Iraqi Elections Now History

As I write this, polling stations in Iraq are closing. Discounting the possibly over-inflated estimates by some Iraqi election officials and of course the US government, it appears that things went somewhat better than (I) expected:1. There was substantially less violence than expected, in spite of several attacks against polling stations which killed around 36 people (preliminary results), a substantial fraction of whom were Iraqi security people.2. Outcomes in predominantly Shia and Kurdish controlled areas may actually approach the 70% figure quoted by the Iraqi Interim Government (although that remains to be verified).3. Outcomes in predominantly Sunni controlled areas were about what I expected: ~1-2% in Ramadi, Fallujah and western Baghdad, although even here the fact that anyone showed up is surprising to me.My guess is that roughly 50% of eligible Iraqi voters turned out - factoring in the voters living in other countries.So what does this mean for both the Iraqi people in general and the current administration's policy in Iraq? Does the fact that the Sunni minority basically disenfranchised itself make a difference? Does the relatively small voter turnout (accepting the 50% preliminary figure for the sake of argument and rejecting the 72% claimed by the unnamed Iraqi election official touted all over the US news media) render the elections completely illegitimate, or does it mark a historic step forward for Iraq, even if only incremental?My opinion: things went better than expected but worse than they could have. Iraq now has a national assembly that has the possibility of coming up with something resembling a decent constitution, but the risks of "lebanonization" are very high. As a represntative first step, I think the Iraqi's should be applauded for what they accomplished today. Grudgingly, I have to give credit to the US administration for pulling at least part of a rabbit out of a hat. Whether the rabbit lives is another question.

If only 50% of the eligible voters in the US participated and voted would that make a US election illegitimate or simply the norm?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know that the sad phenomenon of U.S. voter apathy is relevant here. In fact, I don't know that anything of real substance can be taken from whatever the true voter percentage turns out to be.There are definitely some conflicting reports. I just checked a story on Al-Jazerah's website a bit ago and they mentioned that in one city in a Sunni area there were only 1,400 votes in a city of over 200,000. And they were from the police and soldiers who were stationed there. Basically, it was a total boycott. Let's get input from all over the world and average them out to get something that might approach the truth and not just depend on Fox News for our information, and I'm not saying that anyone here does that.For myself, I shall wait to see what happens about three elections down the road "after" the U.S. occupying forces have left the country before I make my final judgement.For the long-term, I'm afraid that Iraq will turn into a fundamentalist Islamic nation that will end up being a bigger threat to Israel than Hussein ever was.I'm still confused on why they aren't voting on whether they want a kingdom, or a military leader, or whatever form of government they want for themselves. Instead, they are voting on minutia regarding the kind of government we told them they were going to have. What is up with that?Verzem

I likely will not find time to return responses here in this thread but I just want to say that I tend to agree with you. Before the war, the Sunnis and the Sheites kept one another at bay. This will unify the Iraqi Sheites with the Iranian Sheites (spelling?) with an even greater threat to Israel than before. We may end up with the equivalent of essentially one Sheite fundamentalistic duo of allied nations, i.e. Iran and Iraq.I'm wondering what the Israeli government thinks of this whole thing.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-30-2005 22:36 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Hi Jar,I'm with Verzem. I don't think the comparing the two is relevant. In Iraq the situation is much more complicated than in the US. The 50% figure means that half the Iraqi population was effectively disenfranchised, not that they didn't choose to vote out of apathy or the lack of viable candidates as is the case in the US. It appears now that the 70% figure holds pretty well in the Shia and Kurdish areas, whereas voter turnout in places like Ramadi (that Verzem mentioned) was around 1-2%. Whether they choose to boycott out of political conviction or fear of reprisal/being blown to smithereens is also somewhat moot, IMO. It is basically a non-representative election.However, having said that, the question is: was it representative enough to allow for some hope that Iraq is on the way towards self-determination (however tarnished or even inappropriate that might be). After all, they haven't had an actual election in 50 years. This might be a decent first step given the circumstances. Or it might not...

Fox News has the overall voting at 60% to 63%. This is based on some researched data, whereas your 50% is simply a personal guesstimate.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Actually, I got the 50% figure this morning from MSNBC and CNN. I don't watch Fox, and I unfortunately don't get BBC World Service anymore.Care to address the point, please?

My prediction (since before the invasion) is that the final end game in Iraq will be a military dictatorship friendly to the US.I don't see how any Arab nation, now or in the future, can be a threat to Israel. It not only has the unquestioning support of the only superpower in the world but it also has a significant number of nuclear warheads and the delivery systems to be able to make use of them.

---

Confused ? You will be...

The point is that if Fox is right, the election was more successful than the fifty percentage, which you said in your op was your guess.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

So?Using them after losing a couple or three cities to small nukes isn't going to help much. A fanatic could still end up destroying Israel.

Is this the same Fox News that reported tsunami actually moving islands around in the Pacific, like duckies in a bathtub?

But of course, we now know Fox was wrong, as usual. The Iraqi election commission (and if there's any organization that has a greater vested interest in providing as rosy a picture as possible I don't know who that would be) is saying their preliminary results appear to be around 57% turnout - not far off from what I said before. US Ambassador Negroponte is being very cautious (justifiably) in saying that the actual results may not be known until tomorrow. You really need to get out more, Buz.However, even if the Iraqi commission figures are correct, no one disputes the nearly non-existent turnout in the Sunni-controlled areas, which was the entire point of my OP and this discussion. What is the implication (if any) for the legitimacy of the election and/or the legitimacy of any constitution drafted on this non-representative basis?For the record, I find even the 50% turnout to be a great success for the Iraqi people. The remaining question revolves around how stable a nation can be achieved when 40-50% of the population is disenfranchised, regardless of whose figures you use.

Will that not depend on what actions those that are elected take?One of the most intersting things to me about the establishment phase (and there were several steps remember) in the US is that early errors were recognized and steps were taken to change and modify the basic rules. Most of those steps involved LIMITING the powers of the very people that held those powers.Is there any reason to think that the first steps taken in IRAQ will be any different than the first steps taken here?Is the remaining question whether the road to governance will be inclusionary as opposed to exclusionary?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

MSNBC
Disenfranchised? That's a word for Florida Liberals. Nearly non-existent Sunni turn out?You guys crack me up.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Oh, yeah, that's the one. The difference between Fox News and the Cartoon Network is that the Cartoon Network has some credibility. You are quite correct to wait for a reputable news source to report on this, sadly, that will most likely be a European or Canadian Newsource rather than a US one.lfen