Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Analyses of All Alleged Rigging Proofs in Election

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Different elements raised DOUBTS about the recent Elections of Iran (2009). Let us analyze them one by one.

Objection 1: How it is possible that some Areas got more than 100% Votes?

This is "The Biggest" proof which is presented in order to blame these elections to be rigged.

Iranian Government confirmed it and then made it clear the reasons why some areas could have more votes than 100%. Unfortunately Western Media all together neglected this clarification and put false words in Iranian Government's mouth that it accepts the rigging of 3 million votes. This is absolutely a lie and disinformation by Western Media. Iranian Government never said that it is Rigging, but it gave the valid Facts and Reasons for this phenomenon.

Let us leave these Satanic Propaganda tactics of West, and let us concentrate on the reality. Following are the Valid Facts why some areas could have more turnout than 100% Voters:

1. Even according to Western Media, the total turnout in these elections was 85% countrywide.

2. Iranian Presidential Elections are not held on "Area" bases.

Any voter could vote any where in the country, and it is not obligatory for him to go back to his "Registered Town" in order to cast the vote.

3. There were two reasons of presence of over 100% Voters in few Areas. Firstly due to Summer, and secondly due to week-end many people (/Tourists) went to resorts which are mainly situated near Caspian See (and these were mostly the areas where turnout was more than 100%)

4. Please also note that in some of these Areas (with more than 100% turnout), Mr. Mussavi got the majority votes.

5. Please also note that parts of Population from "Undeveloped Areas" migrate to "Developed Areas" for jobs and earnings. So, although they stay in Areas where they do their jobs but they are not registered there but in their home towns.

Therefore, let us use two terms (1st) Local Population, which is registered in that respective town (2nd) Non-Local Population, which is not registered in that respective town.

6. What does 85% turnout means? It is an "Average" of total votes casted countrywide.

It means that in some Areas "Local Population" casted 60-70% Votes (less than 85%), while in other Areas "local Population" casted 90-95% votes (more than 85%)

Now let us consider those Areas where "Local Population" casted 90-95% votes. Now add in it the numbers of "Tourists" and "Non-Local Population" which stay there for jobs and earnings. This simply shows there is nothing to wonder if turnout was more than 100% in some Areas.

7. You remember that at the end of election time, there was a lack of Ballot Papers at some places. It means numbers of voters came to cast their votes on that day was almost equal or more than the registered voters in that area. Voting times had to be extended 4 times in some areas.

8. In Elections of 2005, the turn out was only 59.6%. Even then in Areas of "Zorgan" and "Morv" turn out was more than 100% in last elections.

9. Iranian Government offered the other Candidates for recount of 10% Ballot boxes. It means there could be recounting in all these 50 alleged areas where claims are being made of rigging due to the fact of more than 100% voting.

10. Even much more to this that first time in last 30 years Iranian Government issued the complete list of number of vote per box after which opponents are left with no lame excuse for going for Road Politics. [Link].

Objection 2: It is impossible for Ahmadi Nejad to get 24.5 Million Votes

This propaganda is done by some of "Western Professors". They claim themselves to be experts of examining election results on bases of scientific methods. One such professor is Dr.Walter R. Mebane who prepared the following data on bases of his Scientific Voting Techniques and claimed that it is impossible for Ahmadi Nejad to get 24.5 Million Votes.

With respect to Dr. Walter and other Western Professors, let us bring down the things from "Mathematical Equations" to "Real Ground Realities". And this ground Reality says there is absolutely no problem in Ahmadi Nejad's getting 24.5 million votes.

The best way of getting answer to this question is to look at the results of Elections of 2005. Following Table is taken from wikipedia.

u3_18.jpg

The present Elections of Iran resembles very much to the 2nd Round Eelctions of 2005 while right from first day it was clear that real competition was only between Ahmadi Nejad and Mussovi. From 2nd round elections of 2005, it becomes clear that:

1. Ahmadi Nejad got 17.3 million Votes in last elections [While Mussave has got only 13.3 million votes in present elections]. Here you could see for yourself who could be the possible winner.

Note: Last elections of 2005 were conducted under the reformist government of Khatami and Ahmadi Nejad got no power to do any type of rigging, but still he got 17.3 million votes.

2. The turn out in last elections was only 59.6%. But despit this low turn out Ahmadi Nejad got 17.3 million votes. In present Elections, the turn out is huge 85%. This means that it is 25.4% more turn out in present elections.

Therefore, if we add 25.4% to 17.3 million votes of Ahmadi Nejad, then it gives us the figure of 24.6 million votes (and this is the same number approx. which Ahmadi Nejad got on the field in present elections)

3. People of Iran knew Ahmadi Nejad & his Policies much better in these elections as compared to last elections. Now question is how does it effect the votes? In order to get answer to this, let us once again look at the last elections of 2005.

In first round elections of 2005, people knew very less of Ahmadi Nejad and his Politices. So in first round he got only 19.4% Votes (i.e. 5.7 million votes only). But till 2nd round things changed and People knew Ahmadi Nejad and his Policies better and therefore we saw a huge jump in his support and it raised to 61.7% votes in comparison to 19.4% (i.e. 17.3 million votes as compared to 5.7 million votes).

4. So, situation is this that after 4 years of government of Ahmadi Nejad, people saw how much Ahmadi Nejad did for the poor people of Iran and how his policies directly benefited them. We are not going in details of his work in this area, but simply due to policies of Ahmadi Nejad and his simple way of living, he got not only votes from religious people, but also from the poor classes of Iranian people.

