Was there really fraud in Iran?
That’s the latest question some are asking, and one that an Iranian student anonymously addresses in a New York Times op-ed.
The Tehran Bureau published a statistical analysis showing a perfect linear relation between the votes for Ahmadinejad and the votes for Mousavi: The Bureau called it evidence for fraud and said, “Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting.”
But analyst Nate Silver says he doesn’t find this particular piece of evidence compelling. If you analyze the data for the 2008 election in six waves, like the Tehran Bureau did, you see a similar linear result.
A Washington-based poll predicted Ahmadinejad’s victory, perhaps a sign that the election was valid, but Silver says that the polling predicted intimidation — not necessarily a victory for Ahmadinejad — and notes the high number of people who were undecided or refused to disclose their vote.
The student addresses the poll and says that it was outdated, and that people’s opinions changed after they saw unscripted debates between the candidates. Other arguments assume that people in a certain area or class will vote a certain way. These arguments are based on an “outdated understanding of Iran” and make false assumptions about religion and class, he says.
Silver, again, makes an excellent point. It’s not necessarily about the statistical evidence and the votes themselves:
This story really isn’t about the way that the votes were counted. It’s about whether Iran is capable at this point of having an election in which the democratic will of its electorate is properly reflected. If Ahmadinejad hired a bunch of thugs to hold every Iranian at gunpoint while they were casting their ballots, it would not have been difficult for him to get 63 percent of the vote — indeed, he’d probably have wound up with very close to 100 percent. This would be an election — and there would be no need at all to tamper with the results. But it wouldn’t be an expression of democracy. We need to separate out those two concepts. Ahmadinejad, as far as we know, did not go so far as to hold anyone at gunpoint. But the tentacles of fear in Iran run deep.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top47 Comments to “Was there really fraud in Iran?”
If the data lines up with prior election results I conclude they are just really practiced cheaters and fraudsters.
Meanwhile, over at Opinionjournal dot com there are actual narratives from avg Iranians who are living this rebellion. Its sad what these young men and women are experiencing. But their narratives courtesy of Twitter and youTube will be a witness to all that has happened. I was sad to hear that militia men had burst into a dorm and beat students. Since when are women sleeping in a dorm a threat?
And I realize it hasnt got much coverage in the west, but I read an Iranian’s description of the role Palestinian Fatah men were playing in Iran. Avg Joe Iranian is to put it mildly “put out” with the vast sum of money the Iran govt funnels to the corrupt govt of Arafatistan.. I mean the PA. One demonstrator was livid that they “not only take our money but they come here to Iran and beat us”.
The role of Hamas and Hezbo imported thugs in this Iranian popular uprising hasn’t got the coverage it deserves. And the irony is the Tehran regime blames “outside agitators” for the civil unrest over the election fraud!
Report comment to moderator
Palestinians in Iran, obviously are most likely Hamas and not Fatah. It says a lot about how intertwined Iranian power brokers are with the PLO. Arabs have historically despised Arabs and vice versa. But Iranian deep pockets can buy lots of loyalty.
Report comment to moderator
The uprising is not simply about the election. The “election” in Iran merits little if any trust from free people. That regime doesn’t even admit to the holocaust. It’s a show but a show that opened up a pretext for protesting long-standing repression.
Repression has worked in Iran for 30 years and as it continues to work and gets another pretentious propping up, this makes the context for “dialogue” or talks much worse. The apocalyptic president Ahmadinejad has prevailed, so far, and will be more arrogant and belligerent than ever. Ahmadinejad will feel too vindicated to entertain any changes or challenges that come at him from the free world.
Should we have “dialogue” with a regime that shoots and/or arrests demonstrators, is clubbing people, breaking heads, censoring coverage, banning photographs, exiling journalists, and rigging elections?
Report comment to moderator
“Should we have “dialogue” with a regime that shoots and/or arrests demonstrators, is clubbing people, breaking heads, censoring coverage, banning photographs, exiling journalists, and rigging elections? ”
Yes, but only if they sell us cheap oil or have a dirt cheap labor force making low cost items for the shelves of WALMART!
