I've generally tended to take the position that while the people running Iran are a bunch of reactionary thugs, they're at least a fairly intelligent bunch of reactionary thugs.
After this revelation on Iranian Press TV, however, I'm not so certain:
Iran's Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of those eligible to cast ballot in those areas.For all the complex series of statistics that have been run on Iran's election, it's the simplest that might prove to be the regime's downfall. More people "voted" than were eligible to vote -- in a lot of places. The interior ministry admits to 50 such instances out of the 300+ jurisdictions in which Iran tallied results. That is widespread, prime facie and admitted-to evidence of fraud, and I don't see how the Guardian Council expects people to buy the argument that whatever caused the tub to overflow in those 50 cities was not also tainting the results throughout the rest of the country. The Chatham House report we linked to earlier today found that there were more "votes" than voters in two entire provinces.
The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.
"Statistics provided by Mohsen Rezaei in which he claims more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.
The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such an irregularity is over 3 million, "it has yet to be determined whether the amount is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.
The Interior Ministry will presumably next try to argue that these were irregularities owing to the mere overzealousness of the Iranian people. Perhaps, as happens with some regularity in the United States, people who thought they were eligible to vote but weren't nevertheless tried to and weren't screened properly by elections officials. But this explanation doesn't hold water -- voter eligibility is not a tricky matter in Iran. The Statistical Center of Iran reports that, as of the last census, there were some 47.7 million people aged 18 or older in Iran, which is the voting age in that country. By contrast, the widely-cited figure is that there were some 46.2 million eligible voters. Virtually all people aged 18 or older, evidently, are eligible to vote in Iran, which has very few non-citizens (only about 1.6 million according to official estimates).
This leaves only two possibilities: that there was widespread ballot-stuffing or that the results in some or all areas don't reflect any physical count of the ballots but were fabricated whole hog on a spreadsheet.
The Interior Ministry's goal here must be one of two things. Either they're hoping to gain credibility by arguing, in essence: "Sure, there was some fraud! But there weren't 11 million votes worth of fraud!", an argument that echoes the Ayatollah's specious comments from Friday. Or, something has clicked and this is the first step in their starting to throw Ahmadinejad under the bus.
50 comments
Third?!
You know, this is scary stuff, really scary stuff. Nate, you break things down so well, I never really find world politics interesting but you are the exception. I love how you have the sources and everything, this needs to be taken to the MSM. I wonder if Ahmadinedjad is going to resign or anything like that?
It's not logically impossible for more votes to be cast in a region than there are eligible voters. As I understand Iranian election procedures, any eligible voter can cast their ballot at any polling place in the country. Apparently they don't control voting by looking up the voter into a list, but simply by examining and stamping their identity papers.
It's conceivable that substantial numbers of residents of a given district are on long-term work assignments elsewhere, or have been displaced by ethnic tensions, or are traveling for religious reasons.
If they had any brains, that's the tack they'd have taken, not that they had only committed a moderate amount of fraud.
If the election WEREN'T fraudulent, all they'd have to do is release copies of the "form 22" which I understand caries each polling place's tallies, along with the election judges' signatures. One side or the other seems to have won in a landslide, and it wouldn't take looking at many forms to decide which side that was. Falsifying those forms wouldn't seem feasible, since the election judges would certainly remember what results they had each certified. And falsifying tens of thousands of hand-written tally sheets without leaving statistical fingerprints would be difficult too. But those forms aren't available to view (as they would be in the U.S.)
The spokesman says "cities," which could mean cities or towns I imagine, and he says the Rezai camp also used the word "cities." But even this may be erroneous. You mention that there are over 300 "jurisdictions" in Iran, and Mousavi has stated at least twice in the past several days, the latest in his June 20 statement, that "number of votes cast in 170 voting centers has exceeded the number of people eligible to vote there." "Voting centers" may correspond to "jurisdictions," or it may correspond to "precincts" within those jurisdictions, such as specific mosques and public centers used as polling places. The Council spokesman could easily be obfuscating the severity of the issue.
This is real interesting coming for the Guardian Council, and I seriously doubt it is them being completely stupid. I really think they are a lot smarter then that and that this could be the first step in opposing Khamenei.
This is also looking more and more like a military coup, check this out from the BBC.
"As the security forces continued to round up protesters on Saturday, they arrested several family members of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani - a powerful opponent of Mr Ahmadinejad."
