum rate, that would mean $1.2 billion per country... And that quite frankly is dissapointing given the position of countries like Germany, the UK, France, etc on the world scale of economics.

 

[TheCracker]

Thanks for the figures, as I assumed we gave less overall compared to the EU. However, I think that you may not have recognized that porportionally speaking, Europe itself is giving out less money than the US. So if I was to split the costs evenly between the 25 members at the maximum rate, that would mean $1.2 billion per country... And that quite frankly is dissapointing given the position of countries like Germany, the UK, France, etc on the world scale of economics.

Economically you can't really compare the US to an individual EU country. Population wise, countries like France or the UK have only a qtr of the US population. But the EU as a whole has a population roughly the same as the US (give or take 6 or 7 million). Comparing a US state to an individual EU country is a similar comparison.

 

[Talentless]

While the influence of the US is indisputably powerful, and the results not always fair and equally beneficial to all parties, this premise for allowing non US citizens a vote in the election of US Presidents is beyond reasonable expectation, no matter the adversity US policy causes non US citizens. If we are to allow for the voting of US Presidents by non citizens, then the same right should be given to us in respect to the presidencies of other nations, noting that the effects of policies towards nations is not automatically equal to that of direct voting in those nations. The comparitive lesser global significance of some nations does not negate our right to affect the outcome of presidential elections in them, based on the principle of equal treatment. The recourse of global citizens is limited by the non, or weakly, US controlled apparatuses they can set up. That is how it should be. Presidents requisite obligation is to act on behalf of their respective nations. In pursuit of that, there is an inherent affect on other nations. The policies might not always be justifiable, but that doesn't give other nations the right to place their concerns as equal to the primary concern which all presidents are obliged to pace the highest in thier lists, that of their citizens.

 

[Silverzone]

I think the only way you should be able to vote for a country's leader, you should live in that country. There's really nothing to question about it.

 

[Duke]

While the influence of the US is indisputably powerful, and the results not always fair and equally beneficial to all parties, this premise for allowing non US citizens a vote in the election of US Presidents is beyond reasonable expectation, no matter the adversity US policy causes non US citizens. If we are to allow for the voting of US Presidents by non citizens, then the same right should be given to us in respect to the presidencies of other nations, noting that the effects of policies towards nations is not automatically equal to that of direct voting in those nations. The comparitive lesser global significance of some nations does not negate our right to affect the outcome of presidential elections in them, based on the principle of equal treatment. The recourse of global citizens is limited by the non, or weakly, US controlled apparatuses they can set up. That is how it should be. Presidents requisite obligation is to act on behalf of their respective nations. In pursuit of that, there is an inherent affect on other nations. The policies might not always be justifiable, but that doesn't give other nations the right to place their concerns as equal to the primary concern which all presidents are obliged to pace the highest in thier lists, that of their citizens.

So, is that 200 words, then?

 

[DuckRacer]

So, is that 200 words, then?

Nope, that's 220.

 

[dbartucci]

Economically you can't really compare the US to an individual EU country. Population wise, countries like France or the UK have only a qtr of the US population. But the EU as a whole has a population roughly the same as the US (give or take 6 or 7 million). Comparing a US state to an individual EU country is a similar comparison.

Agreed, which is why such figures are always always quoted/compared as a percentage of GDP. But even these figures can be misleading as they include only aid by the national government. Empirically, there is some evidence that where public spending falls short private spending increases. Certainly, private donations in the US are very large. Typically, the aid figures only include dollar contributions, but something like debt forgiveness can be a huge boon to a developing country - but forgiving a debt of 10B this year won't show up in the aid contributions.

 

[YSSMAN]

^ Good point on private contributions. I think for the most part the Feds count on Americans to donate more than the Government itself does, which although may seem a bit irresponsible, it is probably better than they do it that way.

However, part of the problem is that aid orgainizations here in the US are not primarily focused on the African issues, but generally those of the Middle East and other "hot topics" of the current time. Given that it is indeed Hurricane season once again, I would expect funds from orgainizations such as the American Red Cross and other non-profit orgainizations will immediately be turned to any coastal state effected by Hurricane-X, as the states are still recovering from hurricanes that happend years ago...