Open Iraqi election thread

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


According to the NYT with 35% of the votes counted, mainly from Baghdad and the Shiite south the allience has 67% of the vote. It is beyond obvious that at least outside the Kurdish areas, given the lower voter turnout amongst Sunnis, that the List supported by Sistani will undoubtedly win, whih Alawi and Kurdish parties coming in second and third. By how much the Sistani supported list wins is the question left now, but its not really realisitc to think that somehow Sunnis and Kurds voted en mass for Alawi.

The NYT didnt tell us where in Baghdad the votes came from. If they were reporting US election returns, theyd be sure to mention that. I never doubted that UIA will come in first - see my posts above - but I would wait for final returns before declaring "victory" for anyone. Its the full returns, and not simply who comes in first, that will drive the coalition negotiations.

[GePap]

IN Baghdad the vote will be split in a large number of directions, but if you look at places like Sadr City, those regions would most likely be very solidly UIA.

I seriously doubt that a government without the UIA as part of it would be formed- this is a nascent democracy, and I doubt Iraqi voters would readilly accept that the winning party would be kept from power by smaller parties throught backroom deals.

[Ned]

Originally posted by bfg9000
So now that it is clear that the pro-Iran Shiites will win the election, what does the US do? This is clearly what they do not want to happen..

bfg9000, Sistani will first fix the Sunni triangle and then bring democracy to Iran. This guy has his head screwed on straight and obviously has great influence.

[lord of the mark]

IN Baghdad the vote will be split in a large number of directions, but if you look at places like Sadr City, those regions would most likely be very solidly UIA.

Yes, my point precisely. IF the returns are from Sadr City, than the reported returns are not surprising, and are not inconsistent with, say UIA getting roughly 40% of the overall vote. If, OTOH, they include large portions of West Baghdad, that would mean something else altogether.

I seriously doubt that a government without the UIA as part of it would be formed- this is a nascent democracy, and I doubt Iraqi voters would readilly accept that the winning party would be kept from power by smaller parties throught backroom deals.

Oh, i agree, UIA will be at the core of the new govt. But it makes a huge difference if they get say, 60% of the vote, and can pretty much run things on their own (they need (two thirds to choose a Pres) or if they get only , say, 40% and need to bring in one other major party AND additional support to govern. It will also impact how much influence the individual parties withing UIA have. remember its a joint list, but SCIRI, Dawa, INC, etc retain their identies as seperate parties - plus there are large numbers of independents on the UIA list - theres no guarantee that UIA will stay united through the negotiations, although Sistanis clout makes it likely.
(note in Israel,which also has nationwide PR, and where seperate parties sometimes run on lists together, list unity doesnt always continue past the election)

[Ramo]

According to the Times article, most of the Baghdad vote had come from the Shia Eastside. But, apparantly, the Sadrist list, and a more radical Shia Islamist list, gained some votes as well - 2.4% in the previous tally (37,400/1.6 million).

The Sunnis that are inclined to vote would probably go with Pachachi or Yawar's lists so I'd expect their tallies to increase somewhat with the rest of Baghdad counted.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

According to the Times article, most of the Baghdad vote had come from the Shia Eastside.

my apologies to the NYT, evidently ive only seen portions of the article.

[Sava]

So who won?

Or is it still too early?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
So who won?

Or is it still too early?

Yup, its too early, we're still waiting for the returns from Florida and Ohio


AP has less than a quarter of the vote counted, mainly from Shiite areas , and the following results:

"On Thursday, the Shiite alliance had 70 percent and Allawi's list 18.4 percent of the 1.6 million votes counted from five mainly Shiite provinces.

Surprise third place went to the virtually unknown National Independent Cadres and Elites list which had 43,383 votes, or about 1.3 percent.

The communist People's Union had 30,063 votes and the Shiite Islamic Action 24,247 votes.

The list of interim President Ghazi al-Yawar came sixth with 23,349 votes. "


except AP got something wrong, cause 43,000 is over 2% of 1.6 million.

In any case WTF is National Independent Cadres and Elites???????

Commies not doing well, but I wonder if these are mainly rural votes outside Sadr City. Commies should do well in Basra city, forex.

Is Shiite Islamic Action the Sadrists? Not to strong a showing if this includes Sadr City.

Allawi is doing relatively well (if this excludes west Baghdad and Basra city) as lates polls suggested. But still not going to "win"

[lord of the mark]

another confusion = how are there a third of votes counted, if there are (apparently) 8 million total votes, and only 1.6 million are counted?

[Ramo]

Old article. See the Times.

[Ramo]

Actually, I think the AP ****ed up. Somehow, they spliced the new numbers in with the old.

[Ramo]

Is Shiite Islamic Action the Sadrists? Not to strong a showing if this includes Sadr City.

No, but it is Islamist (I think). The number three so far, National Independent Cadres and Elites is Sadrist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Is Shiite Islamic Action the Sadrists? Not to strong a showing if this includes Sadr City.

No, but it is Islamist (I think). The number three so far, National Independent Cadres and Elites is Sadrist.

thats a damned weird name for a bunch of Shiite populists. Maybe it sounds different in Arabic.

[Ramo]

Yep, sure is. It goes by its acronym, NICE.

[lord of the mark]

NYT:"The group, the National Independent Elites and Cadres, which has strong links to Moktada al-Sadr, the young cleric who twice last year led uprisings against American forces, had 1.5 percent of the votes counted so far. In Baghdad, where the Sadr City neighborhood is Mr. Sadr's main bastion, the group took nearly 2 percent."

[Ramo]

Leading Sunni Muslim clerics who boycotted Sunday's elections said Wednesday that they would "respect the choice of those who voted" and work with a new government, even though they considered the election invalid.

