Saddam wins in landslide, 11,445,638 to 0; no film at 11, or any other time

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
I’m personally gratified. I know during that last election after the Gulf Way, Saddam faced a crises of confidence. He squeaked by with a mere 99.96% of the vote.

A few confused citizens mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan when they thought they were voting for Saddam.

Fortunately, it all worked out in the end.

[dantheman]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Thanks though through hard work, social programs, and compassionate leadership Saddam has managed to regain the confidence of his feckless minio… err citizens.

**

They’re much more feckful now than they were in 1991. They’re practically swimming in a sea of feckundity.

[Gary_Kumquat]

Fecking hell.

[Chez_Guevara]

100% of the vote is really a very small percentage.

In the Liberian presidential election of 1927, President Charles King was returned with a majority over his opponent, Mr. Thomas Faulkner of the People’s Party, officially announced as 234,000.

At the time of the election the number of people eligible to vote in Liberia was about 15,000. Therefore President King claimed roughly 1550% of the vote.

Saddam has much to learn about matters psephological.

[december]

You folks are joking, but some news media sounded as if they took it seriously:

It’s a mystery why Western news organizations insist on portraying this as if it were an actual election. We’ve previously criticized Reuters and CNN for this, but it’s very widespread:

“Iraq Says ‘Yes’ to Saddam; Voters Show Support as U.S. Threat Mounts”–headline, MSNBC.com, Oct. 15

“Iraqis Urged to Back Hussein 100%”–headline, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 15

“Saddam Aims for 100% Support”–headline, BBC, Oct. 15

“Although President Saddam Hussein faces no challenger in Tuesday’s presidential referendum, the government is pushing for the highest percentage of ‘yes’ votes to paint Saddam as a popular leader in a rebuke to the United States.”–lead paragraph, Associated Press dispatch, Oct. 15

CNN and Reuters are still at it too. A CNN.com headline from yesterday declares: “Election All but Assured for Saddam.” (Isn’t that “all but” a lovely touch?) Today’s follow-up: “Landslide Expected in Saddam Poll.”

Reuters leads off its “report” with this ludicrous statement: “Defiant Iraqis lined up to show their support for Saddam Hussein Tuesday as Western powers were deadlocked over how to deal with the veteran leader they say threatens world security.” A captive people does a dictator’s bidding under threat of death–only in Reuterville could anyone call this “defiant.”

Worst of all is the Los Angeles Times. Reporter Michael Slackman’s article carries the headline “For Iraqis, Vote for Hussein Is an Exercise in Democracy.” “Of course the outcome is preordained,” Slackman acknowledges. “But then, so is Western reaction”–as if making a mockery of democracy were morally equivalent to recognizing that someone’s made a mockery of democracy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002473

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - More than 11.5 million Iraqis will cast ballots in a referendum to endorse the presidency of Saddam Hussein for another seven-year term on October 15, Iraq’s state radio said on Wednesday.

It quoted the Planning Ministry as saying 11.56 million voters would take part in the referendum, which comes as the United States accuses Iraq of seeking arms of mass destruction and calls for Saddam’s ouster.

Iraq announced plans for the secret ballot referendum on September 8.

A 1995 referendum was the first such vote in Iraq since it became a republic after a 1958 revolution, which toppled the monarchy.

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1553864

[Waverly]

I find the childlike naiveté most strange. Certainly Saddam’s officials are smart enough to manufacture results within the realm of statistical possibility. That they did not betrays more than simple contempt for the democratic process they are mocking. I’ll give a holler when I figure out what that something is.

[Mojo]

I’d like to know what happened to the .04% who voted “no” in the last election.

december, aren’t Taranto’s points #2-6 true and fairly non-biased statements? How is “Saddam aims for 100% support” non-factual? I can understand that calling it an “excerise in democracy” is laughable and an insult to democracy, but some of the other statements seemed fairly innocuous.

[Balduran]

Mojo, I’d like to know what happened to the .04% who voted “no” in the last election.

There were allegations that the no-voter’s ration cards were confiscated (sorry, no cite, I read it in my newspaper a few days ago). Since that is pretty much the only way you can get food, it’s a good incentive to vote “yes”.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**::Total egregious hijack::

Just curious Lib. Are you able to translate the last part of Phaedrus’ final post? **

I’m not even able to find it.

[december]

*Originally posted by Mojo *december, aren’t Taranto’s points #2-6 true and fairly non-biased statements? How is “Saddam aims for 100% support” non-factual? I can understand that calling it an “excerise in democracy” is laughable and an insult to democracy, but some of the other statements seemed fairly innocuous.

This is like being asked to explain a joke. Linking the “vote” to the US threat is incongruous, since it’s a sham. Saddam’s “aiming for 100%” or “pushing for a high percentage” is funny, because the election is a sham.

In fact, the reason all these quotes are funny is that the rerporters used connon phrases that would have been appropriate for a real election.

[matt_mcl]

CBC Radio had some very amusing and very sarcastic reports on the election over the last few days (the term “miracle of miracles” was bandied about).

[december]

Incidentally this sort of margin is not entirely unheard of in the US. In 2000, Hillary Clinton won the New Square Hassidic vote by a margin of 1,400 to 12, which is 99.15%. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21529

[flyboy]

According the the Chicago Tribune (14 Oct, “Iraqi Voters’ choice: Yes or Yes”):

“At polling places, Iraqis are assigned numbers that correspond to their registration cards so the government knows the identity and decision of every voter.”

[Briminator]

Well at least they got a high voter turnout. Cripes, we can only get around %70 of the people to vote if we are lucky.

[ivylass]

Doesn’t this scare anyone? Obviously Saddam is so delusional he thinks this is a fair election. We are definitely dealing with a madman.

[UncleBeer]

This is a unique manifestation of democracy . . .

Unique manifestation indeed.

[Truth_Seeker]

ivylass is exactly correct. This is just another piece of evidence that Saddam Hussein is seriously, clinically mentally ill.

[World_Eater]

Sounds like the yes/no columns were simply reversed.

[EasyPhil]

I don’t see how anybody would think that Iraqi’s would support their leader when americans support GWB, a president who can’t pronounce the word nuclear correct, and didn’t win the popular vote.

[EasyPhil]

I don’t see how anybody would think that Iraqi’s wouldn’t support their leader when americans support GWB, a president who can’t pronounce the word nuclear correct, and didn’t win the popular vote.