Iran election rivals both declare victory (possible coup d'etat in Iran)

[oldoldman]

Iran election rivals both declare victory

The two main candidates in Iran's presidential election have claimed victory, after extended voting as huge numbers of people turned out to vote.

Reformist challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi told a news conference that he had won by a substantial margin.

However, state media said hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won, and officials said he had got 67% of the 15 million votes so far counted.

But Mr Mousavi has complained of some voting irregularities.

He said there had been a shortage of ballot papers and millions of people had been denied the right to vote.

His election monitors were not allowed enough access to polling stations, he added, saying he would deal seriously with any fraud.

"[We] are waiting for the counting of votes to officially end and explanations of these irregularities to be given," Mr Mousavi said. "We expect to celebrate with people soon.

"We hope that authorities in charge do their work in this regard."

Surge of interest

Electoral commission officials said that, with nearly half the ballots counted, Mr Ahmadinejad had gained around two-thirds of the votes.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says most of the early votes counted came from rural areas, where Mr Ahmadinejad is considered to be stronger.

The early rival declarations of victory could be a case of the two candidates attempting to stake their claims before the real arguments begin, he says.

IRANIAN ELECTION
# Voting age 18 years; electorate of 42.5m people
# President to serve maximum of two consecutive four-year terms (or three non-consecutive)
# Election won by absolute majority
# Second round held between top two if no candidate wins majority

There has been a surge of interest recently in
with unprecedented live television debates between the candidates and rallies attended by thousands.

There have been long queues of voters at polling stations, with officials predicting an "unprecedented" turnout.

Four candidates are contesting the election, with Mohsen Razai and Mehdi Karroubi trailing the two main contenders.

If no candidate gets 50% in the first round, the two front-runners will face a run-off vote.

The result will be watched closely outside Iran - in the US, Israel, and European capitals - for any hint of a possible shift in the country's attitude to the rest of the world, BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says.

The timing of the election is also crucial, as the US push for a new policy of engagement with Tehran cannot really get going until the outcome of the election is clear, our correspondent adds.

US President Barack Obama said as the polling drew to a close that he was "excited" by the robust debate taking place in the country.

Women's interest

President Ahmadinejad draws support mainly from the urban poor and rural areas, while his rivals have huge support among the middle classes and the educated urban population.

have also shown great interest in the election and it appears many of them will be voting for the moderate candidates who have promised them more social freedoms, our analyst says.

The votes in regions with national and religious minorities are also important, as they normally vote for reformist candidates.

Mr Mousavi is an ethnic Azeri and is expected to do well in his province, as is Mehdi Karroubi in his native Lorestan province.

known as Velayat-e Faqih, or "Rule by the Supreme Jurist", who is currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It was adopted by an overwhelming majority in 1979 following the Islamic revolution which overthrew the autocratic Western-backed Shah.

But the constitution also stipulates that the people are the source of power and the country holds phased presidential and parliamentary elections every four years.

All candidates are vetted by the powerful conservative-controlled Guardian Council, which also has the power to veto legislation it deems inconsistent with revolutionary principles.

Story from BBC NEWS:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran election rivals both declare victory


Election issues!? IN IRAN!?

[Vuitton]

Anyone know which one is the greater evil of the two? I liked Iran before it went all full force oppression.

[Egon]

Since BBC blows cock, here's a REAL link

Ahmadinejad Takes 70 Percent of Election Votes, Rival Warns of Possible Fraud - Iran | Map | News - FOXNews.com


And let's all pray that the other dude wins.

[Kajii]

Ahmadinejad trying to let him off easy... he could always just, ya know, have him killed.

[Egon]

Originally Posted by Kajii

Ahmadinejad trying to let him off easy... he could always just, ya know, have him killed.

He already made threats to throw him in jail. Read something yesterday about how its illegal for anyone to insult the president, even if you're running against him.

Talk about a rough spot for a campaign manager.

[Dimmauk]

Originally Posted by oldoldman

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran election rivals both declare victory


Election issues!? IN IRAN!?

[Egon]

Originally Posted by Dimmauk

QQ

[Qalbert]

dimpled chads

[Gwynplaine]

Zimbabwe part 2 incoming? Probably not, still interesting.

In any case does it really matter much which person wins? I'm under the impression the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has the most authority anyway.

