Iranian Elections: Unseen Voters

[80b]

I've been keeping up with the Iranian election uprisings. Many of Iranian friends are adamant that there is "no way" Achmedinejad was re-elected.

The results may have been tweaked, or have been an outright farce. I am not naive. I do not believe any election will be without corruption, but it's impossible for these protesters to truly know the extent of any candidate's support (sans accurate poll). We limit our exposure to people who think like ourselves (Selective Exposure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory), The Big Sort (http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php), INTP Central?). The lack of exposure to vastly different worldview can lead one to think their group has larger nationwide support due to these echo chambers, especially when these group dominate new communication mediums (see the disappointing primaries of Howard Dean and Ron Paul versus their internet support).

I don't know the extent of the Moussavi supporters in Iran. Perhaps the election was stolen from him. But I cant help but entertain the notion that the group, comprised mostly of middle class and students who are rallying in the streets, are vastly unaware of opinion outside of their own little world. Last November, it would have blown many of my friend's the minds had they to visited my hometown during the campaign season: R's vastly outnumbered D's.

In the end, how can we know what the general sentiment is nationwide when we only see locally? Thought's on Iran's election?

[ryan_m_parr]

Though you're discussing Iran, I think it's fair to believe consensus is very much affected by proximity effect (here and now,) though it does not imply that the student's did not express the opinion of the vast majority. I do believe it is possible for people to also become so affected from the influences (and or abuses) of authority, to the point that Stockholm Syndrome takes over. Whether the young protesters were affected less or unaffected, if it was even of influence , can't generally be noticed.

Certainly it does parallel what occurred here in the US with Bush being (re)elected. Though the protesters had a somewhat distinct associated identity and in many ways a bias might be brought into question; I have no hesitation in thinking that any sense of reality is inherently flawed due to fallibility in perception. Ad marketing is largely based off elements of human psychology, and so is our media. Everything influences our perceptions and many elements of perception might be under the wrong pretense though perhaps not flawed in the underlying assumptions about the true reality of a situation.

The Middle East is not immune to corrupt governments.

[Chunes]

Questioning the perceptions of people tens of thousands of miles away is not our place. They know what's going on. Besides—if there is one side on which to err, it ought to be protest and dissent. Life's too short to put up with bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Questioning the perceptions of people tens of thousands of miles away is not our place. They know what's going on. Besides—if there is one side on which to err, it ought to be protest and dissent. Life's too short to put up with bullshit.

People are the same in that regard pretty much everywhere - they don't necessarily know what's going on. They have the same weaknesses as we do.

Anyone know how large the rural population of Iran is compared to the urban population? That could give some clues.

[Ferrus]

In general it is just confirmation of the general shift toward right-wing politics, traditionalism and - in some areas - religious belief that is occuring in the world as a whole at the moment.

[Feops]

Western media is heavily biased against the current Iranian leadership so I'm a bit hesitant to just jump up and yell fraud. The voters making the most noise aren't always the majority. I'd like to see some statistics about the geographical breakdown of the votes as they were tallied.

[Ferrus]

Western media is heavily biased against the current Iranian leadership so I'm a bit hesitant to just jump up and yell fraud. The voters making the most noise aren't always the majority. I'd like to see some statistics about the geographical breakdown of the votes as they were tallied.
I am suspicious too. The way the Iranians have acted does suggest high electoral irregularities - but as an opponent of the regime pointed out (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html). He seems to have some popularity with the poor, with some ethnic minorities, in Tabriz and so on. The students have always been hostile to the regime.

Hmm, it is difficult to know what is happening with any degree of certainty. But I doubt it will make much difference in the end.

[C.J.Woolf]

But I doubt it will make much difference in the end.
In the outcome of this election, or beyond it? If there was blatant election fraud then the government will lose some (more) legitimacy. Granted, that will have an impact in the long term, if ever.

[amirpaca]

I sympathize with people who are reluctant to call it fraud (I am one of you) but I have come to the conclusion that the election was illegitimate. In fact, I think there is overwhelming evidence in this direction. Consider the most obvious: the reaction of the Iranian government to these events. They were clearly not prepared for a social upheaval and have resorted to violent crackdowns. It seems they were trying to avoid having to rig the election, and did not have enough time to plan out a foolproof scheme. Clearly, they fear for the stability of the state. This would never be the case in a legitimate election (for the same reason that causes us to prefer democracy). Also consider the disparity between polls and purported results as meaningful data. Furthermore Iran's population is about 75% urban (last I checked). On top of that, rural votes were counted first, suggesting that the government wanted to declare Ahmadinejad the victor as soon as possible. Also consider that Iran uses paper ballots, and that the election was declared in favor of Ahmadinejad even before the polls closed. Even in a very organized country it would be highly improbable that this would yield an a reliable result (having been to Iran I happen to know that it is not, by an stretch of the imagination, an organized nation when it comes to civics). Lastly, note that if Ahmadinejad had taken any less than 50% of the vote he would be forced to go into runoffs against Mousavi, which would put the former at a disadvantage.

