Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

Chukpike said:
I looked around for this but could not find anything on it. Could you post a link?
Click to expand...

Found it here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UG7e0OYDt0

Wolfen

We do have some responsibility. We supported the Shah (who while friendly to the West, was a pretty ruthless and exploitive dictator when it came to his own people) and the Iranians never forgave us for that. True, that was 30 years ago and the Mullahs are exploiting that to justify an even more oppressive regime. But we have meddled in their affairs before, that's why they are so sensitive.
 
Last edited:
Maybe so but the US isn't alone in "meddling" with their election right now and what the US and other countries who oppose the result are saying are representing the sentiments of perhaps the majority of voters in Iran.
 
mmarsh said:
Found it here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UG7e0OYDt0
Click to expand...
This is a good breakdown of a possible power change in the Supreme Council. Everyone should be aware that a change in the Supreme Council and a different Ayatollah will not translate into a more democratic government, just a shift in who controls Iran. A new Ayatollah could deal differently with other countries, but how the political system works inside Iran will not change.

This is not a revolution.
It is more like communist China changing leadership after Mao Tse Tung. It did not effect the type of government, just the names changed and a shift in how to accomplish the governments goals.

The election for President had more to do with economic problems than wanting to change the system of government. The people are suffering economically, the recession is world wide.
 
Actually the whole shakeup going on right now is because their democracy is being threatened. That is, it was a pretty decent democracy until the latest round of election fraud happened.
If it simply does as much as go back to how it was before the most recent election, that would be a return to democratic ways.
Actually one can argue that what happened after Mao was indeed a revolution, though one of a different kind. The way things were done were completely changed and the Chinese wanted to get closer to the Americans. Many of the ideals of the Communist party were slowly abandoned and capitalistic ones took its place.
Yes, the current protests in Iran are motivated economically but it's really gotten out of hand because they felt that they could bring about a change in economic policy through elections (sort of how it's done where we are) but were bitterly disappointed.
It doesn't mean Iran will be any friendlier to the West or Israel as that is a completely different topic. This is more about Iran and democracy.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Actually the whole shakeup going on right now is because their democracy is being threatened. That is, it was a pretty decent democracy until the latest round of election fraud happened.
If it simply does as much as go back to how it was before the most recent election, that would be a return to democratic ways.
Actually one can argue that what happened after Mao was indeed a revolution, though one of a different kind. The way things were done were completely changed and the Chinese wanted to get closer to the Americans. Many of the ideals of the Communist party were slowly abandoned and capitalistic ones took its place.
Yes, the current protests in Iran are motivated economically but it's really gotten out of hand because they felt that they could bring about a change in economic policy through elections (sort of how it's done where we are) but were bitterly disappointed.
It doesn't mean Iran will be any friendlier to the West or Israel as that is a completely different topic. This is more about Iran and democracy.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day Iran will have:
A Supreme Leader presiding over the Supreme Council.
The Supreme Leader with the Councils approval will decide which one of their hand picked Presidential candidates will be the new President.
The new president will enforce the Supreme Councils wishes.
The system of government is not going to change.
If this fits your definition of a democracy so be it.
 
As I have explained...
Every four years, only Presidential candidates with the blessing of the very, very rich minority will get to run for President.
The new President will enforce the financiers' wishes.
The system of government is not going to change.
If this is your idea of democracy, so be it.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
As I have explained...
Every four years, only Presidential candidates with the blessing of the very, very rich minority will get to run for President.
The new President will enforce the financiers' wishes.
The system of government is not going to change.
If this is your idea of democracy, so be it.
Click to expand...
:offtopic:

As you said in an earlier post:
"This is more about Iran and democracy."

If you wish to address another country start a new thread.

8-)
 
No, it is relevent because you said Iran is not a democracy for the following reasons. I have made a comparison with a country you would consider democratic.
It is not off topic. You just hate what you're reading.
 
I hope there is a revolution, cause if there was a better govcould be set up

Viva la revolution!! OR HAllibaba achahama Revolution!!
 
I'm not really interested in better/worse government based on revolution. Iran had a revolution in 1979 to overthrow the last oppressive government; but we liked that one, hence all the bad blood between us and them now. If this government becomes too oppressive, I feel that regardless of what the situation is, if the people living there feel things are bad then they should overthrow their government. If not, then the rest of the world can complain but the government is serving its purpose; to please the masses.
 
Back to topic ":Fraud Or Sour Grapes?".

Today read an article citing a Chatham House Preliminary Analysis of the votes cast (based on the published Iranian Gobrenment data) in El Mundo, Spain.


Their findings makes it more than improbable that Ahmadinejad won the elections in a correct way:

Here a quick summary of their findings:

- In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded

- At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased
turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion
that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously
silent Conservative majority.

The most significant hint to what happened is in the numbers of changed votes:

- In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all
former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.

 - In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.

