Iraqi Legislative Election, 2005

#REDIRECT Iraqi legislative election, 2005

Iraqi legislative election, 2005

In the January 30, 2005, Legislative elections, the Iraqi people chose representatives for the newly-formed 275-member Iraqi National Assembly. The voting represented the first general election since the United States-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, and marked an important step in the transition of turning control of the country over from US occupation forces to the Iraqis themselves. The newly-elected transitional Assembly will write a new and permanent Constitution for Iraq and will also exercise legislative functions until the new Constitution comes into effect. Two parties supported by the majority Shi'a Islam (or Shiite) Islam community between them won a majority of seats, while parties representing the Kurdish community will also be strongly represented. Parties representing the Sunni Islam Arab community boycotted the elections and some armed Sunni groups threatened election day violence. There were 44 deaths around polling stations in at least 9 separate attacks on election day. With a total of some 8.4 million votes cast, a 58 percent turnout, the Iraqi Electoral Commission considers the election to have taken place without major disruption. Turnout ranged from 89 percent in the Kurdish region of Dahuk to two percent in the Sunni region of Anbar. Iraq's interim constitution, Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, requires a two-thirds majority of the new Assembly to select the new presidents, who will appoint the Prime Minister who will take office after receiving a simple majority vote of confidence from the Assembly. Eighteen Provinces of Iraq and a 111-member council of the Kurdistan Regional Government were also elected. ==Results and turnout== Provisional results released on February 13 showed that the United Iraqi Alliance, tacitly backed by Shi'a leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, led with some 48% of the vote. The Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan was in second place with some 26% of the vote. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party, the Iraqi List, came third with some 14%. In total, twelve parties received enough votes to win a seat in the assembly. {| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="background: #f8f8f8; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse; white-space: nowrap; text-align: left" |- style="text-align: center; background: #e8e8e8" ! rowspan="2" | Electoral Alliance ! colspan="2" | Votes ! rowspan="2" | Seats
! rowspan="2" | Leaders |- style="text-align: center; background: #e8e8e8" | Total count | Percent |- | United Iraqi Alliance ! align="right" | 4,075,292 ! align="right" | 48.19% ! align="right" | 140 | Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Ibrahim al-Jaafari,
Hussain al-Shahristani, Ahmed Chalabi |- | Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan ! align="right" | 2,175,551 ! align="right" | 25.73% ! align="right" | 75 | Jalal Talabani, Masoud Barzani |- | Iraqi List ! align="right" | 1,168,943 ! align="right" | 13.82% ! align="right" | 40 | Iyad Allawi |- | The Iraqis ! align="right" | 150,680 ! align="right" | 1.78% ! align="right" | 5 | Ghazi al-Yawer |- | Iraqi Turkmen Front ! align="right" | 93,480 ! align="right" | 1.11% ! align="right" | 3 | Farok Abdullah Abdurrahman |- | National Independent Cadres and Elites ! align="right" | 69,938 ! align="right" | 0.83% ! align="right" | 3 | Fatah al-Sheikh |- | Ittihad Al Shaab ! align="right" | 69,920 ! align="right" | 0.83% ! align="right" | 2 | Hamid Majid Mousa |- | Islamic Group of Kurdistan ! align="right" | 60,592 ! align="right" | 0.72% ! align="right" | 2 | Ali Abd-al Aziz |- | Islamic Action Organization In Iraq - Central Command ! align="right" | 43,205 ! align="right" | 0.51% ! align="right" | 2 | |- | National Democratic Alliance (Iraq) ! align="right" | 36,795 ! align="right" | 0.44% ! align="right" | 1 | |- | National Rafidain List ! align="right" | 36,255 ! align="right" | 0.43% ! align="right" | 1 | Yonadem Kana |- | Reconciliation and Liberation Bloc ! align="right" | 30,796 ! align="right" | 0.36% ! align="right" | 1 | Mishaan Jibouri |- | Iraq Assembly of National Unity ! align="right" | 23,686 ! align="right" | 0.28% ! align="right" | 0 | Dr. Nehro Mohammed |- | Assembly of Independent Democrats ! align="right" | 23,302 ! align="right" | 0.28% ! align="right" | 0 | Adnan Pachachi |- | Iraqi Islamic Party ! align="right" | 21,342 ! align="right" | 0.25% ! align="right" | 0 | Mohsen Abdel-Hamid |- | Islamic Dawa Movement ! align="right" | 19,373 ! align="right" | 0.23% ! align="right" | 0 | Adil Abd Al-Raheem |- | Iraqi National Gathering ! align="right" | 18,862 ! align="right" | 0.22% ! align="right" | 0 | Hussein al-Jibouri |- | Iraqi Republican Assembly ! align="right" | 15,452 ! align="right" | 0.18% ! align="right" | 0 | Sa'ad Al-Janabi |- | Constitutional Monarchy Movement ! align="right" | 13,740 ! align="right" | 0.16% ! align="right" | 0 | Sharif Ali bin Al-Hussein |- | Iraqi legislative election results, 2005 ! align="right" | 309,062 ! align="right" | 3.65% ! align="right" | 0 | |- | Total valid votes ! align="right" | 8,456,266 ! align="right" | 100.00% ! align="right" | 275 | |- | Invalid votes ! align="right" | 94,305 ! align="center" | — ! | |- | Total votes cast ! align="right" | 8,550,871 ! align="center" | — ! | |- style="background: #e8e8e8" ! colspan="5" | Iraqi legislative election results, 2005 |} The majority of the 111 lists that competed in the election did not win seats. The most prominent party to be excluded was the secular, but predominantly Sunni, Independent Democrats (Iraq) led by former exile Adnan Pachachi. It only received some 12,000 votes. Other prominent parties that failed to win seats include the monarchist Constitutional Monarchy Movement, and the Movement of Free Military Officers and Civilians. ==Disruption== Armed Islamism, Ba'ath Party and other groups, which have carried out a campaign of bombings and assassinations in Iraq since the beginning of the occupation in 2003 (see Iraqi insurgency), threatened to disrupt the elections by suicide bombing and other violent tactics. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq, said: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it". He also made it clear that al-Qaida opposes elections in Iraq because they will result in a Shi'a-dominated government. He alleged that "the Shiites aim to begin spreading their evil faith among people through money and fear," [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=435225] A rigid security clampdown succeeded in preventing major disruption of the polling. In most parts of the country Iraqis were able to vote freely. More than 100 armed attacks on polling places took place, killing at least 44 people (including nine suicide bombers) across Iraq, including at least 20 in Baghdad. However, threats by opponents of the election to "wash the streets in blood" were not fulfilled. An unnamed al-Qaida affiliate dismissed the elections as "theatrics" and promised to continue waging "jihad" against coalition forces. "These elections and their results ... will increase our strength and intention to getting rid of injustice," read the statement, which was posted to an Islamist web site. [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050201130760]. ==Boycott and legitimacy== One challenge to the legitimacy of the election was the low Sunni turnout, which was as low as 2 percent in Anbar province. Areas with mixed populations saw the vast majority of voters back Shi'ite or Kurdish parties. The largest Sunni party, The Iraqis, won only 1.78% of the vote (for comparison, Sunnis are thought to be 10-15% of the population). The boycott was largely a product of the threatened violence. The violence is centered in the Sunni areas and the Sunni party leaders felt that it would be impossible to hold fair elections in their areas. Major Sunni parties such as the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Association of Muslim Scholars, boycotted the elections, as did some smaller groups such as the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq. The major Sunni groups called for elections to be postponed until the safety of voters could be guaranteed. This call for a delay was supported by some in the west, but any such scheme was strongly opposed by the Shi'a parties. Despite the boycott and the resulting tiny Sunni representation in the assembly, the major party leaders have assured the Sunnis that they will have input into the new constitution. It is also expected that at least one of the major government positions will go to a Sunni. Small groups of protesters around the world marched in support of the boycott of the Iraq elections and against the U.S. occupation of Iraq. They claim that for an Iraqi election to have meaning the U.S. should not be "orchestrating the process". [http://www.fightbacknews.org/2005/01/iraqelect.htm] Scott Ritter has alleged that the U.S. has partially rigged the election to reduce the percentage won by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%. No evidence has been provided to support these allegations. [http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/] ==Monitoring== The election was monitored from outside of Iraq by the International Mission for Iraqi Elections made up of members from nine nations and headed by Canada. It was supported by the United Nations but was not a UN operation. The UN recused itself from monitoring the election as it had played a central role in setting up the election. A number of UN staffers worked within the Iraqi electoral commission setting up the election and are considered by some to be de facto international observers. It proved impossible to find monitors that would actually monitor the election from within the country. Rather the IMIE observers were based in Amman, Jordan and monitored the election from there. There were also representatives in Baghdad, generally the staff in the embassies of the IMIE nations. The absentee poll held in fourteen countries around the world were monitored by a wide array of IGO and NGOs, but these groups were unwilling to monitor the election in Iraq itself. It is highly unusual to base the monitoring team outside of the country where the election is being held, but the observers decided this was necessary for safety reasons. Among other security precautions all but the head of the mission, Canadian Jean-Pierre Kingsley remained anonymous. The main burden on monitoring the election thus fell to Iraqi representatives on the ground who sent reports to Amman. The majority of these volunteers were some 35,000 partisan scrutineer representing the parties competing in the election. Another 21,000 non-partisan volunteers were recruited by a variety of agencies and NGOs. [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/01/28/913415-cp.html] The observers assert that despite the unusual circumstances the election was adequately monitored. Others disagree arguing that the IMIE was created to rubber stamp the U.S. created elections [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/cana-j17.shtml]. The final report of the IMIE group has not been issued, but Kingsley stated that "the Iraqi elections generally meet international standards," while a preliminary assessment released after polling closed said that areas needing improvement included "transparency regarding financial contributions and expenditures, improvements to the voter registration process and reviewing the criteria for candidate eligibility." [http://www.boston.com/dailynews/031/world/Iraqi_elections_meet_internati:.shtml] ==Structure of the elected government== The members of the National Assembly have been selected from 196 candidate lists, chosen by proportional representation using the Hare quota and the largest remainder method with a threshold of one quota. At least every third candidate on each list must be female, although if many lists each return small number of assembly members the proportion who are women may fall a little short of an exact third. Most observers expect some 30% of the Assembly to be female. The Assembly will write a permanent Constitution, which will then be voted on in a referendum. If the draft Constitution is passed, a new assembly will be elected following the rules laid out in it. Thus this is potentially the first of three elections that will be held in Iraq this year. ==Out-of-country voting== Compagnies_R�publicaines_de_S�curit�,_given_the_possibility_of_disruption._See_n:Iraqi_elections_kept_low-key,_but_secure,_in_Paris.">Image:2005 Iraqi elections polling station in Paris with riot cops.jpg|thumb|250px|The entrances of the Paris polling station were guarded by Compagnies R�publicaines de S�curit�, given the possibility of disruption. See n:Iraqi elections kept low-key, but secure, in Paris. