If the world could vote.

The Economist has put up a similar site: Global Electoral College. Obama 8,842 McCain 31.

Most of the country by country results are the same as the "if the world could vote" website, with a couple of interesting exceptions. The Economist places the countries of Georgia and Cuba in the McCain column. Not so on the "itwcv" site. The inverse is true for Poland, Belarus, Czech Republic, Azerbajian, Guatemala, Isreal, where "itwcv" shows considerable McCain support in those countries that isn't reflected on the Economist site. Both show a surprising degree of support for McCain in Venezuela, around 38% in each. As well as in Macedonia. Both contradict recent news stories in the United States asserting that the Vietnamese support McCain (Vietnamese back the man they know).

Wow that's even more weighted towards Obama than I would guess. Way to go GOP, you have the Czech Republic, Macedonia and Burkina Faso!

Though to be fair, I imagine that the internet population is generally a bit more liberal than the general population.

If the world could vote for the next US president, then Obama is a landslide winner according to this poll.

But, I have some issues with the accuracy of this poll:

A) Some countries have an extremely small sample size. Eight votes from Algeria, for example, all for Obama. One vote from Albania - Obama. Then this site goes and colors their countries as 100% in favor of Obama instead of saying "insufficient sample size". Regardless of who leads the polls, this metric is flawed.

B) This is an Internet Poll. That means that only people with internet access can vote on it. People with internet access tend to fill a specific demographic: They have enough money to purchase internet access. We should expect the number of votes in this poll to reflect the total number of internet users, especially within english speaking countries. Two words: Selection bias.

C) This is an Internet Poll. Again. Internet users are a specific demographic which doesn't reflect a sample of the actual population. If this poll had Ron Paul as a contender eight months ago, I'd be willing to put money on a lot of Ron Paul support. Eight months ago, just by browsing around on the internet, you would have thought that Ron Paul would have been a shoo-in as the republican nominee.

D) Even if you ignore every other point I've made so far, this last one is the most clear observation that this poll is nonsense: In this poll, 71,484 people in the United States voted. 82% favor Obama. 71,484 is a HUGE sample size and it should be very indicative of the actual results, right? Yet, according to RealClearPolitics, by averaging the poll results, you get 49.9% in favor of Obama and 42.6% in favor of McCain. These numbers are the average results of twelve polls. The disparity between 82% and 49.9% leads me to believe that:

The results of this poll are meaningless.

Quote:

I guess US non Americans might have a bit of a say if this poll becomes popular.

But fortunately, they can't.

I don't care if the rest of the world votes the same way I would, or if they vote differently. The simple matter is that I don't want my leaders elected by people outside the jurisdiction.



Just like the rest of the world can't vote in the UK, Germany, France, India, Lebanon, or Iran.

If you want a vote in that country, apply for citizenship and *MOVE THERE*.

If you don't like that country's policies, there are international diplomatic routes to follow.

The reason I posted the link was to hopefully increase its popularity and thus sample size. Gallup cannot touch this type of accuracy. Well apparently they are many incarnations of this concept.

I wonder how long it would be before a popular version is manipulated by "the powers that be" after all this is a fairly powerful concept.

Quote:

Original post by try_catch_this after all this is a fairly powerful concept.

Is it really? Interesting, sure.

If you're wondering about the accuracy of it, note the US response on either site. Does it match up with well-managed US polls? If not, it's likely that similar amounts of inaccuracy span the surveyed globe. (Both of these show about 80% Obama, Gallup shows about 53%.)

Quote:

If you don't like that country's policies, there are international diplomatic routes to follow

The united states has been manipulating elections, propping up dictatorships, interfering with the trade and commerce at a whim for decades.

Are these the routes you are referring to?

Quote:

Original post by Avatar God Quote: Original post by try_catch_this after all this is a fairly powerful concept. Is it really? Interesting, sure. If you're wondering about the accuracy of it, note the US response on either site. Does it match up with well-managed US polls? If not, it's likely that similar amounts of inaccuracy span the surveyed globe. (Both of these show about 80% Obama, Gallup shows about 53%.)

Yes Thanks for repeating the problems with accuracy.

Sample size and demographics.

Selection Bias

Quote:

... Self-selection bias, which is possible whenever the group of people being studied has any form of control over whether to participate. Participants' decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, making the participants a non-representative sample. For example, people who have strong opinions or substantial knowledge may be more willing to spend time answering a survey than those who don't. ...

