Would You Believe 60 Percent?

This account from Arab News puts the voter turnout at around 60 percent. Which seems to me a pretty damn good turnout, especially given the amount of violence going on.

Comments

[John-David Filing]

Obviously, either eveyone else that posts here has gone to bed, or else is indifferent. Reasons for invading Iraq be damned, this is a good thing that has come of our interference.

[huskermet]

Watched a bit of the coverage on today.

Fucking beautiful.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Call me crazy, but I'm all for it.

[VoiceOver]

First 72%, now 60%?

What next? 50%? 40%? 20%? Where are the naysayers?
Where are all those who say that these declining numbers are a sign of the "truth" finally coming out? That this election is an unmitigated disaster? That those who voted are mere lackeys for Bush & Company?

[speedwell]

So long as the turnout in Iraq beats the average turnout in the U.S., we haven't a leg to stand on, of course.

[joe]

I like how voiceover both celebrated the high levels of turnnout as proof of the elections' success (in case the numbers held up) while pre-empting any argument that low turnout make the elections illegitimate, on the off chance that the administration, military, and the regime they installed are fibbing about the turnout numbers.

[joe]

Let's take 60% as the turnout number.

Shiites are 60% of the country, and have been urged by their leadership to turnout. Let's put their turnout at 90%. .6 X .9 = .54

Kurds are 20% of the country. Let's put their turnout at 80%. .2 X .8 = .16

We're already at 70% turnout, even without the Sunnis. If we drop both Shiite and Kurdish turnout to 70%, that brings us to 56% turnout. To get to 60% would mean 20% turnout among the Sunnis. If the 60% figure doesn't hold up, that would mean even lower turnout among the Sunnis.

The closest historical comparison I can think of is Lincoln's second election, in which Confederated didn't vote. That didn't exactly undercut the "insurgency" of that period.

[SR]

Question for those who believe holding elections in Iraq is some sort of accomplishment in and of itself: Given that the occupation authority originally expected to hold national elections by summer 2004, doesn't holding them 6 months late suggest that the past year and a half hasn't been one big victory lap, as you've been asserting all this time? (See http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1395776,00.html ) Discuss.

Bonus points: For those who declare that this is a "free election", how do you reconcile that with the U.S. occupation authorities screening the candidates? (See, e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1233651,00.html )

[joe]

SR, for all the highminded talk, the operative definitions of "success" and "democracy" have been dumbed down to "better than Saddam."

Would you rather have Saddam back in power? Huh? Would you? I bet you would? Saddam-lover. You love Saddam.

[Eric the .5b]

Joe, you're making wild-assed guesses of voter turnout by ethnicity and religion for a rather tumultous foreign country in order to support your predetermined conclusion that one group had a low turnout that you consider to invalidate the election.

Consider me trolled, but I felt the need to point that out.

[ha]

change a few words and you get the other side.

SR, for all the highminded talk, the operative definitions of "success" and "democracy" have been dumbed down to "not as good as Europe does it."

Would you rather not be a perfect democracy like Europe? Huh? Would you? I bet you would? Non perfect Europe-lover. You do not love Europe.