[Kuya]

This always happens in Iran btw. They always declare victory, and the polls are always unreliable (because they are all always biased). I wouldn't expect a real victor for at least 1-2 more days.

edit: Ayatollah Khomeini has most of his authority in terms of international politics or foreign politics. Presidents in Iran pertain more to domestic issues.

[aurik]

Originally Posted by Egon

Since BBC blows cock, here's a REAL link

Ahmadinejad Takes 70 Percent of Election Votes, Rival Warns of Possible Fraud - Iran | Map | News - FOXNews.com

I laughed really hard at this post. Really hard.

[oldoldman]

Originally Posted by aurik

I laughed really hard at this post. Really hard.

I didn't laugh, but I certainly made one of the biggest WTF faces.

[guartz]

Ah yes, the Iranian election, sanction by the guardians. Once every four years the people of Iran gather to cast their ballots, a declaration to the world that they prefer homegrown oppressors as opposed to foreign ones.

[guartz]

Originally Posted by Egon

And let's all pray that the other dude wins.

faith in humanity.. wanes.

[Kuya]

Well, if it means anything, the neocons in the US are hoping Ahmadinejad wins.

[guartz]

Originally Posted by Kuya

Well, if it means anything, the neocons in the US are hoping Ahmadinejad wins.

Kuya, what is this shit?

Granted I only read the first three paragraphs. I need your word it is worth reading further.

[Kuya]

Didn't read it myself, just saw Juan Cole link it whilst saying the neocons want Ahmadinejad to win. Let me check what is says.

[Kuya]

Khameni is not the only one worrying about a Moussavi win, writes Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam:

As Daniel Pipes recently revealed, he prefers an Ahmadinejad victory. The pro-war camp consisting of neocon Jews, the Israel lobby, and Israel’s Likud rightist bloc needs the most extreme leadership possible. It is far easier to demonize a Holocaust denier than a president who might actually engage in serious negotiations with the Obama administration over Iran’s nuclear program and normalizing U.S.-Iran relations.

What could happen if Moussavi wins? First, Israel’s rush to war will be stymied if not brought to an absolute standstill. The U.S. government will want to give the new Iranian administration time to articulate a new position regarding Obama’s outreach efforts in his Cairo speech and elsewhere. The best laid plans of Israel’s intelligence apparatus will be waylaid.

This is the part.

[guartz]

Ah thanks. It was my assumption though, Pipes was a laughing stock, even amongst friends.

[Conformity]

As an Iranian, I would like to say that this curiosity around the Iranian elections is absolutely outrageous. The president holds no real power and is a mere figurehead, much like the president of Germany. This is the equivalent of voting in student elections in school.

[guartz]

We know this, conformity.

At least I do.

[Conformity]

Originally Posted by guartz

We know this, conformity.

At least I do.

Well thats good, I just wanted to put that out there in case anyone had their hopes up

[Kuya]

Though you could say that about all elections.

edit: I disgress, we shouldn't be so cynical either. There are differences between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi, and whether you think it's worth voting or not will depend on what you want. For example, it's quite clear that Mousavi will be less authoritarian, but if you're a right winger from the US then you won't like him because he has no intention of stopping the nuclear enrichment which is allowed to Iran according to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It's like, for example, saying that there are no differences between Obama and Bush; let's not be absurd, there are. But if you care more about ending the vital issues that endanger American society, such as the power relationship between military companies, intelligence institutions, and executive institutions, then you probably won't consider it a worthy choice.

It... really depends on what you want.

edit: there are two other candidates too.

[guartz]

Originally Posted by Kuya

Though you could say that about all elections.

edit: I disgress, we shouldn't be so cynical either. There are differences between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi, and whether you think it's worth voting or not will depend on what you want. For example, it's quite clear that Mousavi will be less authoritarian, but if you're a right winger from the US then you won't like him because he has no intention of stopping the nuclear enrichment which is allowed to Iran according to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It's like, for example, saying that there are no differences between Obama and Bush; let's not be absurd, there are. But if you care more about ending the vital issues that endanger American society, such as the power relationship between military companies, intelligence institutions, and executive institutions, then you probably won't consider it a worthy choice.

It... really depends on what you want.

Or it could all be just a clever illusion, orchestrated by people in power to change policies with new adimistration.

Or the candidates are selected by those with power prior to election.

Later is something Iran doesn't hide, but I think both scenarios are true.

[Kuya]

That would depend on how you explain it.

[guartz]

Originally Posted by Kuya

That would depend on how you explain it.

