Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mock World Vote

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the what-does-everyone-else-think dept.

Politics 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."

cancel ×

262 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thank YOU, us-elections.com (2, Funny)

captnitro (160231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268270)

This website brought new light to the many third parties we have in this country. I, for one, will be voting for Charles Jay [charlesjay.com] , boxing promoter, and Marilyn Chambers, porn star, for the next President and Vice President of the United States.

God bless democracy.

Site is incredibly biased... (4, Interesting)

PatHMV (701344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268607)

Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.

You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion [wired.com] in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" [johnkerry.com] than "free trade".

How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage [washingtonpost.com] in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths [washingtonpost.com] , but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.

Re:Site is incredibly biased... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10269170)

the clearly biased BBC

If you bothered to spend any time examining BBC editorial policy their right wing bias would become obvious (especialy now that the BBC is getting ready to sell to a Big Media corporation).

Observe their playing puppet for fascist mouthpieces. Observe their aggressive, derogatory 'interviews' with anyone to the left of Hitler. Observe the lack of WMD in Iraq (including any 45 minute ready-bake-nukes). Observe the viscious spiral that is now Iraq (how many dead and wounded, how many billions stolen, how many war crimes committed, how many Generals now admit the mistakes). Observe the corporate cheerleading.

Is your problem with the BBC really that they manage to let a little truth leak out to the sheeple once in a while?

How do you feel about Bush draft dodging? How do you feel about Bush lying his way into conquest, at the cost of many lives? How do you feel about Bush being so incredibly fiscally inept? How do you feel about Bush being a cheerleader in high school, growing up as an elite North Eastener, posing cowboy, and finally revealing Republicans for the immoral, heretical, sleezebags that they are?

Return those 40 pieces of gold, embrace truth.

Re:Site is incredibly biased... (0, Flamebait)

rosie_bhjp (40538) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269984)

As opposed to living IN the US and getting your news from the clearly biased Fox News. (Remember when Hannity got caught editing transcripts of interviews to change what a person said?)

Those stats don't really mean much though (5, Insightful)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268274)

You have to think though, that most of the rest of the world doesn't have access to, or at least doesn't pay attention to most of the campaigning. Much of the rest of the world will go against Bush in a heartbeat based on one or two issues because the rest doesn't affect them. Americans though are the ones that have judge based on not only all of the issues, but also how they want to be represented.

oh yeah, fp

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Insightful)

nharmon (97591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268368)

Not to mention, Americans have a vested interest. Whoever wins the elctions effects our lives much more than most foreigners.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268463)

Well put, I am so sick of people both in the US and around the world thinking that who China wants elected should matter..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (4, Funny)

nharmon (97591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268658)

Poll around my office: Nobody here cares who China elects.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268789)

And yet people point at the fact that Kerry is winning in the world as if it matters

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268869)

Poll around my office: Nobody here cares who China elects.

Would any of them care if Saddam was still in charge of Iraq?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (4, Insightful)

recursiv (324497) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268571)

I'd wager that there are plenty of people in occupied Iraq whose lives would be more affected than mine will.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Informative)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268632)

How so Kerry's plan is to send more US troops over..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268707)

Kerry has at least announced a timeframe to try and get troops out. (4 years) The mere existence of a withdrawal time, the fact that the US plans to NOT have an indefinite occupation, might itself help things there.

Actually, they might have helped things there a year ago.
The place looks pretty hopeless, now. We've done an absolutely horrible botch-job over there.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269013)

Kerry has at least announced a timeframe to try and get troops out. (4 years) The mere existence of a withdrawal time, the fact that the US plans to NOT have an indefinite occupation, might itself help things there.

Thats not a plan, I can say I have a plan to get out in two weeks. Anyone who has followed John Kerry knows a four year promise is worthless because he always has a reason to change his mind (ala Yucca Mountain, and kerrys yes vote on the screw nevada bill)..

Frace has nobody in Iraq and yet there citizens are in danger because of a head scarf ban, do you really think us saying well only be here 4 years will stop the few people still doing suicide bomb attacks...

True, however (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269027)

66% of respondents who claim to be from Iraq say they prefer bush. In fact, it's the only other country other then Israel where a majority are Bush supporters (the US tally now sits at 70% Kerry).

I don't think that's too accurate, though.

By the way, anyone else think it's ironic that this site only comes in English?

