Statistical Suspicions In Iran's Election

hoytak writes "An expert in electoral fraud, professor Walter Melbane, has released a detailed analysis (PDF) of available data in Iran's controversial election (summary here). While he did not find significant indications of fraud, he does note that all the deviations from the predicted model are in Ahmadinejad's favor: 'In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political process... [These] stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which all of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are always negative. This pattern needs to be explained before one can have confidence that natural election processes were not supplemented with artificial manipulations.'" In related news, EsonLinji notes reports in the Seattle PI and other sources that the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis. And if you would like to help ease the communication crunch, reader RCulpepper tips a blog post detailing how to set up a proxy server for users with Iranian IP addresses.

Comments

I was suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

... when Barack Obama congratulated Ahmadinejad a week early.

Come on, It's Iran already

[arizwebfoot]

Like Iran has ever - ever done anything underhanded.

And if you believe that, I have some more kool-aid for you to drink.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Anonymous Coward]

While he did not find significant indications of fraud

QED. The null hypothesis was not rejected, therefore your study determined nothing. Speculation is not science.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[sexconker]

But what we have here are non-results.
Those are, by definition, not results.

(Yes, it was rigged, what is anyone going to do about it? Riot for a bit, get beat like hippies, then cry? Yup.)

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[fractoid]

What's really stupid is when people assume that fudged election numbers are only off by a few percent, and that only a few key results are fudged. That's the way an idiot would do it, but anyone remotely intelligent (or remotely smart enough to hire someone who WAS intelligent) would tweak all the results. Especially in the case of electronic voting, where there's no physical record of the votes. Start with current polls, and just nudge the numbers to give small, statistically probable swings across the board.

If the election was properly rigged, you wouldn't be able to tell via this kind of statistical analysis.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Anonymous Coward]

When did hippies become the quintessential example of victims of government abuse? Why not, say, civil rights protesters?

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Capsaicin]

QED. The null hypothesis was not rejected, therefore your study determined nothing. Speculation is not science.

Yes, yes, but that's not the point. The point is that the election didn't come out the way we wanted and it didn't come out in the way the minority of Iranians with internet access wanted. Do we really need to be scientific when questioning the credibility of a result we don't like and which (if it isn't the result of manipulation) reflects the views of the under-educated rural religiouly conservative masses?

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Fractal Dice]

Like the US has never spread FUD to undermine a regime they disapprove of.

Whatever the truth of the situation, I find that more and more news these days smells like propaganda.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[quenda]

Like the US has never spread FUD to undermine a regime they disapprove of.

But at least the American citizens have the decency to remain calm when their own presidential elections are rigged.
None of this yelling and fighting in the streets. It doesn't even stop them voting him in for real in the next election.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[thedonger]

While I don't like your implication with the

under-educated rural religiouly conservative masses

comment, I agree in general with your premise. Another way to look at it is: after the 2008 US election, 40 million people could have taken to the streets in protest of the result. That's a shitload of people, and would look like something really underhanded happened in the election.

Similarly, the expected outcome of the 2004 election was "President John Kerry," yet he lost decidedly amidst gasps of democrat horror.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[tsm_sf]

Do we really need to be scientific when questioning the credibility of a result we don't like and which (if it isn't the result of manipulation) reflects the views of the under-educated rural religiouly conservative masses?

Juan Cole politely tells you that you're full of shit here. He knows more about this than you do. Go read him.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Lehk228]

the problem with your model is that it assumes infinite and untraceable access. the more iterations you have, the harder it is to spot a pattern of inconsistency but the higher the chance of being discovered in the act.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Lehk228]

reflects the views of the under-educated rural religiouly conservative masses

but enough about the GOP...

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[FishWithAHammer]

Because civil rights protesters did something important. Hippies, not so much.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[fractoid]

If you can 'disappear' anyone who argues, or if you just have really f**king horribly implemented electronic voting that might very well be able to swing the election by itself as part of its own plan for world domination, then it's not so hard. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect that anyone trying to steal an election would be willing to spend not-inconsiderable resources on it. If you can influence the media then stories tend to go away too.

Hell, this happens in Australia to a certain degree - not with electoral fraud, but election promises. A polly will shout til he's blue in the face about "never ever" doing something, or "one hundred percent certainty" doing something else, and then just never mention it once he's elected, and the media will never call him on it. If they do there'll be some handwaving and it'll be dropped. There seems to be no system for holding politicians accountable for commitments they make.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[tengu1sd]

For example, Florida November 2000.

First the ABC News announced a victor with the results neck and neck. Then the recount was voided and the Supreme Court announced a winner.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Capsaicin]

Juan Cole politely tells you that you're full of shit here. ... Go read him.

He has a different opinion, yes. Personally I find his analysis far from persuasive.

IMHO he overemphasises the "culture wars" of a decade ago (if they ever existed as he imagines) and completely ignores appeal of A'jad jingositic nationalism, ineed he completely ignores the last 4 years of A'jad. Moreover Cole's assumption that support for Khatami in 2000 is indicative of a the success of moderates against religionists seems a little odd if we remember that Khatami was himself a cleric and indeed a sayad. Nor do can I accept that issues of class (at least if we use that terms in a more expansive sense than an old-school Marxist might) and "culture wars" can neatly be separated.

Cole's greatest failing, however, is that he simply ignores that actual data. He fails to present any statistical evidence of election fraud? He fails to account for the fact that nationwide polling showed A'jad receiving a level of support more or less in the order of the eventual result? Even intelligent and reasonably well informed people can fall victim to believing what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence suggests.

He knows more about this than you do.

I would not dispute that, but nothing in the particular posting you linked to indicates so. I suggest you go back to that article, and read some of the responses, especially those from people with 1st hand knowledge and those citing empirical evidence. These comments pretty much dispose of Cole's analysis.

NOTE: Nothing I have written should be taken to imply that I'm making any assertion that voting fraud did not take place. Rather my point is that in the absence of solid evidence of fraud, and in the light of previous polling we ought not to presume fraud.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[rve]

Whether or not the elections were stolen, it seems that in Iran there is a significant difference in political views between the major cities and rural areas. Maybe there was a selection bias in the media?

In 2004, to outsiders it looked as if everybody but an insignificant few right wing nut jobs hated George Bush, and he didn't have any chance of being reelected. After his fairly comfortable victory, it turned out that people in the major urban districts more likely to be interviewed on TV or in the papers indeed voted against Bush, but the rest of the country had supported him.

Could a similar effect have happened in Iran? Iran is one of the few places in the region where women and minorities have the right to vote, and where a president normally steps down after losing an election. The only major difference between the Iranian and western democracies seems to be that their version of the senate is not elected by the people, but by a religious council.

Of course it's possible the elections were stolen, but maybe this is another example of people voting for a politician for entirely local reasons, without really caring what the rest of the world thinks of him? In fact, has there ever been a democratic election anywhere, where foreign opinion played a significant role?

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[NeutronCowboy]

Did you actually read the poll? The numbers are a month old, before significant events in the campaigns took place. The numbers show 34% to 14% with the rest being essentially noncommital. That's a far cry from supporting the vote results.

Yes, we ought to not mistake absence of evidence for implying anything. But that's not really what happened. There's a ton of events which, on their own, do not mean anything. But it's really odd that every event that is suspicious just happened to help Ahmedinejad.

Finally, someone's expertise is difficult to assert in a post.... how about reading the rest of his posts? Or as a shortcut, just look for his resume.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[tsm_sf]

NOTE: Nothing I have written should be taken to imply that I'm making any assertion that voting fraud did not take place. Rather my point is that in the absence of solid evidence of fraud, and in the light of previous polling we ought not to presume fraud.

Right, and my response was an attempt to point out that the entire premise of your "LOL dumb hicks" argument was suspect.

Of course, it's already been pointed out that the uniformity of the vote results are statistically improbable, so this whole line of reasoning is moot. It was a (badly) rigged election.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Capsaicin]

Did you actually read the poll? The numbers are a month old, before significant events in the campaigns took place. The numbers show 34% to 14% with the rest being essentially noncommital. That's a far cry from supporting the vote results.

A'jad leading > 2:1 in committed votes. 27% were not committed. So, all other things being equal, we would assume that that 27% would split more or less the same way (ie. 34:14) on the actual day. Not that far a cry at all.

Yes, we ought to not mistake absence of evidence for implying anything.

Good, we agree on something.

... it's really odd that every event that is suspicious just happened to help Ahmedinejad.

In the event the uncomitted vote split less in A'jad's favour (though still overwhelmingly in his favour) than we were entitled to presume based on the committed vote alone. What suspicious events are we talking about here?

Finally, someone's expertise is difficult to assert in a post.... how about reading the rest of his posts? Or as a shortcut, just look for his resume.

Again we agree. I explicitly stated that I did not dispute Cole's greater knowledge and that my comments were restricted to that particular post.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Capsaicin]

Right, and my response was an attempt to point out that the entire premise of your "LOL dumb hicks" argument was suspect.

Unfortunately the authority you appealed to in that attempt is probably wrong in this instance.

Of course, it's already been pointed out that the uniformity of the vote results are statistically improbable

No significant indications of electoral fraud were found.

It was a (badly) rigged election.

That is an opinion unsupported by evidence.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[moderatorrater]

When you've created your model, if you create a scatterplot of the deviations from that model, there shouldn't be a pattern or else there was something from the model. It looks like there was a pattern, so he's honestly saying that he can't determine anything because of that strange result. That strangeness needs to be accounted for before anything can be said one way or the other.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[tsm_sf]

No significant indications of electoral fraud were found.

You mean aside from the bizarre statistical anomalies? I'm starting to get a distinct "la la la I can't hear you" vibe from your posts.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this issue. You clearly either haven't read the stat breakdown on the official results, don't understand what they mean, or are a lvl 23 Erudite Troll. What, in fact, is your deal?

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Capsaicin]

You mean aside from the bizarre statistical anomalies? I'm starting to get a distinct "la la la I can't hear you"

You're absolutely correct, once I read "did not find significant indications of fraud" I cannot hear anyone talking about statistical anomalies. Well no, not absolutely correct, there's no "la la la" about it. It's just the same cold uncompromising "I can't hear you" a Judge will give if you attempt to submit irrelevant evidence.

You clearly either haven't read the stat breakdown on the official results, don't understand what they mean, or are a lvl 23 Erudite Troll.

Hey FU buddy, I'm at least a lvl 30! ;) You're probably correct about my lack of understanding, so maybe you can help me with this. Quoting from TFA:

... a statistically sharp approach to statistical testing--taking the multiple testing into account--fails to provide evidence against the hypothesis that the second digits are distributed according to Benford's Law. Tests based on the means of the second digits also fail to suggest any deviation from the second-digit Benford's Law distribution ...

I've taken on board the fact that hetrogeneity of the data might obscure local problems, but that's not really relevant since the onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway. I've also taken on board that the non-sharp approach (ie looking at one of the candidates results) might lead one to another conclusion. As to the other (non-significant) anomalities in his modified conclusion Mebane observes:

In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political processes. ... These natural aspects of the election results stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which most of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are negative. ... It appears that the specification using the two conditioning variables ... does not fully capture the baseline support for the candidates or the pattern of new mobilization. ... It is not possible given only the current data to say whether this reflects natural complexity in the political processes or artificial manipulations.

I admit I lack the confidence with stats (1978 was the last time I had to look at stats in any deeper way than merely applying tests of significance), to make a call on non-significant results. I get nervous when statisticians talk about "impressions" in place of "significance." Perhaps you can educate me here and convince me why I should draw conclusions based on non-significant results?

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this issue. ... What, in fact, is your deal?

I avidly opposed to theocracy as a form of government, a fortiori a nuclear armed theocracy. I am opposed to the Iranian regime even though I don't live there (some might point out it is none of my business). I don't consider A'jad to be entirely a sane man (though by the standards of his culture he may well be). I would dearly have loved to see him defeated (and he may still be, extra-democratically).

However I also endorse an evidence based view of reality, and I don't think it is valid to construe the world in a way which lacks evidence merely on the basis that I might like it to be that way. I believe that, unpalatable though we may find it, we might have to accept that a majority of Iranians disagree with us. Moreover, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary (eyewitness, statistical, or whatever), I strongly believe the only (rebuttable) presumption we are entitled to draw (upon evidence-based criteria) is that the election result reflects the will of the majority of Iranian voters. To draw any other conclusion in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary is, IMHO, to fall victim to the trap of believing in one's own propaganda.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Carewolf]

And then there is the letter that was released yesterday, from minister of interior to the ayatollah with the real election results.

It could be a fake, but it is one more piece of evidence:

Total votes: 42.026.078
Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khamaneh: 19.075.623
Mehdi Karrubi: 13.387.104
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 5.698.417
Mohasen Rezaie Mir Ghaed: 3.754.218
Invalid votes: 38.716
Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsooli

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Paua Fritter]

Exactly. And one reason why the statistical facts deviated from his model could be that the model was simply wrong. For instance, what about the people who didn't vote at all last time, but now, after having seen Ahmadinejad in action, decide to vote for him. If there were a signifant number of people in that group then it would explain the "strange" pattern. To me, that hypothesis doesn't seem "strange" at all, hence I don't see the statistics as indicating anything untoward in the vote-counting (not to say there wasn't fraud, but just that the stats don't show it).

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[gtall]

What a unique position, it's okay for some else to spread FUD because sometime in the past, the U.S. Government did.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Bakkster]

While he did not find significant indications of fraud

QED. The null hypothesis was not rejected, therefore your study determined nothing. Speculation is not science.

The study didn't prove anything, but it certainly suggested that the data was worth a closer look. This is an issue that can't be proven with statistics, but the suspicions it raises can start a bigger investigation that can prove or disprove any election tampering.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[TheMeuge]

You think that's funny?

Labeling around 50% of the population as being beneath you, because they don't share your opinions? The above statement only serves to highlight your level of intellectual development.

I'm a republican, and I bet I am far more educated than you are.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[sumdumass]

Because Civil right protester largely won. Government abuse only triumphs if the whoever is protesting doesn't win. The hippies didn't win, some of them didn't even protest.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[h4rm0ny]

Actually, an Iranian friend of a friend who lives in the USA remarked when Bush won (the first time) that if this had happened in Iran, there would be riots in the streets and she asked why no-one was rioting in the USA over the Florida debacle. My US friend replied that everyone was too busy paying off mortgages.

If you could mod up comments in real life, that would have got a +5 Insightful in no time. :(

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[AndersOSU]

For my two cents, this, "onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway," is where we disagree.

IF there was reliable data widely available, we'd be on the same page, but when the incumbent's government is the only group with access to the full data set, they're the ones who should be demonstrating that the election was fair.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[AndersOSU]

~20%, and if you look at demographics, people who self-identify as republicans are slightly less likely to have a college education, and much more likely to be rural, religious, conservative, and southern.

Besides, liberals (generally) don't mock the GOP - as distinct from conservatives - for having different views, we mock them for saying crazy things like "useless government spending on volcano monitoring," and "the solution to the financial crisis is less regulation of the financial markets." Reasonable people can disagree about the optimal size of government, but reasonable people don't shout that the solution to everything is tax cuts and less regulation.

Besides, your political party is redoubling efforts to woo the base, and that's how you guys lost the last election.

If you're a republican and more highly educated than me, that nearly guarantees you're a member of a shrinking demographic (white, male, and probably a boomer). It also means your concerns are not in line with the majority concerns, since, for example, you've probably had health insurance your entire life, and, what's more, you might even be about to enter the US's socialized medicine system (medicare). If I'm way off, you're an outlier, and outliers don't get anyone elected.

  FWIW I'd love to see a competent opposition party, but as long as your party decides that purity is more important than dialogue, and making noise about how Snowe and Collins should join Specter, the closer they come to becoming merely a regional party. I'm not short sighted enough to declare a permanent majority, but the writing is on the wall, the GOP needs to (a) find an issue that resonates (hint: not immigration, not tax breaks for rich white men), (b) find a rational leader (Steele wouldn't even be that bad if he'd stop apologizing to the likes of Limbaugh), and (c) stop pretending the culture wars are going to get republicans elected nation-wide (you finally beat that horse to death in 2004). Unless that happens the new opposition party might end up being the blue dog party.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[AndersOSU]

As far as I can tell, the difference between the 2004 US election and the Iranian election, is that in the US there was a lot of good, publicly available polling data. If outsiders had bothered to look at that data - it was clear that it was a close race, and it turned out that way.

Here, it might have looked like a close race, but no one is really sure because there isn't much good polling data, there aren't any exit polls, there isn't any precinct level data, and the results didn't turn out that close at all.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[wannabe-retiree]

because there's just something amusing about hippies getting a beat down.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[BlackSnake112]

Wasn't this vote done with mostly paper. The reports of the voting I saw had people holding up some paper. Or was that just something that said they voted?

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[mochan_s]

QED. The null hypothesis was not rejected, therefore your study determined nothing. Speculation is not science.

One rejects a null hypothesis by one's own standards, i.e. confidence and other such measures. If you set the standard stringent enough, the null hypothesis can almost never be rejected and if you set them lax enough can always be rejected. So, your above statement is meaningless. If you said, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected by such and such standards, then it would make some sense.

OK, about speculation. Statistics is about quantifying speculation of sorts, and statistics and mathematics are not sciences. Don't attack the previous sentence, I was just trying to be funny.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Capsaicin]

For my two cents, this, "onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway," is where we disagree. IF there was reliable data widely available, we'd be on the same page, but when the incumbent's government is the only group with access to the full data set, they're the ones who should be demonstrating that the election was fair.

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as you imagine. I agree completely that transparency in government and most especially in the electoral process is a vital componenet of a healthy (representative) democracy. And demands for greater transarency, for the release of election data etc. ought to be made. As I already noted, I'm not claiming that this election was in fact free and fair.

However there is a world of difference between being dubious about the fairness of an election and making a positive allegation of electoral fraud unsupported by evidence. Serious wrong doing (whether it be witchcraft -to borrow AC's example, or fraud) should never be presumptively held as established. The price of abandoning the Affirmanti principle is too heavy to be contemplated.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[NeutronCowboy]

It's a bit late in the posting, but your comments are so obtuse that I figure it's worth it to reply.

1) Almost 50% of the polled did not state a preference. It is disingenuous to argue that "I refuse to tell you how I'm going to vote" is the same as "This is how I'm going to vote" when tabulating votes.

2) To blindly assume that those who did not state a preference will exhibit the same trends as those who did is to ignore scientific polling requirements. For one, you're left with a smaller sample size, which increases your error. For two, a blind assumption makes no attempts to identify any potential systematic biases in the non-responders.

3) You missed the analysis done in the poll which states that they expect a run-off, not a landslide victory. Either the poll and its analysis is right, or the poll and its analysis is inaccurate. The commentary that the poll predicted the landslide victory is nothing but after-the-fact handwaving that is not supported by the poll itself, which includes its analysis.

4) The poll included questions designed to determine the reformist sentiment. That sentiment seemed to prevail with about a 60/40 split across all respondents. There's your systematic bias for the non-responders.

4b) The general preference for political reforms can be assumed to match political preferences. In other words, those who are happy with the current political system will vote the status quo - Ahmedinejad. Suddenly, we're looking at the possibility that all those who will vote Ahmedinejad have stated that they will, and that the un-stated voters will massively break for the other candidates.

5) Historical trends were completely invalidated. Would you have wondered about voter fraud if San Francisco would have voted with 2/3 preference for McCain over Obama? Or if rural Texas would have broken 2/3 for Obama over McCain? Sure you would. Same in Iran.

6) The results were certified - not just projected, but certified - before the last polls closed abroad, and not even hours after the last polls closed in Iran. You don't do that unless the outcome of the election does not depend on the actual votes.

7) Statistical analysis of the vote results shows that the frequency of numbers does not match expected values. Sometimes with vanishingly small likelihood of random occurrence.

There are 8 points that you managed to ignore or gloss over. All 8 points are either procedural errors or statistical aberrations that all are in favor of Ahmedinejad. There is reasonable doubt, and then there is having blinders on. We are way past the point where the Iranian election results qualify as realistic.

Re:Come on, It's Iran already

[Lehk228]

considering that the GOP takes pride in attacking and undermining Highschool Science education and scorning college education as being for the "ivory tower elite" it's not unreasonable to characterize them as being under-educated. their appeal towards religious conservatives is also quite undeniable.

given that, i am not sure what's gotten your panties in a bunch. It's not like a called them unpatriotic or traitors.