Report comment to moderator
What, pray tell, has the present brutal treatment of protestors been, if not a “crackdown”? Does a real crackdown mean even more violent treatment of protestors?
I think their methods betray the truth.
Report comment to moderator
I am very thankful that our President has taken a moderate stance regarding Iran. He is willing to let Iranians decide for themselves how they will be governed rather than interject American preferences. His obvious restraint gives the lie to mullahs’ claims of interference in their elections.
We may not like the way things are progressing there, but the people themselves have to work this out, and sometimes it gets messy. At some point, the resistance will be strong enough to bring a new government to the country, but we should not undermine the organic change that is happening there by interference. I think the people of Iran know that we are rooting for them. That’s enough at this time.
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t matter if there is fraud in a dictatorship. The answer is always the same, no matter how you get there.
All of our presidents, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, seem to think they can deal with fasciests regimes.
Notice I omitted Reagan?
He understood communism. I don’t recall if he made much progress with Islamists, but he didn’t cater to them.
None of them understands Islam. Well, maybe Obama does. If he understands what he’s doing, that’s really scary.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with DJ that Obama keeping quiet was the best course of action.
If these people are ready for a revolt against the mullahs, they’ll do it all on their own, and quite frankly, independence is something they have to fight for on their own — at least to get it started (yes, I know we had help, but revolution wasn’t promoted from without, but from within our own ranks).
Report comment to moderator
Chas
What a creative memory you have. Pres. Reagan infuriated State Dept sorts by offering to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Gorbie. He did do business with any number of despotic regimes (see Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, China and a goodly number of African and Latin American regimes). It is highly utopian to think that America can only talk to good guys.
Ad for me I agree with DJ — and Henry Kissenger — the more the USG agitates for one side the more we guarantee a loss. We need to think with our heads here, not with our hearts.
Report comment to moderator
I understand that several of you think we should not interfere at all with Iranian elections, and perhaps you are correct.
But what do you think we should do in light of our interference when we essentially staged a clandestine coup against the pro-American Shah, and replaced him with a dictator? This action drove dissent into the mosques (the only place it was safe) which simultaneously created an anti-american flavored politic as well as a religious one.
Add to that our failure to continue support for the pro-democracy uprising a few years back (after we encouraged it), where the students involved in that were also brutally crushed, and I feel somewhat responsible to help restore some sense of democracy and freedom….
What say you?
Report comment to moderator
MiM
Of course the second coup should be seen in context with the first one that installed the shah — we engineered that too. You’re thinking the 3rd time will be the charm, maybe?
I think 3 wrongs don’t make a right.
Report comment to moderator
“You’re thinking the 3rd time will be the charm, maybe?”
Not necessarily. I honestly don’t know the proper thing to do. It’s a very complex situation, and there may not be any “correct” answers.
Doing nothing, after we helped make the mess, just seems wrong somehow though….
Report comment to moderator
HEADLINE: “Was there really fraud in Iran?”
In a country that censors the truth so severely and brutally and is so closed and non-transparent, such questions are purely academic and we answer based on whims of bias-fed speculation.
Report comment to moderator
Think what a global firestorm in all nations friendly and unfriendly alike BHO would ignite if he just said our policy is to favor govt of the people by the people for the people!
Didnt Ronald Reagan and Ollie North do their dangdest to reach out to “moderate Iranians”?? I think Ollie flew into Tehran with a cake and a Bible as presents from RWR.
Report comment to moderator
#6, DJ wrote; “I am very thankful that our President has taken a moderate stance regarding Iran. He is willing to let Iranians decide for themselves how they will be governed rather than interject American preferences. His obvious restraint gives the lie to mullahs’ claims of interference in their elections.”
I disagree strongly. Obama is being extremely weak and tolerant when strength and conviction regarding freedom should be communicated.
And it is absurd in the extreme to think that Obama is “willing to let Iranians decide for themselves.” The Iranian people are no more “decideng for themselves” than I am letting DJ decide for himself how to post. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s “willingness.”
The fact is that Obama does not want much freedom here either (note that it is our freedom that he wants to “change,” in my view, as we have seen in his economic policies thus far). Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for freedom is consistent, both here and in Iran.