So, there is nothing to doubt if Ahmadi Nejad got 24.5 million votes in present elections.

Objection 3: Pre-Election Surveys showed that Ahmadi Nejad was not leading the race

This objection is not true. Even the foreign neutral pre-election surveys showed that Ahmadi Nejad was leading the race with 2 to 1. Let us quote briefly from Washington Post, which writes:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide
of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

You could read whole article where they are presenting their DATA based on scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces (i.e. not only Tehran). It should be an eye-opener to those who still blame these elections to be rigged and for fraud.

Objection 4: Mr. Mussavi submitted a List of Pre-Election complaints

This is a funny objection.

A counter question to Mr. Mussavi: "Why didn't he object upon these pre-election irregularities before Elections? Instead of objecting and presenting these complaints before elections, he actually claimed victory only after one hour of closure of voting. And afterwards within few hours (even before ending of official counting and results) he directly called his followers to "Stage Resistance".

Upon complaint of Mr. Mussavi, the Iranian Guardian Council Authorities launched the investigations and after complete investigations they say:

“After 10 days of examination, we did not see any major irregularities,” Guardians Council spokesman Abbasali Kadkhodai told the state IRNA news agency, rejecting opposition allegations that have brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets. “We have had no fraud in any presidential election and this one was the cleanest election we have had. I can say with certainty that there was no fraud in this election.”

Fact is depites so much crying from Mr. Mussavi & Western Media, they are still unable to bring even a single reliable proof of any type of Rigging.

Actually, they themselves know it very well that Ahmadi Nejad has won with such huge difference that there is absolutely no DOUBTS in his victory. Please also note that:

  • Mr. Mousavi got almost minimum of 2 representative at more than 95 percent of all the centers.

  • At each center, 14 observers including the candidate's observers oversaw the entire process, including inspection of empty boxes at the outset and their sealing at the end, with four locks, and then all signed a certificate of proper election, i.e., Mousavi's own men have certified the clean process.

Objection 5: Elections were fraud while Results were started to be announced after only few hours

Please note that the official final results were announced at 4 pm the next day, 16 hours after the closure of voting. Nevertheless, it was true that results started coming just few hours after the closing of voting. But does it really constitute a proof of Rigging?

There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box. Why would it take more than an two to three hours to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.

Objection 6: Ballots ran out at some places and not every one got the chance to vote

This is again misleading objection.

There was huge turn out and it's "Average" was 85%. This means in some areas there were 70-80% votes (less than 85%) and in some areas 90-95% Votes from Local Population. And while Non-Local Population was also allowed to vote anywhere in any polling center, therefore at some centers turn out was over 100%. This is the main reason of running out of ballots. So, the educated West could now please tell us how it constitute Rigging? It may be termed as not sufficient measures for preparation of elections, but certainly not as Rigging.

Secondly, even if all the people who did not vote, had actually voted for Mousavi (a virtual impossibility), that would be 6.93 million additional votes, much less than the 11 million vote difference between the top two candidates.

Objection 7: How Ahmadi Nejad did well in Sunni Areas?

It is a misconception that there are any kind of Shia/Sunni problems in Iran. It is only Saudi backed Wahabi Media which normally propagate such disinformation. There is only minor problems along border of Pakistan, while in remaining whole Iran Ahle-Sunnah have very brotherly ties with their Shia brethern.

Let me quote once again from the poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. (This is same report of Survey which has been mentioned above by Wahsington Post and which predicted 89% voters turnout in recent elections and 2:1 lead for Ahamadi Nejad). On Issue of Shia/Sunni in Iran, it's survey says [LINK]:

Iranian Shiite Muslims Think Favorably of Sunni Muslims,

Christians, Americans and others

... For Iranian citizens of the Islamic Republic, 87 percent of who in our survey

identified themselves as Shiite, views of both Sunni Muslims and Christians were

overwhelmingly favorable—with only 8 percent voicing an unfavorable view of

Sunnis and 11 percent of Christians. (Opinions on Jews were divided, though

more are favorable than unfavorable.)

Indeed, Iranian views of Sunnis and Christians, as well as non-Iranians generally,

are quite accepting—more so than the corresponding views of their neighbors,

such as in Saudi Arabia, according to our TFT survey there.

Iranians clearly distinguish between countries and policies they do not like (US

and Israel), and people they do like (Christians, Americans, Arabs, Sunni

Muslims and Jews). Iranians are favorable to Christians by a 6:1 margin, Sunni

Muslims by a 9:1 margin, Americans by a 2:1 margin and Jews by a 5:4 margin.

In fact, Iranians are as favorable to Americans as they are to their Arab

neighbors. The high favorability of Sunni Muslims among Iranians (higher than

for Arabs generally) demonstrates that Shiite/Sunni issues are not the primary

force driving a wedge between Iranians and their Arab neighbors.

Objection 8: About Azeri Province and Tehran

Rigging is also claimed while Ahmadi Nejad got more Azeri Votes than Mussavi. This is not strange while Irani-Azeries is a very religious soceity and religion plays more role here than race. Secondly Ahmadi Nejad lived in this province for several years, worked hard, got good relations with Top people there and could also speak the Turkish-Azeri language without any problem. And he ran a very good election compaign here. Contrar to Ahmadi Nejad, his rival Mr. Mussavi has not been to these areas for a long long time and ran his election compaign poorly.