Given the fact that the security forces are targeting the family of a legendary leader in Iran (Rasfanjani) it's quite possible that the Guardian Council is wanting to subtly create problems for Ahmadinejad and create an opening for the Rasfanjani/Mousavi camp.
So, basically, the idea is that they'll freely admit that there was fraud, perhaps millions of votes worth of fraud, but that there wasn't enough millions of votes to tip the election in Ahmadinejad's favor?
Well, that's certainly and... interesting take on the matter, at least.
Mark Grebner said...
It's not logically impossible for more votes to be cast in a region than there are eligible voters. As I understand Iranian election procedures, any eligible voter can cast their ballot at any polling place in the country. Apparently they don't control voting by looking up the voter into a list, but simply by examining and stamping their identity papers.
And just where did you see any information on Iranian election procedures?
It could be as you say. But then again, the procedures might be that you can't vote except at your precinct.
As to the allegation that people might vote in a precinct near work instead of voting at home that 'Evan' made in this post (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/lazy-sunday-linkage-public-option-iran.html#comment-7148063979069380949), doesn't wash.
The vote was on a Friday - a work day in most of the world, but NOT in a Muslim country, let alone in Iran. You see, Fridays are the Muslim day of worship, the same as Sunday is the Christian day of worship, and just like the Christian world, very few people are working on that day.
Now find some information to back up your speculation, and please don't bring it back up until you do.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Yes, an essential point is that the highest levels of the hierarchy are cracking. It looks as though the Supreme Leader Khameini has accidentally broken the ice on the water, and may be stuck in the middle of the lake.
One thing to note is that in some cases, Mousavi won big in some places where there were mote votes than voters. One example was Shemirinat, a city in Teheran province, where there were more than 300,000 votes but only about 40,000 residents.
The discrepancies might need to be examined a little more closely before drawing the conclusions that you've drawn, Nate.
Alternatively, something clicked and the regime recognized that an internationally monitored, new election is the only way out of this clusterfuck that doesn't involve violence well beyond what we've seen so far and doesn't end with them out of power. This is a way to move towards a new election and save face in the process; there's also the pesky problem that Iran actually does have a constitution that's quite important to Iranians and there isn't really room within it for a do-over.
I'm not particularly convinced that Ahmadinejad didn't win in the first place; if that's true, and if the margin was anywhere near what was reported, he'll win again and the regime could emerge with as strong a hand as it had before... a frightening prospect that's worth considering.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for Mayor of Chicago?
Michael
You got it right. This is the first step to throwing Ahmadinejad & Khameini under the bus by the Guardian Council.
For "Mike in Maryland":
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/irans_voting_manipulation_indu.html
"In Iran, voting follows quite different procedures than those used in most Western countries. For instance, there is no voter registration. Instead, a person's voting eligibility is determined by a "birth certificate" (BC). (Although Iran has recently introduced national identification cards, these are not used for voting.) The BC, issued by the National Organization for Civil Registration, looks like a passport, with pages that can be stamped. Voters can go to any of the more than 60,000 voting stations across the country or around the world, including those in thirty-five U.S. cities. Since there is no requirement to vote near one's residence, voter turnout at a particular voting station, or even in a city, can theoretically exceed the estimated number of eligible voters in that locality. When a person receives a ballot, the BC is recorded and stamped, but there appears to be no verification, either during the voting or after, of the documentation."
I don't know anything about this site, but this information squares with what I had run into elsewhere.
One way to check would be to go through the numbers for all the districts and see whether the over-voting in some areas is counterbalanced by equivalent under-voting elsewhere.
I think that the most likely scenario is a hybrid of doctored numbers in the spreadsheet and true ballot box stuffing. Stuffing ballot boxes seems like a lot more difficult and time consuming as well as having a much greater chance for a non sympathetic persons to witness, but I am sure that it happened when it was convenient.
Stuffing ballot boxes would be one thing, but removing votes would be another. Clearly there were votes removed in the cases where the candidates received impossibly low vote counts in their home district. Perhaps they thought the stuffing would be enough, but when the numbers added up Ahmadi was below 50% or too close to it to spark interest in a recount soquick cut and paste of the minor candidates votes into his column and you have a manufactured landslide. If there were real paper ballots (stuffed or not) behind all the official numbers then I think we would have already seen a recount (afterall, it only took a few hours the first time!)