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (4, Insightful)

fini (571717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268697)

Not to mention, Americans have a vested interest. Whoever wins the elctions effects our lives much more than most foreigner
Err, go say that to all those fine people in Bagdad. What the POTUS thinks and does has much more influence on them than on me, here in Kalifornia (yeah, we pick Autrian bodybuilders as ubersupremo over here but at least we have a say). I'm sure lots of Iraqi would love to vote on Nov 2nd and that it would greatly matter to them :).

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (0)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269131)

If Iraw was allowed to vote in November, Bush would win by a huge majority of the popular vote. The vast majority of Iraq prefers Bush because they know Kerry wouldn't have had the balls to ever do anything at all. They may be frustrated about alot of things, but 90% of the country prefers Iraq today when compared to life under Saddam. It's a very small minority that is causing the problems. Just like the minority of tree-huggers in california starting fires to save trees.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

fini (571717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269389)

Gee, do not be so partisan ! I'm not saying anything on how Iraqi would vote. Actually, I have no idea on how they would vote, the news coverage on Iraq being so bad. I'm just pointing to the fact that, right now, the POTUS as much more influence on the life of the ordinary Iraqi than on the life of the average American. That's that. No point being shrill...

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269424)

good point. i guess my response was more aimed at so many of the other posts that bash bush first, then think about it later. if you support the guy, it's hard to not to be overly defensive around here.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1, Insightful)

pruneau (208454) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268400)

Nice Troll, sucker.

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 !

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269074)

WTF ? That bush moron and his family/host of politial friends are establishing a military dictature and waging war on foreign countries.

Yea cause its not like Iraq invaded a neighbor, was defeated and then violated the terms of a cease fire..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269293)

and then violated the terms of a cease fire..

I'd point out that it's never been proven that Iraq actually violated the terms of the cease fire- only that Saddam wanted to. Intention is not equal to action, no matter how much you want it to be.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269428)

The weapons inspectors they kicked out *WERE* a condition of the cease fire. Also in 1998 I did not see crying and gnashing of teeth when Clinton used the same thing to bomb Iraq..

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269761)

The weapons inspectors they kicked out *WERE* a condition of the cease fire.

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).

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270275)

2nd reply- even though it was Bush that kicked out the Weapons Inspectors, I always thought that we should have been arming the weapons inspectors with a combination laser range finder and GPS transciever- so that if they were denied access to a builting, it would be very simple to "paint" the building for later demolition by cruise missile.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Interesting)

cs02rm0 (654673) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268407)

I don't think the rest of the world has as much access to the campaigning but should be aware of more than one or two issues with Bush. The website provides links to their websites for the campaign propaganda.

I wasn't surprised Bush had so little vote from the UK, we all think he's thick as pig shit. What did surprise me was that in France and Germany, who politically were so set against the war in Iraq he has a sizable chunk of the vote - I believe 36% in France, 45% in Germany.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268619)

Did you notice that there are less than a hundred votes in france and less than two hundred in germany? Not exactly a good sample...

Vote early and Vote often (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269103)

Of course web polls are self-selective, and this poll even asks where you live, so someone living in Iowa could vote 20 times as a Frenchman just because, it'd be funny to see Bush 'winning' in France. Hell, I even gave it a thought, (and I support Kerry!). With so few people voting you can make some intersting results and completely dominate some smaller countries. Of course the posting on Slashdot has probally doubled the results (a least), but it's still kinda fun.

Oddly enough most of the U.S. election poll are based on result from interviews with less than 1,000 people.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

fini (571717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269212)

I was quite surprised too when I first saw Bush votes on the Continent and then 2 things occured to me:
- The sample size is small and easy to manipulate. (well, duh)
- France and Germany have become so anti-american that they actually wish 4 more years of Bush for America.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Interesting)

mattgorle (807823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268443)

It's true that we don't have much access to your presidential campaign materials. More accurately, we don't see the US Presidency candidates marching up and down the counties of England (and a good thing too!).

Saying that though, we (being outside of the United States) are perfectly capable of reading about what's going on in the US. In fact, I come across a staggering amount of American news in my day -- staggering not because it's there, but because there's so much of it for a country that's so far away. By contrast, I rarely hear about what's going on in other parts of the EU (in which I live).

