3:31 AM: A map showing the ostensible results.
2:19 AM: The reader who sent these to me is named Daniel Berman; I've confirmed that he's comfortable with having his name disclosed. Daniel is pursing a masters in Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews and these results were sent to he and the other students in his program. There's nothing particularly proprietary about them, other than that a lot of hard work was done (by Daniel and his classmates, not by me) to translate them into English.
2:01 AM: Updated with additional analysis -- see below.
12:25 AM: A reader, who identified himself only by his first name, sent these to me. I can't vouch for their accuracy beyond that, but they seem pretty kosher. I don't think this data is exactly supposed to be top-secret or anything like that, but I know it's hard to find, and so I'm posting it as a public service. These are supposed to be "official" results as tallied by Iran's Interior Ministry. If you want to compare and contrast, you can find some information on Iran's 2005 election results here.
(Note: per several requests, the results are now listed in alphabetical order).
Now, here is a comparison between the percentage of the vote that Ahmadinjad received on Friday with the percentage received by the conservative candidates (Ahmadinejad, Larijani and Qalifab) in the first round of the 2005 elections.
The one province that my little birdie alerted me to is Luristan (or Lorestan; these Arabic Farsi transliterations are imprecise), where conservative candidates received only about 20 percent of the vote in 2005 but where Ahmadinejad supposedly got 71 percent on Friday. Another outlier is Tehran Province, where Ahmadinejad and the other conservatives actually didn't do all that badly in 2005 but did relatively poorly on Friday (the Interior Ministry still had Ahmadinejad winning Tehran Province, however, although not the city of Tehran itself).
Here is the same graph looking at the Ahmadinejad share of the vote only.
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.
But, there are some important differences between the two races; in the first round in 2005, you had five candidates who were fairly competitive -- two conservatives, two reformists, and one (Rafsanjani) who is probably best considered a centrist (by Iranian standards). This time, you had only two candidates who received a competitive number of votes. And, obviously, Iran is a complicated and ever-changing place, with votes that may shift along ethnic fault lines in addition to political ones.
I simply don't know anything more than I've reported here and in Saturday's post. Based on conversations with people who are a bit more informed about Iranian domestic politics, it seems absolutely possible that Ahmadinejad in fact won (although his share of the vote was probably boosted through "dirty tricks" -- intimidation both before and during the election, jamming text messaging services, etc.) and also absolutely possible that the election was stolen. The statistical evidence is intriguing but, ultimately, inconclusive.
6.15.2009
Iranian Election Results by Province [UPDATED]
by Nate Silver @ 12:25 AM...see also international, iran
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

111 comments
The Field is the must-read resource here. Questioning of the vote count is missing the main point.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iran-question-illegitimacy-bigger-electoral-fraud
"The emphasis and attention should be properly put upon the repressive steps being taken by the Iranian state in the present, especially those it has already taken against free speech and communication (cutting off telephone and cell signals, filtering inconvenient Internet sites like YouTube, and the reported house arrest of opposition leaders, a claim which I tend to believe simply because we have not heard from any of them in recent hours.)
In other words, this is a State - and an election - that was and is illegitimate whether or not electoral fraud can be proved in yesterday's vote counting. And the actions it has already taken drive that point home, minute by minute, hour after hour."
Well, do these numbers make sense?!
I guess they really think people will believe that Mousavi lost his home province of East Azerbaidjan to Ahmadi 42% to 57%.
Daniel: No, they don't. Neither does it makes sense that they were all "counted" within like three hours of polls closing.
it's impossible to usefully compare these numbers with the 2005 election, because the second-round results on the site you link to are provisional, and there are no provincial numbers at all from the second round.
Nate, it's irresponsible to post these numbers you got from a guy who only gives his first name, and then say they "seem pretty kosher." I think there's an excellent chance you're getting played. They also contradict some other anonymously submitted numbers that Andrew Sullivan posted:
Unofficial news - reports leaked results from Interior Ministry:
Eligible voters: 49,322,412
Votes cast: 42,026,078
Spoilt votes: 38,716
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 19,075,623
Mehdi Karoubi: 13,387,104
Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad (incumbent): 5,698,417
Mohsen Rezaei (conservative candidate): 3,754,218
(From http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-real-results.html)
If these numbers had been released through official channels, even that would be highly suspect without solid verification. But these aren't even the official numbers. This bears resemblance to how Bush cronies "leaked" information that was favorable to the administration. "Shhhh, don't use my name, but this inside evidence shows that Bush is TEH AWESOME."
That's what this could well be. I think all these competing numbers are part of a propaganda war, and we have no idea if either set is correct. You are doing a disservice to the truth, and a disservice to the Iranian people by giving these numbers such a prominent visibility on a site that is famous for its rigorous commitment to getting the numbers right.
It would be nice to see these provinces color coded on a red/blue/purple map that we are used to seeing in the U.S.
We're familiar with cities being blue, rural areas being red, except in the Northeast where low-density Vermont is just as blue as as big city, and Texas/Oklahoma where even Oklahoma City and Dallas are relatively red.
Is Iran like the U.S. overall, or is it more full of anomalies like the Northeast and Oklahoma?
Just from a cursory glance, you can see the official poll results don't make any sense. Look at one of the third party candidates, Karoubi. He is from Lorestan. in 2005, in the first round he took 55% of the vote in Lorestan. In these results, he takes only 5%.
Extraordinarily unlikely.
pizzuti, what would be the point? These numbers have Ahmadinejad winning in all but two provinces, including ones highly hostile to him. Similar to a map showing that Obama won every state but Alaska and Kansas.
Nate, have you had a chance to examine the city-level returns posted by the Iranian Interior Ministry on their website? These were posted by "Pejman" and translated by "Shaahin" in the comments thread to your previous post: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html#comment-672782692382259870
Nate, I love this site, but why on earth are you trying to make this seem respectable or kosher? This whole thing is a farce, those "results" are fabricated. Don't give succor to a regime that is fast turning into simply a military dictatorship--run by the Revolutionary Guards
IN addition, the fact that he took every single large province, 7 of the 10 largest by 65% or more, even when he wasn't popular at all in Tehran, Mashhad, etc...