Another fantasy theory is how Ahmadi Nejad got more votes than Mr. Mussavi in Tehran. It is not complete truth. Mr. Mussave actually won the elections in main Tehran City. But there are poor neighbourhoods around Tehran and here Ahmadi Nejad got huge majority of votes.

Conclusion

There is not a single "Hard Proof" of any rigging in elections. All the proofs that have been presented, they are based only and only upon "Conjecture Theories". Opponents & Western Media trying it's best to encourage the unrests and Civil War in Iran by doing a lot of biased coverage and neglecting the realities. They want Iranian poeple to solve their differences on the roads instead of sitting down on the Table and look at things rationally on bases of ground realities.

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Different elements raised DOUBTS about the recent Elections of Iran (2009). Let us analyze them one by one. Objection 1: How it is possible that some Areas got more than 100% Votes? This is "The Big

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

I actually wrote this article in Urdu Language.

Then I posted to Urdu Newspaper that I have access. Also I sent it per e-mail to all those whom I know, asking them to propagate it further through e-mails, face book or twitter etc. and to host at their websites if they have any.

**************

I feel we should also do the same in English language too.

I know I am nothing and have limited abilities and this article is far from being perfect. But still I believe it could make some difference and therefore I had to brave enough to post it here with request to make it even better and propagate further.

***************

I feel on ShiaChat we found the truth by reading a lot of Articles and objections and their answers. But I feel we have lost the original plan due to tens of threads and objections by opponents.

May I ask the Moderators to please make it sticky so that we once again don't loose the original plan and new comers could find the truth easily.

Thanks and Was Salam.

PS: Here is the Urdu Version of this article which again Pakistani/Indian members could propagate through e-mails, face book etc.

iran_election_tajziya.pdf

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites
V gud Point by Point analysis.. I think all detractors of current election can discuss their grievances here after reading through the above analysis which covers almost all issues raised by Western media/Mousavi..

no no they wont , they have preset mindset of siding with western thugs and oppose Sholars Ayatullahs and Islamic republic of Iran

simple question 'why didnt musawi and karubi didnt attend the meeting on saturday with their complaints when they were asked to (they very well knew they didnt have much to complain abt)

but they instead prefered to riot and kill innocents

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

An objection I heard someone saying today was that 4years ago Karroubi had gotten about 5million votes and yet this election he only got about 300,000 votes despite taking tougher stances or something like that. They were speaking to me in farsi and my understanding of farsi is not very good so I couldn't really understand what exactly the objection was and do recognise that such a thing wouldn't constitute hard proof but I am nevertheless interested to know what they were talking about, so can someone please shed some light on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

There is a study that shows massive fraud committed in the 2009 election. Download the 19 page pdf document from here http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234...lection0609.pdf

Blog entry summarizing keypoints : http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/chatham-ho...vely-shows.html

Chatham House Study Definitively Shows Massive Ballot Fraud in Iran's Reported Results

An authoritative study from Chatham House (pdf) , the renowned UK think tank, finds that with regard to the official statistics on the recent presidential election in Iran released by the Interior Ministry, something is rotten in Tehran. The authors compared the provincial returns in the 2005 and 2009 elections against the 2006 census and found:

· In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100% was recorded.

· At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent Conservative majority.

· In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

· In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.

That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces flies in the face of these trends.'

Note that many reformists did not vote in 2005, because they had become discouraged by the way the hard liners had blocked all their programs. Some 10.5 million persons who did not vote in 2005 did vote in 2009. It is highly unlikely that most of these non-voters in 2005 were conservatives who now came out for Ahmadinejad in 2009. But to do as well as the regime claimed, Ahmadinejad would have needed to attract substantial numbers of these voters to himself.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani got 6.2 million votes in 2005. He is a centrist, pragmatic conservative. How likely is it that his constituency abandoned pragmatic conservatism for Ahmadinejad's quirky hard line? Over 10 million voted in 2005 for reformist candidates.

Ahmadinejad got 13 million more votes this time than the combined total for all conservatives in 2005. The authors of this study concede that Ahmadinejad could have held on to all the 11.5 million hard line voters from 2005. But how likely is that, really? Some of those who voted hard line surely found Ahmadinejad's style abrasive and his policies, such as provoking high inflation through pumping too much oil money into the economy as a reward to his constituents, annoying.

So over all, let's say he captured Rafsanjani's entire faction in the face of Rafsanjani's own dislike of him. That would have give him less than half of his new votes. So he would have had to convinced over half of the voters who sat 2005 out to vote for him; but those were the ones most disgusted with the hardliners. Or he would have needed to win over substantial amounts of the old Khatami reformist vote. Not likely.

And in 10 of 30 provinces, the hard liners did poorly enough in 2005 that Ahmadinejad would have had to gain the votes of all those who did not vote that year but did vote in 2009, of all the Rafsanjani pragmatic conservatives, and of nearly half the reformist vote.

Even in East Azerbaijan, here were the numbers in 2005

Ahmadinejad: 198,417

Hard Liners 232,043

Non-voters: 684,745

Rafsanjani (pragmatic conservatives): 268,954

Reformists: 690,784

and the result in 2009:

Ahmadinejad: 1,131,111

We could say that a little over 400,000 of these votes are not surprising, since that is the number that was hard line in 2005. But Ahmadinejad picked up over 700,000 votes after 4 years. The non-voters may probably mostly be counted as reformists. So again, Ahmadinejad needed all the non-voters in 2005 to switch to him in 2009 plus a large proportion of the Rafsanjani voters. It makes not sense. And this outcome requires us to believe he picked up all those votes among people who deeply disliked him 4 years ago despite running against a favorite son from Azerbaijan! (And no, that Ahmadinejad speaks broken Azeri would not make Azeris vote for him any more than Latinos voted in 2008 for all those Republicans who speak good Spanish.)

