6.17.2009

Ahmadinejad's Rural Votes

You have probably heard it asserted that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad principal strength is in rural areas, whereas Mir-Hossein Mousavi did relatively better in Iran's cities. However, it is not clear that this is true. Moreover, in 2005, it is demonstrably false. On the contrary, Ahmadinejad did much better in urban areas in that election.

I was finally able to track down data on the urbanization of each of Iran's 30 provinces, as listed on the website of the Statistical Center of Iran. Although Iran is a fairly large country, most of its population -- about 68 percent -- lives in cities. Its population density is quite comparable to that of the continental United States.

The percentage of Iranians living in urban areas in each province follows below:



Now, let's compare that to the percentage of the vote that Ahmadinejad received in each province in the first round of the 2005 election:



This is, obviously, a rather strong correlation. In 2005,
Ahmadinejad was a man of the cities. Iran's most urban province, the small province of Qom (or Ghom), is also where Ahmadinejad got his largest share of the vote (55.2 percent) in the first round of the 2005 elections. Ahmadinejad's performance was quite not as strong in Tehran province, where he got 30.1 percent of the vote, but that was still better than the 20.3 percent he got overall, which was just enough to place him second and qualify him for the run-off.

Now, let's contrast that to what happened on Friday:



The correlation disappears, although it does not actually reverse itself. While Ahmadinejad did relatively poorly in some urban provinces like Tehran and Yazd, he did well in others like Qom and Ishafan.

So it's not exactly correct to say that Ahmadinejad's strength was in rural areas. What we certainly can say, however, is that almost all of the improvements that Ahmadinejad made over his 2005 totals came in rural areas. What was once a weakness of his turned into another strength.

This means that at least one of two things must be true. Either the urban-rural dynamics of Iran have changed significantly over the last four years -- at least insofar as it they affected perceptions of a candidate like Ahmadinejad. Or, alternatively, the election was rigged, and those who rigged it for some reason decided that rural votes were easier to steal.

Gallup polling conducted in 2008, incidentally, found that rural Iranians expressed much more confidence in the integrity of Iran's elections:



Again, I don't think this proves much of anything in and of itself; both explanations I outlined above are entirely plausible. But if you're going to steal votes, it is probably advisable to do so people who are less likely to notice that you're stealing them. In Iran, that means people in rural areas.

76 comments

Valpey said...

I'm wondering if there is a way to measure how an 'incumbency effect' might compare between urban and rural voters in Iran. It may be that Rural voters only have exposure to state run media while urban voters have more exposure to social networks (especially dissenting opinion).

PeteKent said...

The President has been oddly unsupportive of the aspirations of the people of Iran to achieve freedom and democracy. He issued yet another measured statement yesterday, saying that to say more would be "meddling".

How low Amerika under Obama has fallen. To the point where supporting the legitimate hunger for freedom of the people of another country is now rejected as "meddling".

You have to wonder where this man's head is and what might be his end game?

Could it be to further militaristic Islamic hegemony throughout the Middle East and Asia?

I guess it would be "meddling" also to deny Iran its nuclear ambitions and thus Obama's support of their getting their nukes.

Just as the weakness of Carter and Clinton lead to the Towers falling, so we will trace to Obama the fireball that will conflagrate the world thanks to his "non-meddling".

What a venial piece of crap Obama is!

petekent01 (on twitter)

Go said...

I've heard talk that many of the intellectuals and liberals in Iran sat out the 2005 elections but have chosen to vote this year. I would imagine (but I am no where near an expert) that many of these people live in cities, especially Tehran, so that might make for a bit of swing.

goldkngt55 said...

Or, it could be, PeteKent, that you're just parroting what was dreamed up by the American Heritage Think Tank.

Because spewing propoganda that empowers the conservative regime in Iran is such a good idea.

Bush Jr. was an incompotent president. Obama is no Carter.

Pragmatus said...

PeteKent...

You are equally witless and ignorant.

"Venial" and "venal" are different words, and you have confused them in your rant. Go run next door and borrow a dictionary (surely you don't have one lying around) and check out the difference.

Zach said...

Does this mean the argument that Ahmadinejad did better in the cities than he should have is bunk, or does it mean that it will be replaced with the claim that he did too well in the rural areas? I haven't seen a single solid statistical argument for fraud here (many apparent reasons to be suspicious)... certainly nothing to justify the near universal certainty that it was stolen; that Mousavi actually won a majority of the votes.

Thanks for the urbanization/2005 correlation work. It seems entirely reasonable that Ahmadinejad could go from a 30% first round performance in Tehran to nearly 50% as an incumbent.

