World opinion

August 31, 2004 3:04 AM

BetaVote.comIf we had our say - things would be very different. This is obviously not very reliable data but thought provoking non the less. I am pretty sure the 90 to 10 in Kerrys favor is a just about an accurate measure of Denmarks opinion.
posted by FidelDonson (20 comments total)

Having cast my vote, I cannot see the United Kingdom in the results list.
posted by nthdegx at 3:23 AM on August 31, 2004

Rather than a vote, I'd settle for the UN overseeing the elections - y'know, after what happened last time.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:36 AM on August 31, 2004

I found this site via a green party mailing-list a week ago. We Finns have been quite active since, over 22000 votes so far...

I can see the United Kingdom on the list.
posted by hoskala at 3:37 AM on August 31, 2004

Ah yes, between Gabon and Grenada. Which is where it should be had they called it Great Britain and not the United Kingdom.
posted by nthdegx at 3:46 AM on August 31, 2004

I can't access the site. But it sounds like the most thought-provoking aspect is "who thought this was a good idea?". Geeky foreigners support the guy that isn't Bush - S H O C K.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:53 AM on August 31, 2004

I wonder who Bjorn Lomborg would vote for?
posted by troutfishing at 5:01 AM on August 31, 2004

And regarding Denmark: You guys voted against the Euro despite the fact that your currency is tied to the Euro... so I don't take your polls terribly seriously. :-P
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:01 AM on August 31, 2004

Bjørn Lomborg is known (at least he says so himself) to have voted for the Socialists People's Party.

So he's probably left-of-center. And I find it hard to see him, as openly gay, supporting the GOP platform [NYT link].
posted by AwkwardPause at 5:48 AM on August 31, 2004

I should have done more research before posting: Lomborg also reports having voted for the Social-Liberals [pdf], another center-left party.

All of this is of course only conjeture, but I would be very surprised were Lomborg to come out for Dubya.
posted by AwkwardPause at 6:13 AM on August 31, 2004

P_G, the stance for-or-against-Bush is less divided along any social classes, geeks or otherwise, in Denmark or Europe in general, probably because we have little say in the matter so it's not really a political question at all, but rather a personal one. The sampling of BetaVote is of course very biased, but the numbers are not very different in proper polls.

I am filled with a feeling of powerlessness when I follow the US presidential campaign. It has much more effect on my life than my home country's presidential election, the only direct democratic election I can vote in, yet I of course cannot vote in the US election, and have little means to affect its result in any other means either.
posted by ikalliom at 8:13 AM on August 31, 2004

ikalliom, if you believe the US media, you'll get that "my-vote-doesn't-matter" feeling here in the States too, unless you live in Ohio or Florida.

And you're white. And you actually go out and vote this year.

And maybe not even then.
posted by chicobangs at 8:39 AM on August 31, 2004

The great irony of it all is that if Americans could vote for President of Europe, the left would vote for Chirac, the right would vote for Blair (irony) or Berlusconi, and the middle would vote for Chirac or Blair simply because they are the only Euro politicians they have ever heard of. Chirac would probably lose, because, let's face it, he's French. Blair would win the first election and Berlusconi would win the second.
I'm sure that it would be treated with the same importance that we give to a new version of "The Sims".
posted by kablam at 9:16 AM on August 31, 2004

On the "my-vote-doesn't-matter" theme:

MSNBC's Question of the Day:
Did Rudy Giuliani's speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?

Reassure

Move you to support

I can't figure out how to vote.

I guess we Americans are just stupid that way.
posted by soyjoy at 9:22 AM on August 31, 2004

Bush has a 45% lead in my state (and I think he only won in 2000 by a mere 25% margin). I've tried to avoid this conclusion in my head, but voting here seems pointless even if you're voting for the winning ticket.
posted by weston at 9:57 AM on August 31, 2004

Update: MSNBC finally changed it to "Did Rudy Giuliani's speech move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?" (Yes / No). I had sent them an email pointing out the error almost an hour before I posted it here. Then once it was on MetaFilter, they got to it within a few minutes. Coincidence?
posted by soyjoy at 10:15 AM on August 31, 2004

Damn that liberal media! They're always attacking Our Prezdent.

Weston, I live in Massachusetts, so my vote doesn't matter, either.

I don't think my vote has ever mattered (although I used to vote for Gus Hall whenever he ran, just because I thought he was a nice man).

And I did vote for John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary. That was one of my favorite votes.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:29 AM on August 31, 2004

Hmmm... all this talk about 'worth it'.

Voting is a civic duty, not something you should somehow be rewarded (or punished) for doing.

The more vote(r)s the better the health of the democracy.

Just do it already.
posted by AwkwardPause at 11:35 AM on August 31, 2004

The more vote(r)s the better the health of the democracy.

I don't agree, for two reasons. First, voting by itself doesn't mean a whole lot - there are plenty of people who cast their ballots without giving much thought to it. I'd much rather have fewer people vote, if those people were more thoughtful about how they vote, all other things being equal. I think that would be a healthier democracy.

Second, I suspect that when things are relatively uneventful, fewer people are bothered to vote. It's when things are in the crapper that more people feel compelled to vote, I think.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2004

And to make you feel very good about voting, according to the Standard Distribution Curve, 50% of voters will be below average.
Below average for sanity. Below average for cleanliness. Below average for physical fitness. And definitely below average for intelligence. Who eat below average food, and have below average frequency of bowel movements, with below average flatulence retention. And several of them will probably have used the voting booth before you.
You may wish to bring a moist towlette.
posted by kablam at 8:12 PM on August 31, 2004

I'd much rather have fewer people vote, if those people were more thoughtful about how they vote, all other things being equal

All other things being equal, then maybe yes. But aside the question of the voters' intelligence, there's also the broader question of legitimacy.

Decisions taken for a community as a whole will have much stronger legitimacy if as high a ratio as possible has taken part in the decision (even if it is only to appoint the decision makers).

In my view, given we can't have the most thoughtful people vote, i think the more voters the better.
posted by AwkwardPause at 2:54 AM on September 1, 2004