Media Coverage of Iraqi Voter Turnout

[Laszlo_Hollyfeld]

So there has been a lot of talk about the 60% Iraqi voter turnout in all media since the election, and subsequent commentary on the success of said election and freedom/democracy in general. Only problem is, that 60% figure is a guess at best, and perhaps not a very good one, according to this column in Editor & Publisher:

For several days now, many in the media have routinely referred to the figure of 8 million Iraqi voters, following the lead of Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq. In the original press citations, what Ayar actually said (hedging his bets) was “as many as 8 million,” which most reports quickly translated as “about 8 million,” and then, inevitably, “8 million.” A
Knight Ridder report was among the few that characterized this as only a guess.

Curiously, the day before the election, according to press reports, Ayar had predicted that 7 to 8 million would turn out, giving him some incentive to later spot the numbers in that neighborhood.

Also, one dares to ask: If the commission expected close to 8 million, and that’s what happened – and there was less violence on election day than anticipated – why was the turnout greeted as such a surprise? Especially since U.S. and Iraqi leaders have spent months knocking the press for failing to report that the vast majority of regions in this country are safe and friendly.

The percentage of turnout supplied by Ayar came to 57% (happily rounded off by many in the press to 60%). This was based on what was described as 14 million potential voters divided by those 8 million who braved the potential bullets and bombs to go to the polls.

On Sunday, while hailing the millions going to the polls, I also raised questions about the 14 million eligible figure: was that registered voters, or all adults over 18, or what? Few on TV or in print seem to be quite sure, to this day.

It’s a big difference. Since Sunday, countless TV talking heads, such as Chris Matthews, and print pundits have compared the Iraq turnout favorably to U.S. national elections, not seeming to understand that 80%-90% of our registered voters usually turn out. The problem in our country is that so few people bother to register, bringing our overall turnout numbers way down.

Howard Kurtz at least looked into the Iraqi numbers. In a Tuesday column, he observed that “the 14 million figure is the number of registered Iraqis, while turnout is usually calculated using the number of eligible voters. The number of adults in Iraq is probably closer to 18 million,” which would lower the turnout figure to 45% (if, indeed, the 8 million number holds up).

To put it clearly: If say, for example, 50,000 residents of a city registered and 25,000 voted, that would seem like a very respectable 50% turnout, by one standard. But if the adult population of the city was 150,000, then the actual turnout of 16% would look quite different.

“Election officials concede they did not have a reliable baseline on which to calculate turnout,” Kurtz concluded.

He also quoted Democratic strategist Robert Weiner as saying: “It’s an amazing media error, a huge blunder. I’m sure the Bush administration is thrilled by this spin.”

This raises a few questions for me. First, if the turnout turns out (ha!) to be lower than 60%, does that impact the “success” of the elections? What if it comes in at 45%? 30%? Does it not matter at all - is just having an election at all a success? This does not seem an abstract question, given that just about everyone (Iraqi officials included) is saying how crucial Sunni participation is to the legitimacy of the government. Is overall participation just as important?

Secondly, should we be bothered by the fact that this 60% guess was so quickly transubstantiated into fact by the media? It reminds me (on a much smaller scale) of the credulous reporting on the administration’s run-up to the war, which of course resulted in big mea culpas from the NY Times, et al. Is there a relevant parallel to be drawn here or not?

[Squink]

if the turnout turns out (ha!) to be lower than 60%, does that impact the “success” of the elections?

It sure does. For a 60% turnout, most of the shiites and kurds would have to vote, regardless of faction. If turnout was, say, 40% it might have come from kurds and non-Sadrist shiites. We can’t tell without accurate numbers.

should we be bothered by the fact that this 60% guess was so quickly transubstantiated into fact by the media?

Very much so, particularly with the oft repeated implication that Sunnis voted in significant numbers. It is impossible to arrive at an accurate assessment of what was accomplished in the elections without accurate numbers.

The real story appears to be much more complex than a triumphal march towards freedom and democracy:
In Diverse Mosul, Slightly More Than 10% Voted, but That’s More Than Expected

[rjung]

In a related vein, Robert Fisk of the UK Independent writes:

@Robert Fisk

Many Iraqis do not know the names of the candidates, let alone their policies. But there will be democracy in Iraq.

The media boys and girls will be expected to play along with this. “Transition of power,” says the hourly logo on CNN’s live coverage of the election, though the poll is for a parliament to write a constitution and the men who will form a majority within it will have no power.

…The big television networks have been given a list of five polling stations where they will be “allowed” to film. Close inspection of the list shows that four of the five are in Shia Muslim areas - where the polling will probably be high - and one in an upmarket Sunni area where it will be moderate. Every working-class Sunni polling station will be out of bounds to the press. I wonder if the television lads will tell us that today when they show voters “flocking” to the polls.

Kinda puts the whole “inspirational voter turnout” spin in a new light, IMO.

[Cervaise]

60% isn’t even that impressive anyway, considering Vietnam managed 83% in 1967 despite determined efforts by the insurgency to disrupt the balloting.

[Laszlo_Hollyfeld]

@Cervaise

60% isn’t even that impressive anyway, considering Vietnam managed 83% in 1967 despite determined efforts by the insurgency to disrupt the balloting.

That reminds me of this NY Times article from 1967, which sound eerily familiar:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.