As I had noted earlier, the official results ask us to believe that rural ethnic minorities (some of them Sunni!) who had long voted reformist or for candidates of their ethnicity or region, had switched over to Ahmadinejad. We have to believe that Mehdi Karroubi's support fell from over 6 million to 330,000 over all, and that he, an ethnic Lur, was defeated in Luristan by a hard line Persian Shiite. Or that Ahmadinejad went from having 22,000 votes in largely Sunni Kurdistan to about half a million! What, is there a new organization, "Naqshbandi Sunni Sufis for Hard Line Shiism?" It never made any sense. People who said it did make sense did not know what a Naqshbandi is. (Quick, ask them before they can look it up at wikipedia).

I was careful in my initial discussion of why I thought the numbers looked phony to say that catching history on the run is tough; and I later characterized myself as a mere social historian (i.e. not a pollster or statistician). But this study bears out most of my analysis with the exception that the authors dispute any rural bias toward Ahmadinejad. I think they are too categorical in this regard, however. When people, including myself, said that rural people liked Ahmadinejad, we meant Shiites living in Persian-speaking villages on the Iranian plateau, in fair proximity to cities such as Isfahan, Tehran and Shiraz. We weren't talking about Turkmen or Kurds (both Sunnis), or about Lurs (everyone suspected Karroubi would get that vote). I suspect that some of those to whom we referred as rural are being categorized as living in 'small towns' by the Chatham House authors. But field workers even in the Shiite, Persian-speaking villages point out that they often encounter anti-Ahmadinejad sentiments there, as well.

But that is neither here nor there. The numbers do not add up. You can't have more voters than there are people. You can't have a complete liberal and pragmatic-conservative swing behind hard liners who make their lives miserable.

The election was stolen. It is there in black and white. Those of us who know Iran, could see it plain as the nose on our faces, even if we could not quantify our reasons as elegantly as Chatham House.

At this point, I am unsure who actually won the election. I am also unsure if fraud was committed or not. :Hijabi:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I am well aware of "some" of the flaws in the Chattam study. I have to be stupid to take a statistical study as Holy Grail.

I am not trying to sabotage this topic. Sis Zainabia did a brilliant analysis. And she deserves full credit for it.

3. There were two reasons of presence of over 100% Voters in few Areas. Firstly due to Summer, and secondly due to week-end many people (/Tourists) went to resorts which are mainly situated near Caspian See (and these were mostly the areas where turnout was more than 100%)

This is a flawed argument. I am not disputing out of town'ers voters. By God, I am not trying to stand between a person and the polling booth of his/her choice.

But what I have issue with is folks from Janatul-Baqi casting their votes in Iranian Election. :mad:

The issue is not that you don't have convincing proofs to sway me. The problem is with data. The data is flawed. And I don't wanna argue on the basis of statistical analysis. Statistics are just statistics. Right now they are pretty inconclusive. At least to me, and again I could be wrong.

Edited by Zareen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

What is flawed about her analysis ? particularly 1,2, and 3 which are the most important ones.

I agree that the population data is not as accurate as it is here in the US, but we are assuming that both sides are working off the same data set.

The problem with doing a point by point comparison between Iranian election and other places is the voting district issue. Many people don't vote in their districts so, given the high voter turnout which both sides admit, it is very possible to have over 100% turnout.

The utter dishonesty I have seen in the Western Media is when they are comparing apples to oranges. In an election system where each voter is registered in a district and they must vote in that district (like here in the US), then over 100% turnout would definitely indicate fraud. They cite the 'over 100%' statistic and then FAIL TO MENTION that the Iranian election law is different with regards to this issue. This happens so often that it cannot be just by chance that they always fail to mention how Iranian election law is different.

Also, what is NEVER mentioned is the pre-election polls done by Washington Times and other groups showing the current president ahead by 2 to 1. Anyone who has ever taken a basic statistics class knows that if their sample was random and sample size was large enough for the population being studied, then it is almost a guarantee that current president would win, BASED ON THEIR OWN DATA, which they never mention. So either their study was deeply flawed, which I doubt, or again blatant dishonesty and propaganda.

Also, when using the 'over 100%' argument, they cite old population data. Obviously the Iranian population is growing rapidly so comparing number of votes in 2009 (again high turnout, approx 85%) with old population data, say from 2000 can easily give you 'over 100%'. It's not fraud, it's just reporters trying to mislead thru playing with numbers. This is done so often, cannot be dismissed as a mistake by a single reporter or organization.

