POLITICS: Thousands of Iraqis Were Unable to Vote

With the news of the elections passing in Iraq, and the reports of a massive voter turn-out despite the threats of violence. There is now news of strange irregularities. Among them are reports that many thousands of Iraqis were turned away from polling stations because there were not enough ballots...




I was amazed to see the Iraqi people turn out in such great numbers to vote in these elections. I am deeply bothered by allegations that many thousands were turned away because of a lack of ballots.

It would seem that there was more than enough time to plan for this important election, and to have enough ballots in place for all who wanted to vote.

Unless there was some unknown reason for this, something seems very wrong here.

Related News:

Bush urges Iraqis to include Sunnis in new assembly

Iraq Vote Count Proceeds Despite Al Qaeda Threats

[edit on 1-2-2005 by UM_Gazz]

The rot sets in very quickly and spoils the "celebrations".

so first the complaint was that so few people would come to vote that it wouldn't be a legitamate government. Now its a conspiracy because so many people came to vote that they ran out of ballots? Beyond the people not being able to vote which isn't good of course, this is a side effect of a good thing, mainly people turned out in mass numbers to make their voices heard and legitamize their representatives.

Originally posted by jukyu
so first the complaint was that so few people would come to vote that it wouldn't be a legitamate government. Now its a conspiracy because so many people came to vote that they ran out of ballots? Beyond the people not being able to vote which isn't good of course, this is a side effect of a good thing, mainly people turned out in mass numbers to make their voices heard and legitamize their representatives.

From the begining the Bush Administration made it clear that the Iraqi people would have free and fair elections, and that every Iraqi that wanted to vote would be able to do so.

So can you imagine how it felt to these many thousands of Iraqis who were brave enough to take the risk and show up to vote, standing in lines and then to be turned away?

I am not saying this is a conspiracy, though it could be, at the very least it was very poor planning.

They are only Iraqis .. no harm done right?

[edit on 1-2-2005 by UM_Gazz]

It is not a "side effect" of a good thing.

It is, no matter what else, a statement that the election cannot be legitimate.

To understand why these polling places were underresourced, you would need to understand why the outcome that is being engineered should specifically exclude a large proportion of the vote from Basra, Baghdad and Najaf.

Poor planning is neither an excuse nor any germ of truth in the matter.

:shk: MA since you are basically saying the same thing about the US election, I am begining to wonder if any election is legit in your eyes????

Probably not any one with the Bush administration engineering it.

Obviously.

I second that emotion. Nothing this administration does is on the up and up.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Probably not any one with the Bush administration engineering it.
Obviously.

Cute no doubt, but: How do explain the numbers that have been reported in those areas?

While no doubt the acuracy may off a bit, the numbers remain signifigantly high in those areas. Also, explain to me the logic of excluding those areas? Even if they wanted to exclude the Sunni minority, why bother when the numbers would always be stacked against them at anyrate? More tot he point why risk the politcal fallout if such a deliberate campign was undertaken? I mean I realize that no matter what you would continue to cry fraud from every roof top, but beyond that there is little percentage esp. if they want the Arab world to accept the elections.

Unlike members who might swallow positive spin and celebratory statements of the controlling interests in Iraq (and who can blame them as they need a dose of joy to balance their fear and loathing), it may be preferable to use substantiated facts and not surmize the reasons why any particular event reported or not yet reported has occured.

Who is the "they" that wants the Arab world to accept these elections? Is it the same "they" that wants the Arab world and Americans to accept the farce that is the US elections?

Where you perceive you have no risk of fallout, you can behave very badly with no regard for pesky consequences.

Recall Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice reporting the precise known locations of readily deployable weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the USA, immediately prior to invading Iraq. There was not enough fallout from that set of lies, huh?

It becomes a matter of pushing the envelope on credibility while maintaining the fear and terror campaign. Fallout will come and go, until people see the events for what they are and say enough of criminality.

If elections interest people, then perhaps they ought to maintain a watching brief. No numbers are in.

What exactly is the spin here? The Iraqi people voted in large numbers according to the best sources we have at our disposal. The 'they" that you are refering to would be the Coalition of course. While you keep screaming farce about the US elections as part of your spin, where is you proof that the election was such? You can say it over and over but that still does not make it true. The tack that the detractors of the Bush administration and the elections in general is tragicaly predictable, as was Kerry sad responce.

