# Are Iraqi Elections Acceptable if Only 75% of the People Can Vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370 "2004-09-27T22:38:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/1 "2004-09-27T22:38:47Z")
[Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thinks so](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040923/wl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc_5): > [@](#): > > But the Pentagon chief said there could be a situation where an election could be held in “three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great.” > [@](#): > > “If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it. You have the rest of the election and you go on. Life’s not perfect,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Will Iraqis accept the results of an election if most of the residents of Sunni Triangle are excluded from voting because the region cannot be pacified by January? Wouldn’t this cement the widespread belief among Iraqis that the new government is just an American puppet? Is this another example of the Administration slavishly staying the course for political purposes, no matter how negative the foreseeable outcome may be? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/2 "2004-09-27T23:00:37Z")
Well, an American election wouldn’t be invalidated if some huge natural disaster hit in November, shutting down voting in a highly populated state (i.e. earthquake in California or massive hurricanes in Florida, etc.) and a large portion of Iraq is going to believe _any_ post-Saddam government is an American puppet. Screw it. A pertially-effective election is better than none, and assuming the country doesn’t completely collapse, they can hold another election in a few years in which (hopefully) more people can participate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/3 "2004-09-27T23:03:42Z")
We’ve been discussing this problem in “Ayatollah al-Sistani threatens to boycott January elections in Iraq” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277203](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277203) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/4 "2004-09-28T01:11:19Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, an American election wouldn’t be invalidated if some huge natural disaster hit in November, shutting down voting in a highly populated state (i.e. earthquake in California or massive hurricanes in Florida, etc.) and a large portion of Iraq is going to believe _any_ post-Saddam government is an American puppet. What if an election were held without California, New York, or New Jersey? Or without Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, and Kentucky? That’s how I see this Iraq election mess. The problem isn’t just that 20% of the country may be disenfranchised, but that the disenfranchised area is politically tilted. The areas with the most insurgency are presumably the areas with the least friendly views toward the American occupation, so if they aren’t able to vote, the election results will be artificially skewed toward pro-occupation candidates. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/5 "2004-09-28T01:15:03Z")
Er, that should be “without California, New York, **and** New Jersey”. CA, NY, and NJ are blue states that make up around 1/5 of the US population, just as TX, NC, SC, VA, GA, IN, and KY are red states with about the same total population. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/6 "2004-09-28T01:49:46Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > What if an election were held without California, New York, or New Jersey? Or without Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, and Kentucky? > > That’s how I see this Iraq election mess. The problem isn’t just that 20% of the country may be disenfranchised, but that the disenfranchised area is politically tilted. The areas with the most insurgency are presumably the areas with the least friendly views toward the American occupation, so if they aren’t able to vote, the election results will be artificially skewed toward pro-occupation candidates. You’d have to show that the disenfranchising was arbitrary and intentional, which certainly isn’t the case after a natural disaster and I don’t believe is that case where shooting is ongoing. And the possible effect on electoral votes (i.e. red states vs blue states) such a disaster might cause in the upcoming American election is certainly irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/7 "2004-09-28T01:59:00Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You’d have to show that the disenfranchising was arbitrary and intentional, which certainly isn’t the case after a natural disaster and I don’t believe is that case where shooting is ongoing. I disagree. Regardless of the intent, if the _effect_ is to disregard a huge block of voters whose political views as a whole are reasonably predictable, then the election is going to be artifically skewed away from those views, and the results will be somewhere between “suspect” and “invalid”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/8 "2004-09-28T02:05:15Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I disagree. Regardless of the intent, if the _effect_ is to disregard a huge block of voters whose political views as a whole are reasonably predictable, then the election is going to be artifically skewed away from those views, and the results will be somewhere between “suspect” and “invalid”. Agreed. We must remember not to look at this issue the way an American (or Iraqi) court of law would – that’s irrelevant. The question is rather enough of the Iraqi people will consider this election “suspect” or “invalid” to make it impossible for the elected government to govern effectively in all parts of the country. And I’m afraid the answer will be “yes.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/9 "2004-09-28T02:09:33Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I disagree. Regardless of the intent, if the _effect_ is to disregard a huge block of voters whose political views as a whole are reasonably predictable, then the election is going to be artifically skewed away from those views, and the results will be somewhere between “suspect” and “invalid”. Well, unfortunately, the stance of the insurgants is that _no_ election will be recognized. If anyone is causing the disenfranchising, it’s them, not the Americans. Of course, the whole thing is irrelevant, since the results will be violently contested no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/10 "2004-09-28T02:12:06Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, unfortunately, the stance of the insurgants is that _no_ election will be recognized. If anyone is causing the disenfranchising, it’s them, not the Americans. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/11 "2004-09-28T02:27:11Z")