It would be nice to see the same analysis applied to the 2005 run-off results if they're available; that seems like a better comparison than this election (especially if you're only looking at Ahmadinejad's numbers). There's really no solid way to predict what the results Friday should have been based on past elections, though.

ewan said...

This paper was linked on Andrew Sullivan. It uses a strange-but-true Zipf type rule about the distribution of first digits called Benford's law.

I don't fully understand the paper yet and I don't have time to, but probably nate or someone else can grasp why the 'empirical Benfords law' model in sec 2 is supposed to be a tipoff. Never doubt the power of scaling laws...

Rasmus said...

I don't have the runoff results handy, but I can tell you that the pattern for 2005 still upholds if you regress the urbanisation against the vote share of all conservatives, not just Ahmadinedjad.

Erik Siegrist said...

Getting involved in internal Iranian politics worked out so well for us in the '50s, Pete... I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to do it again.

Persuter said...

You know, Nate, to me, the second graph really suggests more than anything else I've seen that the elections were fully rigged. That looks way more like human-created "randomness" in an effort to obscure rigging than real results. Why would there be such a strong urban/rural voting correlation in 2005 and none at all in 2009? Particularly given the fact that the urban/rural split seemed even wider in this election?

If McCain had won with similar voting percentages in every state, that'd be pretty suspicious, right?

It'd be interesting to see if there are more factors which should be correlated to voting patterns but aren't.

Reminds me of a story I heard in math class about an embezzling accountant who was caught because the fake numbers in his record books began with "1" just as often as they began with "9", whereas real numbers begin with "1" much more often than "9".

Alon Levy said...

Qom is a religious center, so it's not surprising it votes for conservative candidates. It's more urban than Tehran only in the abstract; Tehran is a far larger and more cosmopolitan city (like all other countries that are richer than their neighbors, Iran attracts immigrants, many of whom are illegal). The appropriate American comparison to Qom is a hypothetical state consisting just of Oklahoma City and its suburbs, or of Colorado Springs.

Boing said...

Obviously it's 538's job to analyse the available data and draw tentative conclusions.

Nevertheless, the really salient facts from the 'results' of the election are these: Ahmadinejad supposedly trounced Mousavi 57%-42% in Eastern Azerbaijan province. Karroubi apparently got 5% in Lurestan. These are their ethnic home provinces, this is simply not remotely feasible.

The details are interesting for trying to work out exactly how they lied, and whether it was done incompetently and in a rush; but there is absolutely no question this is a fix.

Rasmus said...

Persuter- yeah, that's Benford's Law. But the numbers from this election are apparently conform with this law.

And btw, Ahmadinedjad was the only candidate in 2005 where there was a rural/urban correlation (and even that was weak, I find something like an r² of .23), Rafsandjani, Karroubi and the others didn't have such a split.

And the second graph doesn't mean that there were no differences between different provinces, simply that urbanisation was not the reason for the variance.

Zach said...

@Persuter

I looked at Obama's fraction of the vote and margin of victory in every state and compared it to Ahmedinejad's similar numbers by province. In both cases, there was more variation in Iran than in the use (higher standard error). The claim that the results between provinces had little variation is baseless, at least when it's made in reference to results in the United States (I've seen this elsewhere as, "If Obama got the same total in New York and North Dakota wouldn't you be suspicious?").

chronosynclastic infundibulum said...

PeteKent...

So you think support for the opposition shows support for 'freedom and democracy?' Sure, if the candidates permitted in this election were not hand picked by the theocracy.

Obama showing support for the opposition is EXACTLY what Ahmadinejad wants. It would give him license to unleash a serious crackdown against those who are siding with 'the Great Satan'

Are you completely devoid of basic political instincts or are just stupid?

BeanoCook said...

The URBAN v RURAL Iran myth was fed by insane liberals that desperately wanted to pretend that 'conservative' Ammadinejad was essentially the same as Bush, in both policy and in support from the 'rubes' that lived in the country.

Just an embarrassing, typically mindless lie from the extreme left.

The American left can't even speak out against the totalitarian beat down they pretended during Bush that woman's rights existed in these Islamic republics, they are filled with moral equivalencies. Sickening.

The educated and intellectuals in Iran love the US and supported Bush, or anyone that was able to voice support for their suffering and stand by them.

This Obama guy is a coward. He can't even speak the truth and he is ashamed to say anything that is in America's interest.

Patrick said...

Zach, the issue is not that the results are exactly the same across all provinces--obviously they're not.