If you want to know if really 'over 100%' is a reality, then you need to compared total # of eligible in Iran with total number of votes cast, in Iran, not by district

Then if you have population data from , say 2005, add in margin for population growth between 2005 to 2009 to total. If their is an irregularity between # votes cast and population, you would be able to figure it out from that. This was done by Iranian govt and other sources and found no major irregularities. If you want to be more sure, you can take random samples from ballot boxes (like they are doing now) for comparison.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=253638

I posted this article in forum..one of the replies

I always try to go from "simple" to "detailed". I reach "detailed" when "simple" provided no plausible or clear explanation of an issue. In this case, I didn't have the necessity of moving into "detailed". Since Moussavi claimed victory even before all the votes where casted and after that, he claimed "rigged election", the picture was clear enough to avoid going into "detailed". You see, when somebody claims victory (as Moussavi did even before Ahmadinejad) there's no way he can afterwards claim "rigged election"... Or do we have to believe that everything was OK and then it turn out to be wrong? All the pre elections polls gave Ahmadinejad the lead, no way he could have expected to win! What amazes me was the cold blood that Ahmadinejad had in not shouting "rigged election" when the puppet Moussavi claimed victory. Another trap in which Ahmadinejad didn't fall...

post-4532-1246164645.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(salam)

I am well aware of "some" of the flaws in the Chattam study. I have to be stupid to take a statistical study as Holy Grail.

Then why did you uncritically post the flawed "study"?

I am not trying to sabotage this topic. Sis Zainabia did a brilliant analysis. And she deserves full credit for it.

You are doing a good job without trying, must say..

This is a flawed argument. I am not disputing out of town'ers voters. By God, I am not trying to stand between a person and the polling booth of his/her choice.

What you are trying to do or not is irrelevant - in Iran , Iranians are not restricted to voting just in their "town" - t

The issue is not that you don't have convincing proofs to sway me. The problem is with data. The data is flawed. And I don't wanna argue on the basis of statistical analysis. Statistics are just statistics. Right now they are pretty inconclusive. At least to me, and again I could be wrong.

*you* are giving yourself a bit too much importance to think that anyone is trying to convince "you" - it is more about presenting accurate information in response to the disinformation that is being spread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(salam)

There is a study that shows massive fraud committed in the 2009 election. Download the 19 page pdf document from here http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234...lection0609.pdf

Blog entry summarizing keypoints : http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/chatham-ho...vely-shows.html

At this point, I am unsure who actually won the election. I am also unsure if fraud was committed or not. :Hijabi:

Chatham used 1st Round Results in his study instead of 2nd Round Results

I had already read complete Chatham Report before I wrote my analysis above.

And I was surprised to see that People like him who claim to be highly educated etc. could make such a big BLUNDER. And this biggest Blunder is this that he is taking the Results of 1st Round Elections of 2005 and then comparing it to Elections of 2009.

- We all know that Ahmadi Nejad got only 19.5% votes in 1st Round (i.e. 5.6 million votes only)

- While in have to see the 2nd Round where he went from 19.5% votes to 61.7% votes (i.e. from 5.6 million to 17.3 million votes)

Chatham mistake is this that he has neglected this 61.7% (i.e. 17.3 million) votes and based his study only upon 1st round results. I hope any one with little brain could find this flaw in his biased study. He knows very well that present Elections are very much like the 2nd round elections of 2005 while in these elections right from the very first day the competition was only between 2 Candidates (i.e. Ahmadi Nejad and Mussavi)

So, I have pasted my article in Urdu forums too and up till now I have not seen a single answer from supporters of Chatham for this big blunder.

******************

Regarding no. of voters and 2006 Population census

Please remember that it is not based on present birth rate in Iran. But it is based on how many of youth population entered into their 18th year of life.

And we all know Iran got very very high youth rate which should have entered into their 18th year between year 2006 and 2009.

Regarding Minority Votes

I already wrote above about the good ties between Ahle Sunnah and Shia brethern in Iran. Please also note that Seestan and other Kurd Areas are not so much developed areas and known as poor provinces (not so much sure about Kurd, but for sure Seestani people are poor).

And it was the policies of Ahmadi Nejad which was directly benefitting the poors. Specially the scheme of distributing Oil Wealth benefitted directly the majority of population of Seestan and they were able to get 100 USD by filling the forms. So, it is very much understandable why Ahmadi Nejad got the votes in Sunni Seestan/Baluchistan.

I know the opponents are showing narrow mind at moment. They are looking at the Sunni Minority only and only as "Sunni", but they forget to open their eyes and make their minds broad and to see that they are also "Poor People". The race and religion do play role, but so as the economic condition of a person too and this is the thing which Opponents and West is not able to see (either due to thier lack of understanding of situation or due to their blind hatred).

*********************

by Sister Zareen:

The problem is with data. The data is flawed. And I don't wanna argue on the basis of statistical analysis. Statistics are just statistics. Right now they are pretty inconclusive. At least to me, and again I could be wrong.

May Allah bless you sister, if you are not satisfied with the DATA analysis then I would recommend you to please watch the videos of Rallies of Ahmadi Nejad and your heart will get satisfaction. Insha-Allah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Let say there was no cheating in election so please explain to me how in 45 voting boot only ahmadinejad get vote ,you mean even the reprasantative of the other candidates voted for ahmadinejad.

13256_577.jpg

and can you explain this video to me.

Iran Election

Why the interior ministry results change on daily bases and what was that -6 that fixed in the second revision.

321.JPG

whats your idea about change of the votes between the announcement of the results of cities and boots

9.JPG

how on earth in these voting boots the representative of other candidates didn't vote for them

0-3.JPG

why this change in the number of disqualified votes

bakhsh.JPG

if all was the above mentioned and like them it could have been cleared by a simple recount.

but For God Sake how can you explain this video.

Changing votes in iran election

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Mr. JEskandari,

You are coming up with new Allegations without trying to defend the Earlier Accusations that have been made and answered in this Thread in the first mail. Does it means you agree that those were the Flase Accusations?

