6.12.2009

Polling and Voting in Iran's Friday Election

This morning, voting began in Iran’s tenth Presidential election, which pits incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against three Guardian Council approved challengers. The main contest is between the more conservative President Ahmadinejad, and former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who has billed himself as a moderate reformist. The two dark horse candidates, former Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Razaei and former Majlis (parliament) speaker Mehdi Karroubi, have each campaigned since the approval process ended on 20 May, but without making enough progress for us to expect an upset.

Over time, Iran’s Presidential elections have gotten progressively more competitive and pluralistic, as more candidates have been approved to participate, more competitive vote totals have encouraged challengers, and universal voting rights have persisted.


The above chart begins in 1985, when the first incumbent Presidential reelection was held after the 1979 revolution. The 1980 and 1981 (first and second) elections were largely impacted by extreme events: an assassination, a removal from office by the Supreme Leader, etc.

Over time, turnout has increased, while the winning share of the vote has dropped significantly, as the elections have become more competitive. In 2005, for the first time, a run-off between former President Rafsanjani and now-incumbent Pres. Ahmadinejad was forced by the first round vote percentages, where the first round winner Rafsanjani earned just 21.1%, and Ahmadinejad 19.4%.

In the 2009 election, even though Ahmadinejad has gotten a bump from his incumbency, the momentum for his challengers has been growing. Many observers are predicting another run-off for the Presidency after today's voting to be required, in the case that no candidate reaches 50% plus one.

Fortunately, opinion polling has been quite extensive in the run-up to today's election. Unfortunately, much of it has been focused on Tehran, has included dubious, push-polling language, or includes candidates for office that are not running or neglects some that are. Luckily, however, we can have a look at overall trends since earlier this year, and get a sense of what the momentum, if not the exact figures, might look like for today's voting, and the possible run-off.


While the numbers have been extremely variable between polls, and making a decision about what polls to include or exclude from aggregating in a case like Iran is nearly impossible, we can see a basic cycle that can be corroborated by anecdotal news evidence over the last two months. The incumbent has been largely held below a majority, which in the Iranian system is significant for two reasons. First, an absolute majority is needed, without which a runoff is certain. In addition, if Ahmadinejad fails to earn a majority, he will be the first incumbent President running for reelection to do this.


In summary, the Iranian system is slowly maturing, with more a more competitive and multi-candidate system. The candidates are still restricted to the mainstream approved by the Guardian Council, but this is certainly no one-party system. In fact, the Guardian Council is quite reminiscent of the party nominating conventions that have long been the deciding factor for the "mainstream" candidates in the United States.

It is clear that the reformist Mousavi has a real chance for victory, though likely not in a first-round scenario. Given their history of reelecting presidents, this would be a new direction for post-revolutionary Iran. That said, the wide unpopularity of Ahmadinejad's handling of the economy in Iran, and the suggested weakening of nuclear ambitions rhetoric as a tool for political distraction away from bread and butter issues for the 46 million Iranian voting-age citizens indicates that a chance may be on the way.

For the Obama administration, this is an important day - a chance to see if a more congenial approach to Iran might provoke a more reform-minded Presidency in Iran by making anti-Americanism a less powerful mobilization tool. We will see in time how successful this is.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com

34 comments

e3323 said...

FIRST!

e3323 said...

Anyway whos the more uh...liberal candidate here?

Caleb said...

It's really inspiring to see a home-grown democracy growing up. No one tried to force an issue, Iran is going through the same growing pangs as any other nation is. It's clear that the average American has little concept of the reality in Iran and all they see is the "axis of evil 2" with little further thought into it.

x0lani said...

Ahmadinejad has been greatly criticized internally for his fiery speeches and provocative statements aimed at Bush and the US, which would seem to explain his loss in support. I guess the question here is how will Rezaei and Karroubi's supporter split in a runoff?

Many of their supporters may well be willing to vote for Mousavi, simply because he isn't Ahmadinejad. Rezaei bills himself as a reformer and has promoted ending Ahmadinejad's investigation of the Holocaust and having a female foreign minister. That is almost liberal! His supporters couldn't be too fond of Ahmadinejad.

If Mousavi wins, he'd be much more likely to engage in constructive dialogue with Obama, though it's important to remember that all the Iranian presidential candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council and so wouldn't stray too far from the conservative elements in Iran. But this is all conjecture without data...

Thanks Renard. This is awesome! I've been looking for analysis of Iran's upcoming election, since it's so important to how our (assuming you're American) foreign policy in the middle east will be shaped over the next four years.