The issue is that we don't see the electoral cleavages we see in the vast majority of elections. Pick any variable (I've only been able to track down data on urbanization, population density, percentage of people under 30 years old) and you have no statistically meaningful correlation.

The same applies to comparing the provincial results of this election to 2005 (perhaps as a measure of conservativeness), either to MA's results then in either the general or the runoff, or the coalition of conservative candidates, however you define it.

It's like the results are essentially random.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Beano, give it up. Nobody supported Bush anywhere.

Plus, the overwhelming consensus is not meddling in Iran's election is the right thing to do. Or, would you rather have Achme use our meddling as a tool to use as proof for his need to remain in power?

Our silence has taken us out of the equation as the leaders of Iran meet to discuss how to proceed. If the people of Iran are the driving force behind the discussion, things may possibly go in a more favorable way.

Karen said...

The claim that the results between provinces had little variation is baseless, at least when it's made in reference to results in the United States (I've seen this elsewhere as, "If Obama got the same total in New York and North Dakota wouldn't you be suspicious?").

Would you believe it if Obama got the same % of the votes in Texas and Arizona as he did in Illinois? The results show that Ahmadijad got the same percentages in the hometowns of all 3 of his competitors as he did the rest of the country. Whoever fixed the results, wasn't subtle.

Michael said...

BeanoCook:

The "extreme left" would be Stalinists, or at least Leninists. When you use a term like that polemically to describe people who aren't remotely similar to even the position of the post-WWII British Labour Party (which, as you may not know, nationalized several major industries in Britain, and not as a temporary measure) - a social democratic party influenced by the program of what a socialist party that won an election should do that Engels detailed in _Principles of Communism_ - people you might want to reach just tune you out. Of course, if you prefer to just rant and have everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh ignore you...

Zach said...

@Patrick - The announced results are hardly random; they are well-correlated with the hardline/moderate split in 2005 (with a few exceptions) as Nate demonstrated earlier.

Most proof of fraud that I've seen assumes that correlations in the 2005 first-round results should be present here; there's not enough data for elections with incumbents to support that, and I think that a comparison with the 2005 run-off would likely be more predictive of Ahmadinejad's actual result. That election had two choices; this election basically had two choices (Ahmadinejad or someone else; no reason to coalesce around a single opposition candidate because of the run-off system).

I'll be more convinced if correlations disappear between the 2005 run-off and this week's election; particularly if they can't be explained by intervening events. I would, very naively, expect Ahmadinejad to do better amongst the poor (presumably more rural) because of the programs he's implemented; particularly since he was running as the mayor of Tehran in 2005 which may have given him an urban appeal. Again this is all totally speculative.

Kevin C. said...

Karen: Al Gore performed worse in Tennessee than he did in the rest of the country, even though it was his home state. That fact alone doesn't discredit the overall result.

Zach said...

@Karen - my point is that the results don't show that at all. Ahmadinejad underperformed his national result by 10% in Azerbaijan (combining the two provinces); Obama underperformed his national result by 9% in TX and 8% in AZ.

John Park said...

Nate, you posit that "either the urban-rural dynamics of Iran have changed significantly over the last four years" or "the election was rigged". However you miss a third possibility. That Ahmadinejad's policies/appeal has changed over the last four years.

Consider, he started out as mayor of Tehran, the largest city and the capital. That he would have urban support seems natural to me. He had to have had enough appeal to urbanites to have been successfully elected as mayor and then followed with a good enough term as mayor to garner national prominence enough to even run in the national election.

However, since then has he been a particularly pro-city leader? Not particularly. In fact, it seems he has gone the route of "regular folk" versus the "elites" argument. He certainly isnt talking about rural elites. Hence the impression that he has more strength in rural areas. The truth seems to be that he has been improving his strength in rural areas.

Meanwhile, these results could very well be rigged. However, this rural-urban thing is not the smoking gun.

Now, there are some accusations that an IT engineer (who may now be dead) smuggled out the real results the day after the election. Mousavi won in a landslide with 19 million votes, and Ahmadinejad finished 3rd!

markymark said...

I wonder if PK would prefer that America go and invade Iran and get rid of Ahmedinejad. Because regime change worked so well in Iraq.

And if America really wants to lecture the world on freedom, as it seems like conservatives do, and from time to time liberals do too, then part of freedom is surely respecting the lawful election results of another country.

Sorry PK, bud, but your posts get stupider and stupider.

I have no idea if the election was rigged, or if the frustrations shown in Iran are a symptom of a wider urban vs rural conflict that in fact most nations face, especially in less favourable economic climates.

Sacto Joe said...