I'd be interested in a regression looking at how urban/rural areas went. On first glance it looks very peculiar how he seemed to have over performed in urban areas and maybe even underperformed in the poor, rural areas where he was popular.
I think you guys are missing the point of the post. Nate put "official" in quotes; I don't think anyone's saying we really take these results as the actual will of the people. But there's no reason not to believe these aren't the numbers the government of Iran are giving out. Even if they are fraudulent, we need to know what the fraud is, so in that way it's good to have them to see.
Nate, I've been following your site for almost a year now and I respect the hell out of you, but this is the first time I've been led to comment.
Posting these numbers and giving them a degree of credence by saying they seem kosher? WTF? How do they seem legitimate and what on earth makes you think they didn't come directly from the ISI?
Hmm, thanks Nate. I hadn't seen the full numbers.
There is a lot about the numbers that does seem highly unlikely.
I like having a (mostly) unbiased source of (apparently) biased numbers.
Sorry, mixing up my security services in that part of the world. Replace ISI in my post above with simply the Powers That Be in Iran.
Spiral,
I think Nate was saying that they seem kosher in the sense that the reader didn't fabricate them. I'm not sure that was intended to indicate anything about the legitimacy of the election.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying that the results were kosher, only that these numbers seemed kosher in that they seem like the correct ones as far as what the Iranian government sent out officially.
As others have mentioned, and I hope Nate clarifies this - I believe he is saying that these results look like real "official" results, not that the underlying numbers are free of bias.
Folks, summing the numbers by province in this spreadsheet (the "official" city-level returns, translated directly from the two links on the Iranian Interior Ministry website) seems to give the same numbers as the chart Nate posted here. So, yes, this chart would appear to be as "accurate" or as fraudulent as the official returns, but less granular.
On the topic of kosher... wouldn't a more appropriate choice of word be halal? Given, you know, the feelings towards Judaism?
A friend of mine commented on the elections by saying they're always rigged, and elections usually ask if you want to re-elect the same person, or not elect someone else.
Janek,
But I think Nate Silver is Jewish. The name and all.
Finally! Good evidence for complete fraud.
We have no way of knowing of course if these numbers represent those held to be the "official results" by the Iranian Interior Ministry.
I can say that on a cursory examination these numbers could have been arrived at very easily by taking the actual results I would expect for each of these provinces and shifting 20% of the total vote from Mousavi to Ahmadinejad. That is I would have expected Mousavi to have taken Tehran by 66% to 33% for Ahmadinejad. Have expected Ahmadinejad to have taken Qom, the religious center, by about 52% to 45%. Have expected a near draw in Isfahan which is urban, but less international and more conservative than Tehran.
This process seems to have gone on across the board. This, Nate, might be something you could look at mathematically. Do these numbers represent a consistent 20% shift toward Ahmadinejad from the results projected by opinion polls. If the result was overly consistent it might represent conscious design, that is fraud.
It's important to point out that this analysis provides very indirect evidence of one type of fraud. These correlations might be very strong even if there was fraud--e.g. if they added exactly 10% points to Ahm's total in each province then the correlation would be perfect, but the margin would be obviously distorted in his favor. Also if there was no fraud, there could still be a low correlation if there were real shifts in his regional popularity (vis a vis his opponents' regional popularity). So this is not revealing in itself. Still the most suggestive pieces of evidence are the individual outliers, where Ahm outperformed opponents in the opponents' regional base.
Maybe there would be a stronger correlation if you looked at Ahmadinedjads performance compared to his national vote share?
I took a look at the spreadsheet another commenter linked to with the city reports and checked the frequency of all the last digits. In the Vietnam war, they faked body counts and this was statistically noticeable. Here are the counts:
Last Count Normal Cummulative Distribution
0 215 99.04%
1 189 66.98%
2 185 55.82%
3 191 72.10%
4 183 50.00%
5 170 17.05%
6 169 15.26%
7 173 23.20%
8 174 25.49%
9 181 44.18%
0 is the most popular last digit, and it is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. It is less than 1% likely this would naturally happen.
There are methods that can be used to analyze "fudged" numbers (usually in scientific papers)from real numbers by the statistical distribution of the digits.
Nate, do you have access to any of these methods to crunch these numbers with?
Wow. While I was writing my text, Giovanni D (text above mine) was doing exactly what I was talking about.
@Kenneth Ranson: Actually, it seems reasonably certain that these figures correspond to the ones released by the Iranian Interior Ministry, which are available in PDF and Excel format here. A translation is linked above. Of course, whether these totals are bogus is another question.
Nate, if you could get a further breakdown of the results so that you had more observations (perhaps n=200?), you could do an analysis using Benford's Law. If the distribution deviates from Benford's law, that outcome would suggest manipulation of the data. Email me at agcbj@yahoo.com if you want more details on this.
If you graph Ahmadinejad's percentage of the vote against the total vote, the resulting graph has a very flat line, showing very little correlation between population and support of Ahmadinejad. R=-.239 R^2=.057
Some article's are saying that the poor and rural helped to give Ahmadinejad the win. Province population may not be be a good indicator of urban or ruralness.
I'm quite surprised that you would wade into this mess, Mr. Silver. Almost any American is WAY out of their depth trying to do a statistical analysis of the election results.
What do you know about local Iranian politics? And so a guy studying Iranian studies in Scotland is your expert?
What if American election results had come in, at 11 pm on the evening of November 4th, 2008, saying that Obama had lost Illinois, 42%-57% and that all domestic and foreign media and Internet access had been mysteriously shut down.
"Kosher" wouldn't be the first word coming to mind.
But Hey! a student studying American Studies in Tokyo says it looks good.
