Mat Bulog, an American, calls Eric Ossemig's polling exercise a 'stunt' and castigates him for '... willingly tossing away his voting right that so many of his fellow servicemen died for or suffered injuries in order to protect. This is his right, but is a most shameful act'.
Like many others have expressed, to me the quintessential quality of American life is freedom. The ability, among others, to act and speak freely, unimpeded, as long as one's words and actions do not impinge on another's equal right to freedom.
The US Constitution is indeed a marvellous testament to the human spirit. And the little that I have read of their Supreme Court judgments reflect the power and lucidity of their reasoned arguments.
Alas! That it could be thus closer to home.
But what was it that US servicemen fought for on the battlefield? The perceptions differ depending on the particular conflict - domino theory, fear of Nazi or world communism domination, Japanese 'treachery' at Pearl Harbour etc.
What they were fighting for can perhaps be summarised as protecting the American way of life, freedom and Mom's apple pie, even when it meant sending young men thousands of miles away to fight (and some to die).
This preparedness to die is one characteristic of US polity that is noteworthy. The British have it too. Not certain other European nations as we saw recently in Iraq.
That way of life includes the right to vote and freely choose your leaders, all the way from the sheriff of a small county to congressmen, senators and, of course, the president himself.
In the process of choosing, all Americans are subjected to a media blitz, though there are controls, I believe, on the means and amount of campaign funding used by candidates. Nobody makes up their mind in a vacuum.
There are a few variables involved, the party platform and track record, the voting record of the candidate, the performance of the candidate in televised debates, the articulation of his various positions on key issues, his personal history, charisma and 'likeability'. Why do so few of these factors strike a chord in BolehLand?
The point I wish to make is that I believe (unlike Mat Bulog) that the US Constitution does restrict living Americans to being natural-born citizens, which I take to mean 'born in the USA'.
Thus, Ossemig and Arnold Schwarzeneger (US California governor) both can't be president. Nevertheless, whatever specific method Ossemig uses to help him make up his mind, only a natural-born American citizen, who has been an American resident for at least 14 years, can be chosen as US president.
So the leader will definitely be an all-American boy although Ossemig may canvass the opinions of non-Americans to vote him in. To me, that does protect American notions of sovereignty.
Most probably, Ossemig represents a fringe minority whose influence on the US establishment will be marginal. Does it signify an opening up of American political consciousness to a wider worldview?
Over the next millennia, could this be the way nation states will evolve, to become ever more collaborative, where Edward de Bono's surpetition rather than competition becomes the norm?