Definition of a TROLL: A person who makes statements designed to be inflamatory in order to elicit a response, said response then serving as a platform to make further inflamatory statements. And the purpose of all this is to disrupt the flow of meaningful on-topic discussion.

Ergo, if you respond to a TROLL you've just been sucked into their plot.

It is far better to just ignore their comments. Think of it as stepping over horse dung after a parade passes by.

Shygetz said...

Don't all of the analyses of this sort assume the numbers reported from 2005 are reliable? Is that a valid assumption?

Patrick said...

Zach, one of us must be misinterpreting our reading of Nate's analysis.

My takeaway was that this was the big point:

"These correlations are fairly weak, especially for the latter graph. Certainly not the kind of thing that will dissuade anyone who believes the election was tainted."

The R^2 value was .2281 for conservative vote share, which is a very weak correlation. And the correlation is pretty much not there at all if you look at MA's vote share.

I'll do a quick similar analysis for Obama v Kerry in 2004.

PeteKent said...

There was a time when Amerika stood for democracy, freedom and the rule of law. That was in the past, the "old ways".

Now the legitimate aspirations of a people to see their votes counted and exert democratic control over their own destinies are being subordinated. To what? Why?

Because 60 years ago we deposed a dictator and installed the Shah?

This Nation used to stand for something. Now we simply hide our face in shame. Shame over all the sins of our past as confessed to by Obama.

He is a most venial man!

Why take pains all of you to defend the undefendable?

It is not "meddling" to call out tyrants no matter where they are. Iraq is a poor analogy: Indeed the price paid may have been a high one, but the Iraqi people will tell you they are better off today and are certainly freer than they were than when they were ruled over by a butcher who dipped his opposition in battery acid and had their wives and children watch.

petekent01 (on twitter)

Fangz said...

I've run the analysis with the runoff data, and it seems to hold up. Since it's a pain, I've uploaded the runoff data I extracted from the Mebane study here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rOXQO76gYEMMip3KwUNx3jw&output=html

The results are in the same order of provinces as every other table.

Hard said...

I sees me a bunch of faggots and niggers in here talkin' dat same ol' shit. Why dont all u buttfuckers and monkeys go shut the fuk up!

Your just camel jockey niggers like Ahmdnijead so just go over there and suk his dong. Atheist fagot niggers!

Hard said...

Black folks = niggers = monkeys

Hard said...

Liberals = faggots = buttfuckers

Hard said...

Liberals = atheists = godless asshats


Glad I'm with the GOP! We're white, straight, and God-fearin'!!

You fukkin' niggers and faggots and atheists can suck on these big giant balls.

Hard said...

White folks > Asians > apes and monkeys > dogs > rats > maggots > Niggers > Arab camel jockeys like Ahmdnsinjead > faggots > atheists

Pragmatus said...

PeteKent…

Since you are evidently too lazy and self-absorbed to look it up yourself, here’s a little English lesson for you.

venial means “easily excused or forgivable”, as in venial sin.

venal means “associated or characterized by bribery”, as in a venal city official.

I’m sure such complexities are lost on you. Even the definition of venal is probably outside your experience. You probably intended to say “evil”, but heard the word “venal” somewhere and thought it might spice up your claptrap. Or rather you heard the word “venial” somewhere, stuck that in instead, and thus made a complete hash of what you were trying to say.

Persuter said...

"Persuter- yeah, that's Benford's Law. But the numbers from this election are apparently conform with this law."

Wow, that was not even close to my point. The point was that Benford's law was ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human-created randomness failing to display patterns where we would expect to see patterns.

"And the second graph doesn't mean that there were no differences between different provinces, simply that urbanisation was not the reason for the variance."

That's precisely why I asked, "Why would there be such a strong urban/rural voting correlation in 2005 and none at all in 2009?" I wish you had read the post before responding.

This is also why I wanted to see whether other factors that should have had an impact on voting patterns did not.


"btw, Ahmadinedjad was the only candidate in 2005 where there was a rural/urban correlation"

And so the question is why there is no correlation in this year, particularly when the correlation seems to have only strengthened.

Another question would be whether the pre-election polls displayed correlation with urbanization.


"In both cases, there was more variation in Iran than in the use (higher standard error). The claim that the results between provinces had little variation is baseless, at least when it's made in reference to results in the United States (I've seen this elsewhere as, "If Obama got the same total in New York and North Dakota wouldn't you be suspicious?")."

No one said the results between provinces had little variation. The point is that the results between provinces do not display correlation with the provinces' urbanization, in sharp contrast with what we expect.