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) also held an "Out-of-Country Voting Program"; it was conducted by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The goal of the program was to enable approximately one million eligible voters living outside Iraq to participate in the election of the transitional National Assembly. There are 280,303 voter registration expatriates. By far the largest group of those eligible to vote are in Iran with significant populations in a number of western countries. Iraqi expatriates voted from January 28 to January 30, 2005. International voters could place their ballots in fourteen countries: * Australia: Melbourne and Sydney * Canada: Calgary (1), Ottawa (1), and Toronto (3) * Denmark: Copenhagen * France: Paris * Germany: Berlin, Cologne, Mannheim, and Munich * Iran: Ahvaz, Kermanshah (in Kermanshah province), Mashhad, Urmia, Qom, and Tehran * Jordan: Amman * The Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Zwolle * Sweden: Gothenburg and Stockholm * Syria: Damascus * Turkey: Ankara, Istanbul * United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Dubai * United Kingdom: Glasgow, London, and Manchester * United States: Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; Nashville, Tennessee; and Washington, D.C. The preliminary tally of these votes was released by the IECI on February 4, 2005. They found the United Iraqi Alliance in the lead with 36.15% of the vote. According to the [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107487146382 Jerusalem Post] the full totals were: *United Iraqi Alliance - 95,318 votes or 36.15% *Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan - 78,062 votes, or 29.6% *Iraqi List - 24,136 votes, or 9.15% *National Rafidain List - 18,538 votes, or 7.03%. *Ittihad Al Shaab - 11,640 votes, or 4.41% *Iraq Turkman Front - 6,329 votes, or 2.40% *National Assyrian Group - 4,198 votes, or 1.59% *The Iraqis - 2,315 votes, or 0.88% These results are not representative of the vote in Iraq itself. Iraqi Christians, who are the base of support for the National Rafidain List and the National Assyrian Group, are heavily overrepresented in exile communities as are Kurds. == Kurdish regional election == Elections to the Kurdistan National Assembly, the 111-member legislature of the Kurdish Autonomous Region, were held on the same day as the federal legislative elections. * Iraqi Kurdistan legislative election, 2005 == Governate council elections == Governate council elections were held on the same day as the legislative elections. Each province has a 41-member council, except for Baghdad, whose council has 51 members: *al-Anbar governorate council election, 2005 *Arbil governorate council election, 2005 *Babil governorate council election, 2005 *Baghdad governorate council election, 2005 *Basra governorate council election, 2005 *Dahuk governorate council election, 2005 *Dhi Qar governorate council election, 2005 *Diyala governorate council election, 2005 *Karbala governorate council election, 2005 *Maysan governorate council election, 2005 *Najaf governorate council election, 2005 *Ninawa governorate council election, 2005 *Muthanna governorate council election, 2005 *Qadisyah governorate council election, 2005 *At-Ta'mim governorate council election, 2005 *Salah ad Din governorate council election, 2005 *Sulaymaniyah governorate council election, 2005 *Wasit governorate council election, 2005 ==External links== *[http://www.ieciraq.org/english.html Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq], in English language *[http://www.iraqocv.org/php/index.php?lang=eng Official Iraq Out-of-Country Voting Program], in English language *[http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3556513 The Economist: Iraqi legislative election who's who] (pay site) * BBC: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm Questions and Answers on the Iraqi election], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4051977.stm Discussion of some of the main lists and candidates] *Democracy Watch International: [http://democracywatch.org/countries/iz.html Iraqi-Democracy Scorecard] * [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9055 The Iraqi and Vietnamese Elections] * [http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5143 Angus Reid Consultants - Election Tracker] 2005 elections Elections in Iraq

Iraqi legislative election, 2005

Talk:Iraqi legislative election, 2005/archive1 == Anbar == I have read an allegation that some US idiot claimed many happy American supporting Iraqis voted in Fallujah. Dubious at best, and results so far seem to show that as false as anyone might guess. But, is it true that some US politician claimed that? If so, anyone know who? :I have not heard any such claim. That said there are so many politicians out there that I'm sure at least one said something like that. If someone major said something like that, the media would have probably tore them to shreds. --User:Bletch 19:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Minority or Majority? == I think that alot of people here might be missing out on a mathematical truth about Proportional Representation. While the Al-Sistani's United List may have only captured 47% of votes, they may well get more then 47% of the seats. Here's an example: Lets say there's an election. Party Blue takes 550 votes. Party Red takes 300. Party Green takes 150. Party Purple takes 50. Party Orange also takes 50. And Party Brown takes 50 votes as well. If you add this up, you'll see that Party Blue has less then half of the votes cast. The issue becomes one of Threshold. If the Threshold is set at 100, then all votes for parties that captured less then 100 votes need to be thrown out. If you do that, all of a sudden you realize that of those ballots, Party Blue does have a majority. My calculations has the List at 51.06% of the votes that will be used for the calculations, and thereofre capturing 141 of the 275 seats for a majority. Perhaps I'm wrong? User:Pellaken 19:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) You are correct. The 11 parties qualifying for seats polled just on 8 million votes between them, and the Sistani list polled just