If yes, then we could move to these new Accusations and do research for them and find out the Reality

9.JPG

And then you claim: "How is this "0" votes possible? And then you claims even representatives of Candidates cast vote then it is more than 0"

Answer:

- Firstly there are Areas in it where it is Ahmadi Nejad who got "0" Votes.

- Secondly, these Areas seem to me to be very very small with 50 to few hundred Voters only. Also they seem to me remote Areas where Polling Boths were Mobile and went they went to different Areas and I think Representatives were allowed to vote only in one Areas (I am not sure about it though and have to do more research).

Also at some Areas there were no Representatives of Candidates present (especially the Remote Areas).

In small Areas/ Villages it is very much possible that whole Population of 50 to few hundred people are strong supporters of only one Candidate and thus vote for only one Candidate. How comes it becomes proof of Rigging?

321.JPG

- Thirdly, you are showing us the Changes of only "FOUR" Votes by Iranian Government.

Please tell me what Iranian Government is trying to achieve by changing the Result of these "4" Votes?

There were results in 60,000 Polling Centers with number of votes from 4 Candidates. There may be Typing Mistakes or other small Human Mistakes. That is why by re-checking they are making all of them correct and even these 4 Votes, which could make absolutely no difference, they have also been changed.

I hope you would be able to see how bogus your claims were.

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
Mr. JEskandari,

You are coming up with new Allegations without trying to defend the Earlier Accusations that have been made and answered in this Thread in the first mail. Does it means you agree that those were the Flase Accusations?

If yes, then we could move to these new Accusations and do research for them and find out the Reality

9.JPG

And then you claim: "How is this "0" votes possible? And then you claims even representatives of Candidates cast vote then it is more than 0"

Answer:

- Firstly there are Areas in it where it is Ahmadi Nejad who got "0" Votes.

- Secondly, these Areas seem to me to be very very small with 50 to few hundred Voters only. Also they seem to me remote Areas where Polling Boths were Mobile and went they went to different Areas and I think Representatives were allowed to vote only in one Areas (I am not sure about it though and have to do more research).

Also at some Areas there were no Representatives of Candidates present (especially the Remote Areas).

In small Areas/ Villages it is very much possible that whole Population of 50 to few hundred people are strong supporters of only one Candidate and thus vote for only one Candidate. How comes it becomes proof of Rigging?

321.JPG

- Thirdly, you are showing us the Changes of only "FOUR" Votes by Iranian Government.

Please tell me what Iranian Government is trying to achieve by changing the Result of these "4" Votes?

There were results in 60,000 Polling Centers with number of votes from 4 Candidates. There may be Typing Mistakes or other small Human Mistakes. That is why by re-checking they are making all of them correct and even these 4 Votes, which could make absolutely no difference, they have also been changed.

I hope you would be able to see how bogus your claims were.

First I could not find any boot that ahmadinejad get Zero Vote ,now tell me why other candidate representatives must vote for Ahmadinejad ?

Second the number of change are not important that there is negative number in it is important that sho evidence of number making and when people asked about that they began to fix it.

if you looked at the video in one of them it shows that there are more than 100,000 different between the total number of votes and the sum of qualified votes and disqualified ones which again raise some question.

in another picture that you decided to not qoute there is evidence that only in one city the number of musavi votes droped 17000 when they revised their list and those 17000 vote went to ahmadinejad just to fix their buggy numbers.

If you look at another video that again it seems that you decided not to look you can see that somebody is changing votes and make some extra votes.

about these are small voting boots i say 900 votes it mean it was a very busy voting boot.

now let me post you an analysis about the number of votes in the boots ,doesn't these peaks look suspicious

untitled.JPG

e05d1a70d3d45603ca690b6800ad24c51.JPG

e05d1a70d3d45603ca690b6800ad24c5.jpg

654279192e3104f919f2b2a979c9eb04.jpg

and can you explain this to me

32089_720.jpg

and can you explain why people of Lorestan Participated in election with the packages of 100 ?

sadgan.JPG

and how on earth there can be -6 disqualified vote ?

manfi.JPG

the funniest part is this here in babolsar propel only presented themselves in package of 65 and 201 to voting boots. isn't it the sign they didn't even bothered to count votes and only devided the numbers ?

tekrare_65.JPG

now do you know in Ize at Soosan in box number 1 there is only 3 vote while the mandatory number of the reprasantative at each voting boot is 5 person and we must add to that the number of police personnel who protect the box. now you are going to claim the people who were running the election themselves didn't vote and also no people voted there ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
if you can't see the pictures i posted it's because some people decided to filter as much internet sites as they liked and those picture are hosted on those sites just use a proxy to see them.

here is where i get charts you can find more there

http://entekhabatj88.blogspot.com

go back to shahdefence.net where the admin sokuy30 bans anyone with a different opinion.. if you look at the people who you follow they are calling for the death of khamanie and ahmednejad, even the shah lovers who are calling for the assasination of irans leaders are left to post yet many users who have been members for years get banned..is this the democracy you sick people want.. the same one of irandefence.net?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
First I could not find any boot that ahmadinejad get Zero Vote ,now tell me why other candidate representatives must vote for Ahmadinejad ?

Brother, it is that strange you were unable to see the 0 Votes for Ahmadinejad, while it is you yourself who posted this Data.

Just look at the image that you provided yourself and you will see the Areas where Ahamadinejad got 0 Votes

9.JPG

*****************

Second the number of change are not important that there is negative number in it is important that sho evidence of number making and when people asked about that they began to fix it.