You get closer to the point with your next post, "... the results don't show that at all. Ahmadinejad underperformed his national result by 10% in Azerbaijan (combining the two provinces); Obama underperformed his national result by 9% in TX and 8% in AZ," but now you only pay attention to the "home province" factor (even combining TWO provinces), while many people have noted that Al Gore lost in Tennessee. The fact is that the results DO show a lack of correlation with regards to urbanization.


I'm not saying that the election was definitively stolen or not stolen. But I find it hard to believe that a political division completely disappeared in four years. You can make whatever argument you want about individual provinces, but the fact is that, at least in the United States, it is extremely difficult to imagine no voting correlation with urbanization across all 50 states, and there is no compelling reason to think Iran has a dissimilar dynamic.

markymark said...

Yeah, PK, I remember a time before George W Bush had been President as well. There is no way that Dubya's foreign and security policy stood for democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

And thats sort of the point of Obama's stand. In Iran right now, the rule of law says that Ahmedenijad won, like it or not. (Just as the rule of law in 2000 said that Bush won, like it or not.) The problem with championing democracy across the world is that sometimes people you don't like will win. There is no evidence, no concrete evidence at least, of fraud in this election. So its difficult for Obama to do much else.

Just imagine if in 2000, Vladimir Putin stood up and said that he didn't recognise the 2000 election as a fair result. I think a lot of people in the US would have gone crazzeeeee mad over it. And that is sort of the point.

Tanystropheus said...

It's possible, of course, that the election was fixed but that Ahmadinejad would still have won if it had been fair. The main cause for suspicion is still the government's behavior during and immediately after the election (including the surprising speed of the results), rather than the official results themselves.

Patrick said...

Looked at Kerry versus Obama, and you do have a very significant correlation (R^2 = 0.8886) in correlation of vote proportion results.

I'm hunting for more provincial level data in Iran, to see if anything at all pops up.

Interesting, I took the poll from earlier this June that breaks down results for 13 or so provinces. The proportion it estimates for MA in those provinces correlates (R^2 = 0.429) with the conservative vote share in 2005. There is no correlation (R^2 = 0.0178) between the poll estimates and what he got in 2009.

Pragmatus said...

Hard…

I suppose it’s useless to point out to you that the language you use in your illuminating posts doesn’t square very well with your claim to be “God-fearin’”.

Ed Weissman said...

There could be the problem of ecological correlations. As well, what are the r's? It looks to me that the 05 is quite high .7 or so. 09 looks pretty close to zero.

Zach said...

@persuter - I was responding to Karen who said it'd be remarkable if Obama performed as well in TX and AZ as Ahmadinejad did in Azarbaijan; Obama did do just as well.

I also posted a plausible explanation for the absence of this correlation in 2009 (ignoring the fundamental problems with comparing the two sets of results to begin with) - Ahmedinejad was a mayor of the most populace city in Iran running for President; I'd suspect Rudy Giuliani to have a similar outsized urban appeal if he ever got the GOP nomination (not a perfect analogy). He's spent the last 4 years, by all accounts, abandoning his urban base and increasing subsidies for poor (and presumably rural) people, accounting for a shift at both ends of the spectrum that eliminates the correlation.

No clue if that's actually what happened, but it seems as likely as Mousavi getting secretly contacted before the polls were closed and told he won a huge supermajority of the votes; imagine trying to apply this analysis if the sort of big win he's claiming were the announced result?

harmlesstree said...

Hard, you are part of the GOP, there is no doubting that.

Iranians are not Arabs you ignorant dullard.

Pot Kettle Black said...

I take issue with the following:
"This means that at least one of two things must be true. Either the urban-rural dynamics of Iran have changed significantly over the last four years... Or ... the election was rigged."

It seems to me, off the top of my head, it could be either of those or:
The guy had better name recognition in cities in 2005 and now, with 4 years of presidency under his beard, he is better known to the rural population of Iran.

I also suspect that our understanding of Urban/Rural might not work on Iran, where it's more like half of Tehran and the rest of the country.

Also to comments above, Obama's unwillingness to intervene in a foreign election is in an American tradition spanning hundreds of years. Did anyone intervene in 30 years of Saddam until our last President waged a war of choice? How about some interest in Zimbabwe's elections? Or Democracy movements in Saudi Arabia? Historically, maybe we let the CIA sort election results we didn't like, but the Office of the President has not been much on intervention in foreign elections.

Last: I know we think the President of Iran is a big deal and that Ahmadinejad is the worst thing since the Taliban. But in terms of the real power structure of the country, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni is the Alpha and the Omega. Side note: How many Americans think that Khameni is just a different spelling of Khomeni and think that he's the guy who led the 79 revolution from exile? Now, that'd be some polling. Can we give 3000 random Americans pictures of Khomeni and Khameni and ask who is in charge of Iran? I'm thinking probably 2 of 3 go for the scarier guy (Khomeni). Which suggests to me that 2 of 3 Americans should shut up about foreign policy in general.

