The Economist Magazine has polled its readers in all 195 nations of the world, on whether they want Barack Obama or John McCain to win the presidential election. Unfortunately readers are not able to vote for anyone else.
Then, the Economist created an imaginary “world electoral college”, assigning a number of electoral votes to each nation of the world, relative to its population. As of the evening of October 7, the “popular vote” is 20,413 Obama; 4,159 McCain. The “world electoral college” vote is Obama 8,482; McCain 16. McCain is only carrying Andorra, Georgia, and Macedonia. For the breakdown of the vote in each nation, see here. About one-fourth of the nations are marked simply as blank because not enough votes have been cast from such countries.
With a government, or at least an administration, bent on “nation-building,” I guess it’s only fair that furriners should be allowed to vote in our elections.
Don’t forget Moldova, another state that still fears the Russian boot.
Isn’t Andorra known as the “Old Mr. Cranky-Pants” of Western Europe?
Its a great idea, voted in it after reading it a week or so ago. Shame they didn’t have an “other” 😉
It should be noted that most of the people who are probably voting (or at least when it first started) are Economists, or economically/commercially minded. A poll of economists in this weeks magazine would seem to back this up, an overwhelming majority of those polled back Obama over McCain (although interestingly, roughly 40% said they didn’t trust either to do a good job).
I just got rid of mine, so someone else might be able to give the correct figures.
Chuck Baldwin not mentioned for the vote?? I know we would have at least won in Sealand and maybe more!
Surely a Globalist Plot!
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state or country-by-country, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes– 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Chuck Baldwin mentioned? Hah!
He’s not even mentioned in the domestic “news” media.
Don’t forget, too, that the furriners get their “news” from blatantly biased media.
Even the media are commenting on it.
Conan O’Brien told of a heckler’s being booted out of a Republican speech, and being promptly hired by MSNBC.
I completely disagree with Susan. Popular vote of the President would be a huge step toward making our Chief Executive the King or Emperor that George Washington would not allow himself to become.
The Federal system, as originally conceived, included a careful and deliberate balance of power between the States and the Federal governments, and between branches of the Federal government. According to that original design, the people got to vote directly ONLY for their House reps. There was no popular vote for Senators (the States appointed them until the 17th Amendment), or for President (the State legislatures appointed electors for the Electoral College, until populist/progressive reformers engineered separate arrangements in each of the states to force the choice of electors to conform to the results of a popular vote). Under the original plan, Senators would be the direct federal representatives of their respective State governments, while the President would be, in effect, selected by other, temporary representatives of the State governments.
The indirectness of the President’s election was important. In our system, political authority flows upward from the people. The officials who are directly elected by popular vote have the most authority and moral legitimacy to rule. The balance struck was that the authority and power would be dispersed among hundreds of House Reps. No one representative could claim more than a small fraction of Congress’ total authority to rule. In the Senate, authority was one step removed: Senators would be appointed by the State Legislatures or the Governors, who themselves might be directly-elected. The balance was that the Senate, being a smaller group that stayed in office longer than the House, would be more able to come to consensus based on a broader, more long-term view that took the welfare of States as States into account. The President’s authority was TWICE removed from that of the people, as he or she would be elected by the Electoral College, the members of which would be appointed by the various State legislatures, which in turn would be popularly elected. So the President owed his or her office to the States, but only indirectly, and there was no direct debt or connection at all to the authority of the people. This reduction in the President’s authority counterbalanced the key strength inherent in the office: the ability to act forcefully and swiftly.
Suppose the President actually WERE elected directly by the people? Then, the entire population would have invested the nation’s political authority in a single representative, who, by coincidence, would also command the nation’s military and all of its law enforcement and regulatory apparatus. As I see it, that is the recipe for crowning a democratically-elected emperor.
I think we made a big mistake when we enacted the 17th Amendment, providing for direct election of Senators, and a potentially bigger mistake when all of the States were persuaded to tie their Electoral College selections to the results of popular Presidential elections. In each case, the careful balance of power set up by those who created our federal government was disturbed, and in each case, I think the results were unfavorable in the long run. Appointment of Senators and doubly-indirect election of Presidents were intended to keep them humble and clip their wings a little bit. The directly-elected Senators and all-but-directly elected Presidents we have today are too arrogant, and we pay the ever-escalating price for that arrogance on an daily basis.