The problem of time

[JoshuaZ]

There are a lot of issues with the data. But even before one gets to the statistical anomalies one has the basic problem of time. Iran uses paper ballots. In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes. In this case, if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours. That's just not plausible. Even if there were zero apparent stat problems, this would still be a massive red flag.

Re:The problem of time

[Brian Gordon]

I think the story was that they announced the victory after they had counted some portion of the votes and seen that Ahaminejad had a significant lead.

Re:The problem of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Only you could find a way to blame bush for this.

Re:The problem of time

[artor3]

I think the story was that they announced the victory after they had counted some portion of the votes and seen that Ahaminejad had a significant lead.

Right. After all, Khamenei's vote is "some potion of the votes."

Re:The problem of time

[fishbowl]

>Right. After all, Khamenei's vote is "some potion of the votes."

It would be "legitimate", in the sense that it would be consistent with Iran's law, for Khamenei to simply appoint the President setting aside any other considerations (such as elections.)

The Ayatollah's word is absolute law, constrained only by natural consequences -- say, if the protests grow to the point where they represent an actual rebellion.

Re:The problem of time

[bigpat]

The analysis relies on one glaringly suspect assumption.. that the 2005 election was free and fair and can be used as a baseline. That election was also suspect from what I heard on the radio today. So what does a trend analysis from one fraudulent election to the next really show? All it would show is that the fraud was committed with some consistency with the previous fraud.

For all we know it could very well be the case that both elections went through honestly, but the people that voted are talking to one another and unless everyone is lying to one another then they have figured out that more people voted for the other guy than is being reflected in the counts. It isn't about statistical analysis, it is about what you are going to believe. Are you going to believe the people on the street who voted or are you going to believe the guy that was supposed to win.

Re:The problem of time

[mevets]

Well we agree on one thing - ( He won the same way Bush won twice, for the /. humour impaired )

Re:The problem of time

[mevets]

Canada, with paper ballots, 1/2 the population and 7x size has achieved this for at least 40 years. Does Iran lack Canadas 1970 technology? I doubt it.

This isn't a red flag, at best a pale beige. They might have a little better communications infrastructure, for an obvious explanation.

No offence to OP's analysis guy, but CNN-style instant analysis has a very odd smell, a bit like napalm in the morning.

Re:The problem of time

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if they did manipulate the election. What is anybody going to do about it? What has anybody done about the last dozen suspicious elections around the globe?

Re:The problem of time

[mevets]

Your comment makes me wish I didn't waste my mod points on cheap hookers and coke.

Democracy has lost its force, and is a check mark for international approval. We are sluggish, and hear "Woo Hoo {insert bottom billion country here} is a democracy; what a success", while the UN sends people to monitor USA elections.

Once upon a time, governments were afraid of the people. No matter how much I wish it were the case, neither of the Bushes were significant enough to hang this on them.

Re:The problem of time

[Sulphur]

Did you mean Bush?

Re:The problem of time

[epiphani]

Canada also has 200,000 volunteers, and representatives from every major political party present at ballot counting. At least three people must agree on the content of the ballot for it to be counted.

Canada's system works well because it is -extremely- transparent, and works through volunteers.

Re:The problem of time

[Abcd1234]

Canada's system works well because it is -extremely- transparent, and works through volunteers.

Well, volunteers and a world-class, neutral body that's responsible for organizing the elections, tracking campaign finance, and so forth.

Re:The problem of time

[unitron]

Your comment makes me wish I didn't waste my mod points on cheap hookers and coke.

You mean all this time I've been getting mod points (lately 15 at a time), I could have been using them for something worthwhile?!?

Re:The problem of time

[mebrahim]

This is simply not true. By Iran's law, the leader doesn't have the right to appoint someone as the president ignoring the election. Rights of the leader is defined in our law and the leader cannot disobey the law. Because if he does so, The Experts Council (Majles-e Khobregaan) can take leadership from him and set someone else as the leader. Experts are elected directly by people's votes.

I wonder where do people get their info from these days!

Re:The problem of time

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Unless the ballot is very close it's extremely easy to get a quick answer to a paper ballot. What you do is just take a *random* cross-section of the votes and count them. Using standard statistical results, unless the result is very close you can get a 99% accurate answer with only a few hundred votes or so. If it's very close then 99% isn't good enough and you need to get a larger cross-section- worse case you end up counting all of them, but that's rare. Then all you do is spend the next few days counting all of the votes to make sure, but that's essentially a formality, and then you declare the official result.

Solution

[Parthian]

Regime Change!

Re:Solution

[interkin3tic]

Regime Change!

Acutally Dr. Melbane doesn't count as a regime, Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Statistical nothing

[Knara]

They somehow managed to hand-count ~40M votes in a couple hours. It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or a statistician, in this case) to realize there's something fishy going on.

Re:Statistical nothing

[V50]

We hand count around 10M votes in Canada in a few hours each federal election (which is around once a year these days....) You can say "well, that's Canada and this is Iran", but Iranians have the same hands Canadians do. (Well, minus those cut off due to Sharia, if Iran practices that.)

There's a good chance the election was manipulated but that's no indication at all.

Re:Statistical nothing

[Knara]

Except that you have good transit systems and are counting around 30M fewer votes.

Re:Statistical nothing

[jfim]

They somehow managed to hand-count ~40M votes in a couple hours. It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or a statistician, in this case) to realize there's something fishy going on.

How so? I believe the way it works in Canada is that ballots are counted at each polling station and parties are free to have a representative oversee the election process. This ensures that we have an unofficial count a couple of hours after the polling stations close. (See The Electoral System of Canada, on page 34 of the PDF)

The official count comes, by law, up to seven days later, but it usually doesn't differ from the unofficial count.

Re:Statistical nothing

[Citizen of Earth]

Except that you have good transit systems and are counting around 30M fewer votes.

Counting paper ballots is an embarrassingly parallelizable task. If you get enough people doing the counting, you could count 400M votes and sum up the results in half an hour.

Re:Statistical nothing

[Knara]

AFAIK the official line was that the boxes were sealed and were brought to a central location for counting.

This was after the elections observers from the opposition parties were kicked out of the polling places, of course.

Re:Statistical nothing

[vux984]

Except that you have good transit systems and are counting around 30M fewer votes.

1) The counting and reporting is done right from the polling stations. Checks and rechecks, and additional audits might benefit from being able to move the ballots around efficiently, but the initial counting and reporting is very efficient.

2) The number of ballots being counted is completely irrelevant, and would make no difference in how long it takes. We allocate polling stations and staff them on a per capita basis. So if our population doubled it wouldn't take twice as long, we'd just have twice as many polling stations and staff.

(And it would cost twice as much, but there would be twice the population paying for it, so it all works out the same whether its 30M or 300M people.)

The only effort that goes up, is summarizing results, but:
a) that is largely done using computers
b) the amount of effort grows logarithmically so 300M ballots would only require a handful more staff than 30M ballots.

Really, people who think you can't run an efficient paper ballot system with a large population aren't really thinking.

Re:Statistical nothing

[V50]

Except that you have good transit systems and are counting around 30M fewer votes.

From what I understand, Iran has a good, or at least decent, transit system, (they aren't a third world country) and a decent communication grid.

Having 4x more votes means nothing. They could easily have 4x (or more) counters.

The US could hand count over 100m ballots in the same time frame, if you only had one election at a time, like Canada. Because you have a FREAKING CRAP TON of elections (President, Senate, House, State Senate, State House, DA, Judge, School Board, Official State Dog Walker) and often several referendums all at one time, hand counting becomes impractical. BTW, I am not bashing having so many elections, just pointing out that it is the major reason why hand counting is impractical in the US.

Re:Statistical nothing

[4D6963]

How about we compare what can be compared instead of comparing Iran to Canada? Iran has had paper elections before, how about we compare to how long it took them then to do it? Nowhere near as fast? And they didn't change anything to the way they count votes?

Re:Statistical nothing

[zippthorne]

Take out a chess board. Starting with the bottom left, and in any order you please, place a mustard seed in the first square. Then two in the next square. Then double that in the next square. Keep going until you get to a little less than half the board (25 squares I should think). Those are your voters. If each of the inhabitants of the next lower square sums the ones above them and passes the count down to the first seed, you can see that it shouldn't take very long at all to count any number of votes.

Note: this scheme implies that all the seeds are capable of counting votes. But if you're not capable of counting votes, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Re:Statistical nothing

[irockash]

Just a quick note, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually has a PhD in transportation engineering.

Re:Statistical nothing

[fractoid]

It also implies that all seeds are honest. Oh, and that it takes as long to count 2^24 votes as it does to count 2 votes, unless I'm misreading you - my coffee hasn't kicked in yet. :P

Re:Statistical nothing

[Moridineas]

That's the ridiculous and inappropriate kind of hyperbole that makes people utterly disregard your point of view. You might be surprised how a little phrasing can go a long way...

Re:Statistical nothing

[EdipisReks]

From what I understand, Iran has a good, or at least decent, transit system, (they aren't a third world country) and a decent communication grid

Iran was, by the very definition of the term, a third world country. Not that the term has any meaning, any more, as the Soviet Bloc, the second world, no longer exists.

Re:Statistical nothing

[TheLink]

That's assuming you have enough of the population educated to a level where they can count accurately (and are willing to do so).

"Counting is hard, let's go shopping!" ;).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for paper ballots - after all they are simple, and you can even do the counting in front of the various observers and party representatives. That makes it a lot harder to cheat[1]. Then more people will understand what is going on and how hard it is to cheat.

As I've said before, elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be _seen_ as fair.

Otherwise even if it actually is "fair enough" you could get rioting in the streets.

That's why electronic voting is a bad idea.

[1] The easiest way to cheat then is via postal votes - but that affects the other systems as well.

Re:Statistical nothing

[Eivind]

This particular election is suspect, sure. But there's no particular reason hand-counting more votes need to take longer. The task is perfectly parallellisable afterall, so a larger country with more votes just need more people for counting.

Notice; I'm not saying Irans election is anything but suspect. I'm just saying there's no reason counting ~40M votes need to take significantly longer than counting ~1M votes. Yes you need 40 times as many counters. But other than that, it's easy enough.

Re:Statistical nothing

[radtea]

Really, people who think you can't run an efficient paper ballot system with a large population aren't really thinking

"We're too big to do that" has become a standard American line recently as to why their government is incapable of so many things. It has been deployed with regard to health care delivery in particular, and fails for the reasons you point out: shear size is not an impediment to organizational competency because most of the things governments deliver are highly scalable.

For some reason you never hear Americans saying they can't have a competent military due to the shear size of the country.

Re:Statistical nothing

[MichaelSmith]

But they could count President on election night, phone in the estimated total and call it a day. The Senate could be done the next day and Dog Walker when they get a round tuit.

Re:Statistical nothing

[ultranova]

It also implies that all seeds are honest. Oh, and that it takes as long to count 2^24 votes as it does to count 2 votes, unless I'm misreading you - my coffee hasn't kicked in yet. :P

You are misreading him. The idea is to divide the country into a tree-like counting structure, where each branch tallies up the votes of its subbranches and tells them upwards. In other words, it's a massively parallel counting structure.

This reads like electoral interference to me

[MichaelSmith]

the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis

What does the US State Department have to do with an election in Iran? By all means they should use their normal channels to express their views. But for me, asking twitter to keep operating for this reason is a minor example of the way other countries have long been interfering in Iranian politics.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[swb]

The election is over. You can't interfere in it after its over.

And since when has the US had a neutral opinion of the Iranian government? It hardly seems surprising that the State Department would do/say/support something -- like asking Twitter to delay maintenance -- that would seem to be disruptive of the existing government.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[JoshuaZ]

This isn't electoral interference. It is an attempt to prevent censorship and aid people who are being oppressed and persecuted. This is exactly the sort of intervention that countries should be doing: helping allow more people to talk to each other. Democracy comes most easily not when imposed by a military invasion but when people are simply given the tools necessary to talk to each other and to those from other countries. Dictators always try to censor and control communications for a reason. I'm not that happy with how the Obama administration has done things (especially in regards to civil liberties issues) but this is precisely the correct reaction. Actions that undermine censorship are very rarely the wrong thing.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[oneirophrenos]

I don't think it's an example of electoral interference. That would be if the US tried to influence the outcome of the election. In this case they're trying to enable Iranians to communicate with each other, regardless of what that communication includes. I may not agree with a lot of things the US government does, but this is a good thing.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

What? The US wants to make it easier for the protesters to organize. How is that interfering with Iranian politics? Was the rest of the world interfering in US elections by allowing ex-patriots to communicate with other Us citizens stateside ?

Also, if the protesters have to rely on Twitter uptime ... They're pretty much screwed.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't ask so that the US could twitter Iran and demand answers. They are asking that they delay maintenance be delayed so that people *in* Iran can express their views. The US will be listening to, not sending messages. So the US is interfering by requesting lines of communication stay open during a time when mass riots and demonstrations are going. Last I checked, more communication was a good thing.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[forkazoo]

What does the US State Department have to do with an election in Iran? By all means they should use their normal channels to express their views. But for me, asking twitter to keep operating for this reason is a minor example of the way other countries have long been interfering in Iranian politics.

Meh, The US State Department talking to a US company that provides a services that some Iranians use is hardly a particularly good example of external political influences in the middle east. If anything the big story would be if somebody actually managed to persuade Twitter to keep operating. :) But seriously, when you look at things like Operation Ajax, you can see that the US just trying to make sure Iranians have a convenient way to speak for themselves is extremely hands-off, and probably a very appropriate way to avoid having unclean hands in the situation. The previous administration would have loudly and openly run their mouth about the situation, and inadvertently marginalized the reformist element in Iran by trying to support it. Trying to make sure they can speak for themselves is probably about the best thing America can do right now.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[frosty_tsm]

Also, if the protesters have to rely on Twitter uptime ... They're pretty much screwed.

Does Twitter need to introduce the "Fail Camel" to not alienate the Iranian population?

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[MichaelSmith]

What? The US wants to make it easier for the protesters to organize. How is that interfering with Iranian politics?

By making it easier for protesters to organize. Consider the impact on public opinion towards protesters in Iran if they find out the protesters are being in any way aided by the US.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The US wants to make it easier for the protesters to organize. How is that interfering with Iranian politics?

By making it easier for protesters to organize. Consider the impact on public opinion towards protesters in Iran if they find out the protesters are being in any way aided by the US.

Well public opinion in Iran seems to be sharply divided now into supporters of Mousavi and supporters of Ahmadinejad.

I'd suggest that the opinion of the supporters of Ahmadinejad regarding supporters of Mousavi is already pretty low. I'd further suggest that they're already inclined to believe the supporters of Mousavi are influenced by Americans, the Jooooos, and the Debil Hisself.

So the State Department asking Twitter to delay maintenance downtime somewhat so that it isn't right when the Iranian protesters need Twitter the most is probably pretty low on the hierarchy of "influencing."

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[amicusNYCL]

They are being aided by people worldwide who want to see the current government of Iran removed and who think the election was rigged and the violence against the Iranian people is extreme. The Germans are among those lending a lot of IT help to people trying to communicate.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Marcos Eliziario]

Well, there are rumours that the DoD has comissioned for a rewrite of Twitter in ADA with an Oracle backend. And it seems that the programmers already did the code, stress tested it and it could make twitter work.
But, the formal review and inspections process will take at least 6 months, that is, 6 months *after* the developers manage to write at least 5000 pages of documents, print them, sign each page and submit the work as done.
Reports says the rewrite was really easy, after the 3 programmers learned how to dodge the meetings, by convincing the 230 Program and Project Managers that humble programmers shouldn't be allowed to go to meetings so important to the success of the project.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

It would be a lot easier for protesters to organize if U.S. export law didn't prohibit exporting cryptography software to Iran.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[shutdown -p now]

Consider the impact on public opinion towards protesters in Iran if they find out the protesters are being in any way aided by the US.

One extra "Death to America" sign on the next anti-American demonstration, in addition to the existing several dozen ones?

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[shawnap]

Also, if the protesters have to rely on Twitter uptime ... They're pretty much screwed.

Does Twitter need to introduce the "Fail Camel" to not alienate the Iranian population?

Just to clarify, Iran is a mountainous and largely forested country inhabited neither by Arabs nor Arabic speakers.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[sbeckstead]

No they know what whales are too.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[cgenman]

At this point, it could also be that Twitter was the only reliable way for the US State Department to know what was going on in Iran. As Iran is a nuclear country, the US haves a vested interest in knowing as much as they can about what is going on currently there, especially when a revolution might be involved.

Asking a private company to delay scheduled maintenence so that they can get a sense for whether or not a nuclear country is experiencing a revolution doesn't seem surprising or out of scope.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[fractoid]

Last I checked, more communication was a good thing.

That's what my wife keeps telling me. I keep replying that it doesn't help much if it's only going one way... >.<

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[DriedClexler]

This isn't electoral interference. It is an attempt to prevent censorship and aid people who are being oppressed and persecuted.

Whoa whoa whoa, don't let your (justified) sympathies with the opposition allow you to bastardize the language. Pressuring a company to do something that would help overthrow a regime during an election *is* electoral interference. The fact that it also a) prevents censorship, and b) makes us feel warm and fuzzy, is irrelevant.

Franky, I'm quite troubled by this. I haven't consulted the appropriate materials, but I'm pretty sure there are at least some international norms against interfering in an election by "giving aid and comfort" to a ruling regime's internal enemies.

Imagine if the Chinese maker of a common cell phone exploited a known backdoor to make all such phones blurt out "vote for Obama" on America's election day. Would that could as electoral interference? Remember, they could just as easily claim they're "promoting free speech" amongst "people who are oppressed".

Disclaimer: I hope the opposition protesters win.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[fishbowl]

Are you suggesting that it would be anything but trivial to obtain and use, say, gpg2 in Iran?

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[fishbowl]

>Just to clarify, Iran is a mountainous and largely forested country inhabited neither by Arabs nor Arabic speakers.

It's fun to post pictures from Iranian ski resorts whenever stereotypes come up. Tends to shut up some of the dumber wingnuts.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[JoshuaZ]

Not at all comparable. You are making a classic mistake, confusing the medium with the message. Anyone, including Ahmadinejad can use the Twitter system. That's distinct from your example which makes a specific content item on the cell phones in question.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[microbee]

This isn't electoral interference. It is an attempt to prevent censorship and aid people who are being oppressed and persecuted.

The question is, would US still be attempting to "help the oppressed people" if the other candidate won?

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[copponex]

What? The US wants to make it easier for the protesters to organize. How is that interfering with Iranian politics? Was the rest of the world interfering in US elections by allowing ex-patriots to communicate with other Us citizens stateside ?

People are sensitive to the United States sticking their nose in Iranian affairs, since we overthrew their democratic government in 1953 in Operation AJAX. The issue boiled down to money -- the Iranian government didn't want the US and Britain taking an unfair share of oil profits and tried to nationalize their own natural resource. That's why they scoffed collectively when we invaded Iraq -- they had experience with what America really thinks about liberty and democracy.

One of the primary reasons Iran has such conservative leadership is because of the constant threat presented by the United States. It works the same way here - when people are scared, they vote right wing. If we really wanted to help their democracy out, we'd stop threatening to invade. They dislike their mullahs, but dislike American occupation even more. This is surprising to no one but us.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Asclepius99]

Exactly. Having Twitter open also helps supporters of the current regime that may wish to explain why they believe the current election results are correct an outlet to communicate with people inside and outside the country. This would be more like the Chinese cellphone maker having the phones blurt out "Vote! Vote!".

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[gaspar ilom]

> openly run their mouth about the situation, and inadvertently marginalized the reformist element in Iran

s/inadvertently/intentionally/

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify, by surface area, Iran is a largely desert country.

While it certainly does have some beautiful forest and ski country, it does in fact have two deserts: the Kavir and Lut. These, like any desert, are desolate and basically uninhabited. It's just as fallacious to imply that it's a lush Mediterranean country as it is to imply that it's a country of sand.

You're certainly correct that Iran basically lacks speakers of Arabic (~1%) or people of Arab ethnicity (~3%). Arab can also be a cultural moniker, however. Consider the Arab wiki article - the infobox contains notable peoples; the first being a Roman emperor, Philip the Arab. Go to his article, and right under the infobox there's a photo of a carved relief denoting him. Where's the relief? Iran. Similarly, as was typical for the Middle East in general, Arabic was the language of the educated, just as Latin was for the West. Iranians are, in fact, historically noted for their contributions to Arabic poetry.