Patrick said...

Zach, so is your position that there were no significant demographic cleavages in this election; that MA happened to appeal equally to conservative, reformist, and liberal elements; and that MA had no significant geographic components to his appeal.

It's impossible to get confirmation one way or another right now about whether this election was legit or not (due, might I add, to Ahmadinejab's closing off all media access and independent sources of verification while tossing opposition figures into jail). But it would do a lot for supporters of MA to actually explain how the results came about. The rural/urban argument was one thing that might've worked, but the evidence doesn't bear it out. So what's the deal?

Zach said...

I think the best evidence for fraud is that Iran hasn't called for a new, internationally monitored election. I suppose there's a point of pride if they think it was fair, and it's probably impossible within Iranian law, but a new election would totally undercut the opposition; assuming the announced total is even close to what would happen in a fair election, Ahmedinejad would win again.

Zach said...

My position isn't that everything looks swell; it's that the evidence presented so far is circumstantial and not completely convincing. Given that it's basically gospel in the media (and especially online) that the results were entirely fabricated, this is sort of important.

And you don't have to be grouped with "supporters of MA" to recognize that some skepticism is warranted. I'll be happy if the revolt succeeds; I'm just worried it represents 20 to 30 million people instead of the 40+ that Mousavi claims, and that very few of those people wield any power.

As far as what happened after the election; Iran being a police state is a simpler explanation than a cover up.

Boing said...

Tanystropheus said...
"It's possible, of course, that the election was fixed but that Ahmadinejad would still have won if it had been fair. The main cause for suspicion is still the government's behavior during and immediately after the election (including the surprising speed of the results), rather than the official results themselves."


- Wrong! Sorry to repeat myself, but the main cause for suspicion is that Mousavi and Karroubi got trounced in their own ethnic heartlands! Karroubi got 5% in Lurestan, to Ahmadinejad's 71%.

It's possible that this is an honest result, but only in the sense that it's possible Obama could have got 5% in Illinois. ie, to all intents and purposes, it's impossible.

Pot Kettle Black said...

Alon Levy:
"The appropriate American comparison to Qom is a hypothetical state consisting just of Oklahoma City and its suburbs, or of Colorado Springs."

I think we can safely call the province of Qom's American Equivalent to be Utah. Salt Lake City = Qom proper. The Tabernacle = Hazrat-e Masuma Shrine. Utah Religious Republicans = Iranian Conservatives. Since the Mormons make Utah a practical theocracy with a democracy beneath, I think it's pretty much the best way for Americans to understand Qom.

To say that Qom and central Tehran have much in common is to fundamentally misunderstand Iran.

Bob X said...

@Rasmus: your claim that the reported vote totals are consistent with Benford's Law is false. See the raw numbers and the statistical analysis towards the end of the comments on the "If He Did It" thread. Ahmedinejad's numbers are only borderline suspicious, but the numbers for Korroubi (the candidate who ran strongly last time but supposedly could not even break out of single digits in his hometown where his political machine is based) give chi-square 28.1 (expected value 8) for a p-value around 0.0006

Persuter said...

"And you don't have to be grouped with "supporters of MA" to recognize that some skepticism is warranted."

I certainly agree with you, Zach, that it's far from proven that there was vote fakery. Again, I think the best way to pin it down further is investigating two questions:

1) Was there an urban/rural correlation in the pre-election polls?

2) Are there other factors that showed correlation in the 2005 election which show no correlation now?

If there was no urban/rural correlation in the pre-election polls, or if most factors show the same correlation to voting that they did in 2005, it certainly seems reasonable to suggest that the lack of urbanization correlation is simply a fluke/outcome of circumstances.

On the other hand, if most factors that showed some correlation in 2005 show equally little correlation today, it's very unlikely that circumstances could have led to ALL the factors being nullified.

zinfan94 said...

Here is a report authored by someone who has actually studied people in the Iranian rural villages.

http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/17/irans-rural-vote-and-election-fraud/

Off-topic... Some moderation on this board is needed to get rid of off-topic and derogatory posting. Please remember people, Iranians and other foreigners are reading this site too, and the posts by the Obama haters above, give them the impression that GOP voters are ignorant bigots.

Is this the image you want to spread?

PeteKent said...

Pragmatus: it was more or less a spelling mistake. Lighten up!