Report comment to moderator
DJ wrote; “We may not like the way things are progressing there, but the people themselves have to work this out, and sometimes it gets messy.”
Of course they have to work things out. That’s not the point. Regardless of what Obama said, they would still have to work things out for themselves. But we should have a President willing to convey where we stand on that outworking — to convey to the world our deep and passionate convictions regarding freedom and against tyranny. Repressed people need to at least hear us affirming what they are fighting and dying for.
The people of Iran have zero certainty that we are “rooting for them”, because our leader himself is not publicly rooting for them. He could and he should.
Report comment to moderator
What a moral embarassment this President is. Why can he so easily and glibly (and selectively) criticize America so much and make apologies on foreign soil, but not find it within himself to make strong and clear critical statements of a repressive tyranny like the one in Iran at a time like this?
He can talk about the nebulous good of having a “vigorous debate” but he is clueless as to the real needs and issues at stake and on the line here. We need a spokesman for real freedom!
Report comment to moderator
MIM #10
The 1999 uprising was predominately students. This one has much broader support from the educated, middle class. And this time there is much more legitimacy as it concerns the outcome of a supposedly democratic election. We may pooh-pooh the idea of Iran as a democracy; but they don’t. And their view of themselves is what counts here.
As they begin to question the legitimacy of their own elections over time (and this may just be the first time of many), I think the mullahs will see their support eroding. To that end, it is in our (and their) best interest that we take a moderate approach that denies legitimacy to mullahs claiming interference.
It seems to me that there is an organic process taking place. And the dissatisfaction in Iran that we’re witnessing won’t go away just because our tv audience becomes bored and changes to something else (as you know it will). If we don’t want to repeat some of our past mistakes with Iran, we should do nothing to short circuit the process of their political evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark
You’d think after the last 8 years that we would have learned that standing on a mountain screaming and waving a gun implcitly behind you doesn’t really work.
You might be amazed at the power of leading by example — that is admiting when we have made errors and issues we need to address as well. You call that glibly criticizing America on foreign soil. Foreigners see that as an American who is not preaching but rather leading. The President did speak to democracy and human rights in Cairo. He has spoken on Iran. He has not done it as a screed. Conservatives used to understand that sometimes saying a little and saying it quietly is strategically sound. Conservatives used to understand that simply shouting truism wasn’t a replacement for a real foreign policy.
Lastly, I’ve seen this notion that the President does not want freedom here mostly on Townhall and on Faux news. It is patently ridiculous and incredibly offensive. He has different views than you do on many issues, that is true. And? You used to love to criticize others as deranged when they criticized President Bush. I now understand why you thought others were deranged. It takes one to know one.
Report comment to moderator
JM: is absurd in the extreme to think that Obama is “willing to let Iranians decide for themselves.”
We really disagree about Obama’s role here. Remember, he is not acting as an evangelist for the gospel of Christ which cannot be compromised or negotiated with. He’s relating as the leader of one sovereign nation relates to another sovereign nation.
As opposed to ‘axis of evil’ rhetoric which reasonably scared even the moderate Iranians, Obama’s willingness to dialogue with whoever the people elect, gives the people of Iran the responsibility of producing a suitable representative to dialogue with. Many if not most of them, don’t want a holocaust-denying extremist like Ahmedinejad in that role.
JM: ” The Iranian people are no more “decideng for themselves” than I am letting DJ decide for himself how to post.”
Elections are imperfect even here, and in Iran, I don’t doubt they are much more imperfect. But I believe Iranian people do usually view them as legitimate. To the extent that the elections lose legitimacy, we will probably see an increase in protests, until eventually, there is a real opportunity for improvement in their democracy. That is organic growth. That is their struggle, not ours.
BTW, DJ decides for herself not himself.
Report comment to moderator
The leader of the free world should be expected to speak loudly and strongly for freedom wherever tyranny of any type reigns.
PresBO’s reluctance to speak is troubling. He can and should articulate support for peaceful protests as a fundamental right of all people. He should denounce any attempts at “crackdowns” and yes, even use our own failed attempts at stifling peaceful protests during the civil rights movement as an example of how you cannot fight the inner yearnings of desire to live in freedom, peace and dignity.