 The whole original paper is here: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...use&cd=1&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es&client=firefox-a

Excerpts:
According to the official Ministry of Interior voting data (see Appendix),
Mahmud Ahmadinejad has increased the conservative vote by 113%
compared to the 2005 election. There is little correlation in provincial level
results between the increase in turnout and the swing to the President,
challenging the notion that a previously silent Conservative majority has come
out to support him. Interestingly, in 10 out of 30 provinces, mainly former
Mehdi Karrubi strongholds, the official data suggests that Ahmadinejad
received not only the votes of all former non-voters and former Rafsanjani
voters, but also took up to 44% of the vote from those who had previously
voted Reformist.

 According to the official data, Mahmud Ahmadinejad has received
approximately 13m more votes in this election than the combined conservative
vote in the 2005 Presidential election.
Assuming that Ahmadinejad retained all 11.5m Conservative votes from 2005,
these additional 13m votes could have come from three sources, in
descending order of likelihood:

 • The approximately 10.6m citizens who did not vote in 2005, but chose
to vote in this election

 • The 6.2m citizens who voted for the centrist Rafsanjani in 2005

 • The 10.4m citizens who voted for Reformist candidates in 2005
Click to expand...
Ouch.

What the scientists cannot say directly (as they are working probabilities), I as non-scientist can make my educated opinion on straightforwardly:

FRAUD.

Rattler
 
Pragmatic, Ahmadinejad is now the President no one can change this in iran, lets face it iran ruled by a Theocratic regime Which is incompatible with democracy..


%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A+%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF+%D8%AF%D8%B4%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%87.jpg
 
I just hope the protesters hold out long enough to force the government to take decisive action; that will force the army to decide whether to follow their orders or their fellow Iranians. It worked in Bucharest and Moscow; it failed in Beijing. We'll just have to wait on the outside and see.

I'm actually quite impressed with the Obama Administraton's stance with Iran right now. They are being extra careful to stay out of it, because they know that it destabilizes the government even more. The minute the US makes any move the Iranians will pull the Imperialism card and most of the country will back them again. It's why the Iranians had such a strong unified government in these past few years; all the factions that had been fighting with each other since the revolution of 1979 had a united enemy in the Bush Administration. Let's face it; being called evil isn't really something anyone wants to hear. When Obama came out and was polite and willing to meet with their government, not calling them arch enemies, etc. further hurt the hardline beliefs of the ruling party that the Americans were evil. And eras are changing; 60% of Iran is under the age of 32, which would make them at oldest infants when the revolution occured. To them the revolutionary government is the establishment. These people are going on vacation to places that have western ties; Dubai, Turkey, etc. and are seeing just how far behind Iran has fallen. They're thinking that this isolation from the western world may not necessarily be the best thing anymore. The protest may have started over the election fraud, but it has snowballed into a revolt of discontent.
 
Last edited:
It's smart for any Western country to stay out of it because if any group becomes backed by the West, they will become alienated.
 
A statistical analysis has now been published to try to support the claim that the opposition in Iran is right to question the declared result.
On the face of it, there seems no reason to doubt the official numbers.
In 2005, in a run-off ballot, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president with 62% of the vote compared with 36% for his opponent, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
In 2009, in the first round, President Ahmadinejad was re-elected with 63% of the vote compared with 34% for Mir Hossein Mousavi.
So what is the problem?
According to a study edited by Professor Ali Ansari, of the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews and of the London think tank Chatham House, the problem lies in the increased turnout.
In 2005, Mr Ahmadinejad got 17 million votes and in 2009 he got 24 million.
The question is, where did all those extra votes come from?
The answer, according to this study, is not at all clear...........
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8113885.stm
 
mmarsh said:
Found it here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UG7e0OYDt0

Wolfen

We do have some responsibility. We supported the Shah (who while friendly to the West, was a pretty ruthless and exploitive dictator when it came to his own people) and the Iranians never forgave us for that. True, that was 30 years ago and the Mullahs are exploiting that to justify an even more oppressive regime. But we have meddled in their affairs before, that's why they are so sensitive.
Click to expand...

True the US liked the Shaw of Iran, but this go around is a internal election for them, the US didn't do anything for or against them.
 
Last edited:
The Other Guy said:
I just hope the protesters hold out long enough to force the government to take decisive action; that will force the army to decide whether to follow their orders or their fellow Iranians. It worked in Bucharest and Moscow; it failed in Beijing. We'll just have to wait on the outside and see.
Click to expand...
No, You are wrong, This does not work with the Islamists
They can make the country a sea of blood with no Problems
the islamists fight for the god and the Protesters fight for the Dimocracy
it Will be a failed war.. the best way to fight the religious ppl is by
Using the media war...

for me i like Ali Khamenei and I wish him victory over rebels
he is Arabian leader from Quraish tribe unlike that that stupid persian shah
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top