Simper Fi!

petekent01 (on twitter)

Primadog said...

Here's an interesting thought: What if they simply switched the top 2 vote count? It'll explain how thus far the votes have stood up against statistical tools against fraud.

Paul said...

Trying to statistically analize a clearly-rigged election is more than just funny. I find it somewhat creepy and bizarre. You are picking apart the election "returns" like you were combing through the Cuyahoga County, Ohio results from the 2004 Presidential election.

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship, not a democratic republic... :-)

polls_apart said...

@harmlesstree:
Regarding the postings of one "Hard": I found them disgusting. But I have to disagree with you about his being part of the GOP. I found his epithet-laden rants to be so extreme as to be laughable, and I have no doubt: he is portraying himself as an extreme parody of a conservative wingnut. Think Stephen Colbert with an uncontrollable case of potty-mouth. I just hope this comparison isn't insulting to Mr. Colbert.

polls_apart said...

The key line in those posts is the following:
"Glad I'm with the GOP! We're white, straight, and God-fearin'!!"
It was the only line not containing an epithet. And as another poster noted, it goes against the tone of the rest of his post. That's why I thinik it was a disgusting attempt at parody.

Shaahin said...

Nate, keep up the work. But may I ask you to edit your original post ot reflect some useful comments people leave here?

One needs some Iranian history/politics to interpret these data. Ok, guys, here is what happened. In 2005, Ahmadinejad was a widely unknown candidate. Most people had no idea who he was. He used to be the mayor of Tehran and Ardabil before he ran for presidency. Therefore, he was not known to most people except for people in Tehran and Ardabil. People in rural areas definitely had no idea who he was. According to the data, he got most of his votes in the first round from Tehran and other central privinces. As said, he was the mayor of Tehran, and a native of Semnan, so his votes there were no surprise. Karroubi (a Lur) carried Luristan and western/south-western provinces, Mehralizade (an Azeri) carried north western (Azeri) provinces. The total votes of the first five candidates were so close to each other that a few votes would have let Karroubi to the second round (instead of Ahmadinejad). In fact no one thought that Ahmadinejad was ever going to run for the run-off (some say there was some rigging here too).

But what happened in the second round? In the second round, many people thought that neither of the two candidates (Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad) are worth voting for. However, many people were panicked. Rafsanjani was an unpopular and sometimes hated figure, which made many people vote for Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, intellectuals and the middle class were scared of Ahmadinejad and his views, so they voted for Rafsanjani. Moreover, Ahmadinejad, a conservative, attracted most conservative votes of the first round, plus most of Karroubi's votes because some of Karroubi's slogans (handouts for the poor) were similar to those of Ahmadinejad.

In 2009, the situation was completely different. Ahmadinejad was no more an unknown mayor, he was the incumbent. People in most big cities (the middle class) now hated him, including Tehran, Ghom, and Isfahan, where people had voted for him in 2005. However, his handouts should have bought him many votes in poorer/rural areas.

One more thing (this one I'm more or less guessing): In 2005 Ahmadinejad must have got some votes from Ghom because people viewed him as a religious and traditionally-minded person (Ghom's atmosphere is very religious and traditional). However, during the past four years it turned out that he is not a big fan of clerics except for a fundamentalist minority of them who he supported. Thus, I think, he should have lost many votes from Ghom, especially given that Mousavi was heavily supported by some major clerics from Ghom.

That's kind of a summary of what happened.

Opus 132 said...

" Al Gore performed worse in Tennessee than he did in the rest of the country, even though it was his home state. That fact alone doesn't discredit the overall result."

The same guy rigged both elections?

BeanoCook said...

HARD is a liberal, I guarantee.

Pathetic that some people try to excuse his incredibly hateful, racist witting as some form of a parody of the GOP.

Funny, but the only people in America saying such thing are liberals when they are only portraying a "parody".

The left is the place where pure hatred is accepted. It is like a support group that makes racial stereotyping and hate acceptable.

End Affirmative Action now, the only racist policy in America.

Sacto Joe said...

I reiterate:

Definition of a TROLL: A person who makes statements designed to be inflamatory in order to elicit a response, said response then serving as a platform to make further inflamatory statements. And the purpose of all this is to disrupt the flow of meaningful on-topic discussion.

Ergo, if you respond to a TROLL you've just been sucked into their plot.

It is far better to just ignore their comments. Think of it as stepping over horse dung after a parade passes by.

foruhar said...