C'mon, Mr. Silver. You if anybody know that a statistical analysis can lead to very erroneous results if you don't have the proper data and variables. You just can't apply your extensive knowledge of American politics on to a completely different country and electoral system and assume you can tell what is right and wrong!
Please post a retraction of this post and hold off with another analysis until any of us has a clue what is actually going on over there!
@pizzuti:
Best I could rig up in MS Paint
Is Mousavi losing in his home province really that unusual? I mean, many US Presidential candidates have lost their home states. The partisan leanings of the region seems more important, "a Democrat won Utah" is more suspicious than "a Democrat won Arizona."
Who is your Iran expert Nate? That broad that told Hillary peregruzka meant "reset"?
LOL
Fools. Know it all fools.
@Nichlemn:
There is no way to know really. The legislative elections in 2008 had mostly radicals and conservatives running.
@Giovanni: Interesting approach! If those numbers came about through fraud, I'm actually surprised to see 0 over rather than under-represented. I would have thought number-fudgers would tend to avoid zeros, as those look too "obvious". Too tired to look it up now, but I think in cognitive studies avoiding zeros or maybe even even numbers in general might be one of those tell-tale signs of a-human-trying-to-be-random, along with overdispersion and lack of repetition.
Also just wanted to point out for other readers that the chance of getting one (or more) "significant" result at alpha = 0.01 (99% or more in that table) in that analysis is actually just under 10%, not 1%. That's because there are 10 tests being run, so your chances of not finding something >99% in a random sample of digits are given by 0.99 to the power of 10.
It IS intriguing, however, that the zero happens to be the one that stands out... Seven might have just been weird ;-)
I hadn't heard of the Vietnam body count data... Did they find specifically too many zeros there? If so then the multiple testing bit might not really be an issue.
Might be worth checking Rezaee and Karroubi's polling numbers' relation to Ahmadi's and Mousavi's. If the polls are consistent, there should be a direct negative relationship for vote share among candidates of opposing ideologies, Mousavi/Rezaee and Ahmadi/Karroubi.
For example, in Israeli elections, settlements deep in the West Bank favored a very conservative hardliner Avingdor Liberman and the current PM Netanyahu. Because Liberman stole votes from Netanyahu, higher vote totals for Liberman would relate directly positive with Netanyahu, but it would relate negatively with leftist candidates.
In summary, regions that showed support for Ahmadi should show lesser support for Karroubi, and regions that showed more support for Mousavi should show lesser support for Rezaee. If there isn't a consistency, then that might be more evidence. Even if there is a relationship though, that doesn't change the fact that this was most certainly a cooked election.
"Daniel: No, they don't. Neither does it makes sense that they were all "counted" within like three hours of polls closing."
Well, they told us Obama won Pennsylvania like 15 minutes after the polls closed and he only won the state by 5 percentage points, so I do not think that counts as fraud.
Unless the US election was also fraud?
To everyone mad at Nate because he called these numbers "kosher" - he was referring to the fact that they looked like the "official" numbers (yes, he put official in quotes there, too).
Further, Nate's said before, he's not an Iran expert. All he can say is whether there is purely statistical evidence pointing towards fraud, and that that is inconclusive. There are many many indicators that these numbers are indeed fraudulent, but none of those indicators have to do with Mr. Silver's methods, and thus he is doing the responsible thing and making it very clear where he is and is not qualified to make a judgment call.
If this post leaves you with a need to leave an angry comment: read it again! This time, with more reading comprehension.
you can find the official detailed results at Iranian Interior Ministry >>> http://www.moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&ID=e3dffc8f-9d5a-4a54-bbcd-74ce90361c62&LayoutID=b05ef124-0db1-4d33-b0b6-90f50139044b&CategoryID=832a711b-95fe-4505-8aa3-38f5e17309c9#
"champion88: Well, they told us Obama won Pennsylvania like 15 minutes after the polls closed and he only won the state by 5 percentage points"
You know how we "call" a state for a candidate here in the States, right? I don't think you noticed in the case of Iranian election, the waves were not "called"; they were "official" numbers of the _actual_ ballots counted, not media's predication of how a particular province would go for, say, Ahmadinejad.
"You know how we "call" a state for a candidate here in the States, right? I don't think you noticed in the case of Iranian election, the waves were not "called"; they were "official" numbers of the _actual_ ballots counted, not media's predication of how a particular province would go for, say, Ahmadinejad."
But how could you even call a state, when only 10-20% of a state's votes had already been counted?
Any chance you can switch the color scheme on that map? It's nearly impossible for the colorblind among us to read.
The biggest problem with this is that you are using 2005 as your baseline, when 2001 or 1997 would be a lot more realistic.
A lot of people stayed home in 2005, whereas in 1997, like 2009 the population came out in droves (and voted for the more moderate in 1997, and 2001.... and likely 2009))
In statistic, there is a tendency to look for a result that suits your bias, so it is important to consider the issue a bit more carefully.
The Western way to detect fraud is to see how far the result differ from the polls. Most polls are within a few percentage of the result, and when you average them out you can pinpoint the result rather accurately. As Iran do not have any reliable polling information, we need another approach.
People in certain geographic region will tend to vote in a certain way. Take the US election for example. The difference between what a candidate get on average compared to what he gets in a certain state tends to remain the same. For example, in 2004, Kerry is over 11% below his national average in Alabama, and in 2008 Obama is almost 14% below his national average. State by state, the number will change by only a few percentage points.
If we apply this to the Iran election data from 2005 and 2009, you'll begin to spot some huge abnormality for the minor candidates. Take the state of Zanjan for example : the result in 2005 tends to be a few points within the national average. However, in 2009 it's 12% below for Mousavi, and 14% above for Ahmadinejad. Lorestan is completely off the chart in regard to the votes for Karroubi.
Swing tends to be uniform. What we're witnessing from the data is non-uniform swing for every region on the map. Even in 'landslides' you tend to get the same swing. Another election which exhibit a similar behaviour is the Zimbabwe 2008 election, which by all account is totally rigged.