I've seen it explained that after Islam spread to Persia (Iran), Persia's golden age helped transform the rest of the Islam world - in effect, the Arab world. Iran was never Arab, it was always distinctly Persian/Turkish, but don't oversimplify it to the point it's just wrong in the opposite way.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[selven]

http://www.thepiratebay.org

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[DriedClexler]

Was the rest of the world interfering in US elections by allowing ex-patriots to communicate with other Us citizens stateside ?

Yes, that's called "covert operations involving defectors" and it would be interfering in US elections.

OTOH, if you meant expatriates, then your point is correct ;-)

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[mrdoogee]

Not quite a proper analogy.

What the US state dept did was ask Twitter to delay their routine maintenance, which they had planned run at 2:00 am PST or so (9:00 UTC) until it was overnight in Iran (roughly 21:30 UTC) so that any tweeters that were getting info out would not be interrupted as much. It was still meddling technically, but much much more passive.

Re:This reads like electoral interference to me

[mrdoogee]

Although accoring to the all-knowing all-seeing wikipedia, there are camels in Iran.

It happens

[larry bagina]

Look at Norm Coleman vs Al Franken. The original count gave Norm Coleman a slight win. In the recount, every correction overwhelmingly went for Al Franken. It happens. And on average, only 40% of eligible voters do vote, so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters. Doesn't mean there was fraud or duplicate counting.

Re:It happens

[Knara]

Except that, amongst other issues, the turnout in this election is 60%+, and the differences weren't a few votes

Also, Ahmadinejad won in *all* his opponents' home provinces and amongst *all* his opponents' ethnic groups, which is unlikely, to say the least.

Re:It happens

[phantomfive]

Why do you say it is unlikely? Are you guessing, or hoping, or do you have an objective reason to believe this? In this independent poll (warning: PDF) conducted by the Washington Post, only 16% of Azeri Iranians favored Moussavi (Moussavi is Iranian). Upon closer inspection, there are reasons to believe the election results are reasonably accurate.

Re:It happens

[4D6963]

It's historical. Nate Silver explained it quite well in his blog.

Re:It happens

[phantomfive]

The guy you linked to is doing a statistical analysis, which according TFA, from a statistical standpoint, the elections were probably fair.

Re:It happens

[techno-vampire]

And on average, only 40% of eligible voters do vote, so sometimes you would expect the total number of votes in a district to outnumber the total number of registered voters

Regardless of what percentage of eligible voters actually vote, it's impossible for the number of votes cast to be greater than the total number of registered voters unless fraudulent votes were cast. Is that what you're suggesting?

Re:It happens

[Rothfuss]

No. You have not drawn the correct conclusion. Nothing Nate has written on this topic or TFA suggests that the election was fair, only that there is no clear statistical evidence that it is fraudulent. There is a big difference.

Some people suggest that the election results were completely fabricated. Nothing we have seen has ruled out that possibility. However, if it was fabricated, the fabricators did their homework beforehand on how to avoid detection.

Re:It happens

[phantomfive]

Some people suggest that the election results were completely fabricated. Nothing we have seen has ruled out that possibility. However, if it was fabricated, the fabricators did their homework beforehand on how to avoid detection.

Indeed, but there ought to be some evidence before making accusations. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that withstands scrutiny. Which frankly surprises me, but I am not going to deny the evidence before my eyes.

Re:It happens

[linumax]

Yeah right, poll done through phone calls. What are they gonna do next? call North Koreans and ask if they actually love dear leader?!

Re:It happens

[phantomfive]

Did you even read it? They asked questions such as, "do you favor changing the government so that the supreme leader is elected?" or "do you favor freedom of the press?" Politically dangerous questions, and yet many people answered YES.

Re:It happens

[dtolman]

Upon closer inspection? Did you even read it? You want to know who the #1 candidate in Iran is, according to that poll?

I don't know/Refused to answer/No one. 1/2 won't answer, 1/3 openly support the incumbent, 1/6 openly support the challenger.

In other words, "statistical analysis" of bullshit, results in bullshit.

Re:It happens

[david_thornley]

That's not actually true. After one of the rounds of trying to adjust the vote, Franken's lead shrank from something like 200 to something like 80. It went back up in the next round of absentee ballot counting that Coleman pushed for. (Not to mention that in previous Senate races, the difference between initial reports and final registered totals is quite comparable to the change this time around. We have historical evidence in elections where there was no real pressure to fudge the votes a few hundred in either direction.)

Nor do I understand how the number of votes can outnumber the number of registered voters, regardless of the usual turnout. In MN, we do have at-the-polls registration, so it's possible for there to be more votes than previously registered voters, but that's not the same thing.

Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Drakin020]

I'm proud to see these young people stand up for their rights and for what they believe in. It's good to see these kids fighting the good fight. (Morgan Freedman anyone?)

I'm hoping this will come to a peaceful end, but any government that steals an election should be punished, and it seems the people of Iran will have none of it.

Keep fighting guys, I only wish I could help fro way over here.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[radtea]

Keep fighting guys, I only wish I could help fro way over here.

You can help: by keeping out of it.

Even my progressive American friends are all flag-waving and drum-beating over this. The last thing the world needs is for anyone in the United States to do anything other than say, "We really hope the Iranian constitutional democratic process works this out. As a fellow-democracy we understand that elections can be contentious, but we also understand that the Iranian people and the Iranian people alone need to decide the outcome here, without interference by any other sovereign power."

Imperialism has taken such deep root in the American mind that even the progressives take it for granted that whatever happens anywhere Americans should be taking a hand. Do you think the Swiss--a much older democracy--are doing so? I doubt it. They are probably shaking their heads and saying, "Yes, it was like that here in 1500, but we got over it and so will they."

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Liquidrage]

"We really hope the Iranian constitutional democratic process works this out. As a fellow-democracy we understand that elections can be contentious, but we also understand that the Iranian people and the Iranian people alone need to decide the outcome here, without interference by any other sovereign power."

Why would the US pretend that Iran is a democracy? The US has, and accurately so, been on the record as noting that the President has no real authority in Iran and is a hand picked figured head. Iran is anything but a democracy.

I remember before the US election the US military saying it would put down any attempt at "change". Oh, wait, no that was Iran and that was last week. The only reason the clerics even allow anything resembling freedom in Iran is because they have to to empower the scientific community in hopes of gaining military and economic power. Hey, look, it's not like power is bad. It's just all these good intentions in posts like yours disappear when asked the question of whether you would be OK if the US and Iran switch places in regards to military power? I'm sure the world would be just swell in that case. I know I'd love to be forced to turn to Mecca a few times a day.
For all the hate the US gets I still can't recall a single nation having as much power (and let's be fair, compare nations to peers of the time) and wielding it so fairly. Sure, you can bitch about the current Iraq war, and some support and aid for some overthrows you might now agree with. Boo hoo! It's all-n-all pretty damn good. And still trying to get better.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think the Swiss--a much older democracy--are doing so?

The Swiss work really hard at avoiding any sort of conflict, and is an exception. Plenty of other European and world entities have voiced their opinions about the Iranian election.

Also, is Switzerland a much older Democracy? Women didn't even have the right to vote until 1971. The first Swiss constitution was written in 1848, with a second in 1999. Even if they were an older Democracy, why do you suggest that this gives them more moral ground then then the US or other countries?

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Anonymous Coward]

the Swiss modeled their democracy after the US 1848

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[shutdown -p now]

The last thing the world needs is for anyone in the United States to do anything other than say, "We really hope the Iranian constitutional democratic process works this out.

I wish the United States could say that, but the problem with it is that Iran does not have a constitutional democratic process that works. Well, they do have a constitutional process, but it isn't democratic.

but we also understand that the Iranian people and the Iranian people alone need to decide the outcome here, without interference by any other sovereign power."

That is almost, but not quite, correct. The Iranian people alone need to decide the outcome here, without interference by any power, both outside and inside their country. Which is not what is happening.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[sbeckstead]

As did the French and Liberians and many other democracies that modeled themselves. Some we "gently" modeled for them (like Iraq and Germany and Japan) and later they managed to hate us for it for a while but they usually get over it and start trading with us.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[linzeal]

To what? Appease the hard liners in Iran that America and its people are politically neutral on electoral fraud? Swiss have always taken the easy way out by being politically neutral even when entire countries around them were being raped, pillaged and their populations enslaved and murdered. Oh, but economically if you want to use their financial system to hide your ill-gotten money no problem because being politically neutral informs their belief that they can take money from anyone and the blood comes right off. The Swiss are cowards and worse, I'm proud to be a progressive American supporting the people of Iran. My country may not be perfect and in fact its policies may of contributed to the Iranian "Islamic" Revolution that put these characters like Ahmadinejad in power but democracies do not stand alone for long and calling what Switzerland had in the 1600's as 'democracy' is like calling the current Iranian regime 'democracy'.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[MMInterface]

You can help: by keeping out of it.....Do you think the Swiss--a much older democracy--are doing so? I doubt it. They are probably shaking their heads and saying, "Yes, it was like that here in 1500, but we got over it and so will they.

I'm sure the Swiss don't all think alike.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[dwye]

> The Iranian people alone need to decide the outcome here, without
> interference by any power, both outside and inside their country.

Too late. No candidate that was not approved by the mullahs was allowed to run, in the first place. This entire matter is like complaining that the Blue Simms Party in Parador was stealing the election from the Red Simms Party.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[copponex]

You're so right. Look at all the democracies we promote. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Egypt... USA! USA!

No one believes that load of crap you just spewed, at least no one who's taken a cursory look at the list of countries we've overthrown and vandalized. Especially Iran, where we not only overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953, but may have even fomented the Iran-Iraq War in 1980.

I'm sorry, comrade! I did not mean to be unpatriotic and dare criticize our motherland, which is the true force of Good in this Evil world.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Dragonslicer]

For all the hate the US gets I still can't recall a single nation having as much power (and let's be fair, compare nations to peers of the time) and wielding it so fairly. Sure, you can bitch about the current Iraq war, and some support and aid for some overthrows you might now agree with. Boo hoo! It's all-n-all pretty damn good. And still trying to get better.

Not being quite as bad as other empires have been in the past does not make us good, it only makes us less bad.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Liquidrage]

We promote? That's a silly statement. The US doesn't promote those places. It tolerates them. It uses them as they can for their own interests. The US is like every other nation in the world in that the primary goal of the US is itself. Every other nation takes care of itself first. Should the US just nuke Syria off the planet? Egypt?

The US plays the same game every other country plays. The US just has more power and influence then any other country right now. You don't think the US would love to have a truly free and democratic Egypt? That the US plays "enemy of our enemy" is no secret, isn't shocking, and should be easily understandable. The alternative is for the US to use military force.

No one that realizes we don't live in Utopia gives a crap about that over idealistic crap you just spewed.

Oh noes! The US has, and continues, to try and use it's influence to benefit the US. Even in situations that are less then ideal. The overwhelming majority of times the US does not actually "Dresden" other countires to do it even though it can. It doesn't even threaten to. The US has tons of issues with the Saudi's, Pakistan and Syria. The US has had major conflicts with Egypt and continues to have major differences. And that's "promoting" them? Maybe only in your bias viewpoint where honesty means nothing to you.

At the end of the day all the US wants is security for itself and allies, while wanting its companies to be able to exploit local workers for profit. But while the US does it honestly also would prefer freedom over dictatorship and does promote those values. Where as many other world powers, or even those that are not very powerful, clearly couldn't give a damn about freedom.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Liquidrage]

No, the US is quite good. "Less bad" would be someone only cherry picking the negatives and ignoring the vast number of positives the US provides. It's not Utopia and no one should pretend it is, yet it's pretty damn good.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[copponex]

You are the poster child for cognitave dissonance.

You recognize that the US cares very little for democracy, and then state that we would love democracy. And the US "honestly" exploits subjugated nations who don't give a damn about freedom like we do? Thank god for that.

When we flooded Nicaragua with contras, the American equivalent death toll would be 2 million lives. Several million Vietnemese died by our hands. Our client states Iraq and Indonesia killed a few hundred thousand with our weapons. We've invaded more countries and destroyed more democracies than any other nation in the last hundred years, but we don't use military force? We have hundreds of military bases around the world and outspend the rest of the world combined in warfare, but we never threaten anyone?

What the fuck are you smoking?

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[twostix]

I cannot stomach this sort of moral relativist BS anymore.

We're talking about Iran here, the same Iran that had a functioning democracy that the "fair" US Of A decided it didn't like so fully funded, armed AND trained a group of radicals specifically to overthrow said democracy and install a radical and brutal dictator. Resulting in a decade of the worst most brutal treatment of the citizens of Iran out of any secular nation in modern history. 100% morally, financially and politically backed by the "fair" US. All purely for a corporations interest.

You say "support" in the hope of diminishing the US's real role in the evil it perpetrates when it overthrows a country. I hate to break it to you, but the "support" isn't just a few bucks and an angry letter. It's boots on the ground, free tanks and planes and millions of dollars in weapons, (all to be paid off by the citizens once they are subjugated of course). Flying radicals into the USA and training them in methods of torture and propaganda is not the actions of a "fair" country.

Just because the "fair" US didn't like the democratic governments choices for it's people.

You give us a glimpse of your complete moral bankruptcy when you describe the torturing, murderous tyrannies that the US creates then supports 100%
with guns, money and weapons as "some overthrows".

Did you know the CIA set up SAVAK - the most brutal secret police in modern history. Did you know that the CIA trained SAVAK agents in methods of torture?

Are you aware in that little pathetic insular world of yours, that the US was flying *400* SAVAK agents a year onto US soil to be trained? The same agents that tortured children in front of parents by poring boiling water up their rectums and pulled their fingernails out because their parents had the gall to stand against the US installed dictator?

Who gives a shit though ay? Just one of a couple of "overthrows" boo fucking who for the tens of thousands of Iranians tortured to death by the US trained, funded, equipped and actively supported secret police.

Do you even care?

I doubt it. Anything that happened more than five years is meaningless to the likes of you, anything your country does is diminished "well we're not as bad as them". Well actually yes you are - the average Iranian would have been NO WORSE OFF becoming part of the soviet block rather than letting the "fair" US get their claws into the country.

You are a complete moral void.

Iran is a damaged mess now 100% because of the US's actions. Just like Iraq is.

Accept responsibility for your countries fuck ups, or you are *worse* than the worst.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[swarsron]

You can help: by keeping out of it.

At least with Obama there is a decent chance that he's cautious enough not to use inflammatory rhetoric. Imagine what Bush would have said and how Ahmadinedschad would have used it. There are some things Obama did that i didn't like but right now i'm very glad the he's the leader and uses his brain, not his guts.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Liquidrage]

Attention poor moderator: A troll is someone that says something just for a reaction. To incite people.

Whereas my post was on the basis that the 1953 coup was actually one of British planning that the US had to be talked into. The US played it's part solely because of the cold war while the British were the ones more concerned about the oil.
Mossadeq meanwhile was a complete dictator. Was the Shah any better? Hard to say.

But it still amazes me to this day why so many of the issues we have the middle-east were caused by the British and the French, and yet all I hear is "the US". The US wasn't the ones that drew the borders, actually physically took over the middle east via the military, and then walked out as if everything was OK. Heck, the US wasn't even the driving force behind Israel. But for some reason we seem to leave that out of our revisionist history. Why doesn't Iran scream "death to Britain" over and over? It was their coup first and foremost. It was Britain that was the driving force behind Israel. It was Britain (and to a lesser degree France) that drew up every horrible border in the middle east leaving us with modern day Iraq instead of three countries (or two, with the south-east part of Iran).

It's very easy to sit here and throw stones about what was done 60 years ago and why. But here's one word from the times that should sink in when trying to put these actions in perspective. Stalin. This wasn't a joke. This isn't Goodwin's law.

Did the red scare in America go overboard? At times. But only at times. And watching the Soviet Union take over country after country at the end of WW2 and through the 50's, when the coup happened, was certainly in the times and not something that can just be dismissed as "overboard", though it certainly can be argued.

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[steelfood]

Does it matter whether they're a democracy? Iran is a soverign nation. Their nation, their problem. Or does the United States have some kind of intellectual property claim to "democracy?"

Re:Makes me feel good on the inside.

[Liquidrage]

OK, I don't buy it completely, but for a hypothetical, let's go with it.

US is complacent over European interests. OK, so why shake the stick at the US because of it?

It's like the 1953 coup. Clearly a British venture for oil because they didn't want to lose control over the oil of Iran that they had. The US says, "nah", then admin change, cold war heats up, US goes for it. Sure, blame the US too. No problem. But the main flag burnt should be England's.

It's a theme a few times in this story. But the greatest trick the British ever pulled is to convince the world they didn't fuck up the entire middle east and now the US is paying for it.

* and to be fair, in modern times the French, Germans and Russians fucked it up a lot too. But in all cases, far more then the US did.

The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

The Washington Post did an independent poll before the election showing that the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri. It seems that the only group that DIDN'T support Ahmadinejad was the internet connected (a small minority of the country), which explains why they feel the election was stolen: when everyone you talk to agrees with you, it is easy to believe that the whole world agrees with you, not just the people you talk to.

Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies. Quote:

more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment

That warms my heart. I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons (for purely selfish, self-preservation reasons. Don't respond to this saying, 'it is their right' because I don't care). Apparently most people voted for Ahmadinejad not because they agree with his policies, but because they consider him to be a stronger negotiator, and more capable of getting favorable concessions from the US, China, and Russia.

If these results do turn out to be accurate, Obama should call and congratulate Ahmadinejad. After all, there are things we can agree on: we want Iran to be a strong, capable, functioning member of international society, not one that tries to destroy it (of course, our views on how they should reach that goal are different, but we can work on that).

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Responding to my own post, here is another great quote from that article that really sheds light on the nature of the Iranian people.

nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy

These guys want freedom. A lot. They voted for Ahmadinejad because they feel he is strong. We can learn a lesson from this: if you are running for president in Iran, make sure you can be perceived as strong. Basic marketing for Iranian Presidential Candidates. Classes start in Spring.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[QuantumG]

Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government. Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Indeed, Iranians have at times portrayed the USA as "The Great Satan," and at times they have rallies burning the US flag. I am in general against all nuclear weapons, however, if they must exist, I prefer to not have them in the hands of a country that refers to my country as "The Great Satan." It has nothing to do with Arabs: if President Sarkozy seriously calls the USA "The Great Satan" and threatens to bomb Great Britain, and his people seriously support him, I will be worried as well. You would be crazy not to worry.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[QuantumG]

Yeah, "Axis of Evil" is much kinder.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Zordak]

the majority of the public DID support Ahmadinejad by nearly two thirds, even among Mousavi's native ethnic group, the Azeri. ... Other interesting points: most people don't agree with Ahmadinejad's policies.

That's really not surprising. Look at the U.S. Pre-election polling gave the Democrat-controlled Congress single-digit approval ratings, and then the people voted heavily in favor of putting MORE Democrats in Congress. Let's face it. People are stupid. Elections are about building the biggest personality cult, not about policies. In 1994, the people knew that "Democrats are bad." So they voted for Republicans, despite having no idea what those Republicans' policies were. In 2008, the people knew that "Republicans are bad." So they voted for Democrats, despite having no idea what those Democrats' policies were, and despite the fact that the Democrats had controlled the House for 2 years, and the people already didn't like what the House was doing. But Republicans were bad in 2008, so it was obviously their fault that Congress was bad, despite the fact that they didn't control it. The only difference between the 1994 Democrats that the people emphatically booted out and the 2008 Democrats that they emphatically cheered in was the year. The only difference between the 2008 Republicans that the people emphatically booted out and the 20xx Republicans that they will emphatically cheer in (yes, it will happen) is the year.

All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I'm betting they just assumed that he agreed with them because they liked him. He's strong and a good leader, so he must want the things I want. Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say, "I'm in favor of clubbing baby seals," and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say, "Yes, we should protect the baby seals," because he's just so darn charismatic and likable, they assume that he wants what they want.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Indeed, it is 100% understandable that the Iranians want to get nuclear weapons. If I were them, I would want nuclear weapons as well. But I am not, and I am not in favor of arming people who might use those weapons on me, even if it was my side that started it.

This is not an altruistic, fair way of looking at things, it's a rational, self-preservationist way of looking at things. I am selfish when it comes to preventing people from killing me. Is that bad?

On the other hand, if you want to talk about US nuclear disarmament, I favor it. If you want to talk about actually invading Iran, I am absolutely against it.