It seems to me that "Negative" numbers are written for the correction purpose. It is very much possible there were typing mistakes while entering the Data in the List form. These are the small corrections which have been made and showed with "Negative" sign that in these areas wrong figures were given and the candidate got so much "LESS" Votes.

For all these Issues there was a procedure in system and Candidates could have come and launch the complaints and could get the clarifications. But they went for Roads.

******************

if you looked at the video in one of them it shows that there are more than 100,000 different between the total number of votes and the sum of qualified votes and disqualified ones which again raise some question.

in another picture that you decided to not qoute there is evidence that only in one city the number of musavi votes droped 17000 when they revised their list and those 17000 vote went to ahmadinejad just to fix their buggy numbers.

Brother, you could see that for Ahmadinejad corrections are made in 2 Areas only. It seems that it was Ahmadinejad who got 142 Votes in Khoztan "Abda", but it was wrongly written in Column under name of Rezai. So the correction was made there.

Secondly it was in Seestan ÓÑÈÇÒ where it seems that Ahmadinejad got 17836 Votes, but they were by mistake written in Mussavi's Column. So this mistake has also been fixed.

********************

If you look at another video that again it seems that you decided not to look you can see that somebody is changing votes and make some extra votes.

This video is ridicolous at best.

Firstly, not even a single other person is seen in this Video. Is it really made in any Polling Center or is made in a home?

Secondly, the people who rig, they don't Make such Videos of their crime themselves with so much details.

Thirdly, if you people could bring this COMPLETE long Video where he is showing the Rigging with so much details, then you could also tell the name of this person and also why his face was not shown in the Video?

This Video is a real joke and any one could make such video in his home in hundreds of numbers. I just hope you could realise this fact yourself.

*********************

about these are small voting boots i say 900 votes it mean it was a very busy voting boot.

You forget that one fact remains same i.e. almost all of these polling centers are the remote areas where normally whole village or community vote for single candidate unanimously.

Secondly, Mr. Musavi should come and tell the names of their representatives who voted in these 45 Areas for him. (It seems that Mr. Mussavi didn't get his representatives in all Polling Centers and it is logical his representatives were specially missing in Remote Areas where there are 100% Ahmadinejad Supporters and no one is ready to even become representative for Mr. Musavi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Basic Members
go back to shahdefence.net where the admin sokuy30 bans anyone with a different opinion.. if you look at the people who you follow they are calling for the death of khamanie and ahmednejad, even the shah lovers who are calling for the assasination of irans leaders are left to post yet many users who have been members for years get banned..is this the democracy you sick people want.. the same one of irandefence.net?

Ha ha.

Who is Sokuy??

You sound like one of those Swedish Disgruntle former member!

who were you if you don't mind me asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Basic Members
I actually wrote this article in Urdu Language.

Then I posted to Urdu Newspaper that I have access. Also I sent it per e-mail to all those whom I know, asking them to propagate it further through e-mails, face book or twitter etc. and to host at their websites if they have any.

**************

I feel we should also do the same in English language too.

I know I am nothing and have limited abilities and this article is far from being perfect. But still I believe it could make some difference and therefore I had to brave enough to post it here with request to make it even better and propagate further.

***************

I feel on ShiaChat we found the truth by reading a lot of Articles and objections and their answers. But I feel we have lost the original plan due to tens of threads and objections by opponents.

May I ask the Moderators to please make it sticky so that we once again don't loose the original plan and new comers could find the truth easily.

Thanks and Was Salam.

PS: Here is the Urdu Version of this article which again Pakistani/Indian members could propagate through e-mails, face book etc.

iran_election_tajziya.pdf

Salam

sister zainabia

I found this article helpful for your analysis.

The Case of the ‘Fatwa’ to Rig Iran’s Election

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/0...0%99s-election/

Maybe you would like to read it or you've done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Salam

sister zainabia

I found this article helpful for your analysis.

The Case of the ‘Fatwa’ to Rig Iran’s Election

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/0...0%99s-election/

Maybe you would like to read it or you've done.

Assalam o Alaikum

Thank you brother for this informative Link. I didn't read it before and therefore I am glad to have opportunity to read it now.

Please keep on sharing more links on this Issue here.

Thanks and Was Salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
Assalam o Alaikum

Thank you brother for this informative Link. I didn't read it before and therefore I am glad to have opportunity to read it now.

Please keep on sharing more links on this Issue here.

Thanks and Was Salam.

Thank you, I found you are objective in analyzing the issues of Iran election, and like to share with you those articles.

It's quite obviously the Internet and many communication techniques have been used for spreading rumors of stolen election beforehand.

I found two articles when Iranian websites were shut down by some people.

One is about twitter(also appeared in other topic, here is the original link )

Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter #IranElection

http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proo...an-via-twitter/

and

Iranian Opposition DDoS-es pro-Ahmadinejad Sites

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2009/06/irani...dos-es-pro.html

His topic is not good because he is an expert on cyber warfare not Iran politics. I think there are many non-Iranian elements or terrorist groups(traitors) joining this cyberwar and psywar. They should not be termed as (legitimate)Iranian opposition. I think their main intention was to fan their baseless rumors, by forcing people to turn to BBC, VOA....or websites like Teheran bureau. What they did also have some psy impact because some people thought it's the government shut down the websites.