The people of Iran are fighting for principle, not for a particular candidate. PresBO can address the principle of freedom, and he should.
If there ever was a time for him to call on his oratory skills, this is as good a time as any.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure I agree that stating our position quietly is the answer either. I think that the opposition to tyrannical oppression needs to clearly hear our support for them, and our condemnation of repressive violence.
Report comment to moderator
If we’re going to make it a policy to decry tyrannical oppression, then we have no excuse for dancing arm in arm with oppressive and tyrannical Saudi princes.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed DJ. One does not exclude the other. But we have to figure out how to do it without disrupting our flow of oil.
Report comment to moderator
I agree. We shouldn’t be doing it with China either…
Report comment to moderator
I think that is well said Metanoia.
Report comment to moderator
Does the you know what do you know what in the woods?
Speaking of ayatollahs, of course.
Report comment to moderator
#19, no one is asking anyone to stand on a mountain screaming and waving a gun implcitly behind you. That’s a deranged twist of what I am saying. But I believe the repression in Iran is an opportunity to give voice to our values and encourage those who need to hear freedom affirmed. It won’t do miracles, but being timid about tyrants and tolerating the mullahs is much much worse.
Report comment to moderator
DJ wrote; “Remember, he is not acting as an evangelist for the gospel of Christ which cannot be compromised or negotiated with.”
Huh? What are you talking about? Who said he was? That’s a confusing comment, DJ.
DJ wrote; “He’s relating as the leader of one sovereign nation relates to another sovereign nation.”
That’s the problem! He’s actually relating as the leader of a free nation to an extremely different UNfree and repressive nation, in the extreme. We must not be morally blind to such differences.
DJ wrote; “Many if not most of them, don’t want a holocaust-denying extremist like Ahmedinejad in that role.”
Then the “election” was indeed a fraud and and the repressive tyranny has been emboldened on false pretenses (making them harder than ever to negotiate with).
Report comment to moderator
Funny Paragraph Alert:
Thus the USA 2008 Election is the standard for fraud-free elections.
Alternately, this post could be titled: Was there really fraud in the USA?
(As I scrolled down through the comments, I expected to see this hilarity caught before now. Maybe I missed it.)
Report comment to moderator
28 Right and stating that people should be able to express themselves without being suppressed is what President Obama has said.
This is what he said:
“Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran… and I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty, and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which – sometimes – the United States can be a handy political football (or discussions with the United States).
Having said all that.. I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to epaecfully dissent.. all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re rightfully troubled. My understanding is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election, but what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who are so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy, who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.
Now: with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran – I have always believed that, as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy, diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests. Specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran’s not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but, I think, to a peaceful world in general. We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days, and what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching, and particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians but we do believe the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.”
Report comment to moderator
This has nothing to do with Obama and certainly the last 8 years has nothing to do with even more.
This is about a people wanting their freedom. Freedom comes at a high price, and you have to pay for it yourself. That’s true for all of us individually and as nations. The mullahs do know the world is watching, and so do the people. The president is right that the US shouldn’t be making any decisions for the Iranians. If they want their freedom, they should be willing to pay for it, just as we all do on an individual basis. You don’t learn to walk without falling on your backside and crying, but think of what new things that mobility gets you. Freedom for nations is the same thing on a larger scale.
(You’re right, Mark Roth!)
Report comment to moderator
Yeah Buddy! We’re gonna talk tough. And if you don’t do right, we’re gonna talk tougher!
Talk? Will talk keep Ahmadinejad from exporting terror? Or as in this case, importing Palestinian terrorist thugs to repress dissent? Will talk keep Ahmadinejad from developing nuclear weapons? How well did talk work with N. Korea?
I don’t know the answer. I do appreciate that Obama decried the violence and repression in Iran, but I’m not sure that mere talking will get the job done.
I saw a heartbreaking video this evening of these thugs firing automatic guns into an Iranian crowd of demonstrators.
Report comment to moderator
I am thinking about the old cliche about the tree falling in the woods with no one present and is there a sound?
If a group of Muslims overthrow a corrupt Muslim government, is there a revolution?
