Outsourcing Citizenship

Theworldvotes.org is wrong on so damned many levels. Here’s their mission from their campaign manual (PDF):

Theworldvotes.org is a non-profit, primarily symbolic action to mobilize world citizens tobecome enfranchised in the debate about a more democratic management of world affairs.

It’s more specifically about giving “people all around the world a voice in the forthcoming U.S. Presidential Election.” That’s all well and good and cute, but they are apparently serious.

Be pioneering ! Open 2004 US presidential election to world citizens!
With its decision to take over the UN in the field of international action, the US has considerably increased its influence on the destiny of each citizen of the world. By allowing citizens worldwide to take part in the November election, the Bush administration could now prove that care for democracy is really what motivated their decision!

To go back to my debate days, where’s the bright line? Why should foreigners have a say in our elections now? Why is it apparently a one-way street? Should America’s 280 million people have the chance to vote in Canada (which has a population of 32 million) because its liberal immigration policies have attracted terrorists who try to cross into the US? Or how about Mexico? Should Americans be able to vote there to put in place leaders that will reform the economy, removing the economic reasons that motivate illegal immigrants? [ed--In all fairness, theworldvotes.org strives for impartiality, and they did post this story in addition to the one I quoted].

There is one of two things going on here. The first is an unspoken acknowledgement on the part of participants that the US is the big cheese–we call the shots and they now bow in obeisance to our dominance and seek to join this more perfect union.

Something tells me that this isn’t it. There is a certain level of recognition of our power in this project, but it’s probably more of a freedom without responsibility thing.

It should be very clear that any reason a non-citizen would have for wanting a say in our elections is because they think that our foreign policies are impacting their lives in such a way that they should have a voice in shaping those policies. On a certain level, I can understand that, but again, where do you draw the line?

What’s missing from this whole thing is the recognition that residents of Paris, Berlin, etc who want a say in our elections want the power but not the consequences. When choosing a President, we take into account a wide range of issues, most of which are domestic. A Parisian would vote on how a candidate would have some infitesimal and tangential impact on his life while a Pennsylvania steelworker is going to vote on things that intimately impact his livelihood.

This should be so glaringly obvious that the entire project is a bit humorous. Do any of the participants really want me to play a role in determining their domestic policies? I’m sure that most Europeans wouldn’t like what I would choose for them, and there’s really no reason I should have a voice. I think that the world has a pretty damned fine arrangement on who gets to vote for whom.

But hey, register–as many times as you want, especially if you’re an American. Make it known that until DC has a voice, no one else beyond these shores gets one.

(Hat Tip: The Command Post)