[ocop]

I was initially skeptical, but I've seen a few very good analyses here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iran-does-have-some-fishy-numbers.html) and here (http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html). It is almost conceptually impossible for Ahmadinejad to have done so well with the Kurds, Lurs, and Azeris, apparently.

This blog (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/) also has rather rapid updates on the current situation interspersed with unabashed revolutionary cheerleading (not that there is anything wrong with that!).

I'm going to get absolutely no work done today, this is a shitton more interesting.

[M.L.Fay]

People are the same in that regard pretty much everywhere - they don't necessarily know what's going on. They have the same weaknesses as we do.

Anyone know how large the rural population of Iran is compared to the urban population? That could give some clues.

60% urban - 30% rural, nearly 70 percent of the population below 30. Source: German news.

Women especially would've voted for a more moderate candidate - so my guess is: it's been rigged, there will be a re-election to please the crowd, another puppet will win, change will be moderate.

[foodeater]

He may have won, but there is some convincing evidence that the results were faked in multiple areas. They may be fighting to get Mousavi in office, but essentially they just want their votes counted and treated fairly. 60% of Iran's population is below 25 and they're expecting more freedom and less corruption from their government than their parents and grandparents, so some changes are going to be made eventually. Plus the police are killing people and their government has shut down almost all communication within the country.

I consider myself an expert on Iran after reading a few articles about the situation yesterday

[nonperson]

60% of Iran's population is below 25 and they're expecting more freedom and less corruption from their government than their parents and grandparents,

That is interesting.........

Do young people naturally expect less corruption? Or are they naive? Do they simply expect "grown-ups" to be honest? Are young people not just as prone to corruption as older people?

Yes interesting.........

[Anonymous]

That is interesting.........

Do young people naturally expect less corruption? Or are they naive? Do they simply expect "grown-ups" to be honest? Are young people not just as prone to corruption as older people?

Yes interesting.........

Well, even if they expect it doesn't mean they have to take it. Although simple protests aren't really going to cut it, if they want changes they need to party like it's 1979.

[Ferrus]

In the outcome of this election, or beyond it? If there was blatant election fraud then the government will lose some (more) legitimacy. Granted, that will have an impact in the long term, if ever.
Their legitmacy among all but the westernised educated youth is based not on Western principles but on their adherence to Islamic law and morality.

[C.J.Woolf]

Their legitmacy among all but the westernised educated youth is based not on Western principles but on their adherence to Islamic law and morality.
Then why the pretense of democracy?

[80b]

That is interesting.........

Do young people naturally expect less corruption? Or are they naive? Do they simply expect "grown-ups" to be honest? Are young people not just as prone to corruption as older people?

Yes interesting.........

From what I've gathered from my Iranian friends... I would say idealistic in what they want the government to be... and good at circumventing many of the harsh islamic social rules. I would also point out that few of them directly know the bloodshed of the last revolution.

[Anonymous]

Wow, it looks like they're serious about this:

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs105.snc1/4587_93709743195_93247698195_2140325_1484143_n.jpg

I almost wish I could join in...

[Chunes]

Why the hell is 60% of Iran's population under 25?

[ryan_m_parr]

Why the hell is 60% of Iran's population under 25?

Rumsfeld.

[Helios]

I found it odd that Britney Spears was in the protests



http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/britney in THR.jpg


http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/gunmen-opened-fire-President-Mahmoud/photo//090615/ids_photos_wl/r4245328561.jpg/

[slacker]

I don't understand why the Iranian government would bother to rig the election. The president is subservient to the Supreme Leader; previously, they allowed the voters to elect Khatami, but smartly frustrated his attempts at reform. Why fake the election, and do such a horrible job of it, when there are better ways to maintain power? They could've just Khatami-ed Mousavi.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why the Iranian government would bother to rig the election. The president is subservient to the Supreme Leader; previously, they allowed the voters to elect Khatami, but smartly frustrated his attempts at reform. Why fake the election, and do such a horrible job of it, when there are better ways to maintain power? They could've just Kahtami-ed Mousavi.

Maybe it was personal agenda from Ahmadinejad? But anyway, Nate Silver has a really interesting analysis of the one poll that was taken previous to the election. Basically, it's possible that it actually did happen the way it did, but it also could be rigged. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html

[Ferrus]

Why the pretense of democracy? It is all a part of the complex Shia ideology of Iran - whose ideology is strongly influenced by Platonic notions of dictatorship and rulership, as well as the forms of government used by Muhammed and his successor caliphs.