See also Self Selection.

Biased sample

Quote:

... Online and phone-in polls are biased samples because the respondents are self-selected. Those individuals who are highly motivated to respond, typically individuals who have strong opinions, are overrepresented, and individuals that are indifferent or apathetic are less likely to respond. This often leads to a polarization of responses with extreme perspectives being given a disproportionate weight in the summary. As a result, these types of polls are regarded as unscientific. ...

The unscientific nature of these polls does not detract from their entertainment value.

Frankly, I never understood why folks examine what the world would want with regards to an election. In fact, in the past I don't remember seeing many polls saying who Americans would prefer for elections held in foreign countries. Maybe there were some and I just missed them?

It's really a moot point though because I cannot vote for anyone in, say, France, Russia or Italy. I can only vote for folks in the US and vice versa. So what does it really prove?

Also consider that folks that are not in the US may not have the US's best interest at heart. They're all concerned about their own countries and politicians... just like US folks are mainly concerned with US problems as well. Only natural.

That isn't to say that the global community doesn't pay attention to elections of any country. They do. I just don't see much of a point in asking who they would want elected. I don't know enough about France or it's politicians to make an informed decision on who I would prefer be elected over there. I also don't have France's best interests at heart since I'm not a citizen nor do I live or work there. Of course I do not want any harm or bad times to fall on any person living on the globe either.

My point? Ask the folks that live and work where the elections are being held. They're the voices that get counted and their the ones most directly affected by the outcome.

Just my two cents.

Nate

Quote:

Original post by try_catch_this http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/ I guess US non Americans might have a bit of a say if this poll becomes popular. Barack Obama 87.2% (200,996 votes) John McCain 12.8% (29,558 votes) As October 14 2008

The problem is that there are cowpats that could do a better job of running the USA than the current incumbent. Even Sarah Palin's ignorance pales compared to the current Idiot of State. (That said, BBC Radio 4's "The News Quiz" played Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" in her honour for the satirical gift her mere presence provides.)

There's not really that much to choose between the two candidates. Barack strikes me as a bit shallow and prone to sound-bite politics, while McCain... oh where do I even begin... his pairing with Sarah Palin was an idiotic, knee-jerk reaction of the "Oh sh*t, we're gonna lose to the black guy!" variety. Which doesn't reflect well on McCain or his team. (In fairness to Palin, at least she wears her parochialism, ignorance and bigotry on her sleeve.)

If ever the US people needed proof that their two-party political system needed major overhaul, this is it. Their current administration is so dull and dimwitted, even a shard of broken glass on the street outshines it.

"Sorry Michael Palin, but you're not the funniest Palin anymore." -- John Cleese

---

I don't think Americans realize how much impact that the United States has on the rest of the world. We should be glad to hear that the rest of the world has a greater interest in our elections than we do in theirs. Sadly, it seems that we aren't aware of what a boon our elections are for brand America and our global efforts to promote democracy.

Quote:

I don't think Americans realize how much impact that the United States has on the rest of the world. We should be glad to hear that the rest of the world has a greater interest in our elections than we do in theirs. Sadly, it seems that we aren't aware of what a boon our elections are for brand America and our global efforts to promote democracy.

I disagree. I feel that most Americans still realize that we're the major super power in the world today, and have been for a while. I also am glad to see that the world is interested in US affairs, just as much of American is invested and interested in foreign affairs as well. Most Americans understand how much we impact and lead the rest of the world- at least from what I've observed. What will be interesting to see is how the dynamics change as other countries come into greater influence and standing (China and India, among Russia which seems to be making a bit of a comeback).

But going back to my original point: Folks do not wish for foreign lands best interests all of the time. Often they are invested in their own land's well being and politics. So even if most foreigners want Obama to win- does that really mean that Obama is the best choice? That Obama will be the right choice for the American people?

I don't think so. I think that answer is best left to the American people. Just like I would never assume to tell a Spaniard who to vote for. I don't have their frame of reference, interests or background as a citizen (or even a visitor!) of Spain. I think what I'm trying to say is- take the world's input with a grain of salt. Not every country wants America to remain "number 1". In fact many would love to see the US fail. Others may not have any malice against the US- but they're also not living or working in the US. So it is all relative. Long winded- sorry but I wanted to make sure it was clear. :) Hopefully, I didn't muddle too much!