So, to come to my point, I agree that those of us outside the US would vote based on less issues than an informed person inside the US. However, I disagree that not paying attention to most of the campaigning has a lot to do with it. We're perfectly capable of reading manifestos and proposed policy documents which, in my case, is preferable anyway.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268476)

"We're perfectly capable of reading manifestos and proposed policy documents"

Sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that the information wasn't available & that you couldn't look at it. Just that most probably don't. Why would you want to? I don't know anything about political candidates in most other countries.

Plus the site is really, really biased... (1)

PatHMV (701344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268479)


Read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.

While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion [wired.com] in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" [johnkerry.com] than "free trade".

Forget biases, plans, etc (3, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268791)

The reality is that control of Congress is not going to change with this election. The current administration is too efficient at implementing its agenda. I'd be saying this if they were all Democrats, too.

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:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268483)

Much of the rest of the world will go against Bush in a heartbeat based on one or two issues because the rest doesn't affect them. Americans though are the ones that have judge based on not only all of the issues, but also how they want to be represented.
Yes, the rest of the world are focused on only one one or two issues, but so do most Americans. Few people look at the big picture. That's why there is much talk about Kerry's need to focus on a single main issue.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

mschaef (31494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268734)

"That's why there is much talk about Kerry's need to focus on a single main issue. "

But Kerry has focused on a single main issue: that he's not George Bush.

The problem with the issue he picked is that, while it does a hell of a job energizing his base, it does nothing to tell moderate swing voters like myself why they should vote for him.

Of course, this all probably stems from the monomaniacal dedication of all of the Democrats during the primary cycle to be "Not Bush".

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268902)

But Kerry has focused on a single main issue: that he's not George Bush.
No, that's what you have focused on, perhaps becuase that what the news outlets you view focus on. Have you ever heard him speak, almost always he goes over a number of issues, and in fact took great pains not to even mention Bush in the Democratic Convention. On the other hand Bush has been running very negitive ads against Kerry for months now, in fact a Bush ad on FoxNews.com was worded "Keep Kerry Out [give Bush $50]", and he was negitively mentioned many, many times by every Republican speaker.

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.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

mschaef (31494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269152)

"No, that's what you have focused on, perhaps becuase that what the news outlets you view focus on."

Could it also be that _every_ Democrat I've spoken with has emphasized that they'd vote for anybody but Bush. That's been the theme this entire election cycle, back to before the first primary.

"Have you ever heard him speak, almost always he goes over a number of issues, and in fact took great pains not to even mention Bush in the Democratic Convention."

Which I did watch (along with the GOP convention).

"Do some research, go to Kerry's Website [johnkerry.com] and find out what he stands for,"

I have found out what he stands for: a bunch of bad ideas, equally as bad as Bushies'.

"rather than waiting for it to be spoon feed to you by some poster on a tech forum. "

While it might be easier for you to believe that I don't have a validly formed and researched opinion, I assure you that if I was waiting to here it from "some poster on a tech forum", I wouldn't be posting my opinion, I'd be reading it.

For what it's worth, I was really hoping Kerry would at least scare the hell out of Bush this cycle. Bush, despite his 2000 campaign, has turned out extreme enough (likely thanks to his staff) he needs to be counterbalanced.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269758)

Um, no. First, I'm not going to go to either candidates side and let them list all the ways they are great. That's ridiculous.

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 (1)

PatHMV (701344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270104)

No, Kerry went to great lengths to avoid mentioning President Bush by name. Almost every convention speech was full of barely-veiled suggestions that he has lied or misled us into the Iraq war.

And it was hardly an accident that Michael Moore was seated next to former President Jimmy Carter. All these things were part of a carefully calculated (but ineffective) attempt by the Democrats to let the nasty heavy lifting of calling Bush a liar be done by surrogates such as Moore and Whoopi Goldberg, or by indirection, so that they could be negative without getting labelled as being negative.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

maja33 (703220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268750)

You are right. In the Netherlands there is only interest for the international issue's of the Bush/Kerry campaign. It is very informative to see all those other viewpoints and candidates.
At the last US elections my co-workers joked that we (Dutch/rest of the world) should be able to vote 'because it is our President too'.

Personally, I thought I would vote for the Socialist Party USA because a party with that name must be like the Social Democrats in the Netherlands. I was very wrong; too (left-)extreme.

