I wasn't entirely serious in that comment: it was more a rhetorical question, but your last sentence above is interesting. The problem with "at least when americans vote for people who bring disaster to america, we have to live with that disaster", is that very often - and certainly in this case - it is not just the Americans who must live with their mistake. Although my European pride rankles to admit it, the US is *by far* the most powerful nation on the planet, and your electoral 'mistakes' seem to end up with people dying, and international institutions and agreements being marginalised. As you say, it's bad enough voting for government officials acting on states far away from you. Well, you're also voting for government officials acting on *countries* far away from you, without regard to international bodies or consensus. And if you can do that, what moral difference is there in my being able to as well?

Rhetorically, obviously...

the affect of my votes on other states is minimized by those other states having local governments, which can choose to withdraw themselves from various interactions with the federal government. as much as america is (regrettably) becoming the international government, other countries can choose to withdraw themselves from interaction with america. in neither case should a foreigner (to a state or country) be allowed to vote in local elections.