A most and serious question indeed. However I would easily, and quickly say that we need to interfere in polite and civil ways. They are possibly our neighbors, our competitors, even our enemies. In all three categories we must, and shall interfere. In fact merely existing at all means we naturally interfere.

The case in point is as follows:

1) There is a self-interest at stake

2) There is a mutual-interest at stake

3) There are problems if a hardliner is put in charge of a government

To start I wish to point at history. England did not, nor did France, ask Germans to not vote for Adolf Hitler. Nor did they ask for the Italians to think twice. Why merely making a strong case as a neighbor why a candidate should not be selected could have averted, or reduced, World War II. History shows so many conflicts have started due to leaders being elected into positions of power, and then mis-using the power they were granted. History shows that many times the neighboring nations knew there would be issues, even fighting, thanks to the new leader.

Yes interference can backfire, especially if it is blatant and one sided. If China were to say "We want Candidate XYZ" as President of the United States, this would be a serious thing, and would not be taken lightly. However if China were to say in the earliest stages that they were alarmed by some of the messages and speeches that ABC candidate gave, they are interfering, but in a way that is not so one sided, and blatant.

One interferes in wise methods. One must make their views known, and have those views affect the elections of a nation even. Proof is pretty easy... While most Americans support staying in Iraq, most Europeans do not, and this has influenced one party in our governments Presidential Primary to have only candidates left who would quickly pull out of Iraq. This interference, while not a happy situation to one such as me, is a way for the world to show their ways upon us, and potentially change our course, in a peaceful, civil manner.

It is not entirely one sided. The recent French Elections for instance, brought a supporter of Bush, and of US Republican Ideals to office, based upon the knowledge that the United States as a whole felt France was betraying our ideals, distancing itself from us, and being 'snotty'. There is no longer talks of "American Fries, US Kisses, and of the White National Flag of France".

Interference runs naturally and effectively. Interference can be mild, as the American and France examples show, or in the extreme where nations try to pay off candidates prior to their election with funding, or during their tenure in office with bribes and the likes. China for instance has a history of supporting the Clinton's into office. That their actions are quickly forgotten show the effectiveness of their methods.

I believe that a moderated approach to interference should be in every nations agenda... This promotes world peace. In certain circumstances I would further even recommend a heightened interference such as saying one candidate is unacceptable to your nation and threatening certain actions if that person is elected. Of course care must be taken to make sure such 'interference' does not result in the person being targeted gaining support instead!

The United States has a policy in fact of interfering. We support any candidates who seek to increase the freedoms and equality of their nations, especially if those nations currently are not enjoying freedoms equal to most European Nations and/or The United States. This policy has been blatant and long lasting. It has resulted in Democracies through out the World. Some say our policy even created Europe as it is today.

To sum up our policy, "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick".

To whit our great nation has inspired change in many nations. Yes sometimes these changes collapse, and fail, but more often than not our efforts lead to great changes. The Pope, the late Pope that is, interfered heavily in Eastern Europe. And today thanks to him, and others, the changes to Europe as a whole are enlightening, and pleasing.

"Ich Ein Berliner" and "Tear down this wall!"

Those were both interference, and to effect that interference created a joined again Germany with freedom for all.

England in the 1700's interferred with the early United States. She showed her displeasure at slavery. In the end it worked. PRAISE THE KING! LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!

Many nations shunned openly S. Africa. While the new regime is not exactly the most wisest, the changes against Racism is telling. In due time other interference will end racism for all time. What a glorious day it will be when that occurs! Wow omgwtf indeed!

The choice to interfere in any manner with another election is tremendously better than the alternative... which can occur way to often. Open and total war. This is the information age. Information is interference. Why do you think nations trying to keep abuses and their power in place interfere with the internet to their nations? However information is free if offered as free, and most of the internet is free. These walls are crumbling, the old guard retreats. I advocate even making it law, via the United Nations, that no nation can interfere with access to the information on the internet! And many nations will consider this undo interference. To hell with those seeking to censor data, instead let us learn, thrive, and grow!

There are those who call our policy of seeking Democracy as "interference". I call it spreading Freedom. Let us 'interfere' in Saudi Arabia to get womens rights to vote, to walk alone, to do reasonable actions without threat of punishment installed. Let us 'interfere' in China to get Tibet freed if possible, to get the leaders to allow religion to be free and not 'managed'. Let us interfere in Quebec to say "if you seperate dont expect us to learn French". Let us interfere with the United Nations even, showing them that spending 10 billion USD where a man says he could do the job for 10 million USD (Thats 10,000,000,000 versus 10,000,000) and in half the time to make them not waste the cash the world sends to them. Let us interfere with Mugabe and his corrupt policies. Let us interfere with Venzuela and say "We wont like you if you keep this path", let us intefere with Cuba and say "To return to the fold you must drop the brothers, and their government, and take almost any other form of government".

Mexico currently interferes with the United States. They have infiltrated many States with 'ambassadors' who tell the illegal population how to vote illegally, as well as the influencing of latin Americans by these same people to vote for more open borders, amnesty, and more. Let us influence them back, asking them to get real police, so we can invest heavily in their nation, to bring them to the same incomce levels we enjoy while maintaining their territorial integrity, and their national identity.

Let us influence the government of that unnamed island where 500 of the richest people in the world supposedly have their headquarters in one building... to say to them... stop making tax shelters without actual activity being done on your nation to validate it.

I am Einstein, and I endorse this message! I fully support this effort, as a Candidate for Precinct Committeeman, as a Citizen of the United States, as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a Human Being.

Thus ends my post. I eagerly await the attempt of my competition to try to render this wonderful method of spreading freedom, peace, and prosperity moot.