I probably would vote Nader because Kerry is too conservative, or even the Libertarian Party ('alien'for a Social Democrat voter but some very good points).

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (4, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268751)


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:

that the leader of the US has such an influence on the remainder of the world that it would be appropriate, in the representative democratic sense, for the remainder of the world to have some say on the choice of the American leader.

There's merit to that argument.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268962)

The rest of the world is welcome to try to become states within the US, but unless they do, no, there isn't really much merit to that argument.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10269109)

that the leader of the US has such an influence on the remainder of the world that it would be appropriate, in the representative democratic sense, for the remainder of the world to have some say on the choice of the American leader.
just like how the leader of Microsoft has such an influence on the remainder of the computing world that it would be appropriate for people who are not Microsoft shareholders to have some say on the choice of the Microsoft leader.

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10269296)

I completely disagree about merit to that argument. Unless it comes down to physical force (which the US doesn't threaten to any significant portion of the world), every country on this planet has a choice whether to work with the US or not.

Trade with the US or don't. Talk in political forums with the US or don't. Help the US or don't. Any "scratch my back I'll scratch yours" games that the US plays with other nations may be considered unsavory (with good reason in *some* cases), but overall nobody is forcing any other country to do anything. Other countries cooperate with the US because they have a lot to gain, which is what happens when peers help each other.

If other countries decide that the benefit of cooperating and helping the US isn't enough to compensate for the downsides, it's their choice to ignore us. Any effect we have on other nations is directly decided by these other nations.

As a note, before anyone trolls me on indirect effects the US has on another nation, consider that the middleman in the indirect effect is also making a choice of their own; to argue against the indirect influence is to argue against the freedom of the middle nation.

Cheers!

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

mschaef (31494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269859)

"that the leader of the US has such an influence on the remainder of the world that it would be appropriate, in the representative democratic sense, for the remainder of the world to have some say on the choice of the American leader.

There's merit to that argument."

No there's not. The U.S.' representative government represents U.S. citizens. Imagine that.

I can't even begin to imagine the hell other countries would raise if we requested some kind of voting rights in countries on the UN Security Council or in the G8 economic summit.

Hey Jean-Pierre, U.S. citizens should have a say in the next French election... :-)

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (1)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268989)

And look how many people from the Vatican [us-election.com] have already voted!

Re:Those stats don't really mean much though (2, Insightful)

pudge (3605) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269377)

It is not that the stats do not mean "much," it is that they mean nothing at all.

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"!

Dumb (2, Interesting)

jacoberrol (561252) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268292)

The overwhelming majority of votes are from North America, where Kerry supposedly holds a commanding lead. This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.

Re:Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268389)

...This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.
other 'news'; water is wet and, ice is cold

Re:Dumb (1)

pilybaby (638883) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268633)

This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.

Give it time, you get better results with the more people who vate, and so far that's very little. Also remember that posting on slashdot may bias the results because it'll get hit so much and slashdotters may fall into a particular pidgeon hole with regards to political views.

Re:Dumb (1)

jacoberrol (561252) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268792)

I disagree. The only people who particiapate are volunteers who have an internet connection and happened to see a link to this site. This is not exactly a cross-section of the world population.
Furthermore, of the 5,198 votes cast, 4,476 are from the US. If this were a true indicator of public opinion, the results should be much closer to reality (ie 52-41)

Biased by promotion... (1)

thejuggler (610249) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268983)

This is the first time I heard about this. I'm thinking it is being promoted in more liberal circles.

Also shows that these web polls are very inaccurate and can be padded just by promoting in certain places.

Post this same link on Rush Limbaugh's website and watch the numbers change in the other direction.

Not really... (3, Insightful)

PeteyG (203921) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268300)

Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint.
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.

according to the site right now.... (0)

whiteSanjuro (693864) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268406)

this is the deal... [us-election.com]
BUSH:
870 Votes
20%
KERRY:
3,154 Votes
72%

how does this match the story text of "Kerry leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is ahead in the U.S."?

Re:according to the site right now.... (1)

nes11 (767888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268448)

well, 72 is bigger than 20. so kerry leads on the site. but actual polls of the public in the US show Bush leading.

Re:according to the site right now.... (1)

russelldad (811883) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268467)

>> how does this match the story text of "Kerry >> leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is >> ahead in the U.S."? I think the author means that in the actual US polls (as opposed to the website in question) Bush has a slight lead.