Mark Grebner said...
I don't know anything about this site, but this information squares with what I had run into elsewhere.
Elsewhere? Like where?
Start citing the sites when you state 'elsewhere'.
As to the material you quoted, this statement stands out: "there appears to be no verification, either during the voting or after, of the documentation."
'Appears'? The author(s) of the article don't even know how to read the election law to determine if there is or is not verification?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
According to Mehdi Khalaji (as quoted by DailyKos) it sounds like the weak point isn't counting the votes, which is done at something like 40,000 sites. The problem seems to be that the results are tallied and transmitted (on "form 22") to a regional center, where they are combined (on "form 28"). Only the regional tallies are generally released, and there doesn't seem to be any public access to the tallying process.
Since the regional process is under the control of the Interior Ministry, that's presumably where most of the fakery occurs.
In the U.S., conducting an election requires the labor of roughly 1% of the adult population, which makes a precinct-level scheme very difficult. But in most of the U.S., each precinct reveals its tally to the public, which eliminates the opportunity for fraud at the next level. It sounds as if the Iranian government has attempted to fix that problem by preventing the public disclosure of the polling place tallies.
I've posted this comment on an earlier thread, but it bears repeating here:
A month from now the protest leaders and their extended families will all be in concentration camps.
And after A'jad & the Supreme guy have fully consolidated their dictatorial partnership, going nuclear along the way, historians will look back and wonder "Where was America?"
I have to agree that this pretty much constitutes an admission that massive fraud happened. At this point, I don't think the legitimacy of the recent election can be salvaged in anybody's eyes. A runoff might work to salvage the president's legitimacy, but only if made fairly transparent.
Mark Grebner
I would like to add that the Basij (under control of the Supreme leader) guards the ballot box & the polling stations. In some places they are on the polling boards. People have been complaining about this since 2005. But the Supreme leader insists the Basij is above reproach.
You know the Basij... the ones on motorcycles beating people up. The Basij that shot Neda.
This is why I've been really happy to see Rezaei in this election as he has proven to be a thorn in Ahmadinejad's side more than once. His extremely low official vote count makes it very easy for him to simply find more people that voted for him afterwards than were originally reported to have done so, something that would take a lot more time for supporters of Mousavi to do.
Press TV has been interesting recently. For a few days after the election absolutely nothing was reported besides a "stunning Ahmadinejad victory" and "Israel angered by election outcome" etc., but all of a sudden we're seeing stories like this even there.
Some of you not named Nate seem to think it's worthwhile speculating about what "evidence" the IRI office "responsible" for elections must have considered in determining there were more ballots returned than eligible voters about 50 of about 170 cities/towns/jurisdictions/centers/WTFs.
The answer is whatever happened to be still crammed up way up inside the location from which it retrieved the FIRST set of numbers.
It's beyond silly that the office "responsible" for running a proper election in the first place has now "discovered" these problems. In the words of that disgusting toady who keeps showing up in Congressional hearings and on my TV to parrot the Bushie Outlier Bizarro America Government position, we can just 'stipulate and move on' - in this case, by stipulating this farce makes the Captain Louis Renault line about being shocked too understated.
And for those who take this concession to four dozen or so incidents, likely more, of PARTICULAR fraud as a sign that the IRI elections office has turned on the Supreme Dictator, shake your sillies out: It's clear dictatorship bureaucrat-speak. It means: So there's been problems; so farkin' WHAT? The mullahs are going to arrest either Mousavi or Ahmadinejad and all this means is they haven't decided which one yet.
And for those who figure this fight is done and Mousavi's wife should be picking out a burial plot for him, keep in mind that this comes down to the mullahs picking between their own survival and the alternative, and they're having trouble figuring out whether they'd rather face the police state tiger behind door number 1 and the republican tiger behind door number 2.
The news here is that the mullahs are done; the population getting screwed it dog bites man stuff.
The larger point is that if some places have way more votes than voters, then the nothing about the count can be trusted. I doubt these are ballot box stuffing - that is what you do when you have a transparent tallying - no need when you just announce the numbers with no evidence of anything at all.
The more important thing is that some have commented on this site that hand counts could have been done so fast that they would have full tallied results within 3 hours of the poll close (deferred closing in this case). But, in the previous elections (original and then runoff), it took them all night and then another day to cover the foreign votes. In this election, they had over 80% turnout, more than 20% more than last time, yet they are magically fast?
