I have been thinking about the wider issue of how elections can be declared valid or invalid without the need for a great deal of foreign intrusion. Established democracies have pre election polls and exit polls. Whilst these are not perfect perhaps a large deviation from the the projected results would indicate the strong possibility of widespread fraud?

Official figures in Iran show Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been re-elected as president, with 63% of the vote. But reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi also claimed victory. Here are some reactions...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8098761.stm

One of the country's leading dissidents, Ibrahim Yazdi, told the BBC there had been clear signs of fraud in the poll, with detailed results being withheld.

More foreign powers are also expressing concern about the election.
In an interview on US television, Mr Biden said: "It sure looks like the way they're suppressing speech, the way they're suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there's some real doubt."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8099952.stm

Yeah the election stinks like the Zimbabwean election.

There was a extremely high turnout, and thats almost always a bad sign for a sitting President. And we know that Ahmadinejad was unpopular due to his poor economic policies, so for him to claim 63% of the vote is highly dubious, unless it was Kalishinkov style election.

Another think that sets off the 'BS' alarm was that there was actually a 3rd party candidate who according to the results only got 1% of the vote, he was expected to get about 10%, he even lost his home district. Its rare for someone top lose their homearea, Ahmadinejab isnt that popular.

Adn finally, Ahmadinejad has cracked down on people who have questioned the election, and threatened to punish the opposition leader. No political leader would result to threats if his election were legitmate. If Ahmadinejad really won then he would simply let the opposition view the results or count the votes? Ahmadinejad actions are those of someone with something to hide.

A huge blow to Iranian democracy.
Where the Iranians want to go from here is up to them.

Another fact that rings my BS alarm. At the close of voting there were 40 Million votes cast, Iran counts all votes by hand. But two hours later Ahmadinejad had proclaimed victory. Either he knew ahead of time what the result was or he was not interested at all what the result was.

Now to be fair, it is possible that Ahmadinejad really won the election, but its simple impossible that it was the tremendous landslide he pretended it was.

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.

A bit more complicated than that.
Many of the candidates are truly at odds with one another. It's not like candidate A is the same as B etc.
However, this particular election really does stink. Like Mmarsh said, the guy seemed to know awfully quick despite the votes being counted by hand. And the landslide too when the opposition was supposed to be very popular.
Maybe the current President knew in advance that he would never win the election.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

A bit more complicated than that.
Many of the candidates are truly at odds with one another. It's not like candidate A is the same as B etc.
However, this particular election really does stink. Like Mmarsh said, the guy seemed to know awfully quick despite the votes being counted by hand. And the landslide too when the opposition was supposed to be very popular.
Maybe the current President knew in advance that he would never win the election.

The (UK) Telegraph reported that it was leaked the real election result which put Ahmadinejad in third place.

Judging from the polls of what went on in the preelection, I suspecyt the government knew precisely that it was going to lose, and had decided to steal the election beforehand. I dont think they expected the tremendous public outcry of the enormous usurp of power.

5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet.

I am about say something many of you may say is placing blame at the west but follow me for a second before you jump to conclusion, and I will show you how their is something fishy about these unrest and I will provide links also. Please read everything before you jump to conclusion and start going on the defensive.....

America and the West are engineering a coup to stir trouble in Iran in order to destabilize the government their, to make the Iranian democracy, election and government look illegitimate in order to advance their goals of installing a "friendlier" regime. By stiring these problems in Iran they can legitimize regime change by calling Iranian elections fake. Also if one looks at the Iranian opposition protests they don't match the numbers that came out and supported Ahmedinjad which proves Ahmedinajad has more supporters which explains why he won.

A former Pakistani general stated how the CIA paid 400 million to stir up trouble in Iran, does this remind anyone of the Mossadeq episode? How the former Iranian prime minister who was democratically elected was overthrown by the CIA now the CIA is at it again doing what they have always done stirring up problems in nations in order to overthrow their governments.

Here is the link if you don't believe me: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020401

Also if the protesters are setting fire to buses, cars, motorcycles, throwing rocks, destroying the windows of building and shops, blocking traffic then they deserve if the police charge at them. You can't tell me if these protesters were doing the exact same thing in the streets of America or Europe the police wouldn't respond the same? This totally hypocracy, all the police did was use batons and tear gas which their is nothing wrong since the protestors are destroying property. Their is a difference between peaceful protests and violent protest and if you violently protest you deserve if the police charge at you, any western nation would have done the same. Have you seen the L.A. protests? Have you seen the protests in Athens? Have you seen the protests in Paris? Have you seen the protests in Berlin?

Also did the West speak out against the terrorism that occurred in Iran preceding the elections? The blowing up of a Mosque, the shooting of Ahmedinjad offices, the destruction of government property? This all proves how these unrest are orchestrated by outsiders, and how preceding the elections they began to stir trouble, then after the elections they had the students protest violently in order to entice action from the police in order to paint the Iranian government as authoritarian which is not the case. These all have the hallmarks and fingerprints of outside involvement, we have seen such things before when the west has overthrown governments and these same actions are being repeated in Iran.

Here is another link in how the west hasn't spoken up against these actions and all the sudden they want to speak up when the protesters are the ones violently protesting: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020101


"There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris" (McGeorge Bundy)

Originally Posted by mmarsh

The (UK) Telegraph reported that it was leaked the real election result which put Ahmadinejad in third place.

Judging from the polls of what went on in the preelection, I suspecyt the government knew precisely that it was going to lose, and had decided to steal the election beforehand. I dont think they expected the tremendous public outcry of the enormous usurp of power.

5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet.

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.

This morning's news reports had Mr Mousavi quoted as announcing that he had been notified from the top that he had won, and this was later confirmed to him by the religious heirarchy. It appears that the latter had second thoughts on the matter, and explains Mousavi's positive attitude. ( I have been following 24 hour BBC and Sky reports.)