Yes, we can debate the WMD issue again nad again, and yes they were not there, but hindsight is always that way no? And how exactly does it relate to the elections? If the elections were an entirely staged Bush scam, why would they even allow a Shiite group that has less than cordial relationship with the U.S. come anywhere near as many seats the Sistani slate is likely to gain?

If its enough votes disinfranchised (sp?) I'll agree with you that its bad. If its just that far more people came out then they expected and planned for then I still contend its a slightly negative consequence of things going better then expected. Ugg that sounds like double speak without it meaning to

Iraq's interim president said Tuesday that tens of thousands of people may have been unable to vote in the country's historic weekend election because some polling places including those in Sunni Arab areas ran out of ballots.

The Sunnis pouted and threatened to boycott the elections, and were threatened with physical violence and death if they did vote. So it is understandable that some precincts didn't have enough ballots. It is not implausible to suggest that the insurgency themselves destroyed some of the ballots before the elections were held.

While it is unfortunate that courageous Sunnis were unable to vote because of no ballots, they have only their "leaders" and the "insurgency" to blame for this.

Others follow the logic in how the administration can put lies across without fallout, FredT, where you do not.

The issue of WMDs is not being debated. The Bush administration lied about the reason for going to war. You accept that as fact, above.

You are still surmizing. If you want to deal in the minutiae on small evidence to date, go for it.

Have some more: Why were there not enough ballot papers in Basra, Baghdad and Najaf? Could it be the same reason that polling centres were underresourced and voters were deliberately forced to queue for hours in Ohio urban centres, by corrupt electoral officials?

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Sunnis pouted and threatened to boycott the elections, and were threatened with physical violence and death if they did vote. So it is understandable that some precincts didn't have enough ballots. It is not implausible to suggest that the insurgency themselves destroyed some of the ballots before the elections were held.

Fair enough... unlikely, but "not implausible". If there is evidence of that, it's an unfortunate angle. Who was responsible for securing the means of ballot?

[edit on 1-2-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Ok, I am about ready to offically leave. I thought this board was about denying ignorance but its hard to do so when absolutely everything is a conspiracy. Granted this is a conspiracy board but I'm sorry just because you say its a conspiracy doesn't make it so. I have so much trouble wading through the creating ones just to advance agendas that I miss out on half the ones that expand my mind and make this site a worthy resource. you may remove this rant if its derailing the thread or innapropriate, its just the best response I could come up with at the time and still try to remain a constructive contributor to this site.

** disclaimer ** previous rant was not directed at any staff members off ats, I am almost always impressed at their professionalism and intelligence in these matters

[edit on 1-2-2005 by jukyu]

Didn't the samething happen in the 2004 elections? People waited in line to vote and didn't?

Not enough machines, not enough ballots? Next?
What percent of eligible Iraqi voters actually voted?
According to the last reports I saw, it was over 60%! Mind you, while your questioning this, adding things up, and downplaying the validity of the Iraqi election, that in the 2004 Presidential elections, of eligible voters, only 60%+/- voted and that was the highest percent since 1968!

Good grief.....



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Not enough machines, not enough ballots? Next?

If you can't see the connection and you cite "poor planning" as an excuse, then "Good grief" is right.

Denying people the right to vote is illegitimacy, pure and simple.

basically sir you imply intent and sinister intent at that with no evidence of anything but poor planning. Just because its sinister in your mind doesn't make it reality. Thats as plain as I can put it and I mean it not as any type of flame but as a sincere point of observation on my part with the full expectance to receive criticism as well.

Basically, if you go into a situation looking for a conspiracy, you're going to find it which is the point of my post above. Thats not being objective or denying ignorance. If you can show me proof without propoganda, then we have a worthy discussion.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by jukyu]

Then read up on all programs implemented in the past four years by the Bush administration to find the modus operandi, and the intent.

ATS is not a bad place to start, but it is limited on things such as the unanswered questions still remaining from 9/11, how and why the ties were made to Iraq as if it had anything to do with 9/11, why Bush called 9/11 the last leg of the "trifecta" his administration needed to invade a sovereign nation on a predetermined agenda, the actual nature of voting/counting irregularities in 2000 and 2004, and specific links to commercially corrupt agendas that are predicated on the Bush administration's programs.

If you don't feel inclined to avail yourself of the opportunity to read up on those issues, then try not to be upset by the statements of many people who have.