I don't know if someone already mentioned this or not, but a factor that might be relevant is that allegedly a good chunk of the conservative vote consists of people who consider it their religious duty to always vote and support their candidate. Whereas the opposition participation is supposedly shaky and circumstantial. So the fact that Ahmadinejad did well in Urban areas in 05 might be the result of less of participation on the part of the opposition. It might be helpful if participation in Rural and Urban areas in 05 and 09 are also compared.

Opus 132 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Opus 132 said...

Make your life more pleasant by blocking trolls like PeteKent and BeanoCook.

From http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/43818


"538TrollRemover

By nicksuserscripts — Last update

Mar 8, 2009

Installed 149 times.

Script Summary:

Removes troll's comments fromfivethirtyeight.com.

Pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble.

This script works at the website http://www.fivethirtyeight.com and prevents the comments of trolls from appearing on your screen.

I do not mean for people to use this script to create their own echo-chamber on fivethiryeight.com, but as a stop-gap measure to remove the trolls from the comment section in order to increase the signal:noise ratio and improve the level of discourse.

That being said, it comes pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble - you'll never have to see their comments again!

To add trolls, from your firefox browser select 'Tools'->'Greasemonkey'->'Manage User Scripts'.
Select '538TrollRemover' and click 'Edit'. Add any new trolls to the trollList array near the beginning of the script.


Send comments/bugs/feature requests to nicksuserscripts+538TrollRemover@gmail.com

I am busy with other things, but I will attempt to fix bugs in a timely manner.

P.S.
This script works with Google Chrome (see http://mashable.com/2008/12/15/google-chrome-gr... for instructions on running Greasemonkey scripts on Chrome)

I'm working on getting this to work with one of the IE extensions."

Alon Levy said...

Pot Kettle Black: I deliberately left out Salt Lake City, which is 50% non-Mormon, and fairly liberal. It's the suburbs that are extremely Mormon-conservative, especially Provo, home of BYU. Colorado Springs, which is very religious and conservative even in the city proper, is a somewhat better analogy for Qom.

Pinar said...

@Shaahin: I was thinking about what you said about Ahmadinejad being more or less unaccessible to the rural provinces in 2005, but not being an Iranian, it is harder to assess. So, thanks for the comment.

I would like to know what percentage of Karroubi's vote went to each candidate in rural areas vs. urban areas. Not that that proves anything either, but it would support the switching the Karroubi vote over to Ahmadinajad in rural areas where vote stealing would be easier hypothesis.

zinfan94 said...

Here is some interesting commentary by a reporter in Tehran, how he went searching for Ahmadinejad voters on election day.

http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/who-voted-for-ahmadinejad/

Fangz said...

A curious thing on the rural votes issue - I did a look at the change in turnout across Iran between this election, and the 2005 first round election. I think I anticipated some sort of rural voting turnout gain, or something.

Actually, there seemed to be a fairly constant increase in turnout between 2005 and 2009 across all rural/urban regions. I'm not sure how to interpret this?

Rational said...

This is so sad. Such a pathetic excuse for a democracy. It's almost insulting that Iran puts up such a weak facade. When only 39% of your population has faith in the validity of elections, i would venture to say a democracy isn't even possible. It's at least good to see that the people of Iran are making some ruckus over a clearly fradulant result.

diesel said...

Hey Nate,

Have you seen this photo essay (w/audio commentary) from the New Yorker covering one of Aahmadinejad's visits to Tabriz (Mousavi's "home town") in April.
It's about 2 minutes long. Well worth the time to give a bit of color to the rural discussion.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/04/13/090413_audioslideshow_ahmadinejad

It reminds me of how quick we are to jump to conclusions based on seeing the world through our local lenses.

Cheers,
Diesel

GeneralOreo said...

Sorry but that analysis doesn't work because of two things:

1- there was a boycott and a general feeling of apathy in 2005, many reformists didn't vote.

2- accusations of vote fraud in the first round in favor of ahmadinejad were thrown around, something I'm inclined to believe.

Mike said...

Vote counts seem to be unusual. What's the reason???? Seems to me like Del Dover has the best take on it I've seen yet - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5doiiGgcGGM

polls_apart said...

@Beano:
I was NOT defending or excusing the potty-mouthed posts of "Hard". I twice called them disgusting. I was just trying to point out that they might not have been what they seemed at first blush. I am actually more upset by his posts than I would be if they were coming from some ignorant bigot, since I suspect he is trying to parody and insult such bigots. That does not excuse the foul nature of his posts.

Got that?

mlt said...

I explored the official data given from votes outside of Iran in http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98206&sectionid=351020101

The analysis is in: http://mlt-thinks.blogspot.com/

I can not draw any clear conclusions, but the data there is much more heterogeneous than the data Nate looked at.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,