@ champion88 said...
"You know how we "call" a state for a candidate here in the States, right? I don't think you noticed in the case of Iranian election, the waves were not "called"; they were "official" numbers of the _actual_ ballots counted, not media's predication of how a particular province would go for, say, Ahmadinejad."
But how could you even call a state, when only 10-20% of a state's votes had already been counted?
Really?
You're really asking this question? On this site?
You don't know about exit polling? About the technique of choosing certain precincts as indicators of a state's or district's voting?
Huh. How 'bout that.
? Again, lets get someone who knows something who can add common sense to your analysis. Based on your analysis, they could do just about anything and have you say "inconclusive"
Kaon-
Exaclty, and that type of INFORMED anaysis is what I would expect from this site.
I've seen various claims about how suspiciously quickly the Iranian vote was reported. Does anyone have solid facts on how quickly that was?
@fred: I know what you're saying, but "common sense" (even informed common sense) isn't a great guide right now either, as far as I can tell.
Oh, @fred: no disrespect to Kaon, but Kaon's analysis isn't much different from Nate's. Their tones differ, but the content is pretty similar. Kaon doesn't seem to be drawing on specific knowledge of Iran -- and doesn't establish that a uniform-swing expectation applies to past Iranian elections or should (or shouldn't) be expected to apply to this one.
Mark-
We are all informed in our analysis by actual knowledge. Nate is great, but his initial post even had Farsi and Arabic confused (reports are that many riot police are Lebanese speaking Arabic BTW).
Best news at www.twitterfall.com, follow #iranelection
No news service allowed to broadcast, but the students are twittering and they reported the Tehran U attack reported this morning in real time yesterday.
Heh heh,
Nate said 'kosher' in a post about an Islamic country.
So Mark - are you telling me that with the same type of data, Nate would call when Alabama and Utah suddenly voted 80% for the Democrat when the Republican pres candidate was from Alabama?
That is what happened here...
Do you have an analagous graph for Obama vs Kerry, comparing subsequent presidential elections? I'm interpreting the graphs as if a straight line (y=x) would be the default, but then that seemed unlikely in closer view due to change between elections.
Thanks for your work on this, by the way. Good logic and reasoning are always helpful, and it's nice to see someone see what the data says, rather than try to support their point.
John-
The extraordinarily naive thing about these assumptions is that in order for this comparison to matter one has to assume the 2005 or earlier election numbers were also not manipulated - and that is a real stretch. I think that highly unlikely, and when you add to that no reliable polling I have no idea why Nate is even trying to do this.
The numbers are not real and never have been = garbage in, garbage out.
Okay, so I just scanned the comments and realized verybody picked up on the 'kosher' thing. And I have no idea whether Nate is Jewish or not so I can't predict if that was a Freudian slip or an intentional quip. But you gotta love that about Nate and 538.
I think the big takeaway here is that there aren't many on the planet who think this was a fair or democratic election. But the reaction by the Iranian people is worth noting. You can't fool all of the people all of time, right? I don't think you can rule out the Obama factor in this either. People want change. And not just in America. We have shown that real change is not only possible but achievable as well. I think it's rubbing off on other nations. It's just a matter of time and will.
Does anyone know if there was any pre-election polling?
Like Fuzzy, I have terrible color vision and no idea what is going on.
Mr. Silver,
You continue to provide excellent and informative analysis on this matter.
I think you need to be more careful in fitting lines to the data. The correlations may be low if you look at all the provinces, but if you look a little closer -- especially with the first graph -- you might see two different lines: one for provinces that voted more conservatively in '05 and another for those that voted less conservatively.
It suggests to me that the vote riggers may have targeted less-conservative provinces for their mischief, assuming the conservative ones would fall into line as expected.
@CJ:
(this time in the right thread)
I also wondered about Benford's Law. This blog post links to an analysis of the results by a Michigan professor who concludes that the results comply with Benford's Law.
Nate says, and I quote:
"These are supposed to be 'official' results..."
In other words, people, he is saying that the data seems to jive with the official release from the Iranian election folks...he's not saying that the official results were actually accurate or anything.
There are a number of lies put out by the Mousavi camp that need to be responded to:
1. Azeris like Mousavi more than Ahmadinejad. In fact, Ahmadinejad speaks fluent Azeri, and has Azeri blood (and might be full Azeri, no one knows). He has given substantial attention to the Azeri region during his term, to the point where Persians protested his Azeri centric administration.
2. Not all the votes can be counted so quickly. First of all, only about 20% of the votes were counted within 3 hours. The complete set of votes were not counted any faster than they are in the United States, where the election results are reported the night of the election.
3. All the polls had Mousavi leading. No they did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls
4. Mousavi supporters say it is mathematically impossible for Ahmadinejad to get 62% of the vote. This is absurd, and Mousavi needs to remember that Iranians value mathematics.
5. Cutting off communications was done to affect the vote. Why do you need twitter and youtube to vote? Did the early Americans have this? These tools were cut off because they were being used to incite violence. The riots (burning buses, breaking store fronts) performed by Mousavi's rabid supporters was outrageous.
All in all, it's becoming clear that Mousavi's supporters are bitter and undemocratic Machaevelians, who will resort to any contrivance to deligitimize the vote of the people and force their candidate into power. Their "evidence" insults the intelligence.
I only hope that Ahmadinejad's supporters don't respond in the same way, because they outnumber Mousavi's supporters 2:1.
It's not just Mousavi losing his home province that seems off. He's ethnic Azerbaijani, as are the overwhelming people in his home province.
This is not like Al Gore losing his state; it's like McCain beating Obama in the black vote.
"A map showing the ostensible results" is just that -- a map of the purported "official data."
Nate is not endorsing those data as accurate. As has been noted, there are some strange results reported.
Note also, FYI, that Iran is a multi-ethnic country, contrary to general perceptions. About a third of its population is Azerbaijani -- Shiites but who speak a Turkic language at home, not Farsi. And there are several other "significant" minority groups as well.