As for the best way to create peace on earth, start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK6k4IqIdoQ
http://p5y.org/

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Clandestine_Blaze]

The poll was done by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and New American Foundation. The Washington Post merely did an article on the findings from the poll.

From the survey linked to in the article:

TFT and KA use telephone interviewing instead of face-to-face research in Iran because of the political and social constraints inside Iran. Face-to-face interviewing in Iran can be difficult for interviewers who risk possible prosecution and imprisonment. Face-to-face interviewing also poses issues related to access to households and respondents due to social considerations. Access to female respondents across the Middle East can be challenging.

I'm not sure how much better over-the-phone polling is in Iran. Many in Iran are leery of being called by random strangers over the telephone asking them political questions. Whenever we call our relatives in Iran, we are extremely careful with what we say over the phone. More to the point, when you have a brutal regime and some random person calls and asks: "Who will you vote for in Presidential Elections?", I wouldn't be surprised if they answer in one way and vote in another.

I won't dismiss the findings of this survey outright - they did conduct a scientific polling, something that I haven't done. It's just difficult taking the survey very seriously when what you see happening in real life - thousands and thousands of bloodied protesters taking the streets and demanding change - and compare it with a polling sample of 1001 Iranians, as stated in their Methodology section on page 25 of the pdf document. I'm also thinking back to both the entrance and exit polls in the 2004 U.S. elections, where John Kerry was said to have won by a large margin, only to find that the opposite had happened.

I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country. But I will concede that he won if more information is released and it points in favor of his victory.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

All those Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad and also wanted full access for inspectors and no nuclear weapons---I'm betting they just assumed that he agreed with them because they liked him. He's strong and a good leader, so he must want the things I want. Just like Barack Obama could stand up tomorrow and say, "I'm in favor of clubbing baby seals," and thousands of tree huggers would nod their heads and say, "Yes, we should protect the baby seals," because he's just so darn charismatic and likable, they assume that he wants what they want.

Well said. "He's such a nice and smart guy, he couldn't possibly actually have such wonky ideas"

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[glwtta]

Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.

There's a non-trivial amount of irony in that admonition.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[QuantumG]

Why is this so hard to understand? So long as Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, the US will be thinking about how to invade them. The Iranians are not thinking of invading the US and won't ever be. As such, the greatest threat to the life of Americans is when Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Yes, I agree, the protests on TV can look impressive.

As for people being afraid to talk on the phone, you might be right, but the pollsters addressed that claim:

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.

Also, they were only able to ask people who had telephones, which may have skewed the results.

Regardless, it shows that the results shouldn't have been completely unexpected, for people who were paying attention.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[tksh]

There's a serious omission in that op-ed that misrepresents that 2:1 ratio.

Namely, that Ahmadinejad only had the vote of 34% of the those polled while Mousavi had 14%. So yes, technically that's 2:1 where the the sum total of both figures is less than 50%. Read the actual report linked to in the article, they highlight this rather important qualifying information by the big red text on page 3.

And if you look at the actual tallies for that question on page 52, question 27, you will see it's 34% for Ahmadinejad, 14% for Mousavi, 27% (!) don't know and 15% (!!) who refused to answer. Both of those are non-trivial percentages that can swing either candidate for a landslide win. This undermines the implication that there is strong support for Ahmadinejad, by a ratio of 2:1 to his closest rival. Seriously, that's an incredulous omission to make, nevermind the fact that the poll itself was conducted a month ago. It is in these past two weeks that voter's opinion would better reflect their voting preferences, you know, after the actual presidential debates.

Fivethirtyeight.com has a good write up of these points, explaining why the opinion expressed in the editorial is not supported by the report it cites. Juan Cole has another good explanation as well.

(The most interesting question on the survey for me BTW, was the question that asked about developing nuclear energy. A full 83% responded with 'strongly favour' while 11% said 'somewhat favour'. That's 94% combined.)

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Sorry, there are some good arguments against nuclear proliferation, and I tend to agree with them.

The greatest safety will be when we both realize that we can accomplish more by working together than by fighting with each other.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

In addition, you accused me of being prejudiced against Arabs, which is not the case at all. Please be more respectful next time than to imply that others are racist ( when indeed, they only disagree with you, and are not racist at all).

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[cdrguru]

It might have something to do with the respect given to any country that actively uses stoning and beheading as a way to enforce laws. Different from the West? Heck yes!

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[vitaflo]

Seriously, that's an incredulous omission to make, nevermind the fact that the poll itself was conducted a month ago. It is in these past two weeks that voter's opinion would better reflect their voting preferences, you know, after the actual presidential debates.

Also, in Iran you get only 30 days to actually campaign. This poll was taken right at the start of campaigning. Of course the current Pres will fare better in the polls then, more people are familiar with his platform.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[bigpat]

Interesting points. It could very well be that Ahmadinejad won along the lines of the election results.

But I think the point is that it is too hard to tell for sure... lack of press, scientific polling, observers from the various parties, etc.

But considering we are all buddy buddy with absolute monarchs and dictators around the world, I don't think it matters either way whether this was a free and fair election. Demonizing their election process is the wrong thing for outsiders to be doing, especially in the US when our own is also full of potential fraud and abuse and is certainly no less manipulated by the two-parties that are in power. How the Iranians sort out their government is their own business, as far as I am concerned whomever ends up on top should simply be dealt with regardless of how they got there.

Political stability might effect what deals and agreements can be relied upon in the longer term, but that is a decision that we have to make based on how much support we think their government has among their own people.

In the end it is and has been counter productive for the US to criticize and threaten Iran and regardless of the outcome we need to stop doing that as much, both as individual citizens and as a government.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[QuantumG]

That's entirely my point.. sheesh. Americans think Iran is an Arab country. Americans are afraid of Arabs. So when the Faux News says "Iran is working on nukes, let's invade!!" it's an easy sell to the ignorant viewers.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Sure, you are right, but as another person in this poll pointed out, and as TFA mentions, there is no smoking gun, there is no clear evidence of election fraud, and while fraud could have happened, there is no particularly good reason to think that there was. All the evidence produced seems to show that yeah, Ahmadinejad probably could have won, and possibly by that much.

There are protests in Iran, but this isn't the first time that has happened.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[cdrguru]

Iran is pretty much committed to wiping out Israel. Israel is offensive to their religion. Some people in the US might not like Israel being wiped out and would take great offense to a government in the US that stood by and let it happen.

To prevent Israel from being wiped out, Israel will certainly prevent Iran from really having nuclear weapons. An Israeli attack on Iran would likely cause a response. The US can either stand behind Israel or join in. Not supporting Israel in this case would cost Obama the Jewish vote and maybe quite a few others. While he can call Israelis "occupiers" and compare the plight of Palestinians to black slaves, when it comes down to a post-attack situation he really has no choice if he wants any chance at a 2nd term.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[iggymanz]

and Israel is not committed to wiping out Iran? Israel has never attacked Iran before? Israel has never threatened Iran?

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[davevr]

You have to use the American definition of "Arab", which is "anyone who practices Islam". Imagine how confused they get in Malaysia!

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[fishbowl]

>That warms my heart. I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons.

It surprises me more that anyone doesn't have nuclear weapons than that they do.

The physics is undergrad material now, the mechanical tech is within the tolerances of the average aircraft machine shop, and the only real obstacle is the fact that the highly distributed effort of refining fissionable material must be done secretly, but why is that so hard, really?

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[fishbowl]

>The greatest safety will be when we both realize that we can accomplish more by working together than by fighting with each other.

There are some powerful people in this world who do not desire "safety" or "accomplishment" because they fundamentally believe that the end of the world is a desirable, richly anticipated event, and whose greatest wish is to have the world's end arrive during their own lifetime.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[tksh]

I definitely agree that there has been no smoking gun, if anything, the rattled response by the grand ayatollah (announce support for Ahmadinejad win on Saturday, again on Sunday and now declaring a partial recount?) is more suggestive than trying to analyse the published numbers.

It's just that there isn't such a strong argument for either candidate to have won by a landslide. Class differences isn't a smoking gun either. Ahmadinejad has good support in the rural areas but inversely, Mousavi has the better support in cities, regardless of class. You can see citizens of all stripes, gender and age in both camp's protests. It can be a wash for all we know.

As Obama said today, there's something going on in Iran. And it's too early, with too little information, to call it for either side.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[jbengt]

Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.

. . .
In addition, you accused me of being prejudiced against Arabs, which is not the case at all.

Please note that Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Dragonslicer]

Yes, yes, and well, just about every country has threatened every other country at one time or another. Israel doesn't have the military strength for any significant conflict with a country the size of Iran. Israel can't really do much beyond its immediate neighbors. They just aren't the military superpower that some people think they are, and their military is worrying about other things at the moment. As a rule, Israel also doesn't initiate conflicts, but will use full force as a response. With the most recent conflict in Lebanon, you can certainly argue whether they overreacted or not, but it was still a reaction and not a completely unprovoked attack. The previous major wars (1948, 1967, 1973) were all started by neighboring countries.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Dragonslicer]

I'm actually still not entirely convinced that Ahmadinejad is as batshit crazy as he often seems to be. When he's done interviews with American journalists, he's very calm and polite. Obviously he's acting for the American viewers, but is he also acting for the Iranian viewers? Is he really pure evil, or is it possible that he's just an American-style, power-hungry politician who will say anything to get people to vote for him and let him keep his power? Of course, the obvious follow-up to that question would be whether that makes him more or less evil.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[DrEasy]

All this discussion regarding who actually won the elections is a strawman. We know the process isn't democratic, since many opposition parties are outlawed, and there are many political prisoners in Iran. There is no real choice presented to the voters, all the candidates subscribe to the premise of an islamic republic, they all want America's doom etc. (Obama said just as much) These candidates do not represent the electors. Therefore the protest is justified. The people are protesting much more than the results of the election, but that's as far as they can go without risking arrest (although it seems that they can't even do that safely).

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[phantomfive]

Yes, I 100% agree that he is not crazy. Like Kim Jong II of North Korea, he is a carefully calculating politician, who says what he wants, and knows what kind of reactions it will get from people.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Liquidrage]

The US could currently kill every single person in Iran and not lose a single troop.

Why is the US thinking of invading Iran again?

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is estimated to be a net oil importer within 10 years based on rising population and affluence, and declining production. They won't be able to burn it on the cheap for electricity any more at that point - hence the need for a new cheap(ish) source of electricity. And hey, if they can make The West sweat while they do it...

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[sesshomaru]

I really don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons (for purely selfish, self-preservation reasons. Don't respond to this saying, 'it is their right' because I don't care).

Oh, I agree, but then I'd prefer most countries with nuclear weapons didn't have them (and if I were living in fantasy land, all countries with nuclear weapons. The order of magnitude is too great. We really don't need people who can become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds in our only World, thanks. See Doctor Strangelove for reasons why.).

Too bad we can't put that genie back in the bottle... and an Ahmadenijad regime will definitely press on. Right now, while the United States is occupied elsewhere is their best chance to become a nuclear power. It may be that the Grand Ayatollah understands this, and it's why he's decided to back Ahmadenijad. Once a country is in the nuclear club, well, I haven't seen any kicked out of that clubhouse yet... The idea that we can stop it with anything other than a full scale, total war is very naive. Iran is not Iraq, even without nukes they are a big threat, especially with one of our armies conveniently next door.

Of course, Israel, which is scarily radicalizing under our noses, started that particular arms race by building their own nukes.

And before anyone says how great it is that Israel has nukes, let me be clear. I'm an American. I can argue over whether America should have nukes or not... but why on God's green earth would I ever want any other country (as in not-America) to have them? If we, as Americans are worried about Israel, we can just station some of our own nuclear subs in that part of the world as a deterrant. This whole idea that we should be thrilled that some other soveriegn country that we don't control has their own city killers never ceases to amaze me. But then we do seem to be putting an increasing number of unmedicated lunatics on our TVs as "news" programs so what do I know.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[dominion]

With 400 million US "invested" beforehand in support for the "Iranian opposition"

The $400 million went to supporting groups like the Jundallah, not for reformist politicians like Mousavi and Tehrani students who like rock music and hate the moral police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah

No amount of money can buy a popular uprising. Sorry.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Abcd1234]

It's also worth noting, as Hooman Hadj did on Charlie Rose on Monday night, that that poll was conducted *prior* to the Iranian campaign period, at which point few really knew anything about Mousavi. As such, I'd be highly skeptical of that poll and it's ability to predict the outcome of the election.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Eli Gottlieb]

And when Iran develops nuclear weapons, the USA will glass them. After the Israelis go first.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Eli Gottlieb]

I believe Israel has threatened to use military or even nuclear force against Iran if they acquire and threaten the use of nuclear weapons. However, they do not - by word or deed - have any policy or even slight effort to attack or wipe out Iran.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Eli Gottlieb]

He's not crazy. He is delusional. There's a damn big difference.

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[Eli Gottlieb]

I think it is evident that I am quite anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Mullah and especially anti-Arab when it comes to my ancestral country.

I'm sorry, normally I'm quite well-informed on ways in which Arab forces smugly try to steal control of the entire Middle East, but what are they up to in Iran?

Re:The results match pre-election poll

[iggymanz]

over 400 fission and boosted fission bombs and the means to deliver them makes quite an impressive military capability on top of the U.S. supplied WMD.

On a different perspective..

[mercurized]

So in some parts of the world it is just pure manipulation of an election, and in others where there is even proof of irregularities in the voting count and process, it isnt. Guess Iran should have contracted that one to Diebold, nobody would speak up then. :)

If you know anything about statistics...

[Anik315]

...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty. A random sample of 10 percent of population is virtually guaranteed to be within the margin of error of the general sample. Now the early vote counts are not exactly random sample, but it's not unreasonable to announce the result of an election with a very small percentage of the vote counted.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[JoshuaZ]

But they didn't just announce that. They even had a claimed final total shortly thereafter which Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed. That's not explainable by a "we have a representative sample".

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[venicebeach]

It's not unreasonable to predict the results of an election with a random sample. For instance, if you are a news organization you may want to do this. However, the official results should not be based on a prediction, they should be the actual counted results. Statistical predictions have a chance of being wrong.

Furthermore, the idea of "random" sample is pretty far-fetched when you are counting votes from certain locations and the proportion of votes for each candidates varied by location. Once you have enough information to take a truly random sample you also have enough information to actually count the votes.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[venicebeach]

(i should have said 'representative' sample, not 'random' sample)

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[jtownatpunk.net]

I'm not saying there's nothing fishy but there's no reason that votes can't be hand-counted very quickly. Let's make up some numbers. Each polling station had 10000 votes. Each polling station has 20 people to count the ballots. That's 500 votes per person. Give them 15 seconds to process each ballot. That's a little over 2 hours for a first full count. Maybe another hour to obtain the counts from all of the polling stations. And that's assuming they wait until the polls close to start counting and numbers of voters far higher than I'd expect to show up at any single polling station and a very high voter:pollster ratio.

The whole idea that manual counts require days is silly if the count is done in an efficient manner using the people already on hand running the polling places.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.

Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas. Mousavi was heavily favored in cities. A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything. Mousavi was heavily favored among young students. It's too uniform to be plausible. For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan. That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.

In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1% of the total. In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.

CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth. Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video. The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places. The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each. Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated. Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[NP-Incomplete]

...you know that a small random sample of the population tells you what the general population is like to a very high degree of certainty.

Statistics allows you to extrapolate results from a small sample set if, and only if, the the entire sample set follows a known statistical model.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[fishbowl]

It is explainable by a "this is a Theocracy and I am the High Priest."

I don't understand why people act as if they expect Iran to conduct an election like a Western democracy.

Where does the assumption come from that Iran, of all countries, is even capable of a "fair election"? I really don't see how you can be surprised about this outcome *at all*, and I also don't understand what anyone thinks can be "done about it", if Iran's own "government" does not take action.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Shadow of Eternity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkj-vd-q5A8

And you're suprised by CNN's conduct?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Narpak]

Personally I am checking The Guardian and BBC News, CNN.com (which I agree is pretty horrible),MSNBC, The Independent, Wikinews, The Daily Beast (and Slashdot of course) and some random ones. I'd be interested to know which sources people are using to get news about the situation in Iran, or for that matter other international events of interest. Also I find it helpful to try to read around to get news and articles from different perspectives and not rely too heavily on one single source.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[glebovitz]

That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.

Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas. Mousavi was heavily favored in cities. A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything. Mousavi was heavily favored among young students. It's too uniform to be plausible. For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan. That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.

In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1% of the total. In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.

CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth. Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video. The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places. The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each. Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated. Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.

You're just discovering this now? Are you saying that you recently had respect for for the same network that through out objective headline news reporting for the likes of Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[glebovitz]

oops, I meant threw out. Oh well

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Achromatic1978]

Exactly. Without commenting on the specifics of this election, counting takes days only if you have representatives from each party present who are allowed to challenge the inclusion of a vote on what can occasionally be the most dubious of grounds (hanging chad, anyone?).

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[peragrin]

CNN repeatably has stated that they are going on second and third hand information. That they are watching German and british news sites for information.

It is in all their articles.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[GumphMaster]

In many parts of the world voting is not a two horse race or a highest vote wins system (I don't know which applies to Iran). Some of us get to express a series of preferences with lower order preferences being significant if no-one get 50% of the votes on first preferences (often the case here in Australia). Counting a voter's first preference is indeed fairly quick, but tallying a preferential ballot can take quite some time, especially if the result is close or the electoral area is large and contains many polling stations.

A casual glance at the last Federal election results for polling booths in my electorate shows that none handled more than 5000 voters (excluding absent/postal votes) and they are able to return a provisional first preference count for the House of Representatives within hours. Usually the "certain winners" in provisional counts are sufficient to identify the new Government. Senate votes and close races typically took days to be settled fully.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[geekboy642]

The Iranians apparently thought they deserved a fair election. This is not a tempest in a teapot, imagined up by the western world. Watch the videos, read the live feeds through twitter, listen to the chants of "Allaho Akbar" that shake the cities: it is very clear that Iran's leadership dramatically overstepped in this election.

It doesn't matter one single bit that the country is an effective dictatorship. The people were promised an election to choose their own president, and no sooner had they made their choice than the government yanked the promise away from them. It doesn't even matter if a fair counting of every vote cast does indicate a win for Ahmadinejad; the blatant fraud, police brutality, and the arresting of the opposition has ruined the people's trust in government. I truly hope that Iran doesn't descend into civil war.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Utopia Tree]

Dewey Defeats Truman

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Curtman]

I don't understand why people act as if they expect Iran to conduct an election like a Western democracy.

I don't understand how you can say that having watched George W Bush get elected twice with very similar irregularities in the voting process.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Dragonslicer]

In many parts of the world voting is not a two horse race or a highest vote wins system (I don't know which applies to Iran).

Iran requires a true majority of votes (50% of all votes, not just more than any other candidate). The other two candidates only got about 1% each, so the election was effectively whichever of Ahmadinejad and Mousavi got more votes.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

Right, they have Christiane Amanpour over there. She's typically given the Iranian government the benefit of the doubt. She's probably relaying to CNN exactly what she's being told by her minders there, and that's what CNN is reporting as truth.

In truth, if a CNN newsperson was attacked or injured in the riots, that would not be a good thing for the government. CNN doesn't need to protect her, the government is. CNN can report whatever they want.

I know that CNN has received a lot of flak over this via email, I expect them to devote some more time to it over the next few days and look at the real issues.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Dragonslicer]

Wait, CNN still does reporting? I thought they switched to just reading whatever crap people send them over Twitter?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

I know that a lot of social sites are considered pretty bad news sources, but you really should check out fark.com. Load the home page, and look down the "comments" column on the right for whatever has the highest number and check the headline to see if it's about Iran. I think they're on thread #11 or 12 now. There is a lot of information people are posting there and they're citing the sources where they got it from, a lot of people are monitoring the known "good" twitter accounts and posting updates (there are apparently now fake government-run accounts misinforming). One user in particular, Tatsuma, will post a good summary every now and then detailing the players and the timeline of events.

The most timely information comes from Twitter, the clearest picture comes from Fark, and 4chan is helping the resistance set up communications. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[GumphMaster]

So they have a run-off election in the event that the votes came down: 49%, 49%, 1%, 1% ?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

I know, I know, Nancy Grace. I can't stand that person, I've never been able to sit through her show. I forgive them for that, since I avoid it, but they really seemed like the best information for most international stories. Glenn Beck is just there for amusement. If I don't trust CNN anymore I'm not sure who I'll go to for news, I might just have to settle for reading BBC online.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

Well here's hoping they see fit to dig a little deeper in the coming days.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

Just in case it's not clear, when you get to Fark and find the right thread, click on the number of comments to view the thread. Clicking on the headline won't take you to the Fark discussion.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Dragonslicer]

So they have a run-off election in the event that the votes came down: 49%, 49%, 1%, 1% ?

