Well, was reading this article just now and I felt the urge to put it up cuz (haha!) appealing to my ego, it echoes a sentiment I have wondered about alot. I mean, I can already think of a whole host of problems that would come from this but its quite a novel idea.Considering that most of my friends' blogs have sentiments about the elections, the fact that Billy Bombers has put up this 'mock' election booth, the extnnsive coverage by CNA shows how much Singaporeans alone feel the pressure of the elections. US chose to make its domestic affairs, the world's affair when it took the reins to handle European reconstruction and chose to "fight" communism in 1945. America's stance has always affected the world , either as a Cold War Power or as the sole power that has remained in the aftermath of the collapse of communism, so isn't just right for us to decide who we want as the "global" leader? After all, US is just not America's leader but to an extent, the precedent for the world (though that has increasingly becoming less evident).

But of course, there is the problem of how exactly the votes are going to be distributed, who is going to distribute it? The US because it is, after all , its presidential elections or UN, because it is now, after all a global event. Then again no matter who gives it ,someone would feel short changed. And who's gonna make sure the votes aren't rigged?

Making this a global event would also then give more scope for the dissidents to target countries with policies they abhor. More scope for terrorist attacks, (hey you voted BUSH! BASTARD! BOMB HIM!) and perhaps, the world would not be divided as famously "You're either with us or against us" but rather "You're either with me or against me" so it might no longer be a case of a division of US allies and enemies (arbitarily, at any rate) but rather (taking this election as a basis) Bush vs Kerry.

But then of course, this voting system is tantamount to giving US supra national power as when the world collectively votes on issues, it is usually at a global forum with global consensus. So by the very idea that the world needs to have a say in US domestic affairs, shows that not only is she important in world affairs, she is looked to be as a leader. And a globally consented leader means he can manipulate policies and take action with more authority on what he deems fit because he had global mandate behind him (Not there won't be international backlash but the propensity would be lessened because its not so easy to condemn someone when you had a say in electing him). That effectively means placing all that power in one man's hand.

And I don't think we're just about ready for that.