Ethnic (and not just religious or urban-rural or social class) differences need to be considered in any political analysis of Iran.
Aren't the ballots in Iran paper? None of the photos of the elections I saw showed what looked like voting *machines*.
They counted all those *paper* ballots that fast? Surely not.
Amateur hour at fivethirtyeight. Nate, why are you even airing these numbers if you cannot verify their source? And if you don't know enough about Iranian politics to make any educated conclusions on this questionable data, why post anything at all and lend it legitimacy?
A lot of ropoganda is being thrown around, and perception makes a difference. This is irresponsible.
Nate --
Can you cross-tab the second round results in 2005 with these results?
This would be much more informative because the results the interior ministry is giving us are effectively two-horse race results anyway and the first round was completely different in 2005. You might roll Karroubi in with Mousavi and Rezai in with Ahmadinejad to get a closer proxy.
From what I've seen so far, it seems pretty clear this is rigged. But I'd love to see that cross-tab.
Nate,
Thank you for your careful work on this: care is the distinctive thing 538 contributes.
A request: can you explore the technology the Iranians used to count votes and report them to the capital? The reported speed is a question mark for me.
Nate, I love your work, and I'm glad you're writing on this.
But I'm with Fuzzy: we're colorblind (like 5% of the male population), and red/green is a poor choice of colors. You could propose several maps, for instance, with one in shades of gray, I don't know.
@Fred: "So Mark - are you telling me that... Nate would call[??] when Alabama and Utah suddenly voted 80% for the Democrat when the Republican pres candidate was from Alabama? That is what happened here..." --No, actually, that isn't what I'm telling you, nor is it actually what happened here.
And that you would compliment Kaon on his/her swing analysis, and then say you "have no idea why Nate is even trying to do this," says to me that you aren't working very hard at getting things right, nor at making sense. How about a smidgen of intellectual consistency? (I agree that it's problematic to treat 2005 as an authoritative baseline.)
To judge whether the result in Lorestan/Luristan makes any sense would indeed entail more knowledge than Nate, or Kaon, or anyone else on the thread seems to have. Assuming for a moment that the result was centrally rigged at the Interior Ministry and that this is evidence, I have to wonder what genius decided to run up the score in one province. I see no point in pretending that it's obvious what happened.
@dr: Thanks, I figured that Mebane would be doing that real soon. It's basically a non-result, which is about what I expected.
@Huge: As per previous comments (which I accept although I personally can't read Persian), these numbers match numbers actually posted on the Interior Ministry website, so I don't know what your gripe is.
please compare the _absolute_ numbers in a graph
for example, AZARBAYJAN:
2004-reform/centrist: 950,000
2004-conservative: 350,000
2009-reform/centrist: 837,000
2009-conservative: 1,131,000
so reform/centrist decreased by 10% and conservative trippled!? even as people get younger, economy worse, and achmadenijad more unpopular?
totally fake
A quick comment on the time sequence of reporting. It would help if I read Persian.
TehranBureau.com, at http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/, provides vote counts at various points, referencing various URLs at jamejamonline.ir. The first point in this particular plot (unlike the similar one posted by Andrew Sullivan) doesn't come until some 10 million votes have already been counted; the last one comes beyond 27 million.
The time stamp on the first one appears to be 01:00 (presumably local Tehran time?); the time stamp on the last appears to be 06:08.
So, I remain skeptical about claims that all the votes were reported in X hours for some small value of X. Does anyone know more about this? (I'm not referring to who claimed victory when, but rather to specific reported vote totals.)
Nice job making the map RED and GREEN. What happened to BLUE?
Is this a sneaky way to reduce any notion that Democrats have similar views to the regime?
Bush is the biggest liberal the Islamic world has ever seen. Thank god intelligent people know this already.
@Beano: you are truly besotted. Green is the color adopted by the "reform" movement in the streets of Iran.
Sarcasm Juris, sarcasm.
I am playing up my role as the robotic GOP troll as I allegedly am.
Can't wait to see what Obama says about all this. Will he embrace the fraudulent winner of the elections?
Who will he speak with now?
童裝批發
童裝批發
童裝
童裝
酒店喝酒
暑假打工
寒假打工
酒店
酒店經紀人
酒店現領
禮服店
酒店小姐
酒店兼職
酒店上班
酒店兼職
禮服店
酒店上班
酒店打工
酒店小姐
酒店經紀
酒店兼差
假日打工
台北酒店經紀
@ Mark
From the NY Times:
"The turmoil on Saturday followed an extraordinary night in which the Iranian state news agency announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won by a vast margin just two hours after the polls closed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?sq=iran%20two%20hours&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=print
@Allocater:
That's an interesting thing to note. It's only circumstantial evidence though. :(
@Juris, Beano:
Ahmadinejad unofficially adopted black of the chador. So a green vs. black map would be best.
@Opus 132: Thanks, but unless the news agency announced the vote totals at that time, I don't think it settles the issue. In the United States we would probably be shocked if an election (putatively) decided by almost 30 points weren't "called" within two hours of the close of polls. Apparently the average polling place had something like 900 votes cast; it doesn't have to take very long to count 900 votes.
I'm not saying anything about the accuracy of the count, just seeking to establish some facts about how quickly it was reported.
whguy98989 - Your analysis is nonsense. The vote was released far quicker than it could actually be counted. There is a thread on bigsoccer.com where they talk about the Iranian elections. The Iranians posting there, describe a multi-tiered count and compilation process starting with Form 22 counts at each ballot box, and regional Form 28 counts. This process is described on this thread in the post #208 (be aware that the poster Iranian Monitor is an apologist for Amadinejad). If anyone wants to understand a lot of voter trends in Iran, read the thread down through the posts by Mani, particularly post #230 and the ones that he writes shortly after.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1047315&page=23
Regarding the vote count in Tehran, the official vote results show Mousavi barely winning. There was a rally of about 40k for Ahmadinejad, mostly bussed in, and predominantly males. Today, the Mousavi rally attracted many more people, clearly from Tehran itself. Check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey9Kgf-cB40
The President may well have won, but certainly not by the reported landslide. Arguing that he won by that margin would be like saying Obama lost the black vote 2 to 1. It's nonsense.