In 1864 an election took place in the U.S. in which a large chunk of the country did not vote (the Confederacy). This seems to me to be pretty analogous to what’s going on in Iraq. If 3/4 of the country wants to build a stable, free democray, and 1/4 of the country wants to tear it apart, well, then hold the election anyway, and let the 3/4 press on. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/12 "2004-09-28T04:40:49Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Cite? Excuse me, I should have said they’re not interested in any election that doesn’t lead to one of their own as replacement dictator. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/13 "2004-09-28T04:45:05Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Excuse me, I should have said they’re not interested in any election that doesn’t lead to one of their own as replacement dictator. Still, cite? Seems to me they’re primarily interested in getting the occupying forces out of their country. If you have evidence that most people in the disenfranchised area, or even most of the violent insurgents, would only be happy with a dictatorship, then let’s see it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/14 "2004-09-28T05:20:52Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Still, cite? Seems to me they’re primarily interested in getting the occupying forces out of their country. If you have evidence that most people in the disenfranchised area, or even most of the violent insurgents, would only be happy with a dictatorship, then let’s see it. I didn’t say that, only that the violence of the insurgents making a vote in a particular region impossible is not the fault of the Americans, nor should it make an election void. I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of Iraqi civilians just want to get back to a normal life. And in any case, segments of the Iraqi population won’t accept the results of this election, but screw 'em, go ahead anyway, and hope the nation can settle down so that the _next_ election won’t be a fiasco. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/15 "2004-09-28T05:50:26Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I didn’t say that, only that the violence of the insurgents making a vote in a particular region impossible is not the fault of the Americans, nor should it make an election void. You did say “they’re not interested in any election that doesn’t lead to one of their own as replacement dictator.” Who are “they”, if not the insurgents or the disenfranchised Iraqis? > [@](#): > > And in any case, segments of the Iraqi population won’t accept the results of this election, but screw 'em, go ahead anyway, and hope the nation can settle down so that the _next_ election won’t be a fiasco. Who _will_ accept the results of an election that’s fundamentally biased, other than the people administering it? Do you think the international community will think Iraq’s newly elected government is legitimate if an awfully convenient fifth of the population doesn’t get to vote? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/16 "2004-09-28T06:19:35Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > You did say “they’re not interested in any election that doesn’t lead to one of their own as replacement dictator.” Who are “they”, if not the insurgents or the disenfranchised Iraqis? Well, duh, “they” are the insurgents. The Iraqi civilians who will be unable to vote are unfortunate bystanders, such as exist in every armed conflict. > [@](#): > > Who _will_ accept the results of an election that’s fundamentally biased, other than the people administering it? Do you think the international community will think Iraq’s newly elected government is legitimate if an awfully convenient fifth of the population doesn’t get to vote? Screw the international community. The international community is full of idiots. This first election, regardless of the result, will be at best a transitional phase into either a burgeoning Iraqi democracy or a return to dictatorship. No matter what, some Iraqis will always blame the Americans or use them as a convenient excuse for their own cruelties. I personally hope the civilians who won’t be able to vote know who it is that is stopping them. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/17 "2004-09-28T14:33:24Z")
[Sadrists to Boycott Elections](http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040928/asp/foreign/story_3813051.asp) > [@](#): > > Rebel Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr will not take part in elections scheduled for January as long as US forces remain in the country, an aide said today. > “We as Sadr’s movement will not take part in the elections held under the shadow of occupation,” Sheikh Abdul Hadi al-Daraji said. “Sadr movement will not nominate any candidates,” he added. > He also expected Sadr’s followers to boycott the elections. [CIA Planned to Buy Elections](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041004-702122,00.html) > [@](#): > > he Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret “finding” written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqi-elections-acceptable-if-only-75-of-the-people-can-vote/266370/18 "2004-09-29T03:34:29Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > In 1864 an election took place in the U.S. in which a large chunk of the country did not vote (the Confederacy). > > This seems to me to be pretty analogous to what’s going on in Iraq. If 3/4 of the country wants to build a stable, free democray, and 1/4 of the country wants to tear it apart, well, then hold the election anyway, and let the 3/4 press on. Sam, the problem is not that 1/4 of the country wants to tear it apart, it’s that violent jerks in part of the country don’t want ANYONE to vote and their actions remove 25% (or whatever) of the voters from play unwillingly. All that being said, in a country (the USA) where only 50% of the eligible voters even bother to show up once every four frickin’ years, I would personally regard 75% turnout as a massive improvement, fit for celebration.