Personally, I am impressed by Iran's attempt to move toward democracy, and with the election they just held. In fact, they went out of their way to make it possible for Iranians overseas to vote. I was also impressed with their debate format. It shows creativity, and an interest to discuss issues.
I am not as sure as others that Ahmadinejad is the villian he is made out to be. Nor am I impressed with Mousavi's past, where the vast majority of Iran's atrocities were committed.
I do believe that those in power in Iran want as much as others to know if the election results are valid. I am disapointed at the bandwagon mentality adopted, without question, that the election was stolen. It would seem that only those facts that support the stolen election are welcome, and any other info is brushed aside.
Nate, you do include significant events, in evaluating the validity of a poll, do you not? Lets look at some of the events that immediately proceeded the election in Iran.
1. The savage bombing of Gaza by Israel, and the huge outpouring of support for the Pals in Iran.
2. An Iranian-American journalist was caught red handed photographing sensitive documents in Iran. She claimed she was not a spy, but only curious. Obama asked for her release, and it was granted.
3. Two weeks before the election, Jundullah, and American supported terror org, in So Pakistan, bombed a mosque and bank in So Eastern Iran.
4. The week before the Iranian election, news that the US and Saudies were involved in the Lebanon election, and that Hezbollah had lost grabbed the headlines in Iran.
Q: Do you suppose those 4 events could have resulted in a 2-1 margin of victory for Ahmadinejad?
Q: If the US had suffered attacks by our enemies right before the election, is it possible that McCain, and not Obama would have won?
I do not see any reason why Ahmadinejad could not have won.
I do believe we should leave Iran alone, to sort this out by themselves. I cannot stress the importance of this.
I wonder if those who opposed Obama's plan to talk first, and use military force second, are behind these demonstrations?
Um, the total population of the provinces with more than 100% turnout is about 3,5 million. To adjust those numbers back to the 85% national average is a reduction of about 700,000 votes cast.
There is less here than meets the eye, folks. Don't go catching Andrew Sullivan Disease. This whole Iranian thing is a narrow dispute between Khameni and Rhafsanjani (excuse my spelling, which is rotten enough in English let alone Persian), and it has tapped into free-floating anxiety within Iran plus the desperate need of American bloggers for Something To Do plus the neocon desire to give the Republicans an excuse to beat the table for yet another war or something.
Nate, you don't have the proof you think you have. I think the election was rigged, but this bit of evidence doesn't prove it even remotely.
Repeating what I posted on another "Iran" thread:
Face it,everybody who is quibbling about monitors,counters,folded or unfolded ballots,no ballots,early announcements,etc.,etc.,etc.
IF THIS ELECTION WEREN"T RIGGED,THE SUPREME LEADER WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE AN IMMEDIATE RECOUNT IN ORDER TO LAMBAST "THE GREAT SATAN AND ITS LACKEY STATES GREAT BRITAIN AND ISRAEL"!
But of course,as the election was rigged he can't possibly allow a recount.Case closed!
@newyorker2874999
No they won't you tool. There's no such thing as concentration camps in Iran. There are millions of people who are already protesting against this. What do you think would happen if they rounded up everyone into camps? This isn't Nazi Germany where everyone supported it. And don't ever dilute the Holocaust again you insensitive prick!
@shoe08:
He is a villain. He's a radical and has made threats against the world. Do I think much will happen about him? No. But he's still a crazy bad man. Mousavi's past is just as bad as anyone else's. Ahmadi was a leader of the group that took over the embassy.
No they don't. They want to cover it all up so their boy can win. There is no bandwagon mentality. That's just a BS excuse that says "I have no counter-argument". It's like the global warming denialists who refuse to accept mountains of evidence.
1. Savage my ass. The savages are the twisted people who strap on vests and blow up pizzerias and buses. The savages are the ones who fire rockets from behind a school so when the bombs come, they kill children too.
In any case, all of this is irrelevant to the differences between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. They both are anti-Zionist. Even Khatami is anti-Zionist. Iranians don't give two shits about Arabs or Pakis. It has nothing to do with that at all.
A: No they wouldn't because Mousavi was not the epitome of America at all. 70% or more of Iranians want to normalize ties with America. It's just not an issue.
