[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank
Nobody said it was wrong

You did - you said CNNs 48% figure was wrong, and by extension the beebs.  minor thing, but worth noting

[Gank]

No I said that CNN saying they didnt get a majority is wrong. The reasons why it was wrong have already been explained. Stop twisting what I've said in order to have a go at me.

[aldo_14]

My apologies; i interpreted one of your quotes wrongly (mixed up 51% of seats with 51% of votes).

Oh, and if I ever want to 'have a go at someone', you'd know it - I'm not subtle at it.  Which is why i don't.

[Flipside]

It's still had to go to a private ballot within the party to decide who actually gets to be the leader of the gang though...

[vyper]

Get yer chibs oot lads, clean fight nae buckie bottles...

[Gank]

My apols, bit defensive at the minute due to peoples lack of reading skills.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
Get yer chibs oot lads, clean fight nae buckie bottles...

Nae belts?  bolt, ya rocket!

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by karajorma


Exactly Aldo. The people who claim that the election isn't a sham claim that those regions don't matter because the people in them would have refused to vote anyway.

That's what makes the entire election a sham.

You both seem to have missed the point of the rest of my post.  As I said, it was inevitable that certain sections of the country would not be able to participate in this first election, due to the security issues.  Does this mean that the rest of the election, which meant much better than expected, is suddenly a "sham"?  I think not.  Like I said above, change like this doesn't occur overnight.  They've already been freed from a murderous dictator; I'd say that's a step up.

Also, last time I checked, not everyone in the United States can participate in certain aspects of national elections.  In particular, the District of Columbia does not have any voting representation in Congress, or any electoral votes.  Does this make our elections a "sham," as well?

[Flipside]

No, but it does make it incomplete. Not that it would have had any bearing on this election, but think of the influence it might have had in Bush vs Gore?

[Woolie Wool]

We can't hold elections everywhere at the present stage of reconstruction. But this is an important step forward (the majority Iraqis are Shiites and Kurds anyway, so they probably won't complain about Shiites and Kurds holding many of the assembly seats. Reconstruction is not complete, and may last several more years. But one day, we will be able to step back and move on to new things...like maybe invading Syria and bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose

You both seem to have missed the point of the rest of my post.  As I said, it was inevitable that certain sections of the country would not be able to participate in this first election, due to the security issues.  Does this mean that the rest of the election, which meant much better than expected, is suddenly a "sham"?  I think not.  Like I said above, change like this doesn't occur overnight.  They've already been freed from a murderous dictator; I'd say that's a step up.

The question is not whether it is better for Iraqis now than under Saddam (in some parts - Sunni mostly - it's probably much worse), but whether or not the democratic elections which will shape the future of the country (by drawing up the constitution) are truly fair and representative.  

Remember, this is the constitution of Iraq; this group is drawing up the document that will dictate the future structure of Iraqi democracy and thus the future of democracy itself.  How can it be fair if a large section (20%) of the population - and a single ethnic group at that - has been disenfranchised either by intimidation or the denial of the ballot?

you have a representative Iraqi government (I think the term is different to government in actuality, as it's only drawing up the constitution for further elections, but ne'ermind - fine.  But that government only represents at most 80% of the population, and only 2 out of the 3 main ethnic groups.  

If you were told you could not vote because of local crime, or couldn't because your neighbourhood was rioting, would you consider it 'fair'?

  Is it ok to have democracy for the majority and not for the minority?  And is not part of democracy the right to choose to abstain, not have that choice pre-determined for you or removed?

Originally posted by Mongoose
Also, last time I checked, not everyone in the United States can participate in certain aspects of national elections.  In particular, the District of Columbia does not have any voting representation in Congress, or any electoral votes.  Does this make our elections a "sham," as well?

If you exclude an entire district from governmental representation (not being familiar with the Us system of politics, I don't know how it works per se), then yes.  Democracy has to cover all individuals to be valid.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mongoose
You both seem to have missed the point of the rest of my post.  

Nope. I got it. I just completely disagreed with it.

Originally posted by Mongoose
As I said, it was inevitable that certain sections of the country would not be able to participate in this first election, due to the security issues.  Does this mean that the rest of the election, which meant much better than expected, is suddenly a "sham"?  I think not.  Like I said above, change like this doesn't occur overnight.  

