Iraqi Election Results Thread (multiple threads merged)

[Revolt]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-020305iraq_wr,0,3561003.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The partial results came from 1.6 million votes counted so far in Baghdad and five others of Iraq's 18 provinces. The United Iraqi Alliance, which is backed by the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had 1.1 million votes, and the list led by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's list was second with more than 360,500 votes.

The figures showed the alliance leading over Allawi in all six provinces but were too small to indicate a national trend. The results came from 25 percent of the votes cast in Baghdad and partial counts from five Shiite-dominated provinces, where the Alliance had been expected to do well.

The commission has said it could take up to seven to 10 days from Sunday's election to produce full official results. So far, tallies from 10 percent of the country's polling stations have been counted, it said.

[Revolt]

Vote rigging a viturual certainty in this unsupervised election. (Same article as above):

Iraqi election officials said today they sent a team to Mosul to look into allegations of voting irregularities in Ninevah province, a largely Sunni region. Complaints have included polling stations running short of ballots, confusion over the poll locations and ongoing military operations. It was not clear how many voters were affected.

[Claymore]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-020305iraq_wr,0,3561003.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The partial results came from 1.6 million votes counted so far in Baghdad and five others of Iraq's 18 provinces. The United Iraqi Alliance, which is backed by the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had 1.1 million votes, and the list led by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's list was second with more than 360,500 votes.

The figures showed the alliance leading over Allawi in all six provinces but were too small to indicate a national trend. The results came from 25 percent of the votes cast in Baghdad and partial counts from five Shiite-dominated provinces, where the Alliance had been expected to do well.

The commission has said it could take up to seven to 10 days from Sunday's election to produce full official results. So far, tallies from 10 percent of the country's polling stations have been counted, it said.

Hmm...looks like BushCo. backed the wrong horse. I wonder how they're going to un-ring the bell?

[Revolt]

Hmm...looks like BushCo. backed the wrong horse. I wonder how they're going to un-ring the bell?

I expect them to announce that they backed Sistani all the way and this is a major US victory.

[Chicago1871]

Hmm...looks like BushCo. backed the wrong horse. I wonder how they're going to un-ring the bell?
"We give our support to the people of Iraq and their choice to lead their nation into a free, and democratic future."

[Matt in the Hat]

Vote rigging a viturual certainty in this unsupervised election. (Same article as above):

Iraqi election officials said today they sent a team to Mosul to look into allegations of voting irregularities in Ninevah province, a largely Sunni region. Complaints have included polling stations running short of ballots, confusion over the poll locations and ongoing military operations. It was not clear how many voters were affected.

remind me of the last perfect election on earth, please

[Revolt]

From the NYT:

With around 1.6 million votes counted from Baghdad and five mostly Shi'ite southern provinces, the main Shi'ite block had polled more than three quarters of votes cast.
A list headed by Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi was second on around 20 percent.

Officials cautioned, however, that Shi'ites had been expected to score well in those provinces and the figures should not be seen as representative of the entire country.

``Only God Almighty knows the final figures,'' electoral commissioner Safwat Rashid told a news conference. ``We are still in the process of counting.''

[Claymore]

"We give our support to the people of Iraq and their choice to lead their nation into a free, and democratic future."

"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Grand Ayatollah Sistani, supreme leader of Iraq."

oops.

[BudWiser]

"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Grand Ayatollah Sistani, supreme leader of Iraq."

oops.

Wow is this nuts or what....

We go in to "liberate" Iraq, put in democracy, and we could...

just end up w/1,500+ dead and a Grand Ayatollah from Iran running the country?

It'd be laughable if it wasn't true....

Least we could finally get out of the country if it happens. :o

[speedcake]

How soon before we are ordered out and a new alliance between Iraq and Iran is announced?

[cossack]

These are early exit polls (10% reporting)...we all know how that goes.

[Claymore]

These are early exit polls (10% reporting)...we all know how that goes.

Yeah, but the only thing that would swing the results in the opposite direction would be a large turnout by Sunni voters, which we know didn't happen.

[stopper4]

I expect them to announce that they backed Sistani all the way and this is a major US victory.


Since you were dead wrong about Alawi winning the election and all..........

[stopper4]

How soon before we are ordered out and a new alliance between Iraq and Iran is announced?

It's not winner take all.

[speedcake]

It's not winner take all.


sure buddy.

[Revolt]

Since you were dead wrong about Alawi winning the election and all..........

Yeah, I nailed that one.:o

[stopper4]

sure buddy.

If any 3 of the 18 provinces veto the constitution, it fails, and they have to elect a new assembly.

There are 4 Sunni provinces, plus the Kurds.

The Shia may be first among equals, but It's not winner take all.

[entropy]

"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Grand Ayatollah Sistani, supreme leader of Iraq."

oops.

Nice pejorative, hyperbolic, and ill-informed statement. This just demonstrates that you know nothing about al-Sistani. :rolleyes:

[Claymore]

Nice pejorative, hyperbolic, and ill-informed statement. This just demonstrates that you know nothing about al-Sistani. :rolleyes:

The point was that we may have opened the door for a theocracy in Iraq, not necessarily that Sistani was going to lead it.

While you're at it, why not enlighten me?

[Iranian Monitor]

Nice pejorative, hyperbolic, and ill-informed statement. This just demonstrates that you know nothing about al-Sistani. :rolleyes:

And I don't think you know much about Ayatollah Ali Sistani either!

Yes. Sistani belongs to the quietist school of shia jurisprudence. This school, which was the dominant one until Khomeini, was opposed to direct clerical involvement in politics. Apart from some theologically based objections, and aside from historical/political factors that made such ambitions dangerous to their health and well being, those belonging to the "quietist" school have long argued that direct clerical involvement in the "corrupt" realm of politics would diminish the standings of the clerical establishment by making them partners in society's corruption.

That said, this group are quite traditional and believe strongly that the government should be "Islamic" and abide by Islamic precepts as laid down by the clerics. The only difference is they want secular politicians to hold the formal reigns of power, with the clerics given behind the scene power as well as formal veto over laws they deem "unIslamic".

Now, as I have mentioned several times here, there isn't that much support in Iraq for an Iranian-style theocracy in that country. Iran, certainly, is not looking to set up a competing center to dilute its position as the spokesman for the shias around the world. Besides, everyone recognizes that setting up a shia theocracy is impractical in a country like Iraq where -- by contrast to Iran -- there are large number of 'non-shias' making up as much as 40% of the population.

None of this, however, makes Sistani a choice that the US can easily see elevated in influence, as he has been, without eventually running to trouble given that Sistani's views on a host of issues (including the US occupation as well as the constitution that is to be drafted) stand in quite a contrast with the views held by the US - and the groups the Americans sponsor.