over 4 million. It will therefore get almost exactly half the seats, and will be able to form a majority coalition with either the Kurds or Allawi's list or both. User:Adam Carr 20:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) :A bunch of news sources are saying the UAI gets only 132 seats [http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12240412%255E663,00.html][http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050213142420.r9zugm54.xml][http://news.newkerala.com/world-news/?action=fullnews&id=71770]. Are they incorrectly doing a straight 275 times 48%, or do they know something we do not. - User:SimonP 00:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) It depends really on one thing - are these from countries with PR? One of them looks like it may be. User:Pellaken 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) The IECI has not announced the results in terms of numbers of seats won, at least not on their website. So this is all speculation at present. User:Adam Carr 03:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Nobody has ever claimed that two-party citizens would ever understand even the basics of PR. ==Structure of the elected government== Hey all, I struck the first sentance from this section which had read" ''Iraq's interim constitution provides for an Iraqi Transitional Government to replace the Iraqi Interim Government. Besides the National Assembly, the transitional government will also include the Presidency Council, the Council of Ministers, and the judicial authority." '' This is all true, but it is highly confusing. The Iraqi Transitional Govevrnment was replaced by the Iraqi Interim Government months ago and has nothing to do with the elections. The new National Government is neither of the governments mentioned here. I figured I would help eschew some obfuscations. -Kramer == Independence of Iraqi Kurdistan == It is my understanding from reports on National Public Radio in the U.S. that voters in Iraqi Kurdistan voted on a ballot question on Iraqi Kurdistan's independence from the rest of Iraq. It is also my understanding that this was a non-binding referendum. Have there been any results announced of this referendum? If so, could these be posted in the article? Thanks in advance. - User:Scooter 03:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) That would be interesting, but this is an article about the Iraqi legislative election. It might belong better at Iraqi Kurdistan, with a reference from this article. User:Adam Carr 03:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Registration and turnout issue== The total vote cited by the IECI is 8.4 million. This is said to represent a 58% turnout. This must mean that there are 14.5 million registered voters. If Iraq's population is 25 million as Wikpedia says, then 58% of the population are registered voters. But since we are also told that half the population of Iraq is under 19, and since we must assume that a majority of Sunni Arabs have not registered as voters, something here does not add up. Iraq only has 12-13 million adults, so it can't have 14.5 million registered voters. Has anyone seen a figure for this? User:Adam Carr 04:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Later: The UN figure for voter registration is 14,270,000. The IECI figure for the votes cast is 8.4 million. This means that the turnout percentage was 59.9%. I am still sceptical that Iraq can have 14.2 million adult registered voters when its population is 25 million. User:Adam Carr 10:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think the issue is on that of reporting and terms. In the last US election (for example, unfortunatly, I dont remember the numbers) the US had 60% of registered voters turn out, and 50% of elegible voters turn out. I think there's confusion as to the %age of elegable / registered voters. User:Pellaken 11:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) The mystery explained: pretty much the entire population is on the rationing lists dating back to Saddam's time. These were the basis for voter rolls (outside Kurdish areas, I assume) therefore nearly all eligible voters are registered... they do not need to do anything in order to register (except fix occasional mistakes). Assume 99% of the eligible voters are registered, you would expect 0.99 * 25 * 0.5 * (1 + 1/19) = 13.2 million voters. Add a million or so registered voters out-of-country, and you're there. User:ObsidianOrder 13:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) That seems a reasonable explanation. User:Adam Carr 21:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Results table== Where are these figures on the number of seats won by each party coming from? There are no official figures on this. User:Adam Carr 21:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Women == How many women were elected to the National Assembly? Women were given every third slot of the candidate lists and were estimated to get about 30% of the seats. (User:Alphaboi867 18:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)) - Nobody has ever claimed that single-seat-district-voters would understand PR and especially voting lists, while multimember-districts is even more difficult. Not to forget direct voting, not for lists but actual persons. However, many say that those few single-seat-majority-districts left will not survive that many decades. PR is said to be really difficult, similar to voting lists, and especially mixed election systems, although everyone but some few use that. == Kurdistan election results == Does anybody have information on the outcome of the election to the 111-member Kurdistan regional assembly? I mean, I expect the Democratic and Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan to sweep, but does anybody have figures for it? None of the media I've seen even seem to be acknowledging that the regional elections happened. User:QuartierLatin1968 20:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have some figures and will post them at Iraqi Kurdistan legislative election, 2005 when I get time today. User:Adam Carr 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) ---- I have now placed voting figures by Governorate at [http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/i/iraq/ my website]. Feel free to adapt these tables for this article. User:Adam Carr 01:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) == possible suggestion for iraq? == would this work. Since the Sistani List won a majority, but likely having a minority would be politically more reasonable, could they make an offer to allow smaller parties to have more representation? Basacally, they would allow all the parties that are over the threshold to have as many seats as they truly deserve, this means the sistani list only gets 133 seats. in return, the following parties would get 1 representive: Iraq Assembly of National Unity = Assembly of Independent Democrats = Iraqi Islamic Party = Islamic Dawa Movement = Iraqi National Gathering = Iraqi Republican Assembly = Constitutional Monarchy - Al-Sharif Ali bin Al-Hussein = Assembly for Iraqi Democracy = Independent - Ali Muslim Jar Allah Ali Al-Bithani = Hashemite Iraqi Monarchist Assembly = Democratic National Alliance = Democratic Iraqi Current = Democratic Iraq Assembly = Islamic Vanguard Party = National Front of the Unity of Iraq My question to you guys is - is this possible? or does the election law forbid it? User:Pellaken 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) I believe election law forbids it, since the names of representatives must come from the certified list for each party or coalition. What is more likely to happen is that the Sistani list will invite other parties or influential people, primarily Sunni, to participate in the constitution-drafting process, but they will retain the final say. Also, a number of laws require a 2/3 majority, the most likely for that is a UIA/Kurds alliance. I think the current setup will work well: the Shia can use their majority to expedite the process (which will be helpful, given the very short schedule), but not to force decisions on substantive issues. User:ObsidianOrder 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) No country would change the outcome of an election of a national election retrospectively. The Sunni parties chose to boycott the election, so now they are shut out of the political process by their own choice. The only concession I would offer is that if the Sunni parties agreed to participate in free elections, I would agree to hold re-runs of the elections in the four Sunni Governorates, but I doubt the Shia parties would agree to that - and why should they? User:Adam Carr 06:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) >No country would change the outcome of an election of a national election retrospectively. Um, have there not been two very high profile instances very recently, and even covered here on wikipedia? (But, maybe you were joking, still, to be safe, in case any readers mistakenly take your joke as serious, lets mention these.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_legislative_election%2C_2003 Um, legally annulling a corrupt election and running it again is not the same thing as changing the result of an election because we don't like the result. The Iraq election was not corrupt, it just produced a less-than-desirable result because the Sunni parties boycotted it. User:Adam Carr 10:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) : I don't get it. You said no country would retroactively change the election outcome. I gave two obvious counterexamples (so obvious that I wasn't sure you were serious). Now, I gather you are amending your assertion to "no country would retroactively change an election unless they called it corrupt" ? And further, you are saying that the Iraqi election was not corrupt, so therefore no country would change it? This is getting to be a much more complicated assertion, so I'll just make one point and leave this entirely alone -- I believe one of the criticisms of the Iraqi election is specifically that it is corrupted by being held under the auspices of a violent, repressive, puppet regime -- I assume you've seen such criticisms, as I hardly invented them; I'm only telling you what I see widely reported, not whether to believe it. That you don't get it is perfectly evident. User:Adam Carr 23:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Its ok, you needn't start trying to insult me until I'll give up; I give up now. (I've realized how biased these articles are, and how filled with hatred the commentators are, and I give up as soon as people start hurling insults; I'm just not interested). == Al-Qaida has no place in criticsms section == Anyone that advocates violence is not being critical. Including Al-Qaida and Zarqawi info and quotations in the criticisms section only tarnishes the other insightful criticisms of the iraqi election, which seems like the plan. Why are the very same people that regurgitate the Coalition Provisional Authority's position that the election took place without a "major disruption" also the same people that support lengthy inclusion of Al-Qaida quotations in the critical section? And at the top of that section and rather lengthy no less. If people truly believe the Al-Qaida etc info belongs in the article then I vote we moved it to a separate section "Reaction from Al-Qaida/Zarqawi" or some such. To ensure NPOV, criticism sections generally should be put together by people who are actually critical, not by people who are in actuality very supportive. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 21:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Update: I created a new Al-Qaida reaction sub section. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 21:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Firstly no-one is "regurgitating" anything. If you start again with your insulting characterisation of other people's edits, you will get it back in kind. Secondly, it was al-Qaida fans like you who insisted on putting their "criticism" of the election in the article. I agree that Islamo-fascist terrorist gangs do not belong in the "criticism" sectiom, and I would have deleted it except I assumed you would put it back again. User:Adam Carr 03:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I believe you were the one that added the Al-Qaida "criticism" into the article in the first place so you must be their fan, or perhaps you added easily discountable extreme terrorist reaction criticisms for some sort of reverse-psychology effect? At the very least you kept expanding the al-Qaida's reaction section by adding Zarqawi quotations, I vote we remove al-Qaida's reaction from the article all together, very subtley reasons why you are against that. Check the history and see that I tried to remove al-Qaida's reaction completely. Your apparent goal seems to be to control both sides of the debate by framing all criticisms as if they support terrorism, nice try though. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 04:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) I did not add the original al-Qaida section, so you can spare us your attempts at irony. I added the Zarqawi quote to show what al-Qaida really thinks of elections. On further consideration, I am now opposed to deleting it, since it is relevant to have Zarqawi's views on the elections recorded. User:Adam Carr 04:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't see what Pat Buchanan's opinion has to do with the beliefs of Al Qaeda, but it is also quite wrong to say that all Islamists are anti-democratic. In fact, the winning coalition in the elections, the United Iraqi Alliance, is largely Islamist, as well as is the current democratically-elected ruling party in Turkey. Al Qaeda's ideology is definitely anti-democracy, but it does not represent all of Islamism.--User:Pharos 06:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) That's a fair point, although if Islamist ideology means anything it means the belief that sovereignty belongs to God and that God's law must be applied to all areas. I put in the reference to Islamist ideology in reaction to Zen's typically irrelevant and misleading edits. Feel free to rework it. User:Adam Carr 06:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I have significantly altered the article. The list of quotations for and against have been move to [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_2005 Wikiquote], where they belong. I merged the al-Queda section into the closely related disruption section and shortened some of the quotes. Some other bits and pieces were moved into a new section on the boycott. The end result is that the Supporters and Criticisms section, both of which were wastelands of contextless POV, have disappeared. - User:SimonP 06:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC) == What happened to the criticisms section? == If all quotations were moved to wikiquote why weren't the quotations from al-Qaida also moved there? I think we should recreate some semblence of a criticisms section? User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) The whole "criticisms" section was an indulgence by some editors (such as you) who are only interested in the Iraqi elections as a pretext for Bush-bashing. The article is better off without irrelevant quotes from Mikhail Gorbachev etc. Al-Qaida, on the other hand, as the leading terrorist organisation trying to stop free elections in Iraq, must be mentioned and its statements quoted. User:Adam Carr 07:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Let me state for the record I am not a bush basher, check my history generally and the one comment i've made in the W talk page a long while ago (I told bush bashers to be less verbose at least). As far as this article goes, I think it is a very reasonable and valid criticism to include the conservative critic buchanan's statement "people in the middle east don't have our values, they hate our policies" as a blance to the sentence in question. Adam, what do you think about that statement specifically? It is also seemingly extremely inconsistent to keep just the al-Qaida quotations in the article, I posted on Simon's talk page about why he only moved the less extreme critics but he hasn't responded. Would you or Simon mind if i moved al-Qaida's quotations to wikiquote? User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 07:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'm not opposed to having some quotes in the article generally, but the Buchanan quote is clearly irrelevant when discussing the clearly stated ideology of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda of course is not "people in the middle east".--User:Pharos 07:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :The Buchanan quote was a balance against the original sentence that said something to the effect of "terrorists hate freedom and democracy" which I consider to be POV. The second citation I added was to Buchana's article that is titled "Did Bush Mis-Diagnose the Problem in the Middle East?", it deals with the entire iraq policy generally so has to be relevant? Do you honestly believe terrorists hate freedom and democracy? Buchanan compares islamic fundamentalist terrorists to native americans who attacked settlers encrouching on their native lands. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 07:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) The article did not say "terrorists hate freedom and democracy" - it ''quoted'' Zarqawi stating his opposition to the principle of democracy. The fact that Pat Buchanan says idiotic things is hardly new and not really noteworthy. Like Gorbachev, he has no relevance or standing in this discussion. User:Adam Carr 07:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :If you look at history the article did say "Al-Qaida affiliated groups in Iraq are opposed to all democratic elections, not just this one." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_2005&diff=10512007&oldid=10510539] which is the sentence I was trying to balance and was POV, right? The Buchanan quotation is still a relevant criticism of the overall strategy in iraqi, islamic fundamentalist terrorism has been "mis-diagnosed" as te fight of democratic principles vs evil, which many, on both sides of the politcal spectrum, argue is a big mistake. Including lengthy quotations from just Al-Qaida only perpetuates a potentially incorrect diagnosis of the situation in Iraq. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 07:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :1. :Wrong. It is a statement of fact, as evidenced by Zaqarwi's own words. 