And there are widespread reports of major electoral fraud, including destroying ballot boxes full of votes. I doubt very much that they even did a full count. Why bother? You have decided the winner and the margin, what does it matter what the real number is? I don't think we'll ever know what the numbers really were.
The level of violence and suppression of free speech during and following the election is pretty damning. Jamming television signals, cell reception, and internet access? A coup by any other name still reeks of abuse.
Click on this link and join in this exciting game. http://yahoda.mybrute.com
No come back this time Champ?
>>>>Giovanni D said...
I took a look at the spreadsheet another commenter linked to with the city reports and checked the frequency of all the last digits. In the Vietnam war, they faked body counts and this was statistically noticeable. Here are the counts:
Last Count Normal Cummulative Distribution
0 215 99.04%
1 189 66.98%
2 185 55.82%
3 191 72.10%
4 183 50.00%
5 170 17.05%
6 169 15.26%
7 173 23.20%
8 174 25.49%
9 181 44.18%
0 is the most popular last digit, and it is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. It is less than 1% likely this would naturally happen.
Response: But you have 10 digits, 0-9 that each could go to elevated 215 count, plus you'd be suspicious for the opposite - less than 157 count for any of the 10 digits. If I add them all up, first order says roughly 20% chance this digit anomaly will happen in a 1825 city election. 20% chance doesn't seem far fetched.
-phatesse
Correction: I wanted to get the numbers right in the previous post just above.
366 cities reporting with 4 candidates plus invalids for each -> 366 x (4+1)=1830 data points analyzed (not cities).
Of those, roughly 20% chance the ending digit will appear more than 215 or less than 151 times (not 157).
So, not really strong evidence by itself the numbers got tampered.
Hi everyone. Interesting work again, Nate.
So, I guess you guys are looking for an Iranian who could answer some questions. Here is one! I did NOT vote in this election, I do NOT live in Iran since 5 months, and I'm not a particularly enthusiastic of any political position. So, I consider myself an unbiased observer. (However, at the moment, all pieces of evidence taken into consideration, I am convinced that the election is stolen.)
As for the data Nate provided. As PetPeterP said above, the official results were published by the Iranian Interior Ministry two days after the election. Here is the link to the Ministry's website again:
http://www.moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&ID=e3dffc8f-9d5a-4a54-bbcd-74ce90361c62&LayoutID=b05ef124-0db1-4d33-b0b6-90f50139044b&CategoryID=832a711b-95fe-4505-8aa3-38f5e17309c9
I know you guys might not be able to read Farsi, but don't get confused, just click on the two links (a PDF and a XLS file). Here is the link to the translation of the results again:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=raU4EOsYbOx7WusgF018Xig&hl=en
Here is the link to the 2005 election results:
http://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/i/iran/2005-president-elections-iran.html
You can see that one of the most obvious voting patterns were support for the hometown guy, or ethnic allegiance more generally.
So, here are some of my observations: At the night after the elections, most of us didn't sleep to find out about the returns. They were supposed to be announced by 4:00 am. However, the first wave was announced much sooner, before the midnight I guess. We all thought that they're reporting the votes from small cities and rural areas where the polls close much earlier and require much less time to count. When the first few waves showed a great success for Ahmadinejad we made sure that these results do belong to those areas because we expected Ahmadinejad to be more popular in small cities and Mousavi more popular in urban areas and big cities. So, Mousavi's supporters all thought: "just a little patience, Mousavi's gonna catch up". However, more and more waves were to tell us that Ahmadinejad's votes are constantly increasing and with the same pace. It looked like every time he gets twice as much votes as Mousavi. Fitting the results to a graph, we saw that the ratio is constant. The graph we expected should have sloped down once they start to count the votes from Tehran and other big cities. This never happened until the end.
Indeed, this is just one of many pieces of evidence.
@ Richard and Karin: The results you're talking about are some yet unverified numbers that came out the day after, and were said to be the real results. They, too, seem hard to believe because Ahmadinejad's votes seem a little bit too few.
Hi Nate,
You should compare the second round of 2005 with the first round of the current election. The overall ratio results are quite close, and they both pitted Ahmadinejad vs. a neo-liberal reformist.
Masoud
@champion:
"Well, they told us Obama won Pennsylvania like 15 minutes after the polls closed and he only won the state by 5 percentage points, so I do not think that counts as fraud."
Other people have commented as to how early "calls" are made in U. S. elections. No one else has addressed the other howler in your post: Obama won PA by 11 points (not 5).
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ:
Guys:
In order for these results to be correctly compared, they must be compared to an election when one of the candidates were an incumbent.
Historically there has never been a president in iran that did not get re-elected. and with his subsidies to poor many of the irregularities could be explained.
The big question of whether the time the votes werer counted is also explainable. As I have heard, with only 30 percent of the votes counted, Iran's officials projected the winner. This is quite common all over the world. Apparently when the polls closed, Mousavi claimed victory, prompting the officials to quickly wrap things up and correct the statement mousavi made. So they quickly announced based on only 30 percent. But all the previous polls taken by american polsters also predicted a landslide vicotry similar to the figures Iran actually got.
Gentlemen, the results seem ligitimate. Keep in mind that in just a couple of months iran will be inovolved in its most important negotiation in its history with the west. They west knows that negotiating with a very popular negotiator who has 63% of votes will be tough. This seems like a strategy to divide the Iranian people just prior these negotiation to weaken Iran's hand. Everytime Iran gets strong, they have to create a mess for us. Dont let outside forces pull another 1953.
Thank You
@ Matt (by the way, I'm almost sure you're Iranian, please be honest (unlike your president ELECT) and reveal your real name).
