Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

[perseus]

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/middle_east/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/middle_east/8099952.stm

 

[mmarsh]

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 Can of Man]

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

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[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.

 

[A Can of Man]

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.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

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?id=98200&sectionid=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?id=98277&sectionid=351020101

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

 

[Chukpike]

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.

 

[Del Boy]

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.)

 

[A Can of Man]

UnitedSomalia must be on drugs.

 

[Partisan]

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.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[A Can of Man]

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.

 

[Chukpike]

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.

 

[A Can of Man]

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.

 

[mmarsh]

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.

 

[Chukpike]

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.

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.

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?

 

[A Can of Man]

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.

 

[Partisan]

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.