Pretty unlikely, but yeah. Of course, who knows how accurate those 1% numbers are. I remember reading somewhere that Mousavi thought that a more realistic goal would be to force a run-off between him and Ahmadinejad, I think around June 27th

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

Here's another good article via The Independent from a reporter who defied the ban on reporters to go out and see what it's like on the streets:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-has-gone-in-a-land-that-has-tasted-freedom-1706912.html

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Rocketship Underpant]

To be fair, Ahmadinejad reportedly gained a lot of favour among Azeris by instituting reforms that would allow them to attend university, study, and earn degrees in their own language, Azeri. While he may have cheated in the election, Ahmadinejad's popularity is something that is very difficult to guess at if you don't live in Iran.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

I understand that, but everything I've heard coming out of Iran or from people who are from Iran (but might not be there now) seems to indicate that there are some major irregularities.

But you're right: A'nejad was favored in rural areas, and rural areas make up 75% of Iran's population. It's impossible to know exactly what happened at this point, but the consistency of the numbers across ethnic and age groups is very inconsistent with any election results I've seen. The old seem to differ from the young, the religious from the non-religious, various ethnic groups disagree, etc. It's just a tough thing for the current leaders (those who benefit) to sell.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[sesshomaru]

Hmm, it's not so much that we expect a "free and fair" election in Iran. No such thing there, of course. However, the particular candidate has an interesting history in Iran:

When Ali Khamenei became president in the elections of October, 1981, he first introduced right-leaning Ali Akbar Velayati to the Majlis as his prime minister, but he was voted down by the then left-leaning majority of the parliament, which then forced their own preferred prime minister to Khamenei, namely Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The dispute was finally ended by interference of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, who advised the president to accept Mousavi. Mousavi served under the title until 1989, when the constitution was amended to remove the title of Prime Minister and divide his responsibilities between the president and a newly-created title of First Vice President. --- Prime Minister of Iran

Not only that, but he held some power in the Iranian government before Mahmoud Ahmedinijad came to power:

Mousavi refused to run for President in the 1997 elections, which caused the reformists to turn to his former Cabinet Minister, then a little-known cleric, Mohammad Khatami, who was elected by a landslide. During Khatami's administration, Mousavi served as the Senior Adviser to the President. --- Mir-Hossein Mousavi

Put it to you this way, even a brutal, repressive dictatorship like Soviet Russia had factions. It's inevitable. Kruschev survived Stalin's terror, and as leader of the Soviet Union he was a reformer and anti-Stalinist. (Yes, I know he was the hated Soviet leader in those days, he was still an improvement on Uncle Joe.)

In these cases, we'd like to see someone like Gorbachev come to power rather than someone like Stalin. It appears to me, as an ignorant, outside observer that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is currently in the process of consolidating power. Or rather, that the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khmenei has decided he's had enough of reform and has decided to close off what little voice the Iranian people still have in their government.

I hope I'm wrong, but I predict darker days ahead for the people of Iran.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Wow, someone has a hate-on for religion. Someone also referred to black people using the worst slur imaginable for them.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Eli Gottlieb]

The most timely information comes from Twitter, the clearest picture comes from Fark, and 4chan is helping the resistance set up communications. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!

The rest I can believe, but 4chan becoming a force for good? Bullshit!

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Nancy Grace. I can't stand that person, I've never been able to sit through her show

What? Don't you care about poor little Caylee? You child-hater!

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well, thank you. You've certainly managed to amuse me for the night. Goodnight troll.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[gaspar ilom]

> A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels

How do you or anyone else know this? Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?

You're presumably talking about the final count of the votes cast, not exit-polling. Anonymous ballots would only allow analysis of irregularities that occur across *regions.* (and, perhaps "ethnic group" could be correlated to region.)

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Runaway1956]

"I truly hope that Iran doesn't descend into civil war."

A lot of uneducated, unsophisticated, even ignorant remarks in this thread. But, I pick this one. A nation doesn't descend into civil war. Things are already bad, and people have already hit rock bottom, long before they determine that they have to find the balls to pick up a weapon and use it. Civil war is the first step on the ladder back up out of the hole.

I know - every bleeding heart on the freaking planet has tried to brainwash us that "violence never solves anything!" Bullshit. Violence solved Adolph Hitler, among other things. Pacifists just fed Hitler whatever he wanted.

War isn't the worst thing that can happen to a nation, nor is death the worst thing that can happen to a man. Those who believe so clearly have no imagination, and have failed to study history.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Runaway1956]

Stop being an ass and swinging around catchy phrases. Go back and read what I typed, not what you thought I meant.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Jesus_666]

Violence also caused him. I doubt that without WW1 (both the direct effect on him and the effect on Germany) he would've become what he did. Also, violence (an assassination plus an unhealthy desire to wage war on someone) caused WW1. The fact that violence solved a problem it caused is not a net win for violence.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong angle. It's better understood as "4chan being a force for underground communications." They're doing what they're best at. Albeit, for once, for a good cause.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Runaway1956]

Suggesting that violence caused Hitler, one has to look around, and wonder what causes other monstrous human beings. Is there some clear correlation between violence in youth, and violent adults? No, there is not. The socioligists would like us to think so.

There was much, much more at work to form Hitler and his party, than the violence of WW1. The Great Depression, more than anything else, created the atmosphere in which such a man would be able to build his empire. People who are desperately hungry are much more willing to follow someone who tells them pleasing lies, than are people with full bellies and secure homes, and the leisure to consider those charismatic speeches.

If our current economic crisis isn't cured soon, we might expect echoes of Hitler to surface around the world in the next few years.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[mike2R]

You make civil war sound like a bad thing. When your government rapes its citizens and pisses in the face of its founding principles, then civil war is a good thing.

You seem to be confusing a civil war with a revolution. I wouldn't wish a civil war on anyone.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Jesus_666]

Well, I would assume that him nearly returning blind from WW1 due to a poison gas attack might have changed his outlook on life a bit (however, much of his ideology comes from living in student dormitories, where antisemitism was rather popular at the time). Also, reparations for WW1 exacerbated the impact of the global economic crisis and gave the receiving countried a bad image in Germany.

As always, it's a mix of causes, in this case with violence as much among them as economic trouble. One cannot take any single cause and make meaningful predictions based on that. To get back at my original statement, though: Without WW1 the Great Depression wouldn't have occurred like it did (as it was instigated by sudden overproduction after the war), Hitler wouldn't have been like he was and he wouldn't have had the chance to rise to power like he did. So I do think that one can say that violence was an important factor in making that man anything other than a failed artist.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Paua Fritter]

A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas.

Citation required!

According to state-owned TV station PressTV, the official results from the interior ministry show no such thing. The actual figures are quoted on Wikipedia.

According to these (apparently official) figures, Ahmadinejad's support ranged from a low of 44.8% in Tehran up to a maximum of 77% in Semnan. Is that what you mean by "consistent"?

A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything.

I wasn't aware that there were official results broken down by sex, age, class, and ethnic groups. I suspect that you are just making it up, actually.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Paua Fritter]

I understand that, but everything I've heard coming out of Iran or from people who are from Iran (but might not be there now) seems to indicate that there are some major irregularities.

Well; pause for a moment and consider if there might be a reason why that's all you've heard. Ahmadinejad is well known to be popular amongst the poor. The highly-educated, urbanised, liberal middle classes aren't his power base at all. But the Iranian masses do not really have our ear do they? Not really - the Iranians we hear from are a different bunch of people. It's hardly a surprise that expatriate Iranians are displeased with the result (the official results show Mousavi outpolled Ahmadinejad in votes from outside the country), and it's hardly a surprise that Iran's twittering classes are upset that their candidate lost. That doesn't prove there were irregularities.

I've seen screeds of hype written about "statistical anomalies" in the election, but I've yet to find any that actually show evidence of vote-rigging. Mostly it's people mindlessly repeating what they've seen on TV, on some news website op-ed or outraged blogger, repeating what they've read on Twitter.

It's all been terribly convenient for the mainstream media in the West, too. Now that Saddam is dead, Bin Laden has gone to ground, and Kim Jong-Il is on his last legs, that leaves Ahmadinejad as the current Bad Person of the Month. We've got to have someone to hate.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Fri13]

Because it is again the "They against us" situation. US is the "homeland" of Democracy (if we do not count that Democracy was invented in Creek) where you need to vote those who media say. And because the media is controlled by the people who has the real power behind curtains. You never get real democratic votes and but you get having puppet show.

Now the US and UK media is spreading FUD about Iran (mostly only those two countries) who had history about biggest media control ever.

What can you actually do? UN and EU does concern about the elections, but they have not started investigations. US and UK has pushed their media control up and people is brainwashed totally to be loyal for their own masters who disagree with Iran's politics about Israel situation.

The US and UK working together with Israel is something what most people (who gives critics about Iran) does not even know, because they do not hear about that about their own media. How can you even ask them then to give something fair ideas about Iran then?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[ultranova]

You make civil war sound like a bad thing. When your government rapes its citizens and pisses in the face of its founding principles, then civil war is a good thing.

No, it isn't. A coup might be, but civil war and the associated massive loss of life and property are an extremely inefficient way of going about it.

In any case, I don't think that democracy and fair elections are amongst the founding principles of Iran, it being a theocratic dictatorship.

Yes, murder off all the dumb evil amoral fuckers.

The problem is that anyone taking that advice would need to commit suicide.

It is a far more civil event than letting those evil fuckers keep uncivilizing the society. I propose a $100 bounty on the head of every mullah. 10 times that for every American preacher. That, my friends, is solidarity.

Ah, fanatical atheism. It's fascinating how the very people who are supposed to be his sworn enemies end up sounding like Fred Phelps. It's good for the laugh on the Internet, thought.

You will never have a free society as long as a single one of those evil magical fairy fuckers is allowed to live.

Kill anyone who disagrees with you. Yup, that's the spirit of freedom allright.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

I've yet to find any that actually show evidence of vote-rigging

I doubt there is any. No detailed official results have been released, and I doubt that the ballots even exist at this point.

Regardless of whether or not the vote was actually rigged, the troubling part is the communication cutoff and the militias being ordered to attack the civilians. If the vote was not rigged, the government could simply release the detailed results to calm the people instead of ordering attacks against them. Even university dorms have been destroyed, several people have been killed at this point.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?

Yes, each ballot has a personal ID number so that it can be traced to an actual person. What is being reported is what the government says actually happened, the government says that A'nejad beat Mousavi in Azerbaijan (among ethnic Azeris), regardless of whether or not that actually happened.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[amicusNYCL]

Although I don't have proof, I believe those numbers released are contrary to what was initially reported officially, I think that the picture is changing as days go by. One of the arguments by Mousavi was that he didn't even win his home province, those numbers show that he did win by the narrowest of margins. I think the numbers are being made up as we go, I don't any actual ballots were even counted (or saved), so it doesn't really matter which numbers get released. What I'm reporting here is what I've heard from other sources. Including here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Abcd1234]

but I've yet to find any that actually show evidence of vote-rigging.

Well, on Charlie Rose, Hooman Majd indicated that his own relatives witnessed polling stations that ran out of ballots early on during the election, were only resupplied much later in the day, and then the results were announced just hours later. It is, at best, highly suspicious, and he questions whether large numbers of ballots were ever counted at all.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[sorak]

The best thing you could do to help the people who rigged the election is to just say "no big deal" and move on.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[canuck08]

Iranians are not backwards peons dumbly ruled by overlords.
They have conducted elections many times before which have returned representative results.
The modern, highly educated people of Tehran certainly think that they are capable of conducting a fair election.

As for what can be done about it... well, read a little about Iran's history and you will see that they are quite capable of 'doing something about it'.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Hey, Godwin's Law!

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[BlackSnake112]

Also remember that voting in Iran is not private. They watch you place your vote. Could intimidation be used? Well, what if they person standing there holding the big gun/knife moves their hands on said gun/knife if you start to mark the choice they do not like? I say yes, that was a very big possibility.

Would you trust 20 Iranian government approved counters? That could be the main issue. The supreme ruler wants person A. The election winner is person A. Surprise?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[mebrahim]

You are wrong about my country, Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm an Iranian university student who has observed the election scene carefully. I believe we have got a fair and strong election system. Those who are against the results have not yet provided a single documented complaint to the Election Committee of the Country. They just can't accept the results, but don't have anything to prove the election was not fair, because it really was! So they decided to stop the government by disobeying the laws. They're ruining the country just because they can't accept the majority of people preferred Ahmadinejad. Just imagine if all those who voted for McCain did the same thing to US government! It is ridiculous as well as embarrassing!

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Curtman]

US and UK has pushed their media control up and people is brainwashed totally to be loyal for their own masters who disagree with Iran's politics about Israel situation

I'm assuming that you are referring to the commonly held belief that Iran's president once said he would like to push Israel into the sea, and that somehow comes up in every conversation with someone who defends the actions of Israel. It never occurs to most people that Israel is actively wiping Palestine off the map.

The US and UK working together with Israel is something what most people (who gives critics about Iran) does not even know, because they do not hear about that about their own media.

I'm not sure about those places, but here in Canada our current Prime Minister makes regular speeches about how great and wonderful Israel is, and how they do no wrong. I hope most Canadians are at least aware if not disgusted by our recent blind support of a tyrant.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[geekboy642]

If the election was fair, why did the government feel the need to announce results before counting a majority of the votes, certify the results before the mandatory 3-day waiting period, arrest the opposition, send the Basij out to beat up women and children, photoshop pro-Ahmadinejad rallies, block foreign reporters and filter the Internet?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[mebrahim]

Announcing partial results has nothing to do with fraud, you know.
There was no early certifying of results; the leader did what he did in previous elections. On the other hand none of candidates had provided a single complaint. Still they have their right to provide complaints and nothing stops them from doing that.
May you tell me what police should do to those creating and using molotov coctails, attacking buses, burning bikes in fire, rubbing and destroying banks, ...?! You must have seen in pictures. These kind of criminals are not arrested in your country?
Basij is unfortunately not so well controlled and managed. Many of those Basijis who beat people do it without any permission or direction. It is sad, but still has nothing to do with fraud.
I've seen the crowd in pro-Ahmadinejad rallies with my eyes. There has been a so great crowd that there is no need to Photoshop at all. I don't know who the fool and why the hell did that silly Photoshop to that Image in Kayhan newspaper! Other non-Photoshopped pictures confirm what I said.
Internet filtering in Iran has been strict for years. It has nothing to do with fraud in election.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Paua Fritter]

For a start, you've quoted me out of context by cutting off the start of my sentence. I was talking about statistical evidence of vote-rigging, rather than anecdotal evidence. My point is: the statistics do not prove fraud.

Secondly, I can't see what's "highly suspicious" about a polling station running out of ballot papers (the turnout was after all surprisingly high). These things happen; you can't always predict where people are going to vote. The logistics of running elections, especially in a large country, are not simple. It's a sign of inefficiency that the polling station wasn't resupplied with ballot papers until later in the day, but it's not what I'd call "highly suspicious at best".

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Abcd1234]

For a start, you've quoted me out of context by cutting off the start of my sentence. I was talking about statistical evidence of vote-rigging, rather than anecdotal evidence. My point is: the statistics do not prove fraud.

And I would disagree. At minimum, you must admit it's odd that even in what one would call strongholds for Mousavi, Ahmadinejad still won with a landslide. Heck, Tehran apparently went better than 60/40 in favour of Ahmadinejad, despite there being a great deal of support for Mousavi there. I'd certainly call that odd... definitely not incontrovertible proof (no one has that proof because, without the ballots, there can be no proof), but it's certainly statistical evidence.

That said, who knows... maybe everyone over-estimated Mousavi's support across the board, throughout the country, across all demographics... *shrug*

Secondly, I can't see what's "highly suspicious" about a polling station running out of ballot papers (the turnout was after all surprisingly high),

Unless, of course, the problems were primarily in, say, urban areas where much of Mousavi's support was based. I'm not saying it's definitely corruption, and I'm not even saying there's evidence of this. All I'm saying is that, at minimum, there's evidence that ballots may not have been counted, and at best, that's anti-democratic.

It's a sign of inefficiency that the polling station wasn't resupplied with ballot papers until later in the day, but it's not what I'd call "highly suspicious at best".

Not later... *much* later. Like, into the evening.

So, is it evidence? No. Is the picture muddy? Definitely. Can we say for certain the election was fixed? Definitely not. Is there good reason for skepticism? I think so.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Paua Fritter]

My point is: the statistics do not prove fraud.

And I would disagree. At minimum, you must admit it's odd that even in what one would call strongholds for Mousavi, Ahmadinejad still won with a landslide. Heck, Tehran apparently went better than 60/40 in favour of Ahmadinejad, despite there being a great deal of support for Mousavi there.

In fact the official figures show the ratio of the vote between the top 2 candidates in Tehran as 53/47. So, quite close, actually.

I'd certainly call that odd... definitely not incontrovertible proof (no one has that proof because, without the ballots, there can be no proof), but it's certainly statistical evidence.

It's certainly not statistical evidence of fraud!

On what basis do you say it's odd? You think Mousavi should've done better for some reason? Because you saw his mass rallies in Tehran on TV? Did you not also see the mass rallies in favour of Ahmadinejad?

Seriously, if you were an Iranian opinion pollster, and you had some opinion poll results which significantly contradicted the election result, then I'd consider your opinion "evidence". Otherwise, your opinion is really just wishful thinking. The only opinion poll results which I've seen showed Ahmadinejad with roughly a 2:1 lead over Mousavi, amongst decided voters. That poll is referenced on Wikipedia, by the way.

I'll tell you what I find really odd: that random Westerners think they have an accurate idea of the relative popularity of a bunch of politicians in some middle-eastern country!

Actually Tehran is not entirely populated by middle-class liberal types. There is a large working class majority in the city, and this is Ahmadinejad's power base, which he has been playing to with consummate political skill. People say that Mousavi (an Azeri) should've done better amongst Azeris than he did (even though he did do significantly better there than in other parts of the country). But Ahmadinejad also speaks Azeri and lived in Azerbaijan province for years, I understand. More importantly, he was responsible for policy changes which have allowed Azeris to study at universities in the Azeri language; a policy which was very popular. This is evidence that Ahmadinejad has understood the needs of his constituents and has responded intelligently. He's not the fool that the Western media likes to make him out. Westerners who've been fed a diet of anti-Ahmadinejad propaganda have misunderestimated him, but if this is statistical evidence of anything, it's that the Western media is not an objective source of news on Iranian politics.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Fyz]

I would mod you up if I had points. Instead, I'll leave you this quote from Eve Curie:

We discovered that peace at any price is no peace at all. We discovered that life at any price has no value whatever; that life is nothing without the privileges, the prides, the rights, the joys which make it worth living, and also worth giving. And we also discovered that there is something more hideous, more atrocious than war or than death; and that is to live in fear.

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Abcd1234]

In fact the official figures show the ratio of the vote between the top 2 candidates in Tehran as 53/47. So, quite close, actually.

Yeah, those numbers differ from the ones initially published, so it may be that much of my information is already old (it's certainly a rapidly evolving situation).

On what basis do you say it's odd? You think Mousavi should've done better for some reason? Because you saw his mass rallies in Tehran on TV? Did you not also see the mass rallies in favour of Ahmadinejad?

You mean the ones where it appears they brought in people from outside the city in order to attend? Ones staged at the same time Mousavi's demonstrations were expected to occur... in the very same spot Mousavi's supporters had previously demonstrated, thus forcing Mousavi's supporters to find another location? Yup, that doesn't scream of an artificial situation designed to create an image of populist support for Ahmadinejad (not that such support doesn't exist... just that that rally was *clearly* staged).

The only opinion poll results which I've seen showed Ahmadinejad with roughly a 2:1 lead over Mousavi, amongst decided voters. That poll is referenced on Wikipedia, by the way.

And as has been pointed out by others, that poll preceded the Iranian campaign period, at which point Mousavi was a relative unknown. Add in the fact that it was a telephone poll, and that people may not be willing to voice their true opinion, and I would contend the results of that poll are not particularly valid. Show me one at least done during the campaign period and then you might have a point.

