Skip to main content

The Australian site, The Age, included an article today about the (edited link) disenfranchisement of the world.

There's a reason every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. The American presidential election will be decisive not just for the US but for the future of the world.

And, naturally the request for representation follows...

So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this presidential election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote in it?

This is the start of world government, and just as the first governing bodies of kingdoms were dictatorial in nature, so is the emerging form of goverment in the world at large.  We have a president who feels he has the right and responsibility to spread democracy, but only on his terms, on his agenda, and without any input from the nations our supposed democracy is being forced upon.

This is a recipe for an ever lengthening war on terror.  At least, as an American, I can feel comparatively less disenfranchised than Bush's targets of nation bulding.  

Originally posted to faedrake on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 08:51 AM PDT.


Should the world have a vote?

18%4 votes
22%5 votes
45%10 votes
13%3 votes
0%0 votes

| 22 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  link (none)
    when i clicked the link it took me to microsoft corps site.
  •  Fixed Link (none)
    Article Sorry, first diary here! Mediajunkie login works.
  •  Frank Zappa (none)
    If everyone in the world will be affected by this presidential election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote in it?

    Some years back, probably sometime in the 90s, Frank Zappa ran for President.  You say you didn't notice?  You weren't meant to, his message was exactly the one quoted above, and thus he limited his campaign activities primarily to Sweden and the Czech Reepublic.

    It's good to see Zappa's words, almost word for word, being repeated today as "legitimate" political analysis by a "respected" media outlet.  The political establishment is marvelous at working out the minutiae of carving up the pork, but are often woefully late in recognizing the larger global trends and forces.  That's why the voice of a Zappa, the disinterested but observant outsider, is at least as necessary if not more so than the run of the mill political pundit.

    I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat--Will Rogers

    by Dancing Larry on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 09:30:09 AM PDT

  •  US influence is waning (none)
    I don't see us as the world's dictator--the more unilaterally we act, the less influence we have. our army is overstretched in one major operation. Europe is growing closer together, and China is starting to awaken from isolationism.

    The great power that America has weilded in the past has been most effective in concert with other nations, not apart from them. We may be able to destroy anything we want, but real power and influence comes from the ability to create and build.

    That's why these right wingers who disparage the UN as a compromise to US sovereignty are so wrong: the UN is a tool, largely invented by us, to project American power by multilateralism. Without it, we're nothing but a flailing bully, taken less seriously every day.

    Democrats stand for a powerful America--Republicans, particularly of the Bush type, would weaken us.

    •  Should the world have a vote? (none)
      To say that the world should have some official say in who the President of the United States is, is to basically toss out the notion of state sovereignty that has been dominant for the past few hundred years since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

      Notice, though, that this system of state sovereignty hasn't existed forever and there's really no reason to assume that it will always be this way.

      I believe that this century will see the next big revolution in international relations.  Like it or not, the world is becoming more and more interconnected every day, and decisions made on one side of the world (like those made by a President) are more and more likely to materially affect the lives of those living on the other side of the world.  At some point, the notion that democracy can be contained within a given geographic region, and still be effective, will go the way of the serfdom.  So there needs to be a new paradigm - a new definition of sovereignty.

      What will it be?  The hope was that the UN would suffice as a mechanism to democratize decisions that transcend national borders.  But a world government will never work without member states surrendering a signficant portion of their autonomy - and that, unfortunately, is just not gonna happen.

      My guess is that a system will emerge under which the individual, rather than the state, is viewed as sovereign.   Thus there would be no state obstacles to international law. Individual sovereignty reflects traditional liberalism, in that human rights and civil rights and liberties will be assured, and traditional conservatism as well, in that it would prevent the overexertion of power by the state.


      •  Ah yes (none)
        Now you're on to one of my favorite topics, this is gong to be one of the grand themes of the 12st century, the unraveling of the nation-state.  You covered the globalizing pressures that are going to tear the state one direction.  There's also a continuing and concurrent trend toward localist/regionalist separatism that is weakening the nation-state internally in many parts of the world.  

        You present a very "libertarian" possible outcome.  There will be real forces pushing that tendency, it fits well with the overall philosophy of globalization and the market.  At some point, the philosophes of "free trade" will encounter the sticking point, that while capital and goods/services may be increasingly global in movement, this isn't so for the biggest economic factor, labor.  If we're to have a globalized marketplace,  and for it to manifest efficiencies, labor has to be able to relocate as readily as capital.  But that simply can never happen in a socially sustainable fashion.  Look at the explosive conflicts already triggered  by what migration there is within the restrictive immigration policies of most native states.  There's simply unthinkable infrastructure challenges, how do you accomodate a world with hundreds of millions of economic nomads?  This is already a huge issue in China today, they essentially have 100 million economic nomads, that wander the nation or crowd into its cities searching for work. The social and cultural impact will fall in each affected local community, which would likely exacerbate the localist particularist trend I mentioned earlier.

        But if labor isn't as free to move about as capital, the system chokes, and one unified world economic system slowly becoming further and further out of equilibrium.  Again, the nation-state gets ripped from both sides.

        The state won't wink out like a light bulb, it may even become more repressive as well in order to cope with everything from terrorism to competing for capital, not to mention to maximize its dwindling control.

        I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat--Will Rogers

        by Dancing Larry on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 05:50:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site