As for why bother to rig the elections? Evidence suggests something like a military coup by Ahmadinejad, his power has increased considerably. Of course, like chancellors and shoguns of old, the image that the sumpreme leader remains in charge is more important than the substance.

[fripping]

Then why the pretense of democracy?

we might ask the same of our own government, although we already know the answer.

i'm a bit jealous of iran, who unlike us didn't take a fraudulent election sitting down.

[C.J.Woolf]

i'm a bit jealous of iran, who unlike us didn't take a fraudulent election sitting down.
I had the same feeling about Ukraine's Orange Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution) in 2004.

[Feops]

i'm a bit jealous of iran, who unlike us didn't take a fraudulent election sitting down.

Was there cause to? Call me a silly canadian, but I recall your vote being split nearly 50/50 as is, and the result depended more on the mechanics of your electoral system than anything else. You could have flipped a coin for an equally logical outcome.

[fripping]

I had the same feeling about Ukraine's Orange Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution) in 2004.

amen to that.


Was there cause to? Call me a silly canadian, but I recall your vote being split nearly 50/50 as is, and the result depended more on the mechanics of your electoral system than anything else. You could have flipped a coin for an equally logical outcome.

it's ok, you are not of The Beast so you would not recognize its work.

read this (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696)

"Whichever candidate you voted for (or think you voted for), or even if you did not vote (or could not vote), you must admit that last year’s presidential race was—if nothing else—pretty interesting. True, the press has dropped the subject, and the Democrats, with very few exceptions, have “moved on.” Yet this contest may have been the most unusual in U.S. history; it was certainly among those with the strangest outcomes. You may remember being surprised yourself. The infamously factious Democrats were fiercely unified—Ralph Nader garnered only about 0.38 percent of the national vote—while the Republicans were split, with a vocal anti-Bush front that included anti-Clinton warrior Bob Barr of Georgia; Ike’s son John Eisenhower; Ronald Reagan’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe Jr.; former Air Force Chief of Staff and onetime “Veteran for Bush” General Merrill “Tony” McPeak; founding neocon Francis Fukuyama; Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and various large alliances of military officers, diplomats, and business professors. The American Conservative, co-founded by Pat Buchanan, endorsed five candidates for president, including both Bush and Kerry, while the Financial Times and The Economist came out for Kerry alone. At least fifty-nine daily newspapers that backed Bush in the previous election endorsed Kerry (or no one) in this election. The national turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had swept the ruling party from the White House. And on Election Day, twenty-six state exit polls incorrectly predicted wins for Kerry, a statistical failure so colossal and unprecedented that the odds against its happening, according to a report last May by the National Election Data Archive Project, were 16.5 million to 1. Yet this ever-less-beloved president, this president who had united liberals and conservatives and nearly all the world against himself—this president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes."

[lowtech redneck]

amen to that.



it's ok, you are not of The Beast so you would not recognize its work.

read this (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696)

"Whichever candidate you voted for (or think you voted for), or even if you did not vote (or could not vote), you must admit that last year’s presidential race was—if nothing else—pretty interesting. True, the press has dropped the subject, and the Democrats, with very few exceptions, have “moved on.” Yet this contest may have been the most unusual in U.S. history; it was certainly among those with the strangest outcomes. You may remember being surprised yourself. The infamously factious Democrats were fiercely unified—Ralph Nader garnered only about 0.38 percent of the national vote—while the Republicans were split, with a vocal anti-Bush front that included anti-Clinton warrior Bob Barr of Georgia; Ike’s son John Eisenhower; Ronald Reagan’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe Jr.; former Air Force Chief of Staff and onetime “Veteran for Bush” General Merrill “Tony” McPeak; founding neocon Francis Fukuyama; Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and various large alliances of military officers, diplomats, and business professors. The American Conservative, co-founded by Pat Buchanan, endorsed five candidates for president, including both Bush and Kerry, while the Financial Times and The Economist came out for Kerry alone. At least fifty-nine daily newspapers that backed Bush in the previous election endorsed Kerry (or no one) in this election. The national turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, when another unpopular war had swept the ruling party from the White House. And on Election Day, twenty-six state exit polls incorrectly predicted wins for Kerry, a statistical failure so colossal and unprecedented that the odds against its happening, according to a report last May by the National Election Data Archive Project, were 16.5 million to 1. Yet this ever-less-beloved president, this president who had united liberals and conservatives and nearly all the world against himself—this president somehow bested his opponent by 3,000,176 votes."

People are generally not going to vote for someone they dislike more than an unpopular incumbent, and most of those new voters were politically inactive religious and social conservatives, which seriously skewed polls based on past voting patterns.