If the Global Citizen Could Vote in the U.S.

by Karen Button

In just a few days, the US will go to the polls to elect a new president. Predictions of how it will go are as polarized as the country itself.

If news columnusts are any indication of the pulse of a nation, this one is as deeply divided over the electoral outcome as the citizenry are on the war on Iraq. Many for the same reasons, as this is the issue that underlies much of the campaign debates, whether overtly or subtly.

There are those predicting an electoral photo-finish and an ensuing chaos over charges of another stolen election. Some go so far as to fear Bush will be re-elected only to be replaced by Vice President Cheney after impeachment or a forced resignation. On the other side are those who point to the unprecedented number of new registrants and expatriate ballot requests, to the fact that cell phone users (mostly young people), which number somewhere around 50 million, have never been included in the polls, rendering the polls erroneous. This camp predicts an overwhelming Kerry victory.

If world opinion, and world votes, counted in the election, there would be no question.

A few weeks back Indian author Aruhdhati Roy stated that countries affected by US policies ought to be able to vote in US elections. Although not the first to suggest this, she was perhaps the most laserlike in calling hers and other countries “subject nations” to US imperialism.

In a world where the majority of its population is affected by the impulses of a single nation state, it’s not such a stretch to think they ought to be able to vote as well.

How would the current election go if they could? At the Internet site, BetaVote.com the results are worth checking out. This site tabulates straw votes for Bush and Kerry from around the world. It’s unscientific, but provides a decent snapshot of world thinking about the US election.

Here’s a sampling (as of 28 Oct): among 432,795 global respondents, Kerry leads by 83% in Mexico; 83% in Spain; 79% in Italy; 91% in France; 71% in India; 77% in Pakistan; 11% in Kuwait; 81% in Britain; and 71% in Turkey.

The two are tied in Azerbaijan, South Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Worthy of note, North Korea would chose Kerry by 81%, and in Israel, Kerry has a 15% lead.

Not surprisingly, given Bush’s rhetoric about these countries harboring terrorists and threats of US military action, Kerry leads in Lebanon by 29%, Syria by 79% and Iran by 33%.

In fact, the only countries where Bush has a lead are Guam by 13% and Niger, go figure, (by 59%). That’s it. Two countries.

In a nutshell, if the people of the world voted today, Kerry would win by a landslide 88%.

What about US citizens who live amongst the people of the these “subject nations” and experience firsthand the impact of US foreign policy? Although there is no formal census, there are an estimated 4 – 10 million Americans living overseas. Of those, about 300,000 – 400,000 are military personnel, leaving the vast majority the civilian voter. For the first time, these expatriates could have significant influence on the elections. They are registering in unprecedented numbers, some on their own, but many through other expat independent canvassers and through local activists.

In Germany, for example, anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment is strong. Here, where Betavote.com shows Kerry ahead by 81%, Germans may not have the vote in US politics, but many are doing what they can to have a say. German pro-Kerry activists are helping thousands of Americans register to vote.

At an estimated 260,000, Germany is home to the fourth largest population of American ex-patriates, after Mexico, Canada, and Great Britain, causing some to label it a swing state. In the past, about 10 per cent of eligible expats living in Germany voted in the last presidential election. This year those who work with the overseas branches of the Republican and Democrat parties are reporting a three-four-fold increase in voter registration.

In Mexico, where between 500,000 and 1 million Americans live, voter registration has surged to about five times that in the past. As reported by the Mexican paper El Universal, most of the expats who live there are Democrats disgusted at Bush’s foreign policy.

And in the United Kingdom the Guardian newspaper has organised a letter-writing campaign to influence undecided American voters.

Back in the US political divisiveness has led to a huge voter registration drive by both parties, causing a surge in the size of the electorate. In Florida alone, there are 1.5 million more registered voters than there were in 2000.

It’s anyone’s guess how these new registrants will vote, but it’s safe to say that most have likely registered due to dissatisfaction with the current administration’s policies. Translate that to those with low or fixed incomes and minority groups, people much more apt to vote Democrat. Which explains Republican shenanigans like registering thousands to serve as partisan “vote challengers” in Ohio – a pivotal swing state that promises to be this year’s Florida. The Columbus Dispatch reports that the Republicans plan to challenge some 35,000 voters in an effort to prevent them from voting.

The Arizona company Sproul & Associates has received close to $500,000 from the Republicans since July, according to federal election records. It’s currently being investigated over claims that canvassers hired by the company were instructed to register only Republicans and to get rid of registration forms completed by Democrats.

These are acts of desperation from a party that fears the electorate it has both marginalized and dissenfranchised.

In the tumult of pre-election politics, charges of voter registration tampering, fears of electronic ballots being manipulated, what’s lost is actual dialogue about the real issues. Two immediately come to mind. First, how can this country purport to be a model of democracy when these types of charges abound even before the election? Second, why has there been an absence of presidential discussion about the pre-emptive start of the Iraq war, which flies in the face of international law? Both of these making hollow any claim that the US is worthy of exporting democracy.

So, will Kerry holding office actually make difference? Sure, it will send a message, an important one to be sure, to the rest of the world: Americans don’t support Bush’s war on Iraq. Yet, Kerry voted in favor of every pro-war policy under the current administration, including the pre-emptive war on Iraq. He supports Bush’s pro-Sharon policy in Israel, which includes the erection of the wall disposessing Palestinans from their lands. He recently stated he would have invaded Iraq too, even if he knew it possessed no weapons of mass destruction. And he’s said he’ll increase troops there by 40,000 and seek support of Europe and the United Nations, presumabably by promising them a share of the spoils – like oil and reconstruction contracts.

Who will be fighting the war then? Will soldiering be offshored, like telemarketers whose calls now originate in the Philippines or India?

So, while the world, and perhaps the US too, would vote for Kerry, it is a difference more symbolic than substantial. Politics are politics, no matter who is at the helm; Kerry is just as tied to the geopolitic game as is George Bush.
It is the world’s other superpower – those who marched 10 million strong against the war in Iraq – who will clearly make their showing in this election, but more importantly the next four years will be and must continue to be shaped by these voices from the subject nations, in which are included the disenfranchised from this country.

That will be the true mark of the world citizenry at work.