Report comment to moderator
#32, NJLawyer wrote; “This is about a people wanting their freedom. Freedom comes at a high price, and you have to pay for it yourself. That’s true for all of us individually and as nations. The mullahs do know the world is watching, and so do the people.”
That’s a good example of a good thing the President could have said.
__________
Report comment to moderator
President Obama doesn’t need the advice of a single person commenting on this blog. He’s doing just fine. The real work in this revolution rightly belongs to—and is being done by—the people of Iran.
Report comment to moderator
But I believe the repression in Iran is an opportunity to give voice to our values and encourage those who need to hear freedom affirmed.
Translation: The repression is an opportunity for Republicans to bash Democrats, for parasites to gratify themselves for free by exploiting the sacrifice of others, and for neo-cons to hawk the same sermons and slogans.
Every ayatollah in Iran is a Joel Mark — a neo-con with a manichean view of the world. Every Joel Mark in Iran is itching to use Joel Mark talk as an excuse to kill liberals.
Report comment to moderator
Was there really fraud in Iran?
Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory was announced two hours after the polls closed. How can this be?
Report comment to moderator
#37 Scroop you’ve gone too far. Your comment is not only twisted it is disgusting and highly offensive. You should apologize to to Joel and maybe read a history book.
Report comment to moderator
FYI – Totalitarianism is to the extreme left, i.e. maximum government control. Anarchy is to the extreme right, i.e. minimum government control. Communism, Socialism, Fascism etc. are all left wing.
Report comment to moderator
The repression is an opportunity for Republicans to bash Democrats, for parasites to gratify themselves for free by exploiting the sacrifice of others, and for neo-cons to hawk the same sermons and slogans.
I’m afraid this is proving to be all too accurate in some cases. And silly me, I thought all conservatives would actually be glad to see people fighting for their democracy—- even if that democracy is much different from our own.
Just goes to show how shallow the ‘love’ of freedom really is—especially when it’s someone else’s freedm. But it did make a nice rally cry when Mel Gibson did it: ”Freedom!!!!” Too bad it’s just a slogan.
Report comment to moderator
#41 And silly me, I thought all conservatives would actually be glad to see people fighting for their democracy
Name one conservative who isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Most of you guys don’t give a crap about those people or their struggles and it shows in your rhetoric. They just provide a convenient backdrop for your anti-O refrains (which is the real important thing). But sing away, maybe someone somewhere wants to hear it.
Report comment to moderator
#49 Most of you guys don’t give a crap about those people or their struggles
Contrary to what Bush said early on, that was the whole purpose of the Iraq war, to engender freedom and democracy in the world as an example for Iran and others to follow. It is behind the Iranian public’s yearning to be free. What conservative doesn’t support that goal?
They just provide a convenient backdrop for your anti-O refrains (which is the real important thing).
I am not anti-O, I am anti-failure and anti-big government. Every utopian experiment in the history of civilization has failed. Yet social progressives never let that get in their way.
I genuinely like Obama as a person. He is charismatic. I support his goals. But as with all social progressives, his wrong headed implementation will fail to accomplish what he says he wants. We’re here to help.
But worshipful O-bot zombies don’t want success; they want to be loved. And spouting empty rhetoric about creating heaven on earth is music to their adoring ears. Any one who disagrees is simply a heretic who must be silenced.
Report comment to moderator
XION — I don’t think you read #37 closely. If Joel Mark isn’t a neocon with a manichean vew of the world, then he’s been fooling me, and a lot of others on this blog. The leaders of the Islamic Republic are neocons too, according to mainstream American analysts like Zbigniew Brzezinski. The neocons in Iran would like nothing better than for Obama to talk like an American neocon. The ayatollahs claim to be defending humble, devout Iranians from the arrogance and interference of America. They are killing liberals in the streets. And of course, they are casting blame upon opportunistic imperialists like Joel Mark for the bloody repression.
This all seems true. Show otherwise and I’ll acknowledge and correct.
Report comment to moderator
Iran’s Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98711§ionid=351020101
Report comment to moderator
Good link Amphipolis. According to the article, the leadership is claiming that it’s not unusual to have over 100% eligible voters cast a ballot because people travel to other cities and vote again. That’s even worse! It sounds like systemic election fraud to me.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!