I'd be overjoyed if you could do a post on African politics, and it's too bad you've missed South Africa's recent election which had some interesting results.

Alon Levy said...

Richard, you're overstating Iran's democratic credentials when you're saying that,

The Guardian Council is incredibly reminiscent of the party nominating conventions that have long been the deciding factor for the "mainstream" candidates in the United States.

The Guardian Council is a single body, rather than two competing parties. Unlike democratic parties it's not elected but appointed, with power ultimately coming from the unelected Supreme Leader, who's been in power since 1989. A Western equivalent for such a system would be if the US Supreme Court could vet Presidential candidates, and if only half the members were Senate-confirmable while the other half were appointed solely at the President's discretion.

Iran's mixed system of democracy and theocracy is inscrutable at times, and has provided a lot of ammunition to foreign policy hacks. When a reformer is in power, for example Khatami, pro-war Westerners argue that the Supreme Leader is the person who truly matters, so the reformist leader has no power. When a fundamentalist like Ahmadinejad is president, they hype the power of the presidency. Anti-war Westerners do just the opposite, to the extent that they don't apologize for Ahmadinejad.

juvanya said...

Renard,
Thank you SO MUCH for posting this. I did not even think about 538 posting about it and I am truly amazed and grateful you have done so. I hope to see a follow up with the results.

@Caleb
Iran actually had a democracy in 1953. They elected a man name Mohammed Mossadeq. He wanted to nationalize the oil away from British control and use it to build up Iran. He was somewhat like an Iranian Ataturk.

The British then came to Eisenhower and cried "COMMIE!". As we did many times throughout the Cold War, we deposed this DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader (with Teddy Roosevelt's grandson) and installed an evil dictator known as the Shah.

The Shah sold us oil and "modernized" Iran, but also greatly oppressed the people. He was as corrupt as they come and got worse and worse. The people began to turn to the only thing they could "cling to": religion. This precipitated the coming "Revolution".

In 1978, the Shah's regime began to crumble. He was pressured by President Carter to loosen his grip, but it was too late: he turned stone into sand and the country crumbled around him. The Shah soon fled.

Meanwhile, an almost exact duplicate of the Russian Revolution occurred. Moderates led a revolution led by students, the middle class, etc. Soon, the "Bolsheviks"--Mullahs under Khameini hijacked the revolution. They exploited the moderates and later killed them off or used them as cannon fodder in the war with Iraq.

Now where does the Hostage crisis fit in? We mistakenly took the shah in. He was dying of cancer, which we didnt realize and accepted him for treatment. Imagine if a country took in a dying Hitler or Osama. A few radicals took over the embassy in response, ultimately leading to Carter's defeat in 1980.

There is speculation that Reagan goons met with Khameini's people to ensure the hostages werent released until after our election. Indeed, they were released on Inauguration Day.


Iran is heavily misunderstood in the US. It is one of the most liberal countries in the middle east and has. Women can show their face, some hair. They can drive and work and run for office. Jews can even be in the Majlis and are guaranteed seats.

Regardless of the election, the mullahs are running out of time. They either need to reform (carefully) or they will face another revolution. These reforms would include allowing some parties to form, some criticism, the Supreme Leader becoming ceremonial, and the Council of Guardians loosening its control.

It truly is sad what we did in 1953. Iran could have been a secular republic like Turkey is today. The Arabs, surrounded by strong, secular republics could not proliferate extremism as well. We would be buying democratic Iranian oil instead of corrupt Arab oil. 9/11 might never have happened. Hamas and Hezbollah might barely be noticed. All from that one little mistake we made in 1953, "fighting evil Commies".


I hope I have helped people understand Iran better and apologize for the long post, but I am really proud of how much I know about Iran compared to most Americans and truly adore the country. :)

obsessed said...

Thank you Renard!!! This is precisely what I've been looking for - should've know I'd find it here.

None of the main news sites explain even the basics, like the rules on the runoffs percentages.

I love this site!!

capt said...

Informative post - thought provoking and factual.

Thanks!

polls_apart said...
This post has been removed by the author.
polls_apart said...

@juvanya:
I wanted to correct one aspect of your generally accurate post: Jews may be allowed in the Majlis, but can you cite the existence of any? Under the Mullahs, Iran has been extremely intolerant of Christians, Baha'is and Jews. In 1997, several Jewish Iranians were arrested and tried as spies. Ultimately, their lives were spared, but they received lengthy prison sentences.

