UnitedSomalia must be on drugs.

I suspect that Ahmedinajad was ahead in the votes, that he didn't get the full majority to avoid a run off and has arranged things accordingly. I don't think that he counted on the use of modern technology, which has enabled Iranians to mobilise and protest.

I don't think that we're seeing an Orange revolution, but I do think that there may be some big changes coming out of Iran, not hierarchical in the short term, but I do feel that something will give & it doesn't look like the opposition are in a mood to back down.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Kuwait is a constitutional emirate. It holds elections, but the supreme power still rests with the Emir. Operates similar to Iran except Iran has supreme power as a Theocracy.

Wouldn't put much stock in a report of a leaked "real election report". It probably doesn't exit.

But as you said the Supreme Power stays with the Emir: meaning nothing really ever changes, not where it really counts. Thats very different from Iran where the Presidential candidates do have vastly different views. While we are loath to admit it, Iran's system although far from Ideal, is (or was) far more democratic than some of our allies.

Yeah, there's not a whole lot we can say about that. Until this election, it was a relatively fair democracy.
Just saying, democracy comes in many forms.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

But as you said the Supreme Power stays with the Emir: meaning nothing really ever changes, not where it really counts. Thats very different from Iran where the Presidential candidates do have vastly different views. While we are loath to admit it, Iran's system although far from Ideal, is (or was) far more democratic than some of our allies.

What is the difference if Supreme Power lies with a religious leader or an Emir? Both have democratic elections for administrators but the rules they govern under are still controlled by the few.

Iran having candidates for an administrative position with different views from each other may have little effect on the Supreme authority who sets the rules.

Has Iran become less democratic, because people who voted for the losing candidate are complaining? If that is the case did the US lose it's democracy when Truman beat Dewey, after all the polls showed Dewey winning easily. The Chicago Tribune had a headline "Dewey Wins" the morning after the election.

"While we are loath to admit it, Iran's system although far from Ideal, is (or was) far more democratic than some of our allies."

Who's the "we"? Who are the "allies" you refer to?

It does seem a little strange that someone who thinks Iran was so democratic before a democratic election would question it because the loser was whining.

I guess in a sense it's their idea of checks and balances.
How they run the country is up to the elected head of government but the Ayatollah gets to overrule actions deemed unIslamic.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

What is the difference if Supreme Power lies with a religious leader or an Emir? Both have democratic elections for administrators but the rules they govern under are still controlled by the few.

Iran having candidates for an administrative position with different views from each other may have little effect on the Supreme authority who sets the rules.

Has Iran become less democratic, because people who voted for the losing candidate are complaining? If that is the case did the US lose it's democracy when Truman beat Dewey, after all the polls showed Dewey winning easily. The Chicago Tribune had a headline "Dewey Wins" the morning after the election.

"While we are loath to admit it, Iran's system although far from Ideal, is (or was) far more democratic than some of our allies."

Who's the "we"? Who are the "allies" you refer to?

It does seem a little strange that someone who thinks Iran was so democratic before a democratic election would question it because the loser was whining.

As Redneck said the Supreme Council does have certain powers to veto the President, but only rarely does so. The Supreme Council main role is the selection of the presidential candidates, and historically the elected president and the supreme council has not always seen eye to eye. Rafsanjani in particular had some notable clashes with them. Ahmadinejad is alittle different though, he truly is Khatami "yes man" which is why Khatami is doing everything possible to keep him in power. Thats a very different scenario than the absolute power wielded by the Emir. Ill grant you that Kuwait is more democratic and benevolent than say Myanmar, but the Emir is in charge until he dies, make no mistake. Its a very different system.

Well the news has changed abit since my first post. What we know for certain is that Ahmadinejad fudged the election results. We know that because its simply impossible to count 40 Million votes by hand in 2 hours and proclaim yourself the victor by a landslide. Many countries with electronic systems cannot do it that fast. Now it is possible that Ahmadinejad did win, just not by the mandate he originally announced. A 63% vote would mean Ahmadinejad is more popular than Obama is in the US, and since we know he is rather unpopular (based on polls taken before the election) I would have to say its utter baloney for him to score that high.

I think you know the answer to the next part, the "we" is people in the US. Because it is simply far too convenient to vilify Iran as some vile dictatorship as some of the rent-a-mouths in the media would like us to believe than have to admit that Iran's system of Democracy (while far from the best) is better that allies like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is suppose to be an Ally. Where it is or isn't is a subject for another day.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

The elections are a fraud as is democracy in that country.....

Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic revolution. The Supreme Leader of Iran runs the Council of Guardians. The Supreme Leader is higher in authority then the President of Iran.

Iran is still a Islamic Theocracy. The Supreme Leader is a Islamic cleric appointed for life by a half-elected council considered part of the executive branch of government. The council is responsible for determining if legislation is in line with Islamic law and customs (the Sharia), and can bar candidates from elections.

This is a little more clear than the Redneck's post.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

As Redneck said the Supreme Council does have certain powers to veto the President, but only rarely does so. The Supreme Council main role is the selection of the presidential candidates, and historically the elected president and the supreme council has not always seen eye to eye. Rafsanjani in particular had some notable clashes with them. Ahmadinejad is alittle different though, he truly is Khatami "yes man" which is why Khatami is doing everything possible to keep him in power. Thats a very different scenario than the absolute power wielded by the Emir. Ill grant you that Kuwait is more democratic and benevolent than say Myanmar, but the Emir is in charge until he dies, make no mistake. Its a very different system.

The Supreme Leader is selected for life and the Emir is selected for life, how is that different?
The Supreme Council selects the candidates and can over rule them after they win an election. What purpose would it serve the council to allow the election to be rigged? They could simply not allow a candidate to run.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I think you know the answer to the next part, the "we" is people in the US.

Just out of curiosity, how does someone living in Paris have his finger on what the people in the US think? From what you read or hear in the media?

The system in Kuwait sort of reminds me of Singapore while Lee Kwan Yew was still running the show. They would have presidential elections etc. and they even had a prime minister (which was higher in rank, I forget) but it was all for show as Lee Kwan Yew would be the one doing the actual hands on governing as Senior Minister.
America's selection of Presidential candidates isn't exactly completely free either. They are chosen by the society's upper class. Possibly why regardless of who you vote for, the end result is usually similar enough. Don't believe me? Without their money, you can't even pretend to run for President.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The system in Kuwait sort of reminds me of Singapore while Lee Kwan Yew was still running the show. They would have presidential elections etc. and they even had a prime minister (which was higher in rank, I forget) but it was all for show as Lee Kwan Yew would be the one doing the actual hands on governing as Senior Minister.
America's selection of Presidential candidates isn't exactly completely free either. They are chosen by the society's upper class. Possibly why regardless of who you vote for, the end result is usually similar enough. Don't believe me? Without their money, you can't even pretend to run for President.

A wonderfully cynical and 100% true summation of the situation.