A: McCain probably would have won, but not 63-32. And maybe not. A lot of people turned out for Obama. It probably would have been a reverse 2000. And then you never know how McCain would be all crazy and Obama would be all calm and collect, reassuring people everything is okay.
He may be able to win, but not by a landslide. Everyone in Iran and outside knew it was close. The previous election, no one scored above 30% in the first round. This round would have probably been like 35-30-15-10.
Who said we are messing with Iran? We are just analyzing the election because we want to know. We don't want to sit in a cave like nothing is happening. We all live in the same world. Get real!
They aren't That's the most absurd thing ever. You just don't want to believe that something could be the people actually pissed. There is no proof of conspiracies except in your dreamworld.
@Jim: No it isn't. That's a separate parallel dispute. This is one thing that started it, but behind the scenes is the other conflict.
The people felt their election was stolen and it has nothing to do with the upper men. Bloggers have plenty to do. We readers want to know more. I especially am interested in Iran and have eaten everything up. Neocons do not currently control the government so I dont know where that garbage comes from.
This does prove something is fishy. Quacks like a duck? There are just way too many irregularities.
-it violated all previous electoral trends
-it was said to be close
-the numbers don't make sense.
and so on...
juvania - There weren't concentration camps in Germany either - until there were.
And far from diluting the Holocaust, those of us who regard a nuclear-armed A'jad as an existential threat to Israel are trying to PREVENT one.
Your disingenuous, hysterical red herring of an accusation is no match for the clear logic I hear every day from Bibi.
shoe08 said...
Personally, I am impressed by Iran's attempt to move toward democracy, and with the election they just held
Stalin held elections, too. Were those an 'attempt to move toward democracy'?
Ferdinand Marcos held elections, too. Were those an 'attempt to move toward democracy'?
Robert Mugabe has held many elections. Were those an 'attempt to move toward democracy'?
shoe08 said...
I am not as sure as others that Ahmadinejad is the villian he is made out to be.
Are you, in addition to being an imbecile, an anti-Semite also? On second thought, since you are an imbecile, coincidentally being an anti-Semite isn't so surprising.
shoe08 said...
I do believe that those in power in Iran want as much as others to know if the election results are valid.
Did Stalin, Marcos or Mugabe ever wonder or worry if the election results were valid?
shoe08 said...
An Iranian-American journalist was caught red handed photographing sensitive documents in Iran.
So said the Ahmadinejad government. Are you the propagandist arm of the Ahmadinejad government?
shoe08 said...
Two weeks before the election, Jundullah, and American supported terror org, in So Pakistan, bombed a mosque and bank in So Eastern Iran.
Citation needed for this allegation.
shoe08 said...
The week before the Iranian election, news that the US and Saudies were involved in the Lebanon election
So you think that President Obama's speech in Cairo had no influence? And as a result, you are spreading the al-Queda lie about 'direct US involvement' in 'stealing the election' in Lebanon?
shoe08 said...
I do not see any reason why Ahmadinejad could not have won.
Even when the Ahmadinejad government EXPLICITLY admits that there were DOZENS of locations of more than 100% of the eligible voters voting? The government admitted that that happened in 50 locations, but there are reports that it happened in more than 170, and you still don't think something fishy happened?
And two of the opposing candidates couldn't carry their home provinces, the provinces from which they got their political start, and gave them overwhelming support throughout their political careers? In fact, they lost their home provinces (in percentage terms) by as much, or more, than they lost the national vote?
Ever hear the expression, "Where there's smoke, there's fire?" It's quite apt in this situation.
And you still see no reason that anyone can say that Ahmadinejad's 'victory' looks very suspicious?
shoe08 - you are nothing more than a fool and a tool.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Actually, Nate, damning (and funny) though that statement is, it's not the worst attempt at damage control I can recall.
That would go to whoever the spokesman was during the attempted coup of August 1991 in the old USSR. Someone asked him if the nuclear chain of command -- the authority to launch the ICBMs -- was being maintained, who had launch authority, and who held control of the missiles themselves in the field.
His response:
"There is no need to worry. We know where most of them are."
{gulp}
Important though election results are, I suggest keeping accurate track of one's nuclear stockpile trumps it.