peace

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Salamu alaikum, great summary refuting the lies of the anti-Ahmadinejad evildoers. One area I would like to add a few things about is that of the vote in Azeri areas. Ahmadinejad won the overall Azeri vote for many reasons, which you pointed to. First, Azeris who live in Iran are overall very religious Muslims (which contrasts with the Azeris living in the nation of Azerbaijan who tend overall to be more secular). Imam Khamenei(ha) is himself an Azeri! Also everyone knew Rahbar Khamenei(ha) favored and preferred Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for re-election. As you said Dr. Ahmadinejad worked in his early political career in Azeri majority cities, like Ardabil for example. Dr. Ahmadinejad speaks fluent Azeri and has great relations with the overall conservative Azeri people in Iran. Lastly, one important point that wasn't spoken of in your original piece is that it has not been unheard of in the West and America in particular, for political candidates to lose their home state or region. The most glaring contemporary example of this in America was in the 2000 U.S. Presidential race. In the 2000 U.S. Presidential race Democratic candidate Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee to Republican candidate (and future President George W. Bush). In didn't matter that Al Gore was a native of the state of Tennessee, the people of the southern state of Tennessee went with the more conservative George W. Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thanks a lot brother.

And yes, US Media has to look at their own Election Results before casting doubts about AN.

Unfortunately, their Propaganda is very strong.

Unfortunately, even a big number of our own Shia Community do believe in this Western Media Propaganda about recent elections.

Unfortunately, Arab Countries went hands in hands along with Western false Propaganda. Either it is Saudia, or Dubai or Kuwait or other Arab Countries, but all of them went hands in hands with US.

Unfortunately, big number of Sunni Brothers has converted to Satanic Prejudice filled Salafies (in Pakistan) and they went in hands in hands with this western propaganda (or even worse)

We should realize, we won on the battlefield, but Satanic forces did beat us in field of Propaganda. We have to improve in many fields yet. Let us pray to Allah swt to increase us in our Taufiqaat and give us the opportunity to work more and more for the mission of ahlebait as. amin.

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot brother.

And yes, US Media has to look at their own Election Results before casting doubts about AN.

Unfortunately, their Propaganda is very strong.

Unfortunately, even a big number of our own Shia Community do believe in this Western Media Propaganda about recent elections.

Unfortunately, Arab Countries went hands in hands along with Western false Propaganda. Either it is Saudia, or Dubai or Kuwait or other Arab Countries, but all of them went hands in hands with US.

Unfortunately, big number of Sunni Brothers has converted to Satanic Prejudice filled Salafies (in Pakistan) and they went in hands in hands with this western propaganda (or even worse)

We should realize, we won on the battlefield, but Satanic forces did beat us in field of Propaganda. We have to improve in many fields yet. Let us pray to Allah swt to increase us in our Taufiqaat and give us the opportunity to work more and more for the mission of ahlebait as. amin.

salam o alikum sister,

i am so happy to see that you are doing the same as me...and the points i have are pretty similar to yours... my focus is mainly on getting to the jewish news site and posting it there in the comments section... most of the momineen already know the truth, we have to focus on getting other people to see it too... may Allah help us in this as right now the war is not being done with sword rather by controlling the media...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

An objection I heard someone saying today was that 4years ago Karroubi had gotten about 5million votes and yet this election he only got about 300,000 votes despite taking tougher stances or something like that. They were speaking to me in farsi and my understanding of farsi is not very good so I couldn't really understand what exactly the objection was and do recognise that such a thing wouldn't constitute hard proof but I am nevertheless interested to know what they were talking about, so can someone please shed some light on this.

One good thing to keep in mind on Karroubi in this 2009 Iranian Presidential election, is that he was not the same candidate he was in the 2005 election, or should I say the election circumstances were different. The race in 2005 was a more open race, with then President Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) having served two terms and not running again. Thus in this more open race in 2005 Karroubi was able to do somewhat better (but was still a relatively small candidate, next to the top two: the winner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 2nd place Rafsanjani). Yet this year in 2009, the election was clearly between two candidates Dr. Ahmadinjead (the incumbent) and the challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. It is very common in an important, large election with only 2 candidates viewed as possible winners (or real players) for voters to not bother looking at smaller long-shot candidates: like Karroubi. For example in U.S. politics you can see the case of 3rd party (Green Party) candidate Ralph Nader. In the 2000 U.S. Presidential race Ralph Nader ran and did suprisingly well for a 3rd party candidate. Most scholars even believe it was Ralph Nader who helped give that extremely tight 2000 election to George W. Bush over Al Gore. This is because people who voted for the small party, liberal Green Party candidate Ralph Nader would've likely voted for Al Gore if they hadn't been drawn to the impossible Nader (who could never win). In a race as tight as the 2000 U.S. Presidental race it is very possible this alone could've been what cost Al Gore the 2000 election to Bush.

In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election Ralph Nader was no where near as strong a candidate as he had been in 2000. Democrats and liberals had learned the lesson and still were burning from the close loss (even when they won the popular vote, but no the electoral college vote!) in the 2000 race. The 2004 race was clearly between Bush and Kerry and nobody was going to waste time on a small, liberal 3rd party candidate like Ralph Nader again. Same thing happened to Karroubi in Iran's election.

Edited by Abdul-Rahman Brent
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
  • 1 month later...

^The propaganda is almost one year too late. You missed the train.

The only thing that happened after the election was a desperate CIA and Israeli inspired coup attempt. Nothing more. So many Iran "experts" predicted the complete collapse of the government, just as they have been griping about for thirty years. And it still hasn't happened.

So yeah, I agree with you, what happened after the election does matter. Just not what the gharbzedegi dreamers would have wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...