He's not the fool that the Western media likes to make him out. Westerners who've been fed a diet of anti-Ahmadinejad propaganda have misunderestimated him, but if this is statistical evidence of anything, it's that the Western media is not an objective source of news on Iranian politics.

Well, a) Who said anything about Ahmadinejad being a fool? Hell, the very idea of election fraud suggests precisely the opposite. Honestly, anyone with a brain realizes the man is a superb politician, and incredibly wily. b) You do realize that it isn't just Western media that questions the election results, right? Real, actual Iranians who voted in the election are also suspicious.

Personally, I find it far more troubling that you seem to be willing to disregard evidence of fraud simply because the information was reported by a western source...

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Uberbah]

Civil war is the first step on the ladder back up out of the hole.

Interesting, and what zealot camp did you go to: one run by Al Queda or one run by Falwell?

Re:If you know anything about statistics...

[Paua Fritter]

Mousavi was not a "relative unknown". He used to be the Prime Minister for goodness sake!

In any case, if you don't like that poll, look at the other, more recent polls listed on that Wikipedia page. Now tell me it's statistically suspicious that Ahmadinejad won. OK maybe you think those polls are bollocks, too, but you can't then claim that there's "statistical evidence" of fraud. Either you accept the statistical evidence available, in which case you have to accept that Ahmadinejad's win was to be expected, or you have to deny the validity of those polls, in which case you've got no basis for asserting there's any statistical basis for suspicions. You can still be suspicious, of course, but not on a statistical basis.

ProxyBox Virtual Appliance

[0100010001010011]

Mirror 1
Mirror 2

Proxies:
Squid installed and listening on ports: 7, 13, 53, 993, 995, 3128
Polipo installed and listening on port: 8123. Polipo is routed through Tor.
Tor: port 9050 (a socks5 proxy)
Ziproxy: Port 8080 (good for low bandwidth connections. It recompress images & text.
Socat: Must be run manually, but listens on port 443 and routes through Squid.

SSH enabled, listening on ports 22,80,2222,22222
2 Users: root:#iran and iran:election. If you enable ssh to the world, change the root password (passwd). This should enable ssh tunneling.
-
I created this for people on Fark who were having problems with squid. Everyone here shouldn't have a problem. It's a bare bones (netinst) debian install with all the above installed and setup.

I did NOT put ACLs in because there are reports here: http://iran.sharearchy.com/ that the ACL list is actually blocking some people in Iran.

And could one of the mods please change to the coral cache of Austin's website? He's already getting DDoS'd by Iran all this morning. Slashdot isn't going to help anything.

If any /.ers would like to help make it smaller, better, faster (VPN?), jjarvis98 at gmail.com

And you're free to inspect it to make sure I'm not trying to r00t you.

Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance

[carlzum]

Thank you for such an informative and helpful post, obviously you've been contributing to this cause long before it hit /. We're always griping about threats to free speech and fair elections, but here's something a person with some technical skill can do to combat it.

Also, this has nothing to do with the election results. Even if Ahmadinejad received more votes, silencing the opposition is a major injustice. The fact that everyday joes can thwart his efforts with a PC and internet connection is pretty amazing. The power of the Internet has been subject to a lot of hyperbole and BS, but this is an example of how it really does change history.

Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance

[Presto Vivace]

Thank you for all your excellent work.

Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance

[Anonymous Coward]

For any Iranian looking for a proxy, there's one here: 208.86.95.26 running on ports: 3128 , 1234 , 80 , 443 , 143 , 110 It's ACLed to only accept traffic from Iranian IPs.

Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance

[FishWithAHammer]

The ACLs are blocking some people in Iran, though. :/

Re:ProxyBox Virtual Appliance

[funkboy]

Another mirror for you here: http://punk.funk.nu/proxybox/

Election irregularities

[V50]

As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so. I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions based on some evidence, and not all necessarily means the election was tampered with.

Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud. What it is is indication of the belief in fraud. I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.)

Several other stuff looks at odd vote shifting patterns, specifically the almost total abandonment of this one candidate in favor of the President. That is unusual, and calls to be looked into, but it's far from unprecedented. Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.

Another thing is the "rule" that as turnout goes up, the reformers do better. I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken, because voters can act weird sometimes. It would be bucking the trend, but again, not definitive proof.

Overall, there is some evidence to suggest there may have been fraud, but as of yet, I've yet to see any "smoking gun". I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything.

Looking at the whole situation, my gut tells me that there probably was some tampering, either deliberate or systematic, most likely in the process of actually voting. Basically, I think the strange results are most likely, if anything, the result of intimidation, either direct (guy waving around AK-47) or indirect (ie, Ahmed the voter chose the president because of a climate of fear).

It's very possible that Ahmadinejad won legit, even if his vote total was padded due to intimidation or result tampering. It's also very possible that there's a climate of fear in Iran, that essentially prevents a truly fair and free election from occurring. I honestly don't know much about Iran, so these are just my thoughts from being a (mostly Canadian) politics geek.

In case it's not clear, I'm not defending the Iranian results, only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" type proof, only "unusual" results, which can still happen in a free and fair election.

Re:Election irregularities

[Chris Burke]

"Precedent" really has very little to do with it. Quebec isn't Iran. So something happening there for understandable reasons isn't validation of something odd happening elsewhere.

Explain how Ahmadinejad won areas that have never voted for anyone but their local ethnic candidate, with the same percentage of the votes as Ahmadinejad got everywhere else.

"Doesn't necessarily mean" and "doesn't prove" is a cop-out. Nothing necessarily means anything and nothing definitively proves anything because our basic axioms of the universe could be wrong. We can't prove that there is a universe at all.

This is nothing like Kerry in 04. We're not talking about some counties shifting a couple percentage points one way or the other in an election decided by fractions of a percent. We're talking about areas going from essentially zero support for the President to handing him a landslide victory. You can't just waive your hands and say it doesn't necessarily mean anything. That needs to be explained.

We can't get a "smoking gun" because the only possible "smoking gun" proof would be held by the Iranian government, and I would think their reaction after the election indicates how willing they would be to hand said proof over.

Re:Election irregularities

[phantomfive]

Explain how Ahmadinejad won areas that have never voted for anyone but their local ethnic candidate, with the same percentage of the votes as Ahmadinejad got everywhere else.

That statistic sounds impressive, but it's not like there's much precedent. Iran has only had six presidents, and only for the last two has there been any real contest. When you only have 30 years of voting history to go on, big 'unexplainable' changes are bound to pop up once in a while. There is a very real possibility that the announced election results were fairly accurate.

Re:Election irregularities

[Chris Burke]

Iran has only had six presidents, and only for the last two has there been any real contest. When you only have 30 years of voting history to go on, big 'unexplainable' changes are bound to pop up once in a while.

In other words its just serendipity. That's great. You do realize that while statistics operate under the assumption that variance is random, that's just a way of predicting mass behavior and does not mean that the actual result is itself random, in particular when we're talking about human behavior.

When the previous results -- culturally insular tribes voting for their own candidate, a pattern repeated in many similar environments for many years and elections -- has such a good, non-random explanation, resorting to serendipitous random happenings to explain away a complete reversal of everyone's educated guess requires some reasoning behind why that guess educated by basic human nature and history is wrong.

It'd be like if Obama had won every state from Texas to Georgia, though in some ways so much more so since our country has racism but has never really had tribalism. You couldn't just shrug and say "weird things happen". At, least, not and say something useful or meaningful.

Yes, it's possible it's just a random fluke. There needs to be a better explanation than that. The Iranian people deserve a better explanation than that, and the reformers at least are just as surprised as I am so what does that tell you? Basically at this point I consider your "random chance" hypothesis to require evidence as much as the "rigged election" hypothesis. This isn't isn't chemistry or physics, the Null Hypothesis is not the default choice.

There is a very real possibility that the announced election results were fairly accurate.

Yes. There is a real possibility the results are genuine. I readily admit that. And there's an even more real possibility the results were decided well in advance. You should admit that too. If you can't admit that shit is suspicious and that there are real questions that need to be answered, with "well it doesn't necessarily mean anything" NOT being an acceptable answer, then I don't think you're looking at this rationally.

Re:Election irregularities

[V50]

I actually pretty much agree with what you've said. My post was pretty much a jumbled collection of my thoughts. The basic idea that I was saying is that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of tampering, but nothing I haven't seen in legit elections. I think there was some degree of tampering, either in outright fraud, or intimidation, but I hate jumping to conclusions, and (even with Iran) I prefer to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach.

I'm not speaking as an expert on Iran. I don't know a heck of a lot about Iran. I think there was probably some tampering, but I would leave the ultimate call on that for someone who has great experience with Iranian issues, and especially politics and political outcomes. Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is usually not a good idea.

Gods, I am terrible at getting my ideas out concisely. TLDR: I largely agree with you, but like caution.

Re:Election irregularities

[V50]

"As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so."

Thats a long time to be a student.

Well, you know us university students, we hate to grow up and get a job.

Now to party like it's 1909 again!

Re:Election irregularities

[phantomfive]

And there's an even more real possibility the results were decided well in advance

Why

Re:Election irregularities

[BeardedChimp]

This is a pretty bad post even by slashdot standards.
You start out by proclaiming "As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries", which as an argument to authority is trying to show how your opinion counts more than other posters (it does not).

This is then followed up by a false analogy "I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election". The vast differences between these elections renders the analogy meaningless. Never the less you decide to throw in an ad hominem "and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay" just to reinforce it.

Time for some red herrings:
"Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another."
"I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken"
"I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything."

All divert attention towards other barely related topics.
You end by stating that you are "only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" ", which places an unfair burden of proof upon the opposition. The incumbent (Ahmadinejad) controlled every step of the elections, the smoking gun you are looking for is just not possible with this level of control.

I apologise for pointing out the logical fallicies because usually posts like this annoy me in that they don't address (and therefore dismiss) the arguments but the post had too many problems to ignore.

Re:Election irregularities

[neoprog]

Well, if you look at the American presidency, in the election of our 6th president (J.Q. Adams), we had 4 candidates, all of whom had great support from their home states - which makes me think that in Iran's sixth election, since people don't change, the same would probably be true.

Re:Election irregularities

[phantomfive]

Probably, but maybe not. It's not real strong evidence. You have to be careful going around and accusing people if you don't have something to back it up. At this point I have still not seen any proof that the election was rigged. Which of course doesn't mean it wasn't, but I'll wait for proof.

Re:Election irregularities

[V50]

Heh, I feel like I just got some random notes of mine handed back, graded as an essay. You a teacher or professor or something by chance, hehe. :)

Eh, I wasn't trying really to make a point, just sort of letting thoughts wander out of my brain. When I'm actually trying (ie: essay writing), I can effectively make actual points, support them and such. When I'm not trying, especially when I don't even really have a specific point to make, my thoughts appear just as jumbled and disorganized as they do in my head. :)

The general gist of what I was attempting to say is that, while there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, it is just that. I think there was probably electoral fraud.

And yeah, this election can be compared to others, in that people are voting. When people vote, weird stuff can and has happened. To what degree it can be compared to others, I'm not prepared to say, having little knowledge of Iran, the Iranian political system, or generally of politics in the region.

Anyway, thanks for marking my disorganized thoughts I spewed out in between playing Zelda on my Wii, hehe. Was interesting. :)

Re:Election irregularities

[DNS-and-BIND]

Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that nyone who listens to rock 'n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.

There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand -- but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.

It also misses a crucial point: Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity. He doesn't speak to the issues that matter to the urban professionals, namely, the economy and liberalization. But Ahmadinejad speaks to three fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country.

First, Ahmadinejad speaks of piety. Among vast swathes of Iranian society, the willingness to speak unaffectedly about religion is crucial. Though it may be difficult for Americans and Europeans to believe, there are people in the world to whom economic progress is not of the essence; people who want to maintain their communities as they are and live the way their grandparents lived. These are people who see modernization -- whether from the shah or Mousavi -- as unattractive. They forgive Ahmadinejad his economic failures.

Second, Ahmadinejad speaks of corruption. There is a sense in the countryside that the ayatollahs -- who enjoy enormous wealth and power, and often have lifestyles that reflect this -- have corrupted the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad is disliked by many of the religious elite precisely because he has systematically raised the corruption issue, which resonates in the countryside.

Third, Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for Iranian national security, a tremendously popular stance. It must always be remembered that Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that lasted eight years, cost untold lives and suffering, and effectively ended in its defeat. Iranians, particularly the poor, experienced this war on an intimate level. They fought in the war, and lost husbands and sons in it. As in other countries, memories of a lost war don't necessarily delegitimize the regime. Rather, they can generate hopes for a resurgent Iran, thus validating the sacrifices made in that war -- something Ahmadinejad taps into. By arguing that Iran should not back down but become a major power, he speaks to the veterans and their families, who want something positive to emerge from all their sacrifices in the war.

Perhaps the greatest factor in Ahmadinejad's favor is that Mousavi spoke for the better districts of Tehran -- something akin to running a U.S. presidential election as a spokesman for Georgetown and the Lower East Side. Such a base will get you hammered, and Mousavi got hammered. Fraud or not, Ahmadinejad won and he won significantly. That he won is not the mystery; the mystery is why others thought he wouldn't win.

Re:Election irregularities

[CmdrGravy]

But how many are there ? On the BBC yesterday the reporter said there were "...maybe a hundred thousand or possibly millions of protesters at the rally" which is pretty wide estimate and when speaking about a rally in support of the president the reporter said "... it's really impossible to say how many people there are, definitely not as many as at the protest yesterday" which is pretty much an entirely pointless observation.

If you ask me it seems various Western regimes are pretty keen on some sort of popular revolution in Iran and quite disappointed that Iran voted to continue the status quo whilst he media find it boring to report on things remaining more or less the same and go out looking for controversy where ever they find it.

What compounds the situation is the previous track record of the US, the UK and others in spreading blatant lies about middle eastern countries in order to further their own agenda. Is this what's happening now ? Sadly it's really hard to tell.

Re:Election irregularities

[shilly]

Why? Because many men like power, and bad men who lead their country have a track record around the world of cheating in order to hang on to it. Which bit of this observation of human nature is unfamiliar to you? Or would you like to argue that Ahmadinejad and those who share power with him are not bad men?

Re:Election irregularities

[phantomfive]

I will argue that people who know they are going to win don't have to cheat. In this case, there is no clear evidence that they cheated, and some evidence that Ahmadinejad really was that popular. There are legitimate things to not like about the Iranian government, so why waste your effort getting angry about something that might have actually been fairly conducted?

Re:Election irregularities

[T Murphy]

It seems to me the argument is whether you wait for strong evidence to conclude fraud, or if you wait for strong evidence to conclude the results are genuine. He is arguing from a perspective statisticians can relate to- until you feel you can be sure otherwise, you should assume the null hypothesis true. He isn't saying there is nothing fishy, or that we should be satisfied with what we have - I think everyone wants to see more evidence. He just is in favor of waiting for that evidence before making stronger statements. It is always easier to escalate your arugment than to scale back and still save face.

I don't mean to speak for either of you, I am just saying what the situation appears to me to be. I prefer to stay conservative without further evidence, so I suppose I am not an unbiased observer, as much as I might like to claim to be. I share your sentiments, but don't feel confident enough in the evidence to lean to a conclusion just yet.

Re:Election irregularities

[T Murphy]

Given how little reliable information is available about the election most arguments are speculation, so analogies and generalizations are relevent until we have strong enough information to get some strong footing on all this. So far I've seen debates over the authenticity of previous elections, how accurate pre-election polls were, how fast you can count the votes, what to make of the high turnout, what demographics supported Mousavi, what groups are not being heard in media reports... I haven't seen a lot of reliable conclusions so I don't really know what to believe. He might not have the most informative post, but I found it insightful and relevent. Yes, comparing votes for Kerry to this election is a stretch by some means, but he doesn't make it look like more than it is.

As for how much evidence is needed, yes I understand it would be difficult if not impossible to prove the elections are rigged. What do you want people to do if they are rigged? If they should consider violent revolt, they have a responsibility to be certain that they are correct. Luckily, A'jad isn't an idiot, so if the Mousavi supporters consider violent revolt, if he can prove he was legitimately elected, he knows he must if he is to defuse the situation. Even short of violence, their protest is causing significant disruption, so they must be responsible and be certain they aren't causing trouble without reason. That said, things look fishy enough to me that I think it would be wrong for them to go home and let this go, but right now asking questions is the most they can really do.

Re:Election irregularities

[DarthVain]

Well I remember in Quebec my sister went to University there. She was not allowed to vote for the separatist referendum back in '95.

I believe the excuse was that she was not a resident, despite actually living in Quebec for years.

I always thought that was odd, and had more to do with the fact she was English speaking and originally from Nova Scotia.

Not to mention the phrasing of the ballot.

Anyway there are plenty of ways you can mess with results without having any funny business counting ballots. These and more in both the US and Canada, supposedly more democratic countries. Not to mention the the term "gerrymandering" was invented by the English!

So Iran rigged an election. Big deal, democracies do it all the time. The fact that the Clerics run the place anyway and are all appointed by a "Supreme Leader" (which I have trouble even saying with a straight face) who is basically a dictator, because only one person has ever been Supreme Leader, and funny enough it is the same person who created the position of Supreme Leader in the first place! Their military is in direct control of Mr "Supreme Leader" not the "President", I mean how much real power does he have. As I write this it seems more like if I was the leader of a revolution and say wanted to be a "Supreme Leader", as dictator had been given a bad name, why not set up a complicated system of government where I get to be the defacto power, but have token elections to keep the plebs, surfs, and gray masses happy. Seems like a sweet setup if you ask me (unless of course you are a pleb, surf, or part of the gray masses). Of course one could probably argue this of all modern democracies.

Re:Election irregularities

[shilly]

But who *knows* they are going to win an election, except for those who fix the results? Ahmedinajad is undoubtedly popular, but he'd have to have been wildly optimistic and very badly advised to consider the election to be even in the rough vicinity of a shoo-in for him. I readily concede the possibility that Ahmedinajad won the election fair and square. But you originally asked why anyone would think that the possibility he cheated was even more likely, and I gave you the obvious reasons. I don't know why you assume I'm angry about possibility of his cheating. I just said that bad men are known to cheat to stay in power, and I implied that Ahmedinajad is a bad man.

It doesn't matter whether the election was rigged

[bersl2]

The point is that enough of the people of Iran find the results incredible and are in general angry enough about their present conditions that they have lost faith in the current government and desire significant reforms. This won't go away, ever. Even if a complete do-over of the election is performed, the fact that peaceful assembly was denied and communications have been disrupted, among many other things, makes this a moot point.

Modammad Asgari knew

[fsiefken]

tweet: unconfirmed: Mohammad Asgari,a system administrator in the interior ministry (in charge of securing election LAN) was killed #iranelection

Re:Modammad Asgari knew

[tobiah]

+1 scandalous

Proxy

[scarolan]

I did go ahead and set up a squid proxy - how do I get the IP address to Iranians who need it without the government seeing it? I've asked this question on twitter several times over the last day, and my messages seem to just get drowned out by all the other information flooding in. Is there a trusted source who can pass the server address on to Iranian users who need it?

Re:Proxy

[Nebulious]

Send your proxy to me@austinheap.com. This guy is responsible for one of the best keep list for Iranians. He's the one in the final link of the story.

Re:Proxy

[scarolan]

I did email him twice but got no response. I also tailed my squid logs all night and nobody used it. I would like to help out here but am not much use if no one can find my proxy. Oh well.

Re:Proxy

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16/cyberwar-guide-for-i.html has information about passing proxy data. Cory Doctorow, as obviously shown in his teenager targeted book "Little Brother" is a master of cyber protesting and fighting the man. Proxies just aren't that useful if you simply cut off Internet access with a shovel. The real world works in the same way it did a thousand years ago, twitter or no.
Remember Remember, the Naieveity of Novemember, the way people are dragged about and shot. I see no reason your ignorance should not be point'd out. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png

What about a better solution to counter censorship

[Marcos Eliziario]

What about using some P2P protocol with encription as the core for a new kind of Usenet specically aimed for privacy?

What if they are?

[4D6963]

So, let's say we know for sure Ahmadinedjad stole the election. Then what? What does the international community do? Sanctions? A CIA-backed coup (for once that these would be anywhere near desirable)? What do Iranians do? Overthrow him? Riot until it gets nowhere and just accept their all-out dictatorship? Serious question, I'd really like to know, and that question is never seen addressed.