Reference:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1346256/Iran-spares-lives-of-10-Jewish-spies.html

I don't believe we can be certain that "the mullahs are running out of time". We can hope so, but we won't know until it actually happens. I would say that some of our (the U. S.) actions have not been helpful (or downright counterproductive) in bringing about changes in Iran.

@Alon Levy: I am not a "pro-war Westerner", but it is only acknowledging reality to state that the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader hold the real power in Iran, not the President and the Majlis. The election of Ahmadinejad has been useful, in a way, since he did not provide the Mullahs with the "cover" that the previous moderate President Khatami did.

KIC said...

Does anyone else see how much the Obama campaign has influenced this one (short as it has been?)

Extensive use of texting in order to organize support for Moussavi
Wife clearly visible by his side, a smart professional woman
The idea of the "green" candidate

I have to wonder just how much the record turnout that appears to be taking place is because people see that getting out and voting can bring change when they saw an historic change here in the U.S. (lets face, people did NOT believe and African American, no matter how moderate, would ever achieve the highest office).

It is true the Iranian president may not be the supreme power, but when a supreme power is not the front man, the front man has to have some effect on the situation.

I am always so ashamed of how much we have meddled in middle eastern affairs. And we seem to reap what we sew and still never learn. *sigh*

Sacto Joe said...

Here's an attempt at a pre-emptive strike:

Please don't feed the trolls!

Reasoned discourse is one thing. Baiting is another. Ergo, when someone seems to be unreasonable, just don't bite.

. said...

酒店喝酒
台北酒店經紀
酒店
酒店現領
酒店經紀
酒店小姐
酒店工作
酒店兼差
酒店兼職
酒店打工

beavis said...

Does it really matter who wins?

After all how much power does the President of Iran really have? Does anything happen without the approval of Ali Khamenei?

I am not very knowledgeable about this and would love to hear clarifications but I think of the Iranian President sort of like a Zaphod Beeblebrox in the sense that people seem to try to believe that he is in charge.

Antmatic said...

Beavis, apparently the president has some persuasion power to influence the ayatollahs.

Plus, unseating Ahmadinejad would be a big symbol.

Anyone have any idea when we start hearing results?

Mehrdad said...

Mr. Sexton, as just about everyone else have already mentioned, great work putting this piece together. Your data analysis is right on and I agree with your over all conclusion about Iran’s slow but steady movement towards democracy. Some of the readers have also added insightful commentaries such as Juvanya.

Beavis, although I agree that the Iranian president has limited power, I’d like to add that anyone person of the ruling establishment is in the same boat. There is no one, and that includes Khamenei, who has absolute power. There are 10s if not 100’s of individuals that share the controls at the helms of this country. They do however tend to form two basic groups, the hard-liners at the right driven by ideology and those closer to the center, but still on the right, who understand their survival depends on their willingness to give the people some level of freedom and stay out of trouble internationally.

For what it’s worth, here’s my 2 cents. Iran is largely a non-democratic theocracy, not a dictatorship like how Iraq used to be or North Korea. However, the ruling party is not as uniform as some of the readers may believe. There are many factions influencing Iran’s polices as they try to gain more power and control. These elements include those on the extreme right influenced by hard-line religious factions drawing support all the way from the Shiites of Lebanon and Iraq. There are also those so called moderates that are more level minded and understand that their survival depends on their ability to keep people at bay and their success in working with the international communities.

Neither side of this equation is democratic nor truly on people’s side, but it is note worthy that in their attempt to use the people to grab power and become the dominate faction within their establishment; they have given the Iranian people the opportunity to practice democracy. Mr. Sexton’s observation is absolutely correct that the candidates (even though they are vetted by the establishment) have become more competitive over the years and the differences between them are growing and in fact becoming more substantial. For the first time ever, women’s right is one of the major issues being addressed.

The people of Iran are growing politically. Even though they are new at this, the last 20 years or so have been extremely valuable in giving them the tools they need to practice their freedom and their political will, regardless of how controlled the outcome has been. The people of Iran put Ahmadinejad in power, not because they agreed with his philosophy, but because he promised to rein in inflation and improve the economy, neither of which he managed to do. The importance of his success 4 years ago had to do with the fact that Ahmadinejad beat the more powerful and the figure everyone thought would win the elections, Rafsanjani. People changed the outcome.

The bottom line is that the people of Iran are growing everyday and if the ruling government wants to stay in power, they will have to adapt accordingly and become more moderate over time, getting closer to where Iranians generally stand. The people of Iran are religious for the most part, very much like us here in the states. At the same time and again similar to us here, they believe that religion is a private matter and it should stay out of politics and government. That is one of the main points of contention between the people of Iran and its government.

beavis said...

