N. and Matt DC's blueprint for world peace

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

From the London Democrat primary vote thread, to avoid hijacking it.

Whether or not Bush is in the White House in just over a year affects the lives of Americans regardless of where they're living (actually, it affects pretty much everyone in the world to some degree - can we all have a vote please?)

-- Matt DC (runmd...), February 5th, 2004 2:42 PM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a terrific idea.
-- N. (nickdastoo...), February 5th, 2004 2:44 PM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, if *all* national elections had to be open to the entire planet we might have world peace!
-- N. (nickdastoo...), February 5th, 2004 2:46 PM. (later)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

i think a lot of people actually agree with this. it's surprising how many people stop me on the street/in the shops/in restaurants to talk about my dean badge, and they usually say that they'd like to vote in the elections.

everyone has a stake in the US election this fall.

but with such poor voter turnout as it is, can you imagine what it would be like if we were expected to vote for leaders around the world?

― colette (a2lette), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Assuming only Americans are allowed to run for US President, but everyone in the world gets a vote... same with all other nations.
Would this actually work? Would countries suddenly start being nicer to one another? Would people just decide that the population of Iran don't have enough votes to make a difference? Would anyone vote in the Cook Islands election?

Discuss this hypothetical new world. (xpost)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

In his late nineties book, The United States of Anger, bbc reporter Gavin Esler commented that one of the problems of the US system of democratically elected government might be that they have too many elections, ppl can't cope with voting from everyone down to members of school boards and the city dog catcher and so they lose interest.

NOW JUST IMAGINE

if you had an election EVERY DAY. and/or the ballot paper was SEVERAL METRES LONG

yes, I'm harshing yr buzz, yes I'm raining on yr parade and yes, I hate fun.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

It is almost certainly unworkable, it is almost certain that the majority of Middle England/America would not bother to vote in the Malian general election. BUT... just imagine what might happen if the people of Iran/Saudi Arabia/Nicaragua/Canada had a say in who might be the next President.

(Yeah, I know, give most of them a vote in their own country first, but its a nice idea)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

it'd be interesting to see how it would affect which people stood for election. A US-born Muslim prolly wouldn't stand a chance of becoming President undre the current system, but might well be tempted to stand if (s)he could be sure of support in the first two of the countries Matt DC mentions.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously most people wouldn't vote in very many elections, but if a country was upsetting the international community, enough would to vote them out of office. Downside: Margaret Thatcher was v.popular overseas and would prob thus still be in power.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

You underestimate the power of the Argentinean Block Vote, N!

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, N. and Gorbachev was very unpopular at home - I remember ppl saying that the UK and USSR should have swapped leaders and everyone would be happy!

there's the whole business of when you have an evil regime and someone better comes along, even if they don't go far enough with democratisation, then ppl overseas will hear about it and support them and *continue* to support them when there might be more liberal ppl waiting in the wings whom they maybe don't get the chance to hear about as they are not talking to the people who live in the country concerned.

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Nelson Mandela would be in power forever!

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

yes but he wouldn't want to. Imagine if the whole world boycotted the South Africa election coz Mandela had the audacity to retire to his potting shed and let someone else have a go. "NO NO NO we want Mandela or nobody!"

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm enjoying the Blackadder-esque concept of Matt and N.'s idea.

"As returning officer for the Aleutian Islands, here are the results for today's general election:

Gen. Gennady Zuskenov - 256,310,866 votes;
Dwight Q. Puddlesucker - 275,190,322 votes.

Dwight Q. Puddlesucker is therefore returned as president for this militarily-sensitive archipelago between Alaska and Russia."

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)

imagine if you also had a law like Australia where not voting was illegal! And it was applied to all the elections! Everyone would be in jail!

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 9 February 2004 12:55 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.wfm.org/
world federalist movement executive board to thread

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:08 (twenty-two years ago)

citing voter apathy as a reason this idea would fail doesn't really work though - i mean just because a lot of people wouldn't bother voting all the time doesn't make it a bad idea. Global democracy does allow the possibility of some interesting scenarios though (Britain To Become Islamic State, Kim Joo-Sung III Losing By One Vote To A Hen...)

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Where is this international hen lobby?

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

it's international

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

It's because the South Koreans are chickenshit.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

But on the other hand... nobody would fuck with China ever again!

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

No-one would get the chance, as after 7 years every country in the world would have Chinese overlords.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

if all voting for all these elections was done online, what would the implications be? Hopefully the web pages would have radio buttons next to candidate names. If they have drop down lists ppl with names beginning with A would win all the time!

― MarkH (MarkH), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Why would there be more candidates than usual?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 9 February 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.