Re:What if they are?

[Repossessed]

The Iranians are good at riots, they did them so well that they managed to overthrow Iran. They'll probably go with that.

Re:What if they are?

[Parthian]

It seems like we have a lot of happy westerns in the western world who have absolutely no idea what is going on and still act as if they are helping to make a "change" by setting up proxies, twitter accounts and such. You western people, please tell me, why you are supporting people, who are supporting Mousavi, who have murdered thousands of Iranians during his time as prime minister in Iran when Khamenie was president and the "supreme leader" was Khomeini?. Please tell me, why you support this thief who spent BILLIONS in election campaigns? Let's say the people riot, who is going to take control? Mousavi? Who was approved to candidate for presidency by Khamenie? They are all the same shit. People are being fooled. Regime change is the only solution, go away Islamic Republic. Please come democracy or/and constitutional monarchy.

Re:What if they are?

[4D6963]

You're giving us too much credit. Nobody gives a shit about Mousavi. I didn't know who he was until 5 days ago. What ticks us of is that someone would blatantly steal an election and get away with it, mainly when we don't even like the guy to begin with.

Re:What if they are?

[4D6963]

By the way, he's a thief for spending billions of your local currency in his campaigns? Really? Have you been paying any attention to how much money goes into an American presidential election?

Also, Mousavi "murdered" thousands of Iranians as a prime minister, with his bare hands? Or more like the way George Bush/Dick Cheney "murdered" thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Re:What if they are?

[cdrguru]

Entertainment, that is what is wanted.

It will be plenty entertaining to watch and read about the people getting killed in Iran in response to their revolting against the government. They aren't going to win anything, but it will be entertaining to watch.

That is what the West is all about. Entertainment.

Re:What if they are?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Actually, from what I've heard the rioters aren't just for Mousavi anymore. Their list of demands includes revising the Iranian constitution to grant religious freedom (not so much that they love their minorities as that they've discovered that Muslim theocracy oppresses Muslims too), dissolving all "organs of repression", and release of all political prisoners. All sounds like big, good changes to me.

Re:What if they are?

[mjwx]

Their list of demands includes revising the Iranian constitution to grant religious freedom (not so much that they love their minorities as that they've discovered that Muslim theocracy oppresses Muslims too)

Here's the thing that most slashdotters don't get about Iran, they are not just Muslims, previous to the Islamic revolution in 79 a large portion of the population was Zoroastrian and Baha'i. The US/British backed Shah was so bad that when the Islamic revolutionaries offered them another choice they jumped at it. Unfortunately the Ayatollah set about suppressing Zoroastrians and exiled all Baha'i who didn't convert. This is why the main Baha'i complex is in Israel (as a side note, every Israeli Jew I've met has said the most oppressed people in the middle east are the Persians).

Persian Iranians are amongst the most secular and accepting (of other religions) people I've met, even the Muslims. Granted I've only ever met the ones that have moved to Australia.

From what I've been told this has ignited a lot of Racial tensions in Iran, the Ayatollah and ruling council have set up a separate police force made almost exclusively from non-Persians (mostly Palestinian and Lebanese migrants) for the purposes of guaranteeing that the government has a force to use against its own people. The government will keep the Iranian army from being involved as they consist of mostly ethnic Persians and will not fire on their own people. Protesters have taken to killing non-Persians in some parts of Tehran in reprisal for suppressing the protests. Disclaimer: This last paragraph is third hand info (given to me by my Persian mate).

Re:What if they are?

[4D6963]

Hell yeah, Tricky Dick would have completed his two terms without a bump if it wasn't for his awkwardness and unlikeability.

Re:What if they are?

[Parthian]

Who do you want to take the power then if Ahmadinejad leaves? Mousavi who is worse than Ahmadinejad? People have been stealing elections since 1979 in Iran - where were you then? Where were you when Islamic Republic were founded in Iran and started suppressing the Iranian people?

Re:What if they are?

[Parthian]

Apparently you have not followed the Iranian presidential debates as I have where Ahmadinejad exposed what a thief Mousavi is. Mousavi was the prime minister and ignored the executions and sometimes went as far as ordering executions. He did not resign or anything, he approved it too officially.

Re:What if they are?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Here's the thing that most slashdotters don't get about Iran, they are not just Muslims, previous to the Islamic revolution in 79 a large portion of the population was Zoroastrian and Baha'i.

I do in fact get that. Iran is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in the Middle East.

From what I've been told this has ignited a lot of Racial tensions in Iran, the Ayatollah and ruling council have set up a separate police force made almost exclusively from non-Persians (mostly Palestinian and Lebanese migrants) for the purposes of guaranteeing that the government has a force to use against its own people.

I can confirm this. Those aren't "migrants", though, they're members of Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas. Yet another reason I want to see this revolution succeed.

I'm going to go listen to "Yallah Yah Nasrallah" now.

Re:What if they are?

[T Murphy]

I don't know what problems there are with religious freedom in Iran, but I am aware there are Christians in their parliament. I wouldn't claim that it is a free country, but I just don't think people should assume you have to be Muslim to live in Iran. That said, I'm sure someone more informed could do a better job explaining.

Re:What if they are?

[4D6963]

Oh well if Ahmadinejad said it it must be true. I mean why would he lie or distort the truth?

Re:What if they are?

[4D6963]

Who do you want to take the power then if Ahmadinejad leaves?

Whoever people actually vote for. That's the concept of democracy that you don't seem to grasp.

Re:What if they are?

[mjwx]

I do in fact get that. Iran is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in the Middle East.

I wasn't trying to single you out or call you uninformed. I'm just sick of seeing uninformed /.ers preaching about how evil $FLAVOUR_OF_THE_MONTH is without actually having an understanding of it. It was aimed at the general /. populace rather then a specific person.

I'm guessing by your name you're Jewish or Israeli, most of the Israeli Jew's I know here in Australia would call the Persians the most oppressed people in the ME.

I can confirm this. Those aren't "migrants", though, they're members of Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas. Yet another reason I want to see this revolution succeed.

I can neither confirm nor deny. Most of my info comes from a Persian mate at work, so its pretty much third hand info.

Re:What if they are?

[Parthian]

Because I also listened to what Mousavi for example said for his defense and it made no sense. Mousavi also has a bad record which makes give it more credit. Mousavi-gang hardly managed to "bust" Ahmadinejad in any way in these debates either.

Re:What if they are?

[Parthian]

Shows how much you know. Who is going to monitor the elections? What about those who have power and money enough to grab the power in middle of this? Your democracy is fake and an illusion, your government has fooled you and it's people with your attitude who destroy nations and peoples lives. Elections in Iran!? A theocracy who murders people for their beliefs? Torture people for their beliefs? Stoning etc. Just no.

Re:What if they are?

[Parthian]

blahblah.. the Shah was this, the Shah was that yet I can't say how. What about next time you accuse a good leader who wanted his country to become something, you say why you accuse that person? People was used in the "revolution" by western powers because the Shah was making Iran way too independant and not letting you western people continue exploiting Iran. (by, four doubling the oil prices, for example) Either way, only thing you got right is those Lebanse/Palestians attacking people because they don't feel anything.

Re:It doesn't matter whether the election was rigg

[QuantumG]

Ya, that's sorta the point of democracy. You have to have enough faith in the system to tolerate peaceful protest, otherwise you're just a military dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. But most democracies are.....

The biggest statistical red flags

[Anonymous Coward]

There were several of the more liberal districts around Tehran where Pat Buchanan won.

Re:It doesn't matter whether the election was rigg

[Parthian]

Please note people are using this opportunity to riot against the government as whole and not only because of the election results. Let's say the people riot, who is going to take control if Ahmadinejad is overthrown? Mousavi? Who was approved to candidate for presidency by Khamenie? They are all the same shit. People are being fooled. Regime change is the only solution, go away Islamic Republic. Please come democracy or/and constitutional monarchy.

Apparently more than the Administration

[Shivetya]

whose comments can be summarized as "We care for the people of Iran provided it does not offend the leadership of Iran"

Really, when are the new guys in charge here going to get it, not everyone likes you, not everyone cares if your being nice, and that line in the sand is forever movable.

The sad story is, look how most of the world is reacting, they could roll tanks over people in a square and probably get the 2016 Olympics.

Re:Slashdot

[uassholes]

There is an article in "firehose" which could possibly be related:

http://slashdot.org/submission/1021265/Grassroots-PetitionOnlineorg-taken-down-by-DDos

It seems peitiononline.com is under ddos attack. What I thought was interesting is that their number two most popular petition is
Investigation into crimes committed by Ali Khamenei

Some great photos

[cakeypower]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html

Re:Some great photos

[Reservoir Penguin]

"Peaceful" protesters setting buses and banks on fire. Iran is a poor country and these hip looking urban people look like spoilt kids of the Iranian elites. Ironic isn't it?

Change your system.

[joocemann]

there are predictions... and then there is the actual count. If they don't have a way they trust for counting and storing the ballots... well... the winners are those that count the votes.

A good working voting system wouldn't have this kind of issue to even talk about.

Interesting, but pointless

[cdrguru]

When an election is held in a country where the real power of the government is in the hands of the clerics rather than the so-called "president", it is pretty meaningless.

When the people go to vote and there can be an armed person standing there suggesting the right way to vote - and who is to say that didn't happen in some areas - the idea of a "free" election is rather confused.

When the votes are counted by the government - the government ruled not by the president but by the clerics, why would anyone suspect the counting would not result in the winner being exactly who the clerics want?

Some people in Iran may wish for a free election, but they didn't get one. They haven't had one since before 1979. I seriously doubt they are going to get one anytime soon.

Re:Interesting, but pointless

[Rockoon]

I have to question the "real power is with the clerics" arguement as it pertains to the "rigged election" arguement.

Seems to me that if the president didnt have significant power then there would be no reason to rig the election by those with said "real power." That the "real power" would only allow the rigging of the seat if there were significant benefits to doing so.

So I suspect that while the presedent has not demonstrated real power so far in the past, it is only because they have always been in the pockets of others, and that it is apparently very possible for the people with "real power" to lose it during an election if their puppet isn't chosen.

Finally, from my point of view anyone who can get hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets clearly has some real power even if they do not hold any office. Being a leader doesnt require an office! Just ask Malcom X or Martin Luther King.

Re:Camel Jockeys are Liars and Cheats??

[sbeckstead]

Wow pretty much why the "Camel Jockeys" dislike us so much. Mealy mouthed cowards here in the good Ol US. Put your name behind it and say it again moron.

The true achievement

[bugs2squash]

was getting this result without Diebold's help. That's old-school.

Re:more protests with no info...

[sbeckstead]

Hey apparently we in LA go into the streets and trash the neighborhood here just because a stupid Basketball team won a championship. WTF!

Re:What about a better solution to counter censors

[Eli Gottlieb]

It's called Tor. Their website even has a Farsi translation.

Re:What about a better solution to counter censors

[Marcos Eliziario]

Yeah,

I know about tor, but I was thinking of something more specific to distributing a hierarchy of news and to leverage a vastly bigger network of nodes. Not a solution for the whole problem of anonimity and privacy on all protocols, not trying to be something for everyone, But just some sort of NNTP over a vastly bigger network than tor (That is, Bit Torrent), using the existing tracker structure to keep the hierarchy of news groups and distributing them.

Actually right now I am reading the NNTP RFC to see if I the idea is really worth a look.

They're also forbidden...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government.

According to a close friend who is a Muslim (of a different madab), they have been ruled as forbidden by the Shia version of Sharia law. Variant on burning the enemy. Big no-no. (This would apply to using them in a mutual-assured-destruction threat as well.)

Presuming that's correct and the government is actually following the ruling, it would lend some credence to the claims that their nuclear program is just for power and other miscellaneous non-weapon tech. (Which they have a right to - and the US has an obligation to AID them in pursuing - under the Nonproliferation Treaty.)

you can get involved as an individual

[circletimessquare]

you are correct that the usa getting involved as a nation right now would definitely be poorly perceived

but there is nothing wrong with americans, or brazilians, or indians, or japanese, for that matter, as individuals, donating cpu cycles, donating money, and otherwise getting involved with iranian expats and iranian organizations

getting involved as an individual to fight for progressive change in another country has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism. its simple progressive agitation. an instinct, rightfully so, that does recognize national boundaries

Re:WHOOO CARES?

[couchslug]

"Iran is run by a central council of idiots anyway. Who cares what puppet they stretch over their hand?"

It's comforting to pretend that the new puppet and the people themselves will have a different FOREIGN AFFAIRS agenda.

No problem of time

[Capsaicin]

Iran uses paper ballots. In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes. In this case, if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours. That's just not plausible.

As someone who lives in a country which uses paper ballots, I find no lack of plausibility in the speed of the result. We usually know the result of the election within 4-6 hours of the booths closing. Although it takes longer to get final figures (especially if recounts are triggered) it would have to be an extremely close election to have to wait for the final figure to know who won (and indeed for the loser to conceed).

Given no significant statistical problem has been identified, and given that independant telephone polling prior to the election indicated that A'jad enjoyed a 2:1 lead over his rival, the most parsimonious explanation might simply be that A'jad actaully does enjoy the overwhelming support of the Iranian population.

Until such time that some plausible evidence of irregularities is presented, that should be the presumption we work on. The question of whether we personally want A'jad to have won or not, ought not to colour our intepretation of the results.

Re:No problem of time

[Capsaicin]

There's a difference between having enough ballots counted to make a statistical prediction of who will win and the ones running the election officially declaring a winner.

Please re-read the last 7 words you quoted.

Mod parent up.

[goombah99]

The study did not reject the null hypothesis ( that the results are not rigged.)

The strongest pattern observed was that in 2009 Amadi-nejad (sp?) did the best in districts he did the best in 2005. (no surprise). The authors note that to the extent that prediction for 2009 deviated from a model based on 2005, then his deviations were always above the extrapolated line. The thought here is that if the model were perfect then the deivations should be unbiased and thus depending on their distributions nature have about as much mass or events above and below the line-- more or less. But to have them all above the line is, assuming the model predicts well, surprising.

But this assumes the model predicts well.

Other people have noted that with an 85% turnout, common sense suggests this should favor the challenger. that is, angry people are more motivated to turn out. But while perhaps compelling it's not a hard rule. Iceland had a recent election where something like 70% turned out and the incumbent won. Likewise, even obama did not win by a margin anywhere close to the level of excess turnout. So it's quite clear that excessive turnout is not all favoring the challenger. Perhaps an enhanced fraction but by no means all.

It's also worth noting that 3 weeks prior to the election A was leading by double digits in some unscientific polls. In those (non rigorous) polls about 50-60% where undecided to declined to state. so there was a large latent swing vote. But again it's not reasonable to assume that all of the swing vote would go to the challenger. Hence A's early lead of committed voters would give him a suggested advantage. Admittedly the poll is not scientific, probably did not poll women as much, and I'd assume there's intimidation as well for people to respond honestly.

This is not to say that A won. Not at all. It is to say that proving that A lost is a hard sell and should not be based on statistics. What should be learned here is that in order for the winner to govern he has to convince the losers they lost. And you can't do that by denying poll observers to the challenger, having the incumbent's office too tightly coupled to the voting authorities, and then doing some jackass stunt like reporting results before the polls close (assuming that allegation is true-- there's some doubt on that.)

SO now they losers are not convinced they lost. They might be right, they mught be wrong, but the important thing is they are not convinced.

These same reasons are why electronic voting is a bad idea as well I note.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Lars T.]

Other people have noted that with an 85% turnout, common sense suggests this should favor the challenger. that is, angry people are more motivated to turn out. But while perhaps compelling it's not a hard rule. Iceland had a recent election where something like 70% turned out and the incumbent won.

Pardon? Iceland recently had an election, yes. But turnout was 85.1% compared to last election's 83.6% - not a big change (and lower than the turnout in the election before 87.5% were there was no change in government). Yes, the winner was the incumbent - on a technicality, because the coalition only came in power a few weeks before after the previous government coalition, (close) winners of the last election (by 1 seat) had resigned after massive public protests.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Admiral Ag]

Like you I just don't see the evidence for proof of fraud.

It seems to me that westerners look at Ahmadinejad and see a guy who says outrageous things, dresses like a pedophile, and has a face that resembles a novelty money box. No wonder people here find it hard to believe that he won.

This whole thing reminds me of the Ukraine mess. That was supposed to be a flowering of democracy, but it turned out to be foreign meddling in the domestic affairs of a country that has become more or less ungovernable as a result.

Twitter

[Dexter Herbivore]

I still just don't get it, since when did Twitter become a tool for political change?

Re:Twitter

[Cro Magnon]

Good communications has always been a tool for political change. And in Iran, Twitter is the best communication they have, scary as that may be.

Set your twitter time zone

[ethana2]

to that of Iran, to make it harder for the Iranian government to filter tweets from their citizens.

STFU about this already

[dave562]

It's amazing how easily people are manipulated by the media. I'm going to paste some accurate analysis from Stratfor about the reality of politics in Iran, and why as Westerners we are getting a distorted picture (above and beyond the fact that the CIA would like to see the government of Iran overthrown).

----

Stratfor

WESTERN MISCONCEPTIONS MEET IRANIAN REALITY

By George Friedman

In 1979, when we were still young and starry-eyed, a revolution took place in Iran. When I asked experts what would happen, they divided into two camps.

The first group of Iran experts argued that the Shah of Iran would certainly survive, that the unrest was simply a cyclical event readily manageable by his security, and that the Iranian people were united behind the Iranian monarch's modernization program. These experts developed this view by talking to the same Iranian officials and businessmen they had been talking to for years -- Iranians who had grown wealthy and powerful under the shah and who spoke English, since Iran experts frequently didn't speak Farsi all that well.

The second group of Iran experts regarded the shah as a repressive brute, and saw the revolution as aimed at liberalizing the country. Their sources were the professionals and academics who supported the uprising -- Iranians who knew what former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini believed, but didn't think he had much popular support. They thought the revolution would result in an increase in human rights and liberty. The experts in this group spoke even less Farsi than the those in the first group.

Misreading Sentiment in Iran

Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading -- because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy -- people Americans didn't speak to because they couldn't. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.

Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that anyone who listens to rock 'n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.

There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand -- but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.

Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would

Re:What about a better solution to counter censors

[Eli Gottlieb]

In that case for security I'd take a look at OneSwarm, a backwards-compatible friend-to-friend BitTorrent peer. Open source, runs on all 3 major operating systems.

writing recognition machines to help count votes?

[athowell]

I was browsing http://news.google.com/ and in one article (can't find the link now) it said hand writing recognition machines were used to help count the votes unlike previous years. These machines were supposedly only available in the larger cities.

Iran isn't stuck in the 6th century

[carlzum]

The GP is a dumb-ass troll, but the comment offers insight into a popular and misguided sentiment among Americans. Iranians, and Iraqis for that matter, aren't backward Muslim extremists hell-bent on spreading their ideology. Despite major political corruption and constant meddling by Cold War powers, until the 1970s Iran was everything the West wants it to be today. Talk to Iranian ex-patriots, they embrace democratic principals, they're well educated, and they have a progressive view of how their faith fits in with the modern world. Just like terrorism fuels negative attitudes towards Muslims in the West, supporting tyrannical leaders empowers anti-Western leaders in the Middle East.

Even today, the West's "allies" are rules by kings and military dictators. Support the democratic process and those brave enough to fight for it. If they choose Muslim law, that's their choice. Put your energy into supporting fair elections and freedom of expression instead imposing your will and a better government will blossom. Just imagine the backlash if a Middle East country dictated who was elected as President of the US.

Enough already

[bgspence]

Given the state of instability, it is time to stick with the counts they have.

There's not enough time for a recount or even a count of the millions of hand written ballots.

At least thats what we said via our Supreme Court/Leader in our 2000 election.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh my fucking God. Are you seriously blaming the Jews for Iran's stolen election and revolution?

Same in France

[aepervius]

We don't need that much time, we all hand count the ballot (actually vonlonteer are asked during the day from normal voters). By the time it closes, we have enough people to count it within 30m-1h. A few guy are there to explain us what is a blank vote/null vote, and that's it. Usually by the time I am home the result are there. And there are 60+ million people in France so probably 30/40 millions voters too... Same order of magnitude as Iran. There is nothing wrong with having results within a few hours of the closure of all polling place. Really the alughable is that some western place can need so much time (a half day!?) to gather ballot data, when hand counting can be so quick.