Mehrdad,

Thank you for your input, that was interesting and educational!

Alon Levy said...

Juvanya, Ataturk was a lot more like the Shah than you give him credit for. He ruled as an autocrat, and left a political tradition where the military instigated coups whenever it didn't like the elected leaders. The Shah's attempt at modernization and secularization came from the same page as Ataturk's. However, unlike in Turkey, in Iran there were never elections, so there were no institutes of civil society free from government control except religion. Thus Iran had a revolution, whereas in Turkey the veneer of democracy became increasingly real, so that now the military's influence is greatly diminished, and the government is led by an elected party modeling itself after European Christian democratic parties.

Beavis, Polls_apart, the truth is that the president matters a bit. Khamenei can effectively block reforms that go too far, as well as excessive fundamentalism; one of the possible presidential candidates banned from running is Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi. The president has PR power: Ahmadinejad alienated the rest of the world, whereas Rafsanjani or Khatami could have appealed to it.

Khamenei's real agenda is more conservative and realist than reactionary or apocalyptic. Unlike Khomeini, who was a real believer, Khamenei is an Islamist of convenience; if he were in Iraq or Syria, he would be a Ba'athist and preside over mass executions of Islamists. His main interest is the preservation of the current regime and of his own power. If Ahmadinejad's confrontational tone reduces the possibility of a democratic revolution then all the best, but he's not going to risk war. In fact, to the extent that allying himself with the West reduces risk, he's all for it. Iran supported the War on Terror and gave the US intelligence until Bush branded it evil and then ignored its requests to resume back-channel information sharing. At the time, in the early 2000s, Khatami even made noises about diplomatic relations with the US and Israel.

Antmatic said...

I'm hearing inklings Ahmadinejad has lost

Mehrdad said...

Antmatic, where are you getting your information? It is just after mid-night in tehran, have they released any data yet?

Mehrdad said...

In fact, I have read on several different sites that Ahmadinejad has the lead by 3-4 million votes. This is not as bad as it sounds, since the smaller cities and rural areas tend to be counted first. Tehran numbers are likely to come in late in the game and that might be decisive factor in who wins. I am just hoping that the voting fraud is kept to a minimum.

Kenny said...

Am I the only one that noticed a negative number in the "other/dk" column of the most recent poll? I wonder how that happened, and whether it throws any doubt on the other numbers.

juvanya said...

@polls_apart:
They are constitutionally required to get seats. I am not certain if they get five seats or just one. I do know of one Jew who serves in it though: Siamak Morsadegh, whe replaced Maurice Motamed in 2008. There are also Zoroastrians, Christians, Armenians. There may be more Jews in the "parties".

All experts on Iran seem to say what I articulate as "running out of time". The Iranian people are very strong-willed. Half the population was born after the Revolution and doesnt remember the Shah or the revolutionary tensions. What they do know is that they want to be modern, but not necessarily Western. Jeans arent American, theyre just a brilliantly designed article of clothing that as my friend puts it "fashionable and comfortable".

The best we can do for Iran is watch them and leave the door open. When they are ready, we should be there. No need to antagonize them or anything.

@KIC:
It does seem to draw on Obama's campaign. Obama lead an absolutely brilliant campaign that has changed politics throughout the world. Almost everyone is copying the style, even if they dont say it.

The green is an appeal to Islam, as I see it. The way Iranian politics currently work is that you can criticize the government somewhat as long as it isnt critical of Islam and the revolution. The green helps show that they are Muslims and not secular (although many are inwardly secular).


@Alon Levy:
Yes I am aware that the Shah and Ataturk are very comparable. Ataturk, though, built institutions and wasnt quite as oppressive as the Shah. He also, as you said, allowed elections.

You also correctly state that Iran wanted to help a lot after 9/11. Iran thought the Taliban were extreme and we probably could have had them proxy for us with the right maneuvering and get us Osama or enable us to do that. The "evil" thing was about the worst thing we did since treating the Shah for cancer. A 200 year old nation can not call an ancient nation "evil".



Contrary to what people think, every official in Iran is elected or appointed by elected officials, even the Supreme Leader. There is this whole tangle of elections of this and that that I cant really explain because I am not entirely sure myself. But he is elected in a similar way to the Electoral College here and can be removed.

The government is just so tangled and complex, people find it easier to just say it's a dictatorship and the President has no power. In fact, the President and Majlis have a lot of power within certain bounds. They have worked to stretch those bounds a lot and will continue, especially under Mousavi.

