US has a 2 party system...Iraq has 156

[transplant99]

So many choices!!!

I guess the "instilled by Bush and friends government" argument takes a big hit with this nes.

Seriously, how could they possiby influence the outcome with this many different parties all on the ballot?

Will be interesting to watch.

[Table 5]

something tells me the bush backed group will still win though...

[octothorp]

So theoretically, you could form the government with less than 1% of the vote?!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by transplant99@Nov 23 2004, 05:25 PM
So many choices!!!

I guess the "instilled by Bush and friends government" argument takes a big hit with this nes.

Seriously, how could they possiby influence the outcome with this many different parties all on the ballot?

Will be interesting to watch.

You are seeing parties coming together as allies though.

Former poop disturber Mucky al-Sadr and former disgraced USA lackey Chalabi seeing a common interest as an example. They're on the anti-American platform even if they have widely disimilar interests.

Chief Ayatollah al-Sistani of the #####es is pushing this election hard as he sees it as the opportunity to give #####es power in Iraq. He'll brook no delay. He also feels the numerous #####e parties will come together as a voting bloc but others feel that's fairly myopic.

In addition, I believe parties have to declare their allies before ballotting. I saw one analyst in the NY Times saying that's a form of fixing the election although I didn't quite get the logic since, obviously, any side could do that.

Also, interesting that in the last two days two Sunni clerics, part of a circle who were threatening a boycott of elections, have been mysteriously assassinated.

Looks like this election will happen.

EDIT: NY Times looks at the security difficulties for this election:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/internat...artner=homepage

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by transplant99@Nov 23 2004, 05:25 PM

Seriously, how could they possiby influence the outcome with this many different parties all on the ballot?

You do realize that most areas in Iraq with large numbers of people who are against the American supported candidates are under curfew and afraid to leave their homes, don't you? Makes it a little hard to do campaigning and hold rallies.

Not to mention the fact that polling stations will have heavily armed U.S. and pro-U.S. mercenaries at them. That will deter a lot of people from voting or voting honestly.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 24 2004, 08:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 24 2004, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Nov 23 2004, 05:25 PM

Seriously, how could they possiby influence the outcome with this many different parties all on the ballot?

You do realize that most areas in Iraq with large numbers of people who are against the American supported candidates are under curfew and afraid to leave their homes, don't you? Makes it a little hard to do campaigning and hold rallies.

Not to mention the fact that polling stations will have heavily armed U.S. and pro-U.S. mercenaries at them. That will deter a lot of people from voting or voting honestly. [/b][/quote]
So . . . . you're saying there should be no security at polling stations in Iraq?

Is that what you were saying about security at polling stations in Afghanistan?

Cowperson

[Lurch]

So . . . . you're saying there should be no security at polling stations in Iraq?

Is that what you were saying about security at polling stations in Afghanistan?

I think he's suggesting that you and the pro-US crowd would have a problem with the elections if al-Sadr's crew provided the security - I'm sure you don't believe that if this was the case but there were 156 candidates it would guarantee a fair result. If Republican challengers at the polls in Ohio are an issue in democracy, it's pretty easy to see that American soldiers poised to arrest alleged "militants" at the polls might just pose a problem to a fair election, especially in the minds of those looking to dispute the results. It doesn't logically follow that the US influence on the election is nill because there are 156 candidates on the ballot.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Nov 24 2004, 09:47 PM

I think he's suggesting that you and the pro-US crowd would have a problem with the elections if al-Sadr's crew provided the security - I'm sure you don't believe that if this was the case but there were 156 candidates it would guarantee a fair result. If Republican challengers at the polls in Ohio are an issue in democracy, it's pretty easy to see that American soldiers poised to arrest alleged "militants" at the polls might just pose a problem to a fair election, especially in the minds of those looking to dispute the results. It doesn't logically follow that the US influence on the election is nill because there are 156 candidates on the ballot.