Although you're right about the fact that there is a tendency in the Iranian population to re-elect the current president that by no means suffices to explain the blatant irregularities. I'll post a list of obvious irregularities later.
As for the quick announcement of the results, your point is a red-herring. They didn't "guess" based on 30% of the returns. The ANNOUNCED 100% of the returns within 4 hours. How could you cound hand-written votes so quickly? That's the point.
Obvious problems with the election returns:
-The results maintained a constant ratio (almost two to one) of Ahmadinejad/Mousavi votes throughout the 13 waves (Nate's previous post).
-Ethnic support is totally absent which is very strange compared to previous elections (this post). Karroubi didn't receive any support from his hometown Luristan. Neither did Mousavi from Azerbaijan, or Rezaee from Khouzestan.
-Karroubi has an impossible number of votes: he's got 300,000 from all over the country. This is less than the number of invalid votes, significantly less than the number of his newspaper issues everyday, much less than the number of the members of his political party (E'temad e Melli) and 1/20 of his votes in the 2005 election.
-Rezaee's votes decreased in the eleventh wave and wasn't compensated for in the twelfth wave either.
-There is a slightly higher than 100% turnout in the province of Yazd!! There were 609341 voting-age people in Yazd and according to the official results 609856 votes were counted!
-The valid and invalid votes do not sum up to the total!
-There is little correlation between the number of invalid votes and the total number of votes in each city/county.
-The invalid votes are overwhelmingly from pro-Mousavi areas.
-Unlike all previous elections, they didn't announce the returns by province. The detailed statistics (above) was published only two days after the aggregate results were published four hours after the polls closed.
-Unlike all previous elections, they didn't report the number of invalid votes along with the counted votes. Invalid votes appeared after people repeatedly asked about them.
-Unlike all previous elections the Supreme Leader did not wait for the results to be investigated and confirmed and for the 3-day period legally provided for addressing any objections to pass. He endorsed the results RIGHT AWAY.
Besides:
-Riot police appeared on the streets BEFORE there were any riots!
-Text messaging and other means of communication went down with no reason.
-The number of Basijis and guards enormously increased within two days.
-People are dying and being hit on the streets.
I forgot this one:
-85% turnout in Iran is extremely high. This is the second highest turnout in the history of Iranian politics. Usually, when so many people vote, it means they are very dissatisfied with the current president. The incumbent simply couldn't have been so popular.
Some of the comments are simply ridiculous, to be honest. "He couldn't have got that many votes there, he couldn't have got that few votes there." How on Earth does it prove fraud simply because some people had expected other results.
And this one takes the cake:
"It's not just Mousavi losing his home province that seems off. He's ethnic Azerbaijani, as are the overwhelming people in his home province.
This is not like Al Gore losing his state; it's like McCain beating Obama in the black vote."
There were polls that indicated not just a big Ahmadinejad victory overall, but that Azeris clearly favoured Ahmadinejad as well. See this
for instance.
This should not be so strange. First of all, what "whguy98989" said. Second, Azeris are not dumb robots who only vote on ethnicity, rather than trying to find out the best candidate.
(Btw, Press TV has published the official results as well, but Luristan was still missing last I checked, for some reason)
Look, it's about probability. How probable is it that the people who have a whole history behind themselves of voting for the least important, least competent, but Azeri candidates (like Mehralizadeh in the last presedential election), suddenly decided to choose the "best", the best being the one who is so widely famous for having fucked up the country in most respects and according to most reports?
The only report that claims the results to be totally expected is the Washingtonpost report you keep citing. You can't tackle hundreds of pieces of evidence by citing one piece of evidence a hundred times.
@Shaheen, Stop threateting who ever that voices his or her opinion. You remind me of the Savak.
First, I watched the debate on Iranian satellite and Ahmadinejad clearly demolished Mousavi. Especially when he stated that Mousavi and Rafsanjani sold the rights of many Iranian oil fields till 2014 for approximately $14 / barrel. Poor Iranians hate Rafsanjani and he did an excellent job linking the two together.
Second, The numbers of votes you’re seeing above are not official numbers. We still don’t know if any of the numbers this gentleman provided on this site are accurate.
Third, Iranians on average are poor rather than middle class. What do you think is their number one criteria for voting? ECONOMY (Subsidies). Ahmadinejad has for the past four years given them many subsidies regardless of the province to the poor. Would you vote for someone who has a history of subsidies vs. someone who is of your region but you do not trust will provide subsidies? And also, I hear (I am not sure) that Ahmadinejad is also part Azeri, How do you explain that?
Fourth, Higher turnouts does not mean higher percentages for Mousavi. As mentioned above, Its the economy stupid. The most apathetic people tend to be the lower class (Poor) people who feel they are powerless. When People show up more to vote, that means less apathy. Majority of Iranians are not middle class. Statistically speaking more poor would show up then middle class. That means more votes for Ahmandinajad then Mousavi.
Fifth, the invalid votes all added up together do not nearly make up the difference where Mousavi would win. This is what we call in the world of statistics “high degree of confidence that the projection at 30% would be accurate and representative of the entire sample”. And yes they did state that it was a projection.
To continue with my comment:
Sixth, Moments after the polls closed, Mousavi declared victory with out any proof being circulated. Why? It seems to me that if I was the government officials I would immediately realize that there is something funny going on. It seemed more to me that Mousavi was trying to pull a George Bush and announce a victory when he actually did not have one. Why would he stir up trouble like that? Both he and the other governmental officials knew that this pre-mature announcement could wreak havoc in Iran if not true (Just like it did). SMS and Hand held communications would be the first thing cut if I am an official to not allow trouble makers to organize and reduce their ability from creating frenzy.
Seventh, Riot police can be gathered relatively quickly. Every time there is any event going on, whether a soccer game or elections like this, officials are always ready to deal with it from ahead of times, ESPECIALLY IN IRAN .
