American president's decisions affect the whole world adversely and otherwise.
American foreign policy affects all world citizens.
In view of the above shouldn't those who are affected by US foreign policy, (ie the citizens of the world) have some say on who becomes president.
At the moment we are without voice.
At the moment 100+ million US voters are deciding on issues that affect billions around the world.
2006-12-17 23:59:32 · 24 answers · asked by Zed 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
wow. interesting question. i dont think they would ever allow that. its probably unfair for everyone else to vote on that, since there always seems to be a massive influencial super power (in the last century it was a mix of britian, usa, soviet union) and only the people in those countries have voted (provided they were a democracy). it would be better to have the worldly organisations empowered (united nations etc). america should have less of an influence on the world generally. its never right to impose your views on everyone regardless of what they think is right. anyway, america will lose power over the next century and it will shift to the next super power (probably china), and they will be just as bad. probably worse for us, cos they have much more conflicting views - not even a democracy there.
2006-12-18 00:08:11 · answer #1 · answered by john9999999 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Well, we all get pollution from China. There must have been some environmental effects from the nuclear tests of France, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Chernoble definately had effects beyond its borders.
Every country affects its neighbours. Most countries I've heard of have used military outside their borders (Cuba in Angola, China in Korea and Vietnam, and just about all of Africa in Zaire/Congo, France in the rest of Africa, I won't even go into the arab world and Indonesia).
Without a voice? That's because your own dictatorships don't give you one, and because your neighbours can't mind their own business.
America does very little to affect the rest of the world. Bush didn't even go into Afghanistan without a huge coalition of volunteer nations, and that was after being attacked. The same can be said for Clinton.
If america had as much influence as some people claim it does, we'd have world peace by now.
2006-12-18 00:15:11 · answer #2 · answered by dude 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What a delightful thought. All international voters allowed to vote for all international leaders. Then quite quickly we'd understand that having distinctive worldwide places is an thought that has purely led to wars and soccer hooligan riots. shall we've a international government as a substitute. Peace could reign superb. as a rely of fact, that substitute into how usa have been given started interior the 1st place, by using persons protesting approximately being with out voice in concerns that affected their lives. So how a pair of worldwide revolution and the initiating of one form-new international u . s . a .? Does it make experience? actual, confident. Will it ensue? regrettably, no.
2016-10-18 10:46:57 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Voting in American elections is a privilege reserved for United States citizens. Foreign affairs are a minor part of the Presidency and I don't want anyone who is not one of us voting.
2006-12-18 01:02:13 · answer #4 · answered by Faith White 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you don't want to be influenced by American foreign policy, then try making your country into a real country, not some POS backwater socialist hell.
F*ck the rest of the world - they do not care about anything but their own interests, they are no better than anybody else. They have not brought peace or helped the world at all - the US usually has to spend $$ and blood cleaning up their messes.
2006-12-18 00:14:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
All countries policies have an effect on the entire world. Do you suggest a one world government?
2006-12-18 00:47:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Much as I wish I had a say in US politics, electing officials is a privilege of the country's citizens, and I have to respect that. The day I want a say, I'll move to the US and start the process to get naturalized.
2006-12-18 00:03:15 · answer #7 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
"At the moment we are without voice."
Amen.
I say, Since Americans have shed their blood to free peoples all over the world and American money has helped people all over the world, then we should run the world. We gave our lives and our money. At the moment we are without a voice worldwide. The world owes us that much.
2006-12-18 00:15:52 · answer #8 · answered by Zee HatMan 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This would only make sense if the American President would also have influence on laws regarding the people that vote for him.
Also - this would interfere with internal politics.
2006-12-18 00:08:18 · answer #9 · answered by U_S_S_Enterprise 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, let Americans vote for their President. Just make sure the leaders of the rest of the world have the balls to stand up to him. (Hear that, Tony?)
2006-12-18 00:13:18 · answer #10 · answered by Shona L 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