Yeah, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10269627)

Kerry and Bush are running neck and neck in Iran!

Don't forget the Net-Savvy bias (1)

phyy-nx (544808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268411)

Sites like this always bug me. Sure Kerry is winning outside of the US... among people who have a) have internet access b) have heard of kerry/bush c) have stumbled accross the website for some reason d) care enough about either party to actually take time to cast a vote (this is known as polarization bias).

Seriously, how can you compare this to a real poll among a representive portion of U.S. population (even if there is a "people who own phones" bias in our polls)?

Bush not ahead (2, Insightful)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268422)

According to the results [us-election.com] at the current moment, bush only has 20%, while Kerry has 72%. I guess the slashdotting brought in the liberal(progressive) crowd to the site.

I'm voting for Badnarik [badnarik.org] and the Libertarian Party [lp.org] .

Chris

Must be the slashdot effect ... (2, Funny)

snowtigger (204757) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268428)

But already after 5 posted comments, Kerry leads overwhelmingly with 72% against 20% for Bush in the US as well ...

Certainly not a true indicator... (1)

jbarr (2233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268431)

...because of its inherent flaws:

-you have to know about the site as opposed to the General Election where basically EVERYONE knows how and where to vote

-there is no true validation of age, so you will no doubt see many votes representing MANY underaged voters

-you could vote multiple times because there is no specific validation

Not ahkurate! (4, Funny)

clambake (37702) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268441)

This is such a sham. I don't see a single rigged Diebold machine!

I just voted from Denmark! and Iraq! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10270242)

The system relies on self-reporting to determine what country you are in. It just let me (in the U.S.) register and vote from Denmark. And then it let me register again and vote from Iraq. So there's no guarantee that U.S.-based Democratic activists aren't casting votes for Kerry left and right all over the world.

Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (4, Insightful)

voisine (153062) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268510)

It seems to me that most peoples biggest problem with Bush is the fact that he invaded Iraq, yet it seems that Iraqies themselves prefer Bush by what would be considered a landslide. (I myself voted for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik)

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268680)

If you actually believe that site.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (1)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268704)

"The Iragis themselves" being the 64 people who took part in this poll?

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268881)

It seems to me that most peoples biggest problem with Bush is the fact that he invaded Iraq, yet it seems that Iraqies themselves prefer Bush by what would be considered a landslide.

Betcha anything that the "Iraqis" who voted are actually American Republicans trying to change perceptions.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (1)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269992)

...or, the 64 persons who voted as Irakis are american soldiers stationed there.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (2, Insightful)

britrock (684244) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268891)

It does not suprise me that the very small percentage of people in iraq that have internet access would vote for bush. In the US and other similar contries you can argue that an internet poll is at least a little bit acurate. That is most definitally false in a country like iraq though.

An internet poll is never accurate... (2, Insightful)

PatHMV (701344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270364)

Not accurate for anything other than registering the views of those who choose to participate, at any rate. There is an extreme self-selection bias, for one thing.

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:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (1)

Universal Nerd (579391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270024)

This isn't very useful information considering a universe of 65 votes.

Re:Iraq: 61% Bush, 39% Kerry (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270170)

Most of the insurgents are foreigners, linked to Al Queda. The Iraqi-on-the-street appreciates our role in getting rid of Saddam, but is cynical about how we are doing at combatting the insurrections.

The consensus in-country seems to be that we're not tough enough on them.

See Iraq the Model [iraqthemodel.com] and other Iraqi blogs for supporting evidence.

D

Is this a surprise? (0, Flamebait)

Nagatzhul (158676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268559)

We want what is best for us. That, according to the common polls right now, is viewed as Bush. The rest of the world wants what is best for them. They want the hand outs which are going away under Bush, but is perceived to continue under Kerry as he is viewed as more socialist than Bush. People are voting for their self-interest.

Different Incentives, Different Results (3, Insightful)

mschaef (31494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268600)

"Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint."

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.