Eighth, From what the official Iranian media announced, Tehran was actually won by Mousavi. This can explain why so many people in Tehran feel as though their votes did not count. Believe it or not, Tehran is not representative of the entire Iran . As you may know, once you leave Tehran , people are much more conservative and less wealthy. Do not think everyone in Iran is like Tehran . IF YOU THINK THERE IS INJUSTICE NOW, IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MOUSAVI HAD ACTUALLY STOLLEN THE ELECTION. YOU WOULD REALLY SEE VIOLENCE THEN AS THE REAL MAJORITY WOULD GO ABSOLUTELY NUTS.
Continued from above,
Ninth, The only piece of Objective evidence we have is the polls prior to the election. You manages to totally discount the only objective evidence. I keep telling you the above data is not proven to be valid and non of your statements are corroborated. You have to have the emotional maturity to wait for more results prior to your cowboy judgement.
Tenth, please recognize that regardless of who would be the president in Iran , the entire country is still in the hands of the Ayatollahs, thus this whole think does not matter. But it would be significant for who ever is the Iranian president to have the support of Iranian people later in this summer’s negotiations. With 63% of the vote its much tougher for the west to force its will down Iran's throat regardless of the president and that is why this whole issue is being set up. This strategy is called “Divide and Conquer”. Please think a bit deeper than you are currently.
Eleventh, If you look at any election (Anywhere in the world) you would see that there are irregularities in all. How else could you explain a Black man whos name rhymes with osama winning the US election? Obama actually won some predominantly white states (Incredible). In the US , people also vote considering economy first. 4 years ago no one in their right mind imagined a black man would win the white house. But he did (Explain that irregularity). Also, when George Bush ran for the white house, did any sane person think that ( America’s Super Ahmandinejad) in George Bush would actually beat Gore and later Kerry? No but superb marketing and incredible politics did it. Whether you like it or not (and I don’t) Ahmadinejad played his card superbly. What matters now is a unified front and strong negotiations on Iran ’s part come later this summer.
Also, as mentioned in my first note, the correct comparison to this election is one where there was an incumbent running (not last time where all the candidates where running for the first time). If you get the numbers for those then you can have a stronger statistical comparison. As such your comparing apples with oranges.
I promise you that Mousavi will not become the president and he knows it. He should for the best of the country concede (like Gore did). But he has not. Why do you think? I would not be shocked if he soon leaves Iran and later go to a western country and live there and start saying many negatives about the very government he helped create. Both Rafsanjani and Mousavi have riches beyond what you and me can imagine (Stolen from Iranian people). Niether can actually use their cash outside Iran as American Sanctions has put both on their list of people whos accounts would be frozen if their money was taken out. This whole sham could also be the perfect excuse for them to seperate themselves from the current governement and get off that list.
Thanks and Apologize for the long reply.
Nate silver,
Your analysis is by far the most twisted form of propganda I have ever seen. I wonder if your actually working to spread propoganda or do real analysis. How you manage to take the only objective measure of the election prior to it (Scientific poll to 1100 respondents) and turn it into your Likhud style Isreal propoganda I have no Idea. How you add all the numbers of the previous poll done and some how twist the number I can only imagine was done purposefully.
This entire article is suspect.
Shame on you.
I was wondering if I would like to reply to Matt, but now I'm positive I never will.
http://democracyforum.blogspot.com/2009/06/fraud-in-iran.html
As always, history will be the sole judge of this outcome. In the meantime, it is quite impressive to me that an 85% turnout leading to the reelection of an incumbent with 63% of the vote in "the cleanest vote in the history of the Islamic Republic" has led to such a weakening of such a Republic and the division of its leadership. I dont know who "Matt" is but if he is intellectually honest, he must concede that Iran is quite a mess right now.
Who is in charge today in Iran?
1) The Supreme Leader?
Not only his authority was ignored by a million people demonstrating peacefully in Teheran and thousands around the world, by several clerics who declared the vote invalid, but his own president elect who, although he owned him a lot of support (to say the least) blatantly ignored his advice for one week regarding his choice of VP, then made him his chief of staff (quite a dismissal indeed!).
2) Amedhinejad
Elected with such a mandate, who dares question Amedhinejad's choices? Two of his ministers and the Supreme Leader from his own camp!! (it looks like a joke, isn it?). To the point where the president elect might end up looking like a liability for the own regime survival if he keeps dividing the conservatives and hard liners.
3) The Revolutionary guard and the Basij?
The success of the crack down against the protesters does reinforce the guard and Basij inside Iran, but it leads the world to think that Iran has become a military tyranny whose survival is dependent upon brute force. This completes the picture of the moral failure of the regime, and does not bode well for the nuclear negotiation to come.
The question is: how can Iran get out of this mess?
1 One senario is that the Supreme Leader buys himself a new "virginity" and agrees to some steps proposed by Rasfanjahni (a referendum on the contested election) in a move to create a national union and buy time for the Revolution. At the cost of maybe having a liberal winning, he would still control the country tightly behind the scene and be seen as a "uniter above the fray". Iran would be in a better position to negotiate nuclear help to appease the west in the short term (which democracy could attack the first Islamic democracy in the middle east?) and orient the program in the direction of its choosing later on...
2 Another scenario is that Amedhinejad and the Supreme Leader mend their relationship. However, this does not unite the country in the current climate. Also, Iran will need international recognition and will have to compromise on its nulear program. However, this is maybe the best chance for nuclear peace. Worst case, if the negotiation fail, Israel will strike and the hardliners will be strengthened for a while at the cost of losing their nuclear ambitions.
3 A third scenario is a military coup with a premature retirement of the Supreme Leader. This seems quite unlikely given that the chiefs of the Republican guard are loyal to the regime, but maybe the Supreme Leader own son or an iranian general could become dissaffected by the power vacuum and cease the opportunity? In that case, the nuclear ambitions are also over because Israel or the US would not let a military tyranny in Iran with a nuclear weapon.
This is definitely an exciting time for Iran. Lets watch what the Supreme Leader will do... or not.
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,
菲
梵,
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
Post a Comment