Iraqi Constitution Passes was the election Legit?

Stu Pidasso · #1 10-25-2005, 10:03 AM

CNN

When questioned about extreme results, including the 99 percent "yes" vote in one Kurdish province, electoral officials said U.N. experts and Iraqi teams verified the results.

99 percent? Makes you wonder.

Stu

vulturesrow · #2 10-25-2005, 10:07 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
CNN

When questioned about extreme results, including the 99 percent "yes" vote in one Kurdish province, electoral officials said U.N. experts and Iraqi teams verified the results.

99 percent? Makes you wonder.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kurds had every reason to overwhelmingly support the constitution.

wh1t3bread · #3 10-25-2005, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

99 percent? Makes you wonder.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I supposed to be wondering about? Anbar, a mostly SUNNI province voted something like 96% "no". I just don't get your question.

The real question is if the two-thirds "no" vote in 3 of 18 provinces was fair?

Beer and Pizza · #4 10-25-2005, 10:30 AM

If your townspeople knew that the failure of Iraqi democracy might bring a return to the ethnic cleansing of your town and region, I think they might be pretty unified in voting for democracy.

The constitution passed by 78% nationwide, consistent with expectations. The insurgents do not represent the real opinion of the people of Iraq, although reading some posts on this forum would make you think they do. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

DVaut1 · #5 10-25-2005, 11:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

99 percent? Makes you wonder.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kurds had every reason to overwhelmingly support the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I supposed to be wondering about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the part to wonder about is this: 99% approval (in any election, be it for a candidate, referendum, or otherwise) is worthy of a second look, in that:

1) Getting 99% of people to agree on anything is very difficult to do - I'm not saying it's impossible, but is certainly not a common phenomenon in fully-functioning democracies. That is, it's rare to find an election/ballot question/etc. with more than one legitimate alternative that returns a result of > 95%.
2) Many non-democracies were notorious (Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq & Stalin era Soviet Union, for instance) for holding faux elections that frequently returned 99% approval for whatever the ruling faction wanted.

Regardless, any election that returns a result of 99%-1% is going to raise an eyebrow or two, whether such suspicions have merit or not.

vulturesrow · #6 10-25-2005, 11:43 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

99 percent? Makes you wonder.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kurds had every reason to overwhelmingly support the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I supposed to be wondering about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the part to wonder about is this: 99% approval (in any election, be it for a candidate, referendum, or otherwise) is worthy of a second look, in that:

1) Getting 99% of people to agree on anything is very difficult to do - I'm not saying it's impossible, but is certainly not a common phenomenon in fully-functioning democracies. That is, it's rare to find an election/ballot question/etc. with more than one legitimate alternative that returns a result of > 95%.
2) Many non-democracies were notorious (Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq & Stalin era Soviet Union, for instance) for holding faux elections that frequently returned 99% approval for whatever the ruling faction wanted.

Regardless, any election that returns a result of 99%-1% is going to raise an eyebrow or two, whether such suspicions have merit or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, a 99% approval is fishy at best. However, given the situation, I actually find it pretty nonsuspicious.

wh1t3bread · #7 10-25-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In general, a 99% approval is fishy at best. However, given the situation, I actually find it pretty nonsuspicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement. Given the situation I am not suspicious at all. Especially considering the fact that the Anbar province (a Sunni province) voted 96% "no" (which DVault ignored when replying to my post [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

canis582 · #8 10-25-2005, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The insurgents do not represent the real opinion of the people of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know? How many Iraqis have you talked to? Would you be happy if Iraqi Soldiers were in your neighborhood?

Also, of course its rigged, we didn't spend 500 billion so that they could control their own natural resources.

DVaut1 · #9 10-25-2005, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In general, a 99% approval is fishy at best. However, given the situation, I actually find it pretty nonsuspicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

My gut tells me the election was legitimate; certainly the overwhelming Kurdish approval makes sense; and it sounds as if the UN inspectors verified the result.

But I can understand why a 99% result raises some questions.

DVaut1 · #10 10-25-2005, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Especially considering the fact that the Anbar province (a Sunni province) voted 96% "no" (which DVault ignored when replying to my post [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't purposely ignore it; I agree, a 96% "no" vote in a Sunni dominated area would seem to make sense - however such one-sided results have (in the past) been a red flag for elections/election results that were conducted/arrived at illegitimately.