Sorry, still don't get it.

We can all agree there has to be security given the crazies running around. Who provides that security though?

Here is an NY Times appraisal of polling security considerations from yesterday. The concerns are far different than your own.

Iraqi and American officials believe it is important to deploy Iraqi forces, rather than have American troops police the polls, to ensure the credibility of the vote. But American commanders say that only 145,000 Iraqi security personnel will be trained and ready by election day, now scheduled for Jan. 30, far short of the 270,000 that Iraqi officials say are needed.

The role that American troops will play is still being defined, though they will probably serve as backups out of sight of the polling stations. As such, they will remain important as the final guarantors of security, and American officials are already worrying about a lack of communication with Iraqi election officials.

"The election commission has been operating virtually on its own with no coordination, without sharing information on polling places," said Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island who serves on the Armed Services Committee and who met with American commanders here this month. "Until we get that, it's hard to plan. They need to rehearse so that on the day of polling it's not a day of violence."

"Iraqi policemen and Iraqi National Guardsmen should be there to protect the voting centers, but without any presence of the multinational forces," said Waal Abdul-Latif, the minister of provincial affairs and head of the government committee overseeing election issues. "This is for the sake of stability. This is an Iraqi election, and it will be protected by Iraqi forces."

Further:

The 9,000 voting centers will be in neutral places, like schools and community centers. There will be no armed guards in their immediate vicinity, said Abdul-Hussein al-Hindawi, head of the electoral commission. The exact security arrangements will vary from place to place.

The Americans are expected to remain on the far perimeter of the polling places, perhaps in Iraqi-staffed security centers that have been established recently.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/internat...ast/23vote.html

As I've said in other threads, if I thought fixing this election would be beneficial I'd jump in with both feet but, as with Afghanistan, I can't see the point of having anything other than something that passes as free and fair in that part of the world.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 24 2004, 08:52 PM
So . . . . you're saying there should be no security at polling stations in Iraq?

Is that what you were saying about security at polling stations in Afghanistan?

Cowperson

Is what I am saying is that an election is practically useless until Iraqi society is tempered enough to make such drastic security unnecessary. An election under the current conditions is only a facade since many people will indeed be deterred by the "security".

Bottom line is that U.S. and/or pro-U.S. Iraqi mercenaries will indeed influence the election whether by accident or on purpose.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 25 2004, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 25 2004, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Nov 24 2004, 08:52 PM
So . . . . you're saying there should be no security at polling stations in Iraq?

Is that what you were saying about security at polling stations in Afghanistan?

Cowperson

Is what I am saying is that an election is practically useless until Iraqi society is tempered enough to make such drastic security unnecessary. An election under the current conditions is only a facade since many people will indeed be deterred by the "security". [/b][/quote]
In your original post, it looked like you were inferring "heavily armed U.S. and pro-U.S. mercenaries" were going to gun down "large numbers of people who are against the American supported candidates."

Did I miss what you were saying in that? It didn't look like it.

In fact, that's not an issue given plenty of anti-occupation parties - including Mucky al-Sadr, are forming alliances and clamouring now to get to the ballot boxes. They'll get their vote out and they appear to believe in the process and that it will be fair.

There are anti-American parties among both #####es and Sunni. You're forgetting that. There's also no logical reason to rig this ballot, particularly since it is only electing representatives to guide the country to the follow-up in December 2005.

An excellent example was a comment today from the chief of the Iraqi electoral commission, I believe, who said President Allawi was a USA lackey!!! Pretty funny. He also said he couldn't guarantee anyone's safety on election day. That's nice.

No . . . . the real issue here is what you identified in your second post: Will the climate be safe enough to stage these elections or is a delay warranted?

I think that's a great debate point. Its what everyone is wondering about. People won't be worried about being gunned down by the Yanks. They'll be worried about the crazies who have stated they do not want a ballot. Put the danger point where it needs to lie.