The statement, issued by the Association of Muslim Scholars, contained renewed criticism of the election but appeared to suggest that the influential Sunni group wants to be included in forming a new government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb2.html

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Leading Sunni Muslim clerics who boycotted Sunday's elections said Wednesday that they would "respect the choice of those who voted" and work with a new government, even though they considered the election invalid.

The statement, issued by the Association of Muslim Scholars, contained renewed criticism of the election but appeared to suggest that the influential Sunni group wants to be included in forming a new government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb2.html

Two sets of negotiations - first among the parties that participated, to form a new govt, than between the govt and the AMS (and other Sunni groups) to get them into the constitutional process.

The two sets are of course related - 1. Cause Allawi, the Kurds, Sistani may all have different views on issues to be negotiated with AMS and 2. The presence of participating Sunnis like Yawer and Pachachi in the assembly and possibly in the govt will also impact negotiations.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Jaako, I see you ignored my question. I understand why, given your insistence that the resistance is self-sustaining, fueled by the Iraqis themselves. But the evidence is contrary. Suicide bombers either are Saudis or duped Iraqis. The Iraqis themselves do not seem so dedicated to overthrowing democracy and restoring the rule of Saddam and his family.

The sooner Saddam is tried and actually excuted the better. It will pull the rug out from the insurgency big time.

Ned, virtually everyone in the insurgency is an Iraqi with most being Sunni Arabs. There is a very small percentage who are foreigners and they mostly occupy the most techincal positions (bomb builders and people like Zirqawi) while the vast majority remain Iraqi.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Billions of dollars have been pumped into the economy. Of course the economy will grow. Amazingly the unemployment rate is over 60%. One would think that the objective would be to create jobs. Who really cares how much the economy is growing if jobs aren't created.

Are you ****ing stupid? The unemployment rate is around 28% which is much lower then the 50%+ rate pre-war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ned, virtually everyone in the insurgency is a Iraq with most being Sunni Arab. There is a very small percentage who are foreigners and they mostly occupy the most techincal positions (bomb builders and people like Zirqawi) while the vast majority remain Iraqi.

Oerdin, I'm just going off the evidence from Sunday's attacks where 8 Saudi's were involved and one Iraqi. The Iraqi, I believe, had Down's syndrome.

All this indicates is that the Iraqis are not committing suicide, which is consistent with their being a secular resistance. The only people committing suicide seem to be foreigners or duped Iraqis.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


The Iraqi, I believe, had Down's syndrome.

Now that is just plain despicable, drawing a retarded person into an armed conflict.

It's going tobe very weird with the capital of Iraq also being the center of a rebellion.

[Chemical Ollie]

This might be somewhat late to ask, and I'm too lazy to look backwards in this long thread, but who won? I have only heard media report about " the iraqi people won, by casting their votes despite death threats"

But what political movement won, and what's their agenda? And what's the agenda of their opposition, that took part in the election but lost? Iraq voted just 2-3 years ago, and Saddam got close to 100 % of the votes. This time, I would believe American puppets got most of the votes. What's the freedom of voting on a dozen parties with the same agenda?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Are you ****ing stupid? The unemployment rate is around 28% which is much lower then the 50%+ rate pre-war.

Appearently you are since you only look for one source - the occupying power. There are several sources, including the World Bank and the IMF who put the figure at over 50%.

edit:

Iraqi unemployment rate

Iraqi officials say the country's unemployment rate is now 27 percent, but some groups have estimated it to be as high as 50 percent.

You're starting to get to be a real ******* Oerdin.

[Dinner]

If by being a real ***** you mean I'm educating you and teaching you the error of silly communist economics then I am happy. :0

BTW I read your link and neither the IMF nor the World Bank said anything about a 50% unemployment rate. At least in that article. As you your self quoted the Guardian (like usual) simply made an unsupported claim without any backing. Any clue who those "some groups" are?

[Ned]

I was just thinking about this last night, but Sistani, with the political backing of the Iraqi people, is going to be the most important mullah in the world of Islam. I think that even the mullahs of Iran will listen to him, and may be encouraged to allow democracy in Iran as well.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If by being a real ***** you mean I'm educating you and teaching you the error of silly communist economics then I am happy. :0

What does looking at other sources have to do with communist economics moron? You don't know what the **** you are talking about. Here's a little recommendation. Stop taking a page out of the book of Fez.

[Dinner]

Kid, did you just tell me that you know more about economics then me?

You've been on the wrong side of every economics debate we've had on poly.

BTW I'm still waiting for the source of that 50% unemployment claim. The Guardian just said "other sources" and didn't give anything else.

[Dinner]

Sistani is very influential amoung Arab Shi'a though I'm not sure how much pull he'll have with Sunni. Typically Sunni look down on Shi'a as being fanatical, dogmatic, uneducated. Shi'a tend to see Sunnis as insufficiently religious and untrustworthy. Those two groups really haven't gotten along well in history.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Kid, did you just tell me that you know more about economics then me?

You've been on the wrong side of every economics debate we've had on poly.

Who's debating economics?

BTW I'm still waiting for the source of that 50% unemployment claim. The Guardian just said "other sources" and didn't give anything else.

I'm having too much fun with someone who calls people stupid and then leaves himself wide open by saying incredibly stupid things. How stupid is that?

[Dinner]

So you can't back up your 50% figure, huh. You claimed the IMF and the World Bank listed Iraq as having a 50% unemployment rate. To show this you linked a Guardian article which which claimed the unemployment rate was estimated to be as high as 50% by some unnamed sources.

You claim my 26.8% unemployment rate is suspect because the source is the government of Iraq yet you won't give me a different source.