Originally Posted By ElKay Oh-oh, just when you think things can't get any worse in Iraq. . . <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-10-17-iraq-airstrikes_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w orld/iraq/2005-10-17-iraq-airstrikes_x.htm</a> "BAGHDAD (AP) — In at least a dozen provinces, the number of "yes" votes seems too high. It's not known why — or if something is wrong — but it is raising questions over whether there were irregularities in the balloting in Iraq's landmark referendum on a new constitution. raq's election commission announced Monday that it would audit votes to investigate the "unusual" numbers, causing more delays in the release of the final results. Word of the review came as Sunni Arab leaders repeated accusations of fraud after initial reports from the provinces suggested the constitution had passed. Among the Sunni allegations are that police took ballot boxes from heavily "no" districts, and that some "yes" areas had more votes than registered voters. The Electoral Commission made no mention of fraud, and an official with knowledge of the election process cautioned that it was too early to say whether the unusual numbers were incorrect or if they would have an effect on the outcome. But questions about the numbers raised tensions over Saturday's referendum, which has already sharply divided Iraqis. Most of the Shiite majority and the Kurds — the coalition which controls the government — support the charter, while most Sunni Arabs sharply opposed a document they fear will tear Iraq to pieces and leave them weak and out of power. (Related story: Allawi presses for secular control) Irregularities in Shiite and Kurdish areas, expected to vote strongly "yes," would likely not affect the final outcome. The main electoral battlegrounds were provinces with mixed populations, two of which went strongly "yes." There were conflicting reports whether those two provinces were among those with questionable figures. . ." Y'know the election could be almost 100% free from fraud, but if the Sunni believe that there is fraud then nothing in the world could persuade them otherwise. Rampant rumors of fraud harming Sunni interests will only strengthen the insergency, preventing Bush from declaring "mission accomplished" part deux and getting the troops outta Iraq. Hey, maybe Bush should dispatch Katherine Harris, former Sect'y of State of Florida, to straighten out this election mess. She did a heck of a job back in 2000.
Originally Posted By DlandDug That the Sunnis would protest any vote that went against their narrowly defined interests is hardly a surprise. The surprise is that, again, despite many obstacles, a record number of Iraqis turned out to vote. But to the critics of the war, every silver lining has a cloud. (P.S. Katherine Harris did a heck of a job indeed. The voters of Florida signalled their approval by voting her into higher office.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The cloud will always pass and the light will always return, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't seek shelter when you get a tornado warning.
Originally Posted By Jafar30 <<Oh-oh, just when you think things can't get any worse in Iraq. . >> Yeah I always remember Iraqi's voting when Sadam was in power. Let's see I think their choices where: Saddam, Saddam,Saddam. Don't vote for Saddam take your pick murder, torture, rape etc.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Some of you seemed to miss the fact that it was Iraq's own Independent Electoral Commission that said that there appeared to be fraud in the voting.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...it was Iraq's own Independent Electoral Commission that said that there appeared to be fraud in the voting.<< Where do you get that? Here's what the article had to say: >>Word of the review came as Sunni Arab leaders repeated accusations of fraud after initial reports from the provinces suggested the constitution had passed. Among the Sunni allegations are that police took ballot boxes from heavily "no" districts, and that some "yes" areas had more votes than registered voters. The Electoral Commission made no mention of fraud, and an official with knowledge of the election process cautioned that it was too early to say whether the unusual numbers were incorrect or if they would have an effect on the outcome.<< It's the Sunni's (predictably) who are making the charges, and critics of the war (predictably) who are rushing to snap up any negative scrap that falls from the table.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4351680.stm<<" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid dle_east/4351680.stm<<</a> "Iraq's independent electoral commission says statistical irregularities in last week's referendum could indicate fraud. Chief electoral officer Adel Alami did not give details, but he said many provinces' figures were either too high or too low by international standards."
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I didn't vote for Harris. But, I don't recall any international (or national) election when someone (the loser) didn't cry foul.
Originally Posted By DlandDug STOP THE PRESSES. I finally went back and read the entire article. Buried deep is the following: >>Ninevah's deputy governor, Khesro Goran, a Kurd, dismissed the claims. "These declarations are excuses to justify the loss, and we did not receive any complaint from the (Electoral Commission) about such fears. Besides, the whole operation was under the supervision of the United Nations ... so no fraud occurred."<< See-- the UN supervised the whole thing. So everything is hunky dory.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Tom, I think we are dealing with journalistic semantics here. USA Today says "The Electoral Commission made no mention of fraud..." and the BBC says, "Iraq's independent electoral commission says statistical irregularities in last week's referendum could indicate fraud." Both statements address the same thing: charges of fraus are being investigated on the basis of an apparent anomaly in the vote.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Ah. I see. If USA Today issues something that is disagreeable, it's just McNews. Noted.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <See-- the UN supervised the whole thing. So everything is hunky dory.> Because the UN is so reliable? My wish is that this constitution is approved, and the people of Iraq can move forward. Anything that gets us closer to getting the frick out of there, I'm all for.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Ah. I see. If USA Today issues something that is disagreeable, it's just McNews. Noted.<< I've called USA Today McPaper since it hit the stands 20 years ago.
Originally Posted By DlandDug ANd fresher than the BBC (but still, alas, McNews): <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-18-iraqballots_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w orld/2005-10-18-iraqballots_x.htm</a> EXCERPT: >>Adil al-Lami, head of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that ballot boxes were arriving from the provinces and that employees had resumed counting. "If we suspect that the numbers are higher or lower than we expected, we have to double-check them, and this audit means it might be several more days before we announce the final outcome," he said. "We are not concerned whether the outcome is 'yes' or 'no.' We are only interested in making the process technically a success." He said the commission is "a neutral body" acting "as a referee." ... Ninevah and Diyala are each believed to have a slight Sunni Arab majority. But results reported by provincial electoral officials showed startlingly powerful "yes" votes of up to 70% in each. Allegations of fraud in those areas could throw into question the final outcome. But questions of whether the reported strong "yes" vote there is unusual are complicated by the fact that Iraq has not had a proper census in some 15 years, meaning the sectarian balance is not firmly known.<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/<<" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid dle_east/<<</a> Try going in from the Mid East page.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It is interesting that the US paper is downplaying the possibility of fraud but the UK paper isn't.