Top 10 Reasons (4, Informative)

funny-jack (741994) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268636)

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think [guardian.co.uk] .
9. He's got better hair [msn.com] .
8. John Kerry will personally create [msn.com] thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan [kansascity.com] for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election [florida2000election.com] .
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam [johnkerry.com] .
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical! [cbsnews.com]
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best [cbsnews.com] .
2. Didn't he get [johnkerry.com] some [johnkerry.com] medals [johnkerry.com] in Vietnam?
1. He's [anybodybutbush2004.com] Not [anythingbutbush2004.com] George [anybodybutbush.info] Bush! [50megs.com] (TM) [moveon.org]


Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

10. George Bush is Tough [usatoday.com] on Terrorism [whitehouse.gov] .(TM)
9. He supports educating children. [csmonitor.com]
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people [216.239.41.104] . Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes [cnn.com] .
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001 [september11news.com] .
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes [freerepublic.com] .
4. Those CBS memos were forged [typepad.com] , duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most [cbsnews.com] .
2. He's not as rich as [factcheck.org] John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe [msn.com] .

Re:Top 10 Reasons (1)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268979)

Any top 10 reasons to vote for a candidate should not include reasons why not to vote for any other candidate. It is superfluous and shows how little your candidate has to offer the voters.

Grow up and stop the DNC/GOP politicking and vote third party.

Re:Top 10 Reasons (2, Informative)

Cecil (37810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270095)

I think that was the idea behind the original post, get your sarcasm meter checked.

Besides that, I'm with you. Vote third party. Even if they don't win, it's the only way you'll actually create change. It's a long term goal, not a win-this-election goal. If democracy is only really open to people with a few specific sets of ideas, that's not democracy, it's a game of 'pick your poison'.

Up until lately, I felt the same way about Canadian politics. Despite our 4 major parties, the floor was very much closed to the voices on the edges (never underestimate the people at the ends of the political spectrum, they may not be big, but they literally *define* the center) and even to the two smaller major parties. However, I was heartened by the fledgling Green party's good showing in the last election, as well as the two smaller parties, so I have some hope for the system again.

Anyway, good luck USA, we're all worried about you. :P

Re:Top 10 Reasons (1)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270196)

I wish english still was able to diferrentiate between you and ye. It's a whole lot more difficult on the forum to say YOU and get across the meaning as being ya'll rather than ye.

And the Carribean votes... Parker?!?!? (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268699)

Did anyone else notice that Parker was winnin by a landslide in the carribean? What's up with that? Is Parker from that area of the world or is he famous there?

Re:And the Carribean votes... Parker?!?!? (1)

BigBadaboom (122579) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269130)

Err... go back to the site and have another look at the pictures of the candidates. Notice anything different about Parker?

Re:And the Carribean votes... Parker?!?!? (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269978)

Err... go back to the site and have another look at the pictures of the candidates. Notice anything different about Parker
It's pretty Californian of me not to notice that he was the only African-American (a misnomer to be saved for another discussion) cantidate. It didn't even occur to me until you pointed it out... sorta. Or could it be that he's pro-Stalinist Communism and pro-Cuba? It just struck me as very odd that some guy I've never heard of would utterly demolish the numbers for the Two Standard Choices(TM) even in this very un-scientific poll.

Bad sampling (1)

poincaraux (114797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268701)

It's hard to believe that the sampling is any good when this site's results have Kerry up 72% to 20% among USA voters..

Re:Bad sampling (1)

Enucite (10192) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269323)

A web-only survey with bad sampling?

That's impossible!

Fear... Anger... Aggression (1)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268774)

George W. is a feared man. He doesn't lay any bed of crap about what his intentions are, or what he's going to do. We've gone through these four years knowing exactly what he was up to, and he's done it whether we protest it or not. This is the reason for fear.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to aggression, aggression leads to the dark side. They fear him, they are angry with him, and now, albeit puny, they've aggressively "voted" against him.

It's amusing, though. The votes online are mostly from the US, where it's more likely that the web surfing learned are going to put in a vote for Kerry, and the untech people don't have that representation.

As long as the dems don't pass a law that makes it legal for non-citizens to vote, we'll be ok. Take everything else with a grain of salt, and a shrug of the shoulders. In American politics, the opinion of the rest of the world amounts to about the same as toilet water.

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10269314)

He doesn't lay any bed of crap about what his intentions are, or what he's going to do. We've gone through these four years knowing exactly what he was up to, and he's done it whether we protest it or not.

Is that why pom-pom-Bushie cowered in a grade school classroom, waiting for someone to tell him what to do, while his nation was under attack, by a known enemy, using predicted means?

Are you really that ignorant or just paid to be that turfy on /.?

Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression (1)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270113)

Heh. Have it one way, he's cowering in a classroom. Have it another, and he's not paying attention to education.

He was safe enough in a classroom, I imagine. There isn't much anyone could have done during the attack. I think that his actions following were appropriate enough.

Stupid site not worthy of slashdot (2, Insightful)

fnord123 (748158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10268784)

The mock world vote site is a stupid waste of time for many reasons:
  • 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'mnotdisclosin 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.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot (1)

Electrum (94638) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269075)

The source country can be manipulated if one has access to computers in different geographics.

No, the source country can be manipulated simply by picking a country from the drop-down list.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot (1)

fnord123 (748158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269153)

You are right, no need for the gymnastics I described. The site is even more stupid than I thought.

Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot (1)

photon317 (208409) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269243)


More importantly, even if all of the above issues were addressed, you're really getting a picture of how internet-connected probably engineering minded individuals sprinkled around the world that happened to catch wind of this site would have voted, which is nothing like the true population of the entire world would vote, I'm sure.

Cheaters prosper, yet Bush fears your votes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10268949)

Because cheaters prosper they can monopolize. Monopolies enforce ignorance and discourage thought. Sheep follow dominance. Greed seduces the selfish.

And yet there is hope.

Bush fears your votes.

Cheap Labor Conservatives will go to great lengths to keep sheeple minds uncluttered (media refuses PAID ads, SS removes counter tshirts, administration hides history, freepers lie hysterically about draft dodgers). Why bother when they already 0wn the voting machines? Why so scared?

Because truth is infectious.

Bush fears your votes.

Before the comments start... (2, Insightful)

dalutong (260603) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269263)

I have had this discussion with many people already. It goes something like this:

"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.

Another site (2, Informative)

rakerman (409507) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269457)

BetaVote.com [betavote.com] does the same thing.

Sad (1, Insightful)

JCMay (158033) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269462)

I'm just always made so sad when the Constitution Party, the party that takes seriously the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the importance of limited constitutional governemnt loses to the socialists... Sigh.

Rest of the world doesn't have free press (1)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269566)

Considering the the we are one of the very few countries that has the freedom of the press written into our core documents, and even one of the fewer yet whow actually respect that right, I am not surprised that the rest of the world thinks John Kerry is better.

For one, the rest of the world doesn't have access to the opposition voice of CNN and CBS. That means they never hear the other side of the story. For another, the rest of the world is actually submitted to the press that their government endorses, if not writes itself.

One of the freest societies in the world - South Korea - even has problems with the press. For instance, several stories of key importance to the South Korean people have never reached their ears. Take the latest scandal over the gold medal in the Olympics. All of my relatives and friends in South Korea never heard that the judges missed an extra turn by the South Korean that would've docked the South Korean by even more points. In other words, they should be grateful that the judges stood by their decision.

And personally, as an American, I am upset that we would even ask what the rest of the world thinks! This isn't a beauty contest, this is about securing our freedom now and in future generations. Let the other countries worry about their own freedom, because we have enough on our plate right now.

Kerry wins! (3, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269712)

Latest values on site show Kerry WAY out front in every country INCLUDING the U.S. So, looks like it's in the bag for Kerry. Yup, he's got it made. It's a done deal. Slam-dunk. Touch-down. Game-over. Might as well start planning the inauguration. Or running for re-election.

See ya on November 3rd ...

Whew! (1)

jwriney (16598) | more than 9 years ago | (#10269723)

Thank God we live in America, not "the world".

--riney

More odd... (2, Interesting)

greppling (601175) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270137)

...is that in a German web poll, nearly 70% of the voters believed that John Kerry will win the election. (And I believe that to be representative, it coincides with the general sentiment around here.)

So whereas Europeans (rightfully!!! --Added so that someone can mod me flamebait if he wants to) like to blame US citizens for their ignorance of the rest of the world, this shows that my fellow Germans are not much better informed about US politics.

So what? (1)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10270294)

People outside the U.S. have a different agenda. What they want has no correlation to what is best for the citizens of the United States. For instance, someone with a dislike of America might favor a weak, incompetent candidate in the hopes that he might diminish America's position in the world. Likewise, Americans might favor a candidate for the French presidency who would be a yes-man and kowtow to all of the United States' policies. A French voter, however, would likely not share this priority.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>