Yes. It's still a sham. The whole of Iraq couldn't vote. Therefore the election is not representative of the wishes of the people of Iraq. It's better than the interim government but it's still not a democracy.

Originally posted by Mongoose
Also, last time I checked, not everyone in the United States can participate in certain aspects of national elections.  In particular, the District of Columbia does not have any voting representation in Congress, or any electoral votes.  Does this make our elections a "sham," as well?

If I were you I'd think twice before holding up the US presidential elections and saying the word sham. That's just asking for trouble

[Grey Wolf]

Mongoose, you're a bit off there. DC gets electoral votes as if it was a state (3 votes, if you want to know the exact number).

[Mongoose]

I was unaware of that fact.  Were they granted the electoral votes relatively recently?  I know that some people there have always been very vocal about not being represented in Congress.

As for the rest of you...I have to say that, reading your posts, the distinct impression I'm getting is of people ignoring/blinding themselves to the good that has come out of the Iraqi elections in favor of the unfavorable aspects of them.  Yes, there were unfavorable aspects.  Yes, some regions didn't get to vote.  But let me ask you this:  what could have happened differently?  What could anyone have done differently to make the election "not a sham"?  What are  your brilliant ideas?  By all means, if you think you know the answer, please share it.  (And don't give me the "not invade" line.  I'm talking about the present, not the past.)  I know mine:  there wasn't anything that could be done differently.  Things went as best as they could under the circumstances, and indeed, the overall turnout of the vote was better than many people predicted.  Again, I ask you to please tell me what should/could have been done differently.  It's pretty stupid to keep *****ing about a situation without offering any way to improve it.

[Grey Wolf]

They aren't present in Congress, but it has received electoral votes since it's establishment, I believe.

[redmenace]

It is also not as simple as no representation. The District of Columbia recieves of support from the federal Gov't. Basically they gave up of costs that normal states have to pay for instead recieving statehood. So it is not as simple as the US repressing the voters in DC. Although I will point out the DC has a huge black population.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mongoose
What could anyone have done differently to make the election "not a sham"?  

Bugger all. Which is why it needs to stop being presented as being a true election where Iraq's people choose a leader in a manner which represented the country.

For a start they need to keep calling the current goverment an interim government. Acting as if it's anything else is just asking for trouble.

[Rictor]

I think the issue is sovereignty. Whichever government is in power, if they want to look even half-way legitimate, need to have the power to:

-kick occupation troops out. There's no such thing as independence under occupation and I would like to hear anyone argue otherwise.

-prosecute any and all criminals who commit violent acts within Iraq. This goes for both sides, so no Status of Forces bull****.

-have the ability to make laws, even those that run counter to or negate the edicts put in place by Paul Bremer (such as, oh, I don't know, not banning labour unions).

-have full control of the government, without the current "advisors" (read: agents) present in every Iraqi ministry.

I don't think any of that sounds particularly unreasonable. Its the same freedoms every normal government around the world has.

[Bobboau]

as I understand it they current 'technicly' have that power it's just none of the people on the top want to use it for what ever reason you might want to say (like there pupets or whatever). if certan large groups of certan people with certan views had decided not to boycot a certan election than maybe these certan polocies would not be the way they are today.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose
I was unaware of that fact.  Were they granted the electoral votes relatively recently?  I know that some people there have always been very vocal about not being represented in Congress.

As for the rest of you...I have to say that, reading your posts, the distinct impression I'm getting is of people ignoring/blinding themselves to the good that has come out of the Iraqi elections in favor of the unfavorable aspects of them.  Yes, there were unfavorable aspects.  Yes, some regions didn't get to vote.  But let me ask you this:  what could have happened differently?  What could anyone have done differently to make the election "not a sham"?  What are  your brilliant ideas?  

On the most basic level - wait until it was secure enough to hold elections across the entire country.  At the very least, don't go ahead when the main Sunni parties are saying it's unfair to.  I don't see how you can claim democracy when a large proportion are disenfranchised; yes, it was good for the Sunnis and Kurds.  But not all Iraq, and that's what the decisions of the winning parties will be affecting.

On a further, more unlikely level, eventually it'd be needed to have some form of UN presence - preferably a peace-keeping force - as the presence of US troops on Arab soil is like a red rag to a bull to many people..... obviously, this is a pipe dream - very few nations would be stupid enough to get voluntarily involved in the Iraq quagmire for one thing.