Tehran-based PressTV.ir is reporting that the vote tally affected could have been over 3 million, though also mentions that turnout over 100% in cities isn't unusual because of the flexibility in voting location that Mark Grebner mentions above.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101
So, I know this a minor point, but everyone keeps using the "11 million votes" figure as the number of votes the government would have had to steal. Actually, it's about 9 million. Take 9 million votes away from Ahmedinijad and he's under 50%, meaning a run-off that he would almost certainly lose...
I know it's silly, but it IS slightly easier to steal 9 million votes than it is to steal 11 million.
At least some of the members of the Guardian Council are Mousavi supporters. Also, the Council is supposed to be the one with the authority to deny people the opportunity to run in the elections, so Khamenei has usurped their authority by rigging the vote. They're likely to be pissed off with him.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Iranian government is a monolith.
I assume this annomaly will be taken care of in the recount.
great how a recount gives them a second chance to fix it without changing the result
The Guardian Council is split in thirds. This is announcement was pushed out by the Reformists.
My response:
http://www.viral-memes.com/?p=294
Mark G. is correct about the procedures. Precinct tallies over 100% are permissible and somewhat common in the Iranian elections, as I said earlier. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy complained about this incessantly in the 2005 election and it's good to see they've got someone on staff now that understands the election laws.
(As to 'appears': there is no verification presented to the voter. The actual process by which votes are counted in Iran is opaque--hence the current problem--and it's conceivable that the government might invent such a rule to disqualify votes they dislike.)
Friday is the Islamic day of prayer, though Islam does not have a concept of the Sabbath or a day of rest, and many (especially radical) Muslims reject the concept, taking the Qur'an's rejoinder to "disperse through the land and seek the bounty of God ... that you may prosper" after Friday noon prayers and an injunction to go work.
That's all rather moot, though, as Iran is rather anomalous in declaring Fridays a holiday. Still, many people work; they also may travel to larger mosques for prayers, or use the day to visit family. (In this case, you're correct, I'm speculating here based on the few Iranians I know.)
Regardless of the reason, turnouts over 100% are relatively normal in Iranian elections. You'll find this occurs in the elections going back at least to 1997 (I haven't seen election returns prior to Khatami's landslide), even in 2005 when turnout was relatively low. People moving around during the course of their day are more than enough to explain it. At the province level, however, such a high turnout seems much less likely.
It all amounts to (unfortunately) being another piece of evidence that's not quite conclusive in proving what is ultimately obvious: that the election was rigged.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the election rigging wasn't supposed to be kept secret? It seems to me that the Iranian government is flaunting it, really. I think they want the world to see that it was rigged. They want to escalate tensions with America, and the Ayatollah wants to pass his position off to his son, so this situation is their way of having the opposition start the fight that they want to have anyway. Just a thought.
@Jeffrey: You're making conspiracies where there are none. The Iranian government is not some monolithic structure, but a complex political system made up of many players, each with their own goals and methods. On would be hard pressed to create such a convincing level of havoc by convincing hundreds of political opponents into some strange collusion simply to taunt Americans.
No, you mistake what I mean. I don't believe any political opponents are "in" on a conspiracy. All I'm suggesting is that the rigging of this election was done in a sloppy way on purpose. It's basically telling the reformists, "so what, it's not a real democracy anyway." That seems to be what the Ayatollah and President want, so why think the lack of "better" rigging isn't intentional. Maybe they wanted to get caught.
@Mike in Maryland
I usually like your posts (see e.g. on health care), but I think you are jumping the gun here with your vitriolic criticism of Mark G's comments.
Consider the quotation from this article in the Washington Post:
[quote]
But the spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodai, said Monday that the discrepancy did not necessarily signify a problem, because people are not required to vote in the district where they are registered.
"Some districts are intertwined geographically and population-wise, so people vote in different districts," Kadkhodai told the semi-official IRNA news agency. "Our preliminary follow-up shows that there hasn't been any major fraud. In fact, maybe it's better to say there has been no fraud at all."
[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062200816.html
It seems likely that there was some fraud in this election, but too many people here (Nate excepted) act as if its a certainty, because we WANT IT SO BAD TO BE TRUE.
Isn't there a third possibility? That they're just saying. Yep. Fraud. What are you going to do about it?
I hate to rain on the holy crusade in denouncing the Ayatollah, but...
While we don't need to see the trout to know something's fishy, comparing reported voting results to estimates of the electorate are not necessarily prima facie evidence of widespread voter fraud.
It could be evidence of outdated voter lists, or the method of voting in Iran.