NO, not THE people of Iran

[aepervius]

Only a minority find the result incredible, a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless. The vast majority are in their home. We don't know what they think or care.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[terjeber]

Some seriously retarded people blame the Jews for everything. They are just wired that way. Probably due to repeated hammer blows (delivered by daddy) to their heads as they grew up.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[h4rm0ny]

Ignoring the post you replied to, are you sure that the election was "stolen". On the whole, the West would really, really have liked Mousavi to have won. They would really, really have liked his defeat to be the result of fraud. But truthfully, Ahmadinejad is very popular with the common Iranian. He provided insurance for millions of women who work at home. He has carried out a lot of things that have benefited the common Iranian. And when Iranians see the US invading neighbouring countries, threatening their own country both verbally in diplomatic channels and through sending armed forces scouting through their waters, someone who is perceived as standing up to the US is, rightly or wrongly, well thought of for that.

Mousavi is popular mainly with better off Iranians who believe they stand to benefit more from taking a more pacifying approach to the US (some would say submissive). It was, it now seems, wishful thinking that he would win and it seems that many commentators are now levelling the accusation of fraud because that suits the purposes of much of the West. But we see that the supporters of Mousavi taking to the streets aren't receiving popular support (and more blatantly, this is taking place only in the capital - the rest of the country seems content with the result which is also supports the election results) and in fact these supporters in many cases have initiated the violence. (The Independent paper in the UK gave a full page interview to one of Mousavi's supporters who, when you managed to overlook the bias, was praising her fellows for managing to have set a bus on fire and pretty much said that it didn't matter whether Ahmadinejad got more votes because he shouldn't be President and Mousavi should).

The behaviour of the Iranian police has been brutal (predictably) and Ahmadinejad remains horrible on certain human rights issues. But as far as I can see, it looks like he won (and earlier Western reports grudgingly admitted this before they realised they could get away with overt suggestions of fraud). And so it is essentially Mousavi's supporters who are a smaller faction trying to undermine democracy with violence. If they get anywhere (and whatever you think of the GP, covert Western support or promises of support for his followers is extremely plausible), then it would just push Iran back to a more totalitarian state because they certainly wont win whatever the West would like to pretend. They don't have the support of the common people and, quite frankly, they appear to have lost the election.

Mousavi - good or bad (and he's no angel, just more amenable to Western interests), you can't just allow democracy when it elects the people you want elected.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[SwellJoe]

Probably due to repeated hammer blows (delivered by daddy) to their heads as they grew up.

Don't you mean "delivered by Jews"? Jews are always hitting children over the head with hammers, don't you know.

Re:Lot of Smoke About a "Rigged" Potemkin Election

[Lars T.]

In 1979, after the Iranian people overthrow the despot whom the Americans supported, the Iranians immediately established a brutal, authoritarian theocracy.

Because the despot whom the Americans supported had previously crushed on all opposition until the gang around Khomeini was the strongest, and such became the obvious leader of the opposition. After the opposition had won the revolution, the strongest party then turned on the others. Not because it had the majority behind them, but because it had violent force.

Re:What about a better solution to counter censors

[Asclepius99]

There are three major operating systems? This is bigger news than the elections!

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Richard_at_work]

I don't agree with the GP, but people need to stop immediately assuming any mention of Israel equates to Judaism. You can talk about Israel without ever intending to discuss Judaism. Yes, even when being critical about things.

Re:It doesn't matter whether the election was rigg

[Reservoir Penguin]

Someone up the thread said a very smart thing. Mosavi won the young Internet savvy crowd. Ahmadinejad won the rest of this relatively poor country. I've seen this happen in Russia twice over the last 10 years. Pro-western liberal reformers easily won every Internet poll. Yet ask a random Russian on the street what they think of the liberals and you are likely to get spit on and kicked. Populist Putin with his "Resurgent Russia" national idea easily rules the minds of an overwhelming majority of Russians. Internet is great for self-education, expanding your mind, getting to know people of different backgrounds and opinions. But it also makes it exceptionally easy to shut off into a comfortable little social circle where everyone thinks the same as you, so when IRL election results hit you, you are left wondering - Who are these people who voted for Ahmadinejad??? I mean everyone I KNOW voted for the other guy! Must be fraud!

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[hxnwix]

You're paraphrasing Iranian government propaganda. Do you really believe that the west is behind the protests? That's just an excuse for opening fire on protests and silencing dissent.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[h4rm0ny]

The greatest trick the Israeli government ever pulled was to convince the world that to be Jewish is to support Israel and that to criticise Israel is to be anti-semitic. There are plenty of jews who either object to the Israeli government's behaviour or simply don't care about it. People are not their ethnicity and nobody gets to speak on your behalf because you share some ancestory with them.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[sumdumass]

Hmm.. And here I thought it was just puppies and kittens. Well, I guess your right, Here is proof, the Hebrew Hammer

Election Doesn't Matter

[georgenh16]

The election doesn't matter anyways.

The president is really just a figurehead - the Ayatollah rules the country.

The west is being manipulated as well.

[jbssm]

I also have serious doubts that the election in Iran was completely free, but in the west we are being manipulated by the communication.

I was curious about Moussavi and I checked his background before the elections. The wikipedia article about him was quite detailed. Moussavi was quite a dark character, prime minister since 1981 to 1988, arrived in the power by directly supporting Komeni massacre of thousands of revolution dissidents (with many references to being involved in those same massacres as well). During his mandate as prime minister and according to the NGO's acting in the region at the time was responsible for strictnening the sharia law (this is, increased the penalties to whoever broke the sharia laws) and implemented the most restrictive measures to free speech since the revolution. At the end of it's mandate, ordered the execution of 30000 dissidents of the regimen (in 1988).

Suddenly after the Western media starter covering the manifestations in Iran, all the dark passages of Moussavi past disappeared from his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi

Seems that someone is very interested in covering for Moussavi bloody past ... probably because he may be a sanguinary ... but he is probably a sanguinary that will be subservient to the west.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[h4rm0ny]

There's no excuse for opening fire on protestors whether they are backed by foreign powers or not. But in answer to your question of whether I believe the West is behind the protests, the answer is a detailed 'no.' That wasn't the thrust of what I was saying. I was just illustrating how extremely the West would like to see Mousavi in power, motivations for casting doubt on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule and reasons why he is popular.

With regard to Western involvement in the protests, I was simply cautioning the GP not to dismiss such as conspiracy theories rather than saying there was such involvement this time. There are a number of proven examples of Western interference in Iran's political processes (let alone other Middle Eastern countries). The most notable of which is US and UK's very active involvement in a coup there in 1953 that deposed the democratically elected ruler in favour of a brutal dictator who would support their strategic and oil interests. A dictatorship that lasted 26 years incidentally with US support.

In this instance I have seen no evidence of outside involvement in organising the protests. However, it's extremely naive to think that Mousavi and his allies haven't had ongoing contact with Western powers. He is a former Prime Minister of Iran - of course he has contacts and diplomatic ties abroad and will have discussed intentions should he have won the election. Iran's relationship to the USA is one of the platforms on which he campaigned. So active involvement in this instance - not that I'm aware of. My worry is that seeing the sudden media war on the legitimacy of the election (and the Western media did as they were told back in 1953, too), is that the ground may be being prepared for active involvement now and that is what we're seeing.

So again, I never said that the West was behind the protests. As far as I can tell. the West's role so far is merely that of wealthy bridegroom that Mousavi and his followers hope to court. But it is wrong to dismiss claims of outside involvement just because it couldn't happen. And it is wrong at this point to, as the GP did, state baldly that the election was stolen because there is little reason to suppose that, the people saying so have a strong reason to want it to be so and there is good reason based on Ahmadinejad's popularity to think the results are legitimate.

I hope that clears up what I was saying and that we now see eye to eye again.

Regards,
H.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[h4rm0ny]

Congrats.. you are my first foe, because to are a blathering idiot.. This whole situation has nothing to do with non-Iranian politics.. it is a 3 way fight between the conservative clerics (Khamenei), the conservative seculars (Ahmadinejad), and the young secular movement who wants actual democracy and who views Mousavi as the figurehead to that end. Nobody has a clue how it's going to turn out or who has the stronger stomach, but this is an extremely serious situation... and neither the US nor Europe has any sway at the moment

Why do you want to make me your foe? The situation does have a lot to do with non-Iranian politics. One of the things that Mousavi campaigned on was closer ties with the USA and engagement with Barak Obama. This was explicitly stated as his position as part of his campaigning. A different relationship with the West is one of the things he has been selling himself to the wealthier Iranians on because a lot of them identify with the Western lifestyle and wealth. And it's very naive to think that Mousavi hasn't had some discussions with US representatives in case he won. Non-Iranian politics is a very important factor in all of this.

I hope you'll reconsider whether you want to avoid dialogue with me in the future (presuming that foes are modded down in your filters as is default).

Regards,
H.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[FriendlyLurker]

many commentators are now levelling the accusation of fraud because that suits the purposes of much of the West...
so it is essentially Mousavi's supporters who are a smaller faction trying to undermine democracy with violence. If they get anywhere (and whatever you think of the GP, covert Western support or promises of support for his followers is extremely plausible), then it would just push Iran back to a more totalitarian state because they certainly wont win whatever the West would like to pretend. They don't have the support of the common people and, quite frankly, they appear to have lost the election.
Mousavi - good or bad (and he's no angel, just more amenable to Western interests), you can't just allow democracy when it elects the people you want elected.

In light of past US and British government/corporate behavior when it comes to securing rights to Iranian oil (i.e. Operation Ajax), the many fraud claims being thrown about reek of self-interest propaganda similar to that used in the plot to depose Mosaddeq - which any way you slice it was a very evil deed to secure oil rights. Anyway, today there is to much shit flying about (even more than in the Bush in Florida 2000 elections, at least on the international news circuit) to really know what the truth is. Best to step back and look at the big picture and Iran's history time line to put the current propaganda "news" into the context it deserves.

Look at Russia

[reporter]

An apologist for the Iranians wrote, "Because the despot whom the Americans supported had previously crushed on all opposition until the gang around Khomeini was the strongest, and such became the obvious leader of the opposition. After the opposition had won the revolution, the strongest party then turned on the others. Not because it had the majority behind them, but because it had violent force."

For 70 years, the Kremlin systematically exterminated people who opposed communism. The Kremlin "crushed ... all opposition [to communism] until the gang [supporting communism] was the strongest". Yet, in 1991, the Russian people removed communist government. Today, the government of Russia is seriously flawed, but the overwhelming majority of Russians do not support re-establishing the communist government.

The Iranians are radically and uniquely different from the Russians, the Vietnamese, and the Eastern Europeans. The Iranians are 100% responsible for creating a brutal Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Re:Look at Russia

[Lars T.]

An apologist for American aggression world-wide wrote .... well read his blurb himself, I stopped after his stupid beginning.

Uhm, missing the obvious here

[tarlss]

Uhmmm...to the trolls saying it's possible that Ahmedinejad's win was possibly legitimate, did you not see all those people in the streets? You know, the ones getting shot in the face and tear gassed? This is the biggest protest in Iranian history since the 1979 revolution. Just because you're all fired up with white liberal guilt doesn't mean the rest of us don't see what's going on.

These liberals lost the 2004 elections fair and square to Ahmedinejad, and were he to have won fairly, they wouldn't be out on the streets risking DEATH. Snarky mathematical countermands aren't going to silence them anymore than gunfire. Comparisons to Bush's wins in 2004 only highlight your white liberal guilt...just because the US fairly elected someone unpopular, doesn't mean that things are alright in Iran. Let's not forget that Bush neither had the Basij intimidating voters, and that there was no direct, explicit power structure in charge of him and counting the votes.

Honestly? It doesn't even matter now. The Iranian people have seen what their government does to its' own citizens. It's not a third world country. Even farmers and merchantmen can see that shooting and beating nonviolent protestors is wrong. Bush may have done a lot of bad things, but he never turned his dogs on American citizens enmasse like this.

Re:Uhm, missing the obvious here

[jbssm]

Well, the right comparison would be with the USA presidential elections of 2000, not 2004 where some higher powers in US forbid the recounting of the votes (if, it's such a democratic country and if there was plenty of time until the new president actually would take charge and if you had nothing to hide, what was the problem of recounting the votes?)

And yes, Bush didn't turn out the dogs against the people in the manifestations when he was 1st elected president ... but Nixon did, against peaceful students (they were not even protesters at the manifestation) made in Ohio, America when Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia.

All in all, in my country we have a saying: "If you have a glass roof, don't throw stones at your neighbor."

Re:Uhm, missing the obvious here

[Chris Burke]

You are absolutely correct. The validity of the election results is not the relevant issue anymore. Whats relevant is that the Iranian people saw how their government acted before and after, how they announced the results early, how they silenced all opposition media, how they arrested opposition leaders, how they sent riot police into the streets to battle their own people. As a result this is becoming a movement that goes well beyond whether Ahmadinejad was really elected or Mosavi's platform of modest reforms. It's becoming a cultural battle. While I know I'm going way out on a limb here, in a way it feels like East Germany in the year before the wall came down, when the people saw the brutality of their own government against them, and refused to sit down and accept it any more. If the protests go on, and the government's response remains as violent, then the cause will only reinforce itself.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Philip K Dickhead]

I said he was an agent of Israel. His Jewishness is indicative of alignment and disposition - not 'evilness'.

Swift to Judge

[BrightSpark]

Regardless of Iran's internal political system and electoral fixing and judging it unworthy, we must look in our own back yard before hefting those bricks of implaccable disbelief. I recall an hung election not long back in the good old US of A. where thousands of poor and downtrodden were scrubbed off the electoral rolls with the click of a contractors keyboard. Then there were all those discrepencies in Florida, Fox declaring victory for Gore, only to be told "recant, recant". Just happened to be in a state run by the soon-to-be-president's brother. Perhaps these things are OK for mature countries in the land of the free. Hmm.. I had better check my English Dictionary and see if there was another entry under "democracy" that I may have missed.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Philip K Dickhead]

Troll Tuesday.

Complete success.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Eli Gottlieb]

Honestly, I do feel pretty sure the election was stolen. By my estimation the most likely scenario had actually been a run-off election between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi. Instead Ahmedinejad wins by a landslide before the votes could actually have been counted with suspiciously consistent voting patterns. Even if he could have won legitimately, it appears that his government falsified the election to make him win more easily. The people have a right to feel angry about that and a right to protest that. Fraud is fraud, even when the candidate that won because of fraud would have won or gotten into the run-offs anyway.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Eli Gottlieb]

The GP claimed that Ahmedinejad was a secret Jew and an agent of the Israeli government. That's as anti-Semitic as it is anti-Muslim to claim that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and an agent of al Qaeda.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Eli Gottlieb]

So even after what h4rmony said you still think that all Jews support Israel by default? Humph, I wish.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[spacefiddle]

(The Independent paper in the UK gave a full page interview to one of Mousavi's supporters who, when you managed to overlook the bias, was praising her fellows for managing to have set a bus on fire and pretty much said that it didn't matter whether Ahmadinejad got more votes because he shouldn't be President and Mousavi should).

I respectfully submit that this is the bias - one we've seen in America for years, that comedians have even based routines around. Repeatedly. It is the choice of spokesperson, made by the media, that is the bias.

Come on, THINK a minute! Do you really think this bus-burning vote-ignoring supporter is the only person they spoke to that day? The reporter should be fired, if they just took the words of the first person who ran up screaming to them as The News. No. They took many statements, spoke to many people, and the reporter and editor chose what to present. Simple as that.

Consider also the bet-hedging of "reporting that Ahmadinejad won." What they really reported, you'll notice, is "official results." You know, the ones endorsed by the government. Because the wire can't stand to stay silent for 5 seconds until it actually knows more, anyway; and reports, at any given instant, as if right now is the absolute truth of the matter. Reuters' story was my favorite: Official results are in, the incumbent won, the losers are protesting, the UN calls for the will of the people to be respected. Taken together, it sounds like an endorsement of the official results, doesn't it? When you say "the winner" and "the loser," you are stating facts. You are reinforcing that perception. Makes the opposition sound like "we lost, let's riot" - as your bus-burning spokesperson further reinforces.

"It was crazy as hell!" makes better camera time for the spectacle then "Well, I believe the geopolitical ramifications of this are... hey, where's the cameraman going? Burning, you say?"

IMHO, i think there's a Cheney-like extreme right group that would prefer Mousavi to have lost. An uncooperative, defiant Iran would be easier to demonize.

Ya think?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> "the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent
> cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis."

Holy crap, someone thunk!

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[spacefiddle]

indicative of alignment and disposition

Lawful Neutral? Chaotic Guiltridden? Level 12 Maccabee, Hammer +1, +5 vs. Elephants..?

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Dr. Evil]

The police raided Tehran university, beat, robbed and killed students who were speaking their mind or taking pictures. This was not unexpected. Not at all unexpected. It already happened before, it's why the university was gated and controlled by private security.

When people live in fear of being beaten or killed for kissing or holding hands, and everyone knows that they can bribe the police to get off the charges, it doesn't create a proud society, it creates unrest.

I don't think the election has to do with foreign politics at all. It's too dangerous to express disenting opinions about foreign politics in Iran. Nobody gets foreign news without feeling watched. People just want to live their lives and not be in fear of being attacked by the government.

I think the election was rigged, but the results might have been the same without the rigging.

I think this rigging was a catalyst to get a lot of people who were afraid, working way too hard and dealing with difficult living conditions in Tehran to stand up together and protest the terrible behaviour of the government and the religious police.

The police are killing and beating people, the media is cut off and people are afraid to use their real names when speaking to people outside the country.

And you think they're just poor losers? People are really f-ing scared that if they stop protesting, the police will silently round up identified people and beat them or kill them.

I have no idea how it could be fixed or how this will end. This could be a civil war or a bloodbath which will result in the entrenchment of an extreme, oppressive power. If members of the provinces could see this as an improvement in the Islamic revolution, then maybe the police would lose their will to enforce the orders of their corrupt leaders. No doubt, they're scared too.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Admiral Ag]

A lot of that is bollocks, but I would not be at all surprised about the Israeli groups doing the twitter thing, given some of the obvious manipulation of social sites by similar groups in the past and the unpleasantness of the GIYUS thing.

That's all about Hashemi Rafsanjani

[mebrahim]

First of all let me tell you I'm Iranian and I live in Tehran.

I guess I know why a great deal of new votes are in favor of Ahmadinejad.

For years many of Iranians have been growing hatred against Hashemi Rafsanjani's family in their hearts. They thought all the government is doing the same injustice to them, so some people didn't vote at all.

Family of Hashemi was too powerful to be stopped, so no official effort against them happened until 10th election when Ahmadinejad directly attacked Hashemi's family on TV. Those who didn't vote because they thought the whole government is pirate (!) now voted for Ahmadinejad hoping he will stop Hashemi's family and the like. I think this was a very important factor.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Garrett Fox]

"And so it is essentially Mousavi's supporters who are a smaller faction trying to undermine democracy with violence."

Which reminds me again of just how big a difference there is between "democracy" and "freedom". Not that having a council of imams screening your candidates by law makes for much of a true democracy anyway, but the point is that it's quite possible to oppose "the will of the people" in the name of human rights and preventing nuclear war.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Garrett Fox]

Interesting decision to use a phrase that usually refers to "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled," and to replace "the devil" with "Israel".

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[skarphace]

And the greatest thing the totalitarian, racist and violent political ideology called "catholicism" ever did was convince people it's a religion. Said ideology controls a few dozen states at least, and it does so through oppression, killings and war (which is why it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy).

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Eli Gottlieb]

The thing is, I don't think anyone would call it servile to American interests for an Iranian leader to want to avoid a nuclear war. That's just enlightened self-interest.

Re:Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter

[Eli Gottlieb]

The greatest trick the Israeli government ever pulled was to convince the world that to be Jewish is to support Israel and that to criticise Israel is to be anti-semitic.

And yet they never actually pulled it. Seriously, I thought you read the stuff the OP linked to. It was clearly and obviously antisemitic bull that merely elided some of its accusations so as to avoid accusations of antisemitism and hide itself behind a shield of professed anti-Zionism. It accuses Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of operating for the Israeli government on no greater basis than its own hypothesis that he has a Jewish ancestor. Now, when the implication made is Jewish ancestor -> secretly working for Israel to undermine another country, that's antisemitism.

Re:Camel Jockeys are Liars and Cheats??

[Jimmy_Slimmy]

A moron, but not a complete moron.