A book I read once laid out a plan for what needs to be done: Supreme Leader needs to become a ceremonial guide, the Guardian Council needs to loosen up, the Assembly of Experts also. They need to morph into an upper house.

Next they need to allow political parties (within reason), light criticism, and so on. The stable democracy will build itself and eventually they can adopt a new constitution with no strings attached. If this isnt done, there could very well be a new revolution.

John said...

Results that are coming in sound totally bogus - the other two candidates had a total of 23% support in the latest polls before the vote - now, Ahmadinejad is showing 61% and challenger 36%, for a total of 97% of the vote. It's fairly obvious the government is falsely reporting *all* the votes for candidates other than the challenger as for Ahmadinejad so it will appear he has more than the 50% needed to avoid a runoff :(

Alon Levy said...

Juvanya: I can't disagree with most of what you say, except about Ataturk. Ataturk allowed no elections under his watch; Turkey had a single-party system until well after he died. I suspect the reason he wasn't overthrown like the Shah is that he ruled in the 1920s and 30s; at the time, the population was too poor and uneducated to challenge his rule, and the Soviet Union was not yet in the business of funding communist rebellions globally. One of the lesser known aspects of the Iranian Revolution is the key role that communist and other leftist movements played in it; Khomeini won the subsequent struggle mostly because the Soviet Union never proposed an equally strong leader of its own.

Scott said...

Surprise, surprise. Ahmadinejad wins.

Joshua said...

Anyone saying the Iranian electoral system is becoming more mature should be shot starting right about...now.

azogdude said...

If there was a fix, Khatemei and the Guardian Council look like being in on it. Any last minute reprieve for the reformers was killed when the Supreme Leader congratulated Ahmadinejad.

But I'm seeing articles like http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/iranian-election which make it seem that this result was plausible, with reformist support mainly limited to liberals and pro-business types in the big cities.

Synthetic Zero said...

That Guardian article was written by an extremely naive person. The vote totals are completely non-credible --- according to Iran's Interior Ministry, Mousavi lost by a huge margin in his own home town, in a region that ordinarily votes for reformers.

I'd love to see a region-by-region analysis of the vote results here, to really calcuate how likely these results are.

nut_cookie said...

This is so shady. I wish Nate would do some sort of numbers crunch on this so we can see HOW shady. I mean the idea of someone losing that heavily in their own home regions is just ludicrous.

Steven said...

A significant point at the bottom of Al Jazeera's report :


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009613121740611636.html


Breakdown of the vote in individual districts was still patchy, but there were a few results that raised eyebrows.

Incumbent victorious

Ahmadinejad had apparently taken the northwestern city of Tabriz with some ease.

Tabriz is the heart of East Azerbaijan, and Azeris are among the tightest ethnic groups in the country, unfailingly voting along ethnic lines.

In the 2005 presidential election, Mohsen Mehralizadeh was a largely unknown and wholly unsuccessful candidate. He came in seventh and last, and yet he still won the Azeri vote in the Azerbaijani provinces. Mir Hossein Mousavi is an Azeri from Tabriz.

Elsewhere, Mehdi Karroubi failed to take his home state of Lorestan; in Khuzestan, Mohsen Rezai, a local scion, was expecting at least two million votes. His total for the entire country has failed to breach one million.

And with each updated count, Ahmadinjad's lead did not waver from a very stable range of 66-69 per cent, irrespective of which districts were reporting.

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,

,

婷婷 said...

china wholesale
cell phones
mobile phone
cheap cell phones wholesale
cosplay costumes
cheap cell phones
cheap cocktail dresses
Cheap Wedding Dresses
cheap jewelry
cheap polo shirts Cheap Polo Shirts
Wholesale Polo Shirts -50% OFF
Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts
Wholesale Polo Shirt
Polo Ralph Lauren
Burberry Polos

婷婷 said...

Your blog is wonderful, I like it very much, thank you!
By the way, do you like Burberry Polos, which are very chic, especially the Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts, I love them very much. I also like playing sports, it can keep healthy, what do you like to do?
We are the outlet of Wholesale Polo Shirt, Polo Ralph Lauren shirts on sale,these products are best-seller in our store cheap polo shirts Cheap Polo Shirtsour products also have a corresponding discount activitiesWholesale Polo Shirts -50% OFF,cheap polo shirts Cheap Polo ShirtsSo if you love these, you should not miss our store, we can meet what you want, and you can find many surprise in our store