Where & when do the estimates of the electorate come from? Are they from 2006-2007, the latest Iran Statistical Year book, or earlier? How are the data collected?
This suggests they're recent, but I'd like to find out from someone who knows for sure.
Who knows how the electoral rolls established in Iran? As This piece at RealClearPolitics points out, it's by simply having a birth certificate. This has its own pitfalls as to how accurate the voter lists are -- but so does the method of personal registration used in the US.
What's the error rate in this method of establishing the right to vote in Iran, & where does it come from?
Have there been social movements of people within Iran that would suggest voter lists get outdated quickly (such as, mass movement to the cities for work -- or vice-a-versa)?
Does the method of voting affect what the "turnout" in any one place is? Again, the RealClearPolitics piece (written before the election was held) says, "Since there is no requirement to vote near one's residence, voter turnout at a particular voting station, or even in a city, can theoretically exceed the estimated number of eligible voters in that locality."
What was the turnout last time, compared to this time? Were there forces at work to affect the election massively -- such as the reception of Obama's speech?
I don't think everyone in the MidEast was as positive of his speech as the western-centric press would have us believe.
These are legitimate questions, and I'm fairly ignorant of the electoral law in Iran -- but I suspect 99.9% of the US commentators on the current crisis are, as well -- including those who rely purely on dry statistics and data to prove their point, without either researching the context or reporting it w/ their "analysis".
Inquiring minds want to know more than pretty graphs & broadside accusations that may not mean anything in the real world. But there appear to be few inquiring minds in the US around this crisis -- the minds are made up, damn the facts (and questions).
As if to attempt to justify a 'partially-fraudulent' election ...?????!!! ( As opposed to a full-fledged fraudulent election.) Boggles the mind.
You do not understand how voting works in Persia. All the heros / terrorists sent to Iran and martyred / killed by the American forces and each of their 77 virgins (as long as they still are) can vote in the election.
Add those numbers up and the vote count is easily achieved.
The apparent problem was created by American military effectiveness.
While the entire election is likely a sham, I have a hard time believing this ballot-stuffing story:
1. People vote
2. Officials fabricate a number, N
3. Officials admit that N exceeds the eligible voting population, M
If the officials were trying to successfully steal the election and knew M, wouldn't they ensure N was less than M?
I believe either a) the mullahs are setting things up to remove Ahmedinijad, or b) the numbers don't match because of voting outside birth regions.
Here is a question that I have also raised on my blog...
Is it possible that there are those who dissagree with Obama's ststed polict of extending an open hand to Iran? Who dissagree with the policy of renewed talks and diplomacy, with a new administration? Is it possible that those who disagree with obama's stated policys have continued Bush's covert ops to destabise Iran, and have they incited these demonstrations? is it possible this is not about a rigged election, but a coup?
They have made the statement because it's not a big deal. You can vote anywhere and people do. They probably don't even understand why this is being pushed as an issue. Mousavi's handlers do though.
Walter Mehane reports (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/note22jun2009.pdf) that he has been able to obtain ballot-box level data from 26 of the 30 provinces, and that "All of the ballot box data have not yet been released, but the data so far I think give strong support for a diagnosis that the 2009 election was a ected by signicant fraud."
The chi-squares for second-digit Benford's law are simply off the chart. As I understand his analysis, it looks as if votes were simply subtracted from Rezaei's and Karoubi's totals and moved to Ahmadinejad, without affecting Mousavi's numbers.
Of course, if the authorities steal votes at one point in the process, there's certainly no guarantee they didn't steal more, using different methods, at other points.
As I wrote above, if the ballot-box level data becomes officially available, I don't see how they'll be able to keep up a serious defense. It's hard to prove fraud definitively from a few dozen totals, but 40,000+ individual tallies are almost impossible to fake without leaving distinct fingerprints.
@Kathy Podgers - You can take off the tin foil hat. The answer to your question is "no."
People in Iran don't have to vote in their hometown, where their "shenasnameh" or identity card was issued. In Iran, like many other developing nations, people tend to move around for work etc. That's why there was excess voting in some places. The authorities explained this clearly -- and this had happened in the past too -- and yet you didn't bother to check before declaring it evidence of fraud.
And, the Chatham House study uses Benford's Law, which has been shown NOT to apply to electoral results.
See IRanAffairs.com
Post a Comment