Intriguing Election Reform Question
 

Without further comment at the moment, I'd like to see what yout guys might say abuut a thesis topic I heard of recently. A british grad student asked whether it would make sense for the entire world to be able to vote to elect the United States President.

I'd be okay with that, confident that someone like GW would have no chance. How 'bout you, and why?

Okay, so I commented.

Lets start that process. As a test case we'll have the board first vote on something small first. . ..say; how Superman spends his resouces.

Being that Superman is so rich with knowledge and creative solutions, I propose he donate his 911 for (less fortunate) people on the board. .. for parts. . . it's only fair.

Can I have a "second that" ?

So would they all then have to abide by the laws of our country?

Separation of church and state? 65MPH on the freeways? Transparent accounting mechanisms?

I think there's a Russian mobster and Iraqi warlord or two who might not want to vote for our Pres if they also got the rest of the consequences. If they all agreed to follow the rules though, well hell, it's cheaper than invading one country at a time to "spread democracy."

I think we should start smaller. Let's toss the electoral college and use bank ATMs to do instant runoff voting. Once we get all that worked out, we can deal with the foreign thing.

Honest men do not win elections.

Glenn, I like your tax code revision suggestion. That calls for another thread.

Supe, the point being; people outside of the system, with influence over the system, will invariably vote for the system to buy them a free lunch.

I think the dem's would be the first in line to offer it up. I can hear Kerrys deep voice now; ". . .and I think France ought to have more US tourists . .. and I think the US should provide Russia some dental care. . .. and I think the US should pay reparations to South America for all the rainforest destroyed to grow contraban, destine for the US. . ."