Afghan Elections

Following up on the blog post below, one definition of "consensus" is when the Washington Times and Washington Post agree on something. That's happened regarding the weekend's elections in Afghanistan. Here's the Times' headline:

Afghanistan election foes backing off

And here's the Post's:

Afghan Election Concerns Subside:
Several Candidates Back Off Assertions Of Voter Fraud

The Post continues:

Final results are not expected for several weeks, but scattered exit polls by an American delegation observing the election showed Karzai with a clear majority of votes and his principal challenger, Yonus Qanooni, a former cabinet minister, running a distant second. More than 10.5 million men and women registered to vote, and turnout was described as massive by international election observers and the United Nations.

Comments

Highway | October 11, 2004, 10:18am | #

Nick, I think you're missing the Post headline (and the link that would go with it?).

thoreau | October 11, 2004, 10:38am | #

Since I'm at an optics conference this week (enjoying wifi during the break, having already asked my questions and enjoyed my free snacks) I'll just observe that if they used optical scan ballots maybe they wouldn't have so many problems ;)

Jarod | October 11, 2004, 11:06am | #

Personally I don't think that voting multiple times for the same candidate should count as voter fraud. If you care enough about who wins to take the trouble to cheat, your vote should count more anyway. This assumes, of course, that the people who voted more than once voted for the same candidate each time; I suppose they might have voted for different candidates each time, but even noob voters probably see that that's kinda dumb.

ZNML | February 7, 2005, 1:19am | #

Subscribe free porn pics by sending an email to [e-mail] with the subject "Subscribe". Thousands of hottest pics available for free.