Funny you say that. Might seem off topic but I'm watching this debate video of Christopher Hitchens debating Al Sharpton on God/Atheism.

don't ask,

anyway, Sharpton takes a huge beating, but being the sly idealogue that he is, brings up Hitchen's statist beliefs. (specifically Iraq war) Now i'm sure Sharpton had no idea what he inadvertently did, but I noticed it. Here you have, seemingly two people on complete opposite spectrums. Hitchen's argues very articulately and logically, and Sharpton stumbles awkwardly. Yet the two are remarkable similar. I swear the entire thing must have been scripted by an anarchist for the lols, because almost everything Hitchen said to refute religion and people's belief in religion, could-likewise be used to refute government, democracy and statism in general.

The central theme of their argument is irrelevant to our conversation here Kuya, however, it's fundamentally similar in nature, where you have two sides, seemingly opposite in spectrum, arguing over a system of whatever, meanwhile promoting the exact same effects.

It's like, "you gonna eat shit" but you gotta make sure you eat it right. The idea of not eating shit at all, is never actually brought up.

[Kuya]

Well, under the idea that, whether a conservative state or a liberal state (this is a simplification for the sake of expedience, of course), the problem continues to be that you exist under a state, i would rely on the argument, that the state is inevitable. I don't mean by state what we understand it to be now, an almost "scientifically" organized governing body/bodies. I mean it simply as any form of governing system. And i defend myself in that point by alluding to Madison's argument on "interest groups", and i say those marks because he never called it by that name, i believe he said factions.

Anyway, his argument was that factions are always bad, and it would be better if societies, and governments, functioned under the same interests. However, he realized that such a society is not a society of people, and to create such a society with people, liberty could not exist. I believe he used the example of fire and air. Liberty is the air and the factions (interest groups) are the fire. If you want to stop the fire, you need to get rid of the air, but that might be unwise for someone who relies on air...

Now to get to my point, i use the same idea behind the example. Not that governments are necessary, but that they exist no matter what. Just as Madison thought you could not stop factions from existing and therefore you must create systems to properly guide it into beneficial functions instead of destrutive ones... you have to try and mold the inevitable existence of government into something beneficial.

As to the reason why i say they are inevitable, well, i consider that if a government can serve the interest of any group, then it will exist inevitably. Because it always seems like governments are always somewhat controlled by those with the most resources (and in any free society someone will amass the most, and they will also have interests of their own) and by demagogues. I, once again use Madison to make my point, and i think we once talked about this. Madison thought that the minority needed to be protected from the interests of the majority, the minority being property owners, those who have the most (well, if usually), because the majority will inevitably envy the minority and develope a "leveling spirit". I "reverse" that idea and say that those with the most resources will always have the desire to protect their advantage from the "majority" by means of establishing something that can both "control" the majority and adhere to its interests, not by way of direct ownership, but via the use of resources to influence the way this "means of protecting resources" acts.

edit: this is all just ideas that i've developed myself of course, not that i've read them elsewhere so they are not professional. Except the parts that are Madison's thoughts, of course.

[Darus Grey]

I always find it hilarious to see people ride against Iran's election process, when myself and many Political scientisists consider it one of the fairest processes in the world.

The fact that that is true is what should bother and disturb us.

[guartz]

Good show Kuya, I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

Anyway,

Although I'm no scholar on the federalist papers, I think you refer to paper 10 , where madison argues for a stronger union because true democracy would breed "interest groups".

However, I think you wrongly assume his basis for that argument. His central theme was that violence caused by the factions would break apart the union. His assumptions are similar with Hobbs, is that mankind lives in a perpetual state of war with each other, and only a strong governing body could maintain "ceasefire".

You are right that governments exist naturally, as in, society, a collection of people, but not monopolies of force. So do factions, exist "naturally", the simplest form of which are families.

If you assume Hobbs is right, then yes, the state is inevitable, since the factions would war until a absolute victor is determined. I however, think it a deceit. Like most truths in life, some are counter-intuitive, and the fact that man rather war then co-exist is one of them, especially since what Hobbs says smacks of heavy religious influence.

edit: That is to say, the state(monopoly on violence) comes about due to lies/propaganda/lack of understanding.

[guartz]

Originally Posted by Darus Grey

I always find it hilarious to see people ride against Iran's election process, when myself and many Political scientisists consider it one of the fairest processes in the world.

The fact that that is true is what should bother and disturb us.

oh dude, I think I saw a video of your fellow polisci classmate here on the forums recently.