2. Nothing Buchanan says is remotely relevant to this article. User:Adam Carr 11:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Buchanan's specific criticism is very relevant to the article because it is a counter point to your number 1 point above, you are saying (which I agree is reasonable to do so) that terrorists/al Zarqarwi are opposed to all democracy, whereas others are saying the West's historic policies in the middle east are to blame for the current situation, and we will not make any progress in Iraq until we realize that and change our policies. Bush has finally realized this regarding the Israel Palestine conflict, he just recently called for a "contiguous" future Palestinian state. I am not saying remove your #1 point, I've only ever tried to caveat it with Buchanan's and others' points. ::Also, I think we need a section in the article that mentions evidence for why the people think the election was faked? We don't need to add lengthy quotations. It's a tad odd the Shia's only got 47% of the vote but they are 60% population of the country plus the second largest ethnic group boycotted. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 16:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Most of those who voted for the Iraqi List were Shi'ite. Also many of the smaller parties (e.g. NICE and the Islamic Action Organization) are Shi'ite. We should not include Buchanan's quote. What we should have is the evidence that Buchanan used to make his assertion. - User:SimonP 18:04, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC) ::Ok, then let's add that? A single quotation is less verbose than an entire section of evidence, we may expand scope too far -- I suppose we can link to all the other articles on Iraq and the occupation and include brief synopsises. Where should we begin? User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 19:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Buchanan's quote is a criticism of the War on terrorism, and properly belongs briefly in that article and particularly in Criticisms of War on Terrorism. I still don't see how its particularly relevant to the election.--User:Pharos 20:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree, the first step should be to find some sources that specifically discuss the election. Neither [http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=14090] nor [http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan25.html] directly discuss the election or the insurgents' objections to it. - User:SimonP 20:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC) :Buchanan's statement is more broad, but so is the statement "[terrorists] are opposed to all democratic elections, not just this one" so in that context either his quotatation should be allowed or we should fix all such overly broad and possibly POV sentences inside this article? User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 20:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::This was not a Dubya quote saying "Terrorists hate freedom"; it was a statement apparently made by Zarqawi in an audio tape released in direct response to this particular election. Given Zarqawi's role in Iraq today, his statements are directly relevant to this article. --User:Bletch 02:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I am not saying Zarqawi's statements aren't relevant, I am saying the point the article is making using his statements should be balanced with buchanan's statement that it is the USA's historic policies in the middle east that may lead some people to appear to hate democracy whereas in reality they hate occupation, and democracy is just a symbol of occupation. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 03:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::If you wish to balance out those statements, then you shouldn't do so with quotes that are more relevant to Criticisms of War on Terrorism. You should do so with relevant quotes and statements that directly pertain to this election. Previously, I favored the inclusion of Gorbechev's quote because they fit those criteria (I believe that grab bag of quotes has been moved to Wikiquote.) Personally I see little in this article that suggests that Zarqawi speaks for all those who didn't vote in the election, though it would probably be appropriate to flesh the article out by having statements from the Sunni parties that have boycotted the election. Anybody have any? --User:Bletch 03:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I think what we need to balance it out is a brief paragraph overview and link to the Criticisms of War on Terrorism and other relevant articles such as the Occupation of Iraq article. Such information should not be excluded completely from this article, we should include wiki pointers to where more detailed information resides. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 18:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Isn't declaring that the war in Iraq and the "War on Terrorism" are the same advancing a POV. - User:SimonP 02:12, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) What happened was that, in his efforts to sanitise the article and ensure the rosiest possible picture is presented, SimonP removed the section on 07:32, 23 Feb 2005. This article now needs much work to make it balanced again. �User:Christiaan 00:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Post election developments== This is an article about the elections, not about post-election political developments. They belong in Politics of Iraq. User:Adam Carr 06:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Ok, so would statements like "al-Qaida is opposed to all democratic election" also fall outside the scope of this article which is specific to a single election? User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 18:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) No, because that is part of a discussion of why al-Qaida sought to prevent the elections. (By the way, are you ''really'' this stupid?) User:Adam Carr 03:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Your position is illogical and inconsistent. If you include a quotation about something larger than the election then it's fair game to include criticism of that. The election critics are saying there are explanations other than terrorists are against freedom and democracy which stem from our historic policies in the middle east, how is that not relevant to the article? It's all related. Do you really believe terrorists hate freedom? We should include paragraph synopsis sections that link to the other articles on iraq regardless, what do you think? User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 04:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Actually I think you are a complete moron, but I know I'm not allowed to say that, so I will just say that I find your arguments far too convoluted to be able to respond to them. User:Adam Carr 09:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Sigh lets all try to be civil. Zen - I'm all in favor of including info from election critics, provided that they directly pertain to the election. Even if these quotes boil down to things like "Critics of the American and British presence in Iraq criticize the election as a consequence of that presence. See Xyz" What is not appropriate is to go in long dissertations that have already been covered elsewhere. On another note, I see nothing in this article that purpotes that "Terrorists hate freedom and democracy." If you disagree with that analysis, then please propose an alternative wording. I see a quote from one individual named Zarqawi that says words to that effect, but nothing in this article claims that everybody that dislikes the USA makes that claim. --User:Bletch 14:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Better than being a lackey, Adam, although of course I'd never call you that. �User:Christiaan 08:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Scott Ritter says U.S. manipulated vote == We need to introduce this into the article somehow. http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/ contains: ''U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%. ''Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.'' �User:Christiaan 23:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Ritter's agenda is well known. We will need to see his evidence. Given that "US authorities" did not actually conduct the election - it was conducted almost entirely by Iraqis - the evidence will need to be good. User:Adam Carr 23:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, considering who we are talking about and the severity of the allegations I think this should be included in the article on its own merit. However I'm not going to bother pushing this for the moment as this article is being guarded by yourself, SimonP and the like to ensure nothing critical creeps in. �User:Christiaan 00:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Touching on the evidence used by Ritter is, of course, important, but I see no need for it to be particularly compelling to be included. User:El C 00:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) We already know that the American antiwar left don't support democratic elections in Iraq. This should be noted, but we don't need to cite all their various theories at length, unless there is credible evidence to support them. Americans need to realise that this is an article about the Iraqi elections, not about them. User:Adam Carr 00:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I've went ahead and added a small blurb. If evidence is eventually provided, then that section can be built up upon. There is nothing to lose by including this info. --User:Bletch 02:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) "''Americans need to realize...''" and "''the American antiwar left don't support democratic elections''"? Adam, your rhetoric sounds exactly like what would come from a right wing propaganda machine though not just because it's inaccurate but also because you use words in a very psychologically subtle way. To put it simply, you don't want people to think. So Ritter is a part of this antiwar left is he? All serious critics of the Iraq war and occupation are unanimously in favor of true, homegrown democracy but sham elections don't count. The U.S. fabricated evidence of WMDs, so it's entirely reasonable to believe that the U.S. is also orchestrating the Iraq election process. What we need is an article on the original economic plan the neo-cons had for Iraq (the word pillage comes to mind, hopefully it is released in full some day), that might open a few minds. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 05:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Oh yes, it's all about the US and the neocons and Bush and etc etc, isn't it? Your ramblings only serve to reinforce my point that the sole preoccupation of the antiwar left is with American domestic politics - you don't care a straw about what happens to 25 million Iraqis, so long as you can use Iraq as a stick to hit Bush with. This explains Ritter's conspiracy theories as well as your delusions. User:Adam Carr 10:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) :If you'll notice I haven't mentioned Bush once in my messages, I blame his neo-con advisors rather than him. I want real democracy for the 25 million Iraqis, I don't see how true freedom is possible with the Pentagon and neo-cons orchestrating the situation. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 15:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Don't respond directly to his arguments and accusations Zen, instead frame the argument from your point of view. You might notice he doesn't respond to yours; he reframes them instead. �User:Christiaan 20:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Election as validation of Bush/Blair policies == Carbonite, you just removed a line I added to the intro with the edit summary "rm sentence from introduction on Bush and Blair; this should be discussed later in the article". Fine, let's deal with this issue further down in the text, so how about ''moving'' the sentence rather than deleting it? -- User:Viajero 14:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure that the sentence in question belongs in the article at all. However, a sentence conveying similar information may be useful later in the text. That's why I removed the line instead of moving it. On a side note, the link that you included with the sentence in question[http://quickstart.clari.net/voa/art/bp/2005-01-25-voa65.html] probably shouldn't be used. A more recent and better sourced link would be much more helpful to a reader. User:Carbonite | User talk:Carbonite 15:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

I

IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |

Words begining with Iraqi_legislative_election,_2005:

Iraqi_Legislative_Election,_2005
Iraqi_legislative_election,_2005
Iraqi_legislative_election,_2005
Iraqi_legislative_election,_2005/archive1