Views: 5003|Replies: 10

Iraq vote totals seem engineered. [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-2-14 22:06:52 |Display all floors
Two weeks to count the vote is a long time to engineer the election outcome.  One of the features of a fair election is that local vote totals are announced publicly and simultaneously, so that there is no clear incentive to change the vote totals by fraudulent means.  That wasn't a feature of the 2005 Iraq elections.

One way to verify the results is to correllate the Shi'ite vote with its voting precinct support.  For example, there may be numerous precincts that are 100% Shi'ite by population, but voted only 70% Shi'ite party on election day, or where turnout was unusually low for some reason.  

Imagine a scenario where most Shi'ite precincts turned out at 80% and voted Shi'ite 100%, but where some turned out at only 30-40%.  The strangely lower turnout in such heavy areas of support might indicate that votes were thrown out after the ballot boxes were delivered to a central location for counting.

The Sunni boycott is also an important factor.  Shi'ites wouldn't side with Iranian Shi'ites against Saddam, but they are less predictable against the USA.  Sunnis are the core of the insurgency.  Shi'ites and Sunnis could just as easily form a coalition against the USA and in suppport of an Islamic Regime, which would take in Shi'ites, Sunnis, and others opposed to the occupation.

Maybe a boycott of the election is the reason why Shi'ites did not go to the polls as expected.  Maybe substantial numbers of Shi'ites already side with the Sunni insurgency.

Maybe the Shi'ite boxes were not robbed to lower the Shi'ite strength in the new government, but stuffed with extra ballots to make it appear that the Sunni boycott did not spread into Shi'ite areas.

Weak reporting by the mainstream western media leaves so many valid questions unanswered, and suggests that they are only writing down what is told to them by USA government.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-2-14 23:19:03 |Display all floors

re: matt605

could you conceive of any situation where you would have accepted the iraqi vote result?

ts

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-2-15 00:31:15 |Display all floors

Democracy isn't pefect, but some elections are better than others.

The results weren't announced for two weeks after the polls closed.  Had the results been announced on Jan. 31, that would have been more credible.  There was money to set up polling places, to hire, train, and protect the poll workers and voters, but there was no infrastructure for reporting the results quickly?  That's not believable.  In democracy, local results are announced simultaneously and before any change in the reported totals can change the election outcome.

It is believable that the outcome of the election was subject to the decision of the occupying military force.  That's how it's always been with military occupations, so it isn't a surprise.  But a lot of Americans are surprised at how unpopular their country has become.   They don't understand why, but they only see all the good that's being accomplished in Iraq, and that can only be a failure of the mainstream media.

It's nowhere near the propaganda of the Nazis against the average German, but in some respects it has the same effect.  Some Americans just don't understand what the cause of the unpopularity is when we're doing so much good for others.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-2-15 06:07:53 |Display all floors

Actually, in the US it does take two weeks or longer.....

...to CERTIFY the outcome of an election.  You just here about the results the day after because candidates choose to concede because of polling results.

Two weeks to CERTIFY the results of an election is actually pretty quick....

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-2-15 07:18:15 |Display all floors

Indeed

cbr_600 is correct. Counting in UK elections is much quicker because the constituencies are relatively small. However in Iraq there are no constituencies - the candidates are elected through the national percentages. Also the counting would only have taken place in a few locations, for security reasons - so it would have taken a while simply get all the ballot boxes safely in.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-2-15 08:51:01 |Display all floors

There's a difference between certifying the vote and announcing the vote.

Certification of an election always occurs way after election day, and the certification takes into consideration a lot of things beyond just vote totals.  Announcing the local results takes place immediately.

A key feature of sound democracy is that the local vote totals are announced quickly and simultaneously, so that there's no incentive or opportunity to fraudulently change the vote totals.  That's how it's done in the USA.  Precinct, county, and state totals are usually reported within about 3 hours after the polls close and often within the hour.  Frequently, someone will concede the election as a result, because the reported totals are considered accurate.  Exit polls are also considered a good way to verify that an election is being conducted properly.

Elections conducted under military occupation are always subject to the approval of the occupying military force.  In the case of the 2005 Iraq elections, the USA military has certified the validity of election process and its outcome.  Of course, had the vote totals not been to their liking, they would not have re-run that expensive election.  They would simply have changed the totals.  Did they?

The USA taxpayers paid for the election in Iraq, including the expenses of the parties that were involved in the election.  The money to report the vote totals within 24 hours was certainly available had it been desired.  What happened to the fabulous imbedded reporter program sponsored by the military?

Still, I will always remember the celebratory dancing of Iraqis as they ventured to the polls on their first election day under US military occupation.  They got to vote.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-2-15 09:28:14 |Display all floors

matt605, did

you get to watch the election in china, or were you still in america?

also, the voting stations I seen on TV used plastic tubs with slits on the top to store the votes...very primitive, but it works.  naturally it is going to take a l long time to count and VERIFY the accuracy of each voting station considering this...

in my state we used secure boxes that had digital countrers on them and of course incremented when your ballot was inserted .  this, as you can see, enabled america to count the votes much quicker...

besides, you would have cried foul if alwayi ("the cia frontman") was elected...as tuspi implied, you would have cried foul no matter the outcome...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.