Nevertheless, it appears these elections will happen on January 30, with a December, 2005 followup.

They said it couldn't be done in Afghanistan. It was and it was embraced by the people there. This will undoubtedly be tougher. And probably bloodier. I'm sitting back waiting with interest as to how it turns out.

By the way, the Globe & Mail today had a story saying Canada is in negotiations to play the lead role in overseeing the elections in Iraq.

And chief terrorist al-Zarqawi is complaining of the silence from Muslim clerics over the USA storming of Fallouja. Biting the hand that feeds him? People just getting tired of him and seeing what he's really about?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 25 2004, 04:44 AM
In your original post, it looked like you were inferring "heavily armed U.S. and pro-U.S. mercenaries" were going to gun down "large numbers of people who are against the American supported candidates."

Did I miss what you were saying in that? It didn't look like it.

You totally missed what I was saying. I'm not sure how, because I never meant to imply that voters would be shot at. However, you can bet that some Iraqis do fear that.

In fact, that's not an issue given plenty of anti-occupation parties - including Mucky al-Sadr, are forming alliances and clamouring now to get to the ballot boxes. They'll get their vote out and they appear to believe in the process and that it will be fair.

Actually, it is still an issue because the al-Sadr crowd doesn't represent the people who are under curfew and therefore have no freedom to be as politically active as Sadr and others. That is an infringement on democracy any way you look at it. Al-Sadr can do whatever, and it doesn't change what is happening elsewhere.

There are anti-American parties among both #####es and Sunni. You're forgetting that. There's also no logical reason to rig this ballot, particularly since it is only electing representatives to guide the country to the follow-up in December 2005.

I'm not talking about "rigging" the election. I'm talking about fear infringing on democracy.

No . . . . the real issue here is what you identified in your second post: Will the climate be safe enough to stage these elections or is a delay warranted?

That was one of my intended points in my first post too, but I think the problem goes deeper. It's in the attitudes of the people. They haven't stopped fighting or wanting to kill each other yet. Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds all still hate each other even if they are smiling for cameras for the election. The fact a military force needs to be deployed to stop them from killing each other proves that democracy is only a pipe dream for this generation of Iraqis.

It's a catch 22. You can't have democracy when an un-neutral military is conducting the "security", but in Iraq, there can't be an election without armed security. It's a real problem. I have no objection simply calling it an "election" on January 30th, but it won't be democracy until everyone can participate equally without fear. That means when no military "security" is necessary, and all citizens enjoy the same freedoms (ie. no curfews, and freedom of assembly). This will probably never happen in our life time, but I digress..

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 25 2004, 05:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 25 2004, 05:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Nov 25 2004, 04:44 AM
In your original post, it looked like you were inferring "heavily armed U.S. and pro-U.S. mercenaries" were going to gun down "large numbers of people who are against the American supported candidates."

Did I miss what you were saying in that? It didn't look like it.

You totally missed what I was saying. I'm not sure how, because I never meant to imply that voters would be shot at. However, you can bet that some Iraqis do fear that.

In fact, that's not an issue given plenty of anti-occupation parties - including Mucky al-Sadr, are forming alliances and clamouring now to get to the ballot boxes. They'll get their vote out and they appear to believe in the process and that it will be fair.

Actually, it is still an issue because the al-Sadr crowd doesn't represent the people who are under curfew and therefore have no freedom to be as politically active as Sadr and others. That is an infringement on democracy any way you look at it. Al-Sadr can do whatever, and it doesn't change what is happening elsewhere.

There are anti-American parties among both #####es and Sunni. You're forgetting that. There's also no logical reason to rig this ballot, particularly since it is only electing representatives to guide the country to the follow-up in December 2005.

I'm not talking about "rigging" the election. I'm talking about fear infringing on democracy.

No . . . . the real issue here is what you identified in your second post: Will the climate be safe enough to stage these elections or is a delay warranted?