Quote:

Original post by nsmadsen Frankly, I never understood why folks examine what the world would want with regards to an election. In fact, in the past I don't remember seeing many polls saying who Americans would prefer for elections held in foreign countries. Maybe there were some and I just missed them?

The major difference is that the majority of the rest of the world aren't wandering around blowing large parts of it up.

You are right in saying the rest of us don't really have the USA's best intrests at heart... well, at least not at the centre of our heart anyway, frankly if you lot are doing well then the rest of us does well so it's all nicely interconnected.. but after the first 4 years of Bush being in power we'd pretty much had enough and now 4 years later we are hoping for a better goverment who isn't likely to get us all blown up.

Granted, no one but a nut job would think that those of us outside the USA should be allowed to vote in the elections, but at the same time if you lived out here (or indeed if France was acting in the same manner) and were looking in you'd probably be thinking along the same lines. To quote Eddie Izzard; "the rest of us are just watching you and thinking 'what are you doing?'".

Quote:

Original post by nsmadsen I disagree. I feel that most Americans still realize that we're the major super power in the world today, and have been for a while. I also am glad to see that the world is interested in US affairs, just as much of American is invested and interested in foreign affairs as well. Most Americans understand how much we impact and lead the rest of the world- at least from what I've observed. What will be interesting to see is how the dynamics change as other countries come into greater influence and standing (China and India, among Russia which seems to be making a bit of a comeback).

My general impression of those who are away of the impact the USA can have is one of "we're the biggest, do it our way or we'll squish you". Pretty much the bully of the world, which is a sad thing as with that much power I guess more 'good' could have been done, however the prevailing american mindset seems to be 'our way is best' which is what dents the PR somewhat and leads to people disliking the USA in general.

I think some of you (and those in red really should know better) are taking this way too seriously.

Quote:

Excerpt from the website Do you really think the world should be able to vote? No i don't! The United States of America is an independent country. The website focuses on what would happen IF the world could vote. And lets not forget, we are only doing this for fun. Just to get the worlds opinion.

I'd love to know what people would think of our election (which is happening today). But christ, let's face it, how boring would you have to be to care about Canadian politics? The US elections are far more interesting.

Quote:

Original post by phantom The major difference is that the majority of the rest of the world aren't wandering around blowing large parts of it up.

The US is involved with two wars- as I know of them. Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq seems to have been a major blunder and you can say what you want about it. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9-11 which was a terrorist attack on the US. I feel that your sentence above is a rather extreme because other than those two wars, the US isn't "blowing large parts of it up."

Quote:

Original post by phantom You are right in saying the rest of us don't really have the USA's best intrests at heart... well, at least not at the centre of our heart anyway, frankly if you lot are doing well then the rest of us does well so it's all nicely interconnected.. but after the first 4 years of Bush being in power we'd pretty much had enough and now 4 years later we are hoping for a better goverment who isn't likely to get us all blown up.

I want Bush out of office too, but again: we're not out to blow all of you up! Please stop stating such. I believe your from the UK? (The screen is closed so sorry if you're not). What about the terrorist attacks (or the attempted ones) in the UK? We're not behind that, in fact we're trying to fight against that.

But I agree with you- we're all interconnected. We all need each other to prosper so sure, there is somewhat of an investment in the US. There is also still some folks that would love to see the US fall. So it depends on who you ask.

Quote:

Original post by nsmadsen I believe your from the UK? (The screen is closed so sorry if you're not). What about the terrorist attacks (or the attempted ones) in the UK? We're not behind that, in fact we're trying to fight against that.

Unfortuately I wouldn't be surprised if USA policy and the UK's "special relationship" with the USA didn't go some way to making us a bigger target than we might have been. Although the point here is that USA policy does affect the rest of us.

The thing which irks me the most however about all this is it took a terrorist attack to wake the US up; before that it wasn't (and probably still isn't) beyond using terrorism to forwards its aims. Lets also not forget that the IRA, who carried out a bombing campaign in the UK for 30 years, had plenty of Irish-American backers passing money to them. I probably had a point when I started that but I got distracted and now I'm going to bed.

btw, when I say 'us' I mean the human race as a whole; personally I try to look beyond imaginary lines on the world.

When I look at this I get the impression that the world really wants the US to redeem herself as far as her foreign policy and her values are concern. They want her to be a leader of the "free world".

The Bush doctrine scared a lot of people/nations. The possibility that the US can elect a black President comes across as hope that the values USA has been crusading all these years is not propaganda.