Well, was it? What evidence is there? I understand that Ahmedinejad won a larger-than-expected victory, but I had thought that Mousavi was an underdog anyway. Are the protestors in the streets fighting against a repressive sham democracy, or are they attempting by force to overturn a democratically-derived result?
In short, what is the evidence for either proposition?
There is a little more evidence then that. For example the results came out to fast. Iran does not use voting machines, the ballots would have had to been counted by hand. Secondly Mousavi lost his home town which is highly unlikely. This was also the biggest turnout since 1979 - by a long shot. Big turn outs usually mean a big change. Another thing I find strange is a man who worked for the internal ministry came out with the real election results saying Ahmedinejad came in third, the man was killed in a car accident the next day. I will post some cites and more info once i get it all together.
Definitely. My friend Buzzy was in Brooklyn and a fence he knew was trying to sell it. He wanted $22, but Buzzy talked him down to $17.
Hmmm. How long before this ends up in GD? Four, three, two…
The US government doesn’t know, the UN doesn’t know, the neighboring nations don’t know, the news organizations don’t know, and the information is hidden by a government with total control over dissemination.
But some random poster on the net will have the answer. :smack:
From the OP:
You think that no one outside the Iranian gov’t knows what evidence there is for either proposition? You don’t think it’s likely that someone on the Straight Dope knows enough to say what the evidence for each proposition is?
Did you read the post? Or did you just read the title, then post without reading the rest?
FiveThirtyEight has done a lot of critical analysis with what little data is out there. They apply a lot of statistics and modeling in a pretty rigorous way, and tend to be very conservative in their conclusions. Their overall conclusion is that there’s no smoking gun, but there’s a lot that’s fishy. Could be a legitimate but unexpected result, or the results of fraud or voter intimidation.
Everything they have to say on the topic is here. Read from the bottom to start at the beginning of all of this.
This one is probably better suited to Great Debates, so let’s move it.
samclem Moderator, General Questions
I love having a stalker. 
I gave the GQ answer. Now that it’s in GD, other answers may be given.
There are a bunch of cities with turnout well over 100%, and a whole lot more with turnout almost at it. That in itself…
First things first: yes, a citation, especially for that last, would be appreciated.
So I want to make sure I understand this. I’m assuming that there as here, rigging a national election would require a conspiracy of a large number of people. This sinister conspiracy was so stupid that they released their forged results impossibly early, and they made their forged resuts look ridiculous by showing a candidate losing in his home town? Are these conspirators royally stupid?
With the exception of the last (and unsourced) datum, this is all circumstantial. Al Gore and George McGovern both lost their home states; were these elections rigged? Big turnouts may “usually” mean big change; does that imply that large-turnout elections won by the incumbent are rigged?
After reviewing statistical analyses purporting to prove that Ohio was stolen in 2004 and that 600,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the war, I’ve come to have a healthy distrust of statistical analyses in the political sphere.
But not by you, apparently?
Citation, please?
Or they were just caught by surprise, and had to improvise. It doesn’t take a huge conspiracy; when you already are in charge of the government you already HAVE an organization.
Not the same thing; a I understand it, the people in Mousavi’s hometown NEVER vote against their own.
And what makes you think either of those is wrong ? And what evidence can anyone use to convince you if you deny the usefulness of statistics ? Voting is all about statistics.
I have watched and read a great deal on the subject over the last week or so.
Every bit of it has been pure speculation. There are no numbers. There is nothing I would call evidence. We know nothing about what really happened.
I said you would get other answers in GD. I didn’t say they would be good answers. The facts are we have no facts. We have ocean of opinions but you specifically asked for evidence. I find it hard to imagine we will ever have evidence. That doesn’t leave me much to say.
How many people would have to know about it, in order to effect the plan? How many people not in on the plan would be in a position to notice something awry? These questions cannot be answered without more information on the Iranian voting process than I have or, I suspect, that you have too.
Citation, please? And when you say they NEVER vote against their own, do you mean that they never have voted against their own in the past, or are they under some sort of geas which binds them now and forever?
I wrote lengthy blog posts about each at the time; both were very readily debunked, with the Iraqi fatality “study” especially shameful for its inclusion in a peer-reviewed journal. I don’t care to rehash either in this thread, but if you’re interested I can try to find the old blog posts.
You will never prove anything about voter fraud using a statistical analysis of a free and fair election, because the exercise of free will is unpredictable and as unlikely as an electoral outcome may seem, it is always possible. Proof would consist of witnesses to tampering, documented evidence of tampering, or members of the conspiracy turned state’s evidence. The earlier-referenced claim that an election official published “real” election results before being murdered would be excellent, if it could be backed up by a reliable source.
-Mousavi lost his hometown.
-According to law Ali Khamenei must wait three days to announce the election results, he waited one day.
-Many in The Guardian Council (the group that must approve the election) campaigned for Ahmadinejad and insist the election was fair before recounting the ballots. Only after the unrest were they willing to recount 10% of the ballots, but since Ahmadinejad won by a landslide whatever is counted won’t be enough.
-For the first time in Iran’s 30 year history the government has a questionable mandate from the people. If Ali Khamenei and the government sincerely believe the elections were fair, why not have another?
On *Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me *(NPR, you rube noob) it was reported that Ahmedinijad got 100% of the Jewish vote in Palm Beach County…
It seems to me that fixing an election doesn’t have to be a huge conspiracy, if it is fixed by lots of little people doing what they understand they are supposed to do (“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”).
I have no insight into the current situation, I just don’t think it has to be some vast, well-oiled machine.
How do you know they didn’t ? In case you haven’t noticed, if they were trying to fool the Iranian people, they did a poor job of it.
Ah, the Lancet study. Which used the standard methods that are used everywhere, but which magically became invalid when applied to Iraq.
There’s no such thing as free will. And your argument is a non-sequitur since the accusation is that this WASN’T free and fair.
A “reliable source” being one that agrees with you and says there was no tampering with the election, no doubt. It’s pretty clear you are of the “don’t confuse me with the facts” persuasion, and not just about Iran.
We use paper ballots, count by hand, and typically know election results within 5-6 hours of the polls closing.
I have no idea about the answer to the OP, but I’ve seen this little tidbit repeated a couple times now and I really don’t know on what grounds anyone could say how long it should take to count the ballots. It depends entirely on how many people you have doing it. There’s no barrier whatsoever to having them counted overnight.