That was one of my intended points in my first post too, but I think the problem goes deeper. It's in the attitudes of the people. They haven't stopped fighting or wanting to kill each other yet. Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds all still hate each other even if they are smiling for cameras for the election. The fact a military force needs to be deployed to stop them from killing each other proves that democracy is only a pipe dream for this generation of Iraqis.

It's a catch 22. You can't have democracy when an un-neutral military is conducting the "security", but in Iraq, there can't be an election without armed security. It's a real problem. I have no objection simply calling it an "election" on January 30th, but it won't be democracy until everyone can participate equally without fear. That means when no military "security" is necessary, and all citizens enjoy the same freedoms (ie. no curfews, and freedom of assembly). This will probably never happen in our life time, but I digress.. [/b][/quote]
Would you say the election in Afghanistan recently concluded was free and fair, with government gunmen and American soldiers hovering over every ballot box?

Would you say it was worth the effort?

Would you say there was genuine concern of violence and intimidation for even approaching a polling station, particularly if you were a woman?

All the things you were saying about Iraq in your post were also expressed in the run-up to the Afghani election.

I don't buy the "culture" thing. I have more faith in them than that, something I said before the Afghan election as well.

The threat of death hangs over all candidates for all parties and all affiliations in Iraq. I found it amusing you would use Sadr as an example since he's a #####e and finally found the brains his God gave him long enough to realize he was being ground into nothing by military force and the ballot box was a far more powerful weapon for him.

I agree the Sunni thing is a real concern in terms of giving the election legitimacy. But maybe they've been ground down enough as well.

Again though, unruliness in certain areas which might rob an election of legitimacy was also the common worry ahead of the Afghan poll. No difference.

We'll see. That's all you and I can do. Watch and wait and judge in 65 days or so.

I'm liking the way its leaning right now a lot more than I did three weeks ago. But chaotic it will be.

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

An update - a formal request to delay the elections six months from 17 Iraqi political parties.

A reasonable request or simply a delaying tactic to give the insurgency a chance to regroup?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6577206/

EDIT: A look at the pressure Sunni political parties are facing from both the insurgents and the USA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6585609/

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 25 2004, 05:25 AM
Would you say the election in Afghanistan recently concluded was free and fair, with government gunmen and American soldiers hovering over every ballot box?

Would you say it was worth the effort?

Would you say there was genuine concern of violence and intimidation for even approaching a polling station, particularly if you were a woman?

All the things you were saying about Iraq in your post were also expressed in the run-up to the Afghani election.

Considering that Kabuls's influence in Afghanistan doesn't stretch too far outside of city limits, and most of the country is still ruled by the same people who were there before NATO, I have to wonder how successful the democratic process was.

I don't buy the "culture" thing. I have more faith in them than that, something I said before the Afghan election as well.

The cultural aspect is hugely important for democracy. It's not a knock at them or anything, but just consider the fact that throughout the history of human civilization, democracy has barely existed anywhere. Even today, true and free democracies are limited to certain areas and aren't really the norm. There is nothing that indicates that democracy is some kind of natural way for humans regardless of cultural perspectives.

It would be like going back in time to Europe in the year 900 AD and trying to instill democracy. If you had an election then and some group didn't like the winner, there would have been violence because that was culturally accepted at the time. Europe first had to go through vast cultural changes over a very long period of time before democratic values gradually evolved. The liberaliztion that was necessary did not occur in a span of 2 years. It took about 700 or 800 years before they were ready.

A quick look at Iraq's history shows pretty much non-stop coups, uprisings, and revolts. Given that pattern, I don't see it ending in a span of two years because the Americans invaded. It didn't happen when the British ruled the area either. If anything, the added violence of occupation desensitized the generation of the time, and perpetuated violence. It's been my long standing belief that such actions actually delay any kind of cultural and societal evolution to liberalization, political respect, and democratic values.