The Vote That Could Not Fail
Our system is set up on a simple majority vote yet when working out the specifics of the constitutional vote in Iraq, TPTB decided that it would take a 2/3's vote against the constitution in three of the five provinces to say it actually failed.
If this were America a great outcry would be heard today. 2 provinces passed the constitution. Three voted against it. Of the three only two had the necessary 2/3's against vote. So despite the fact that it may well be that the majority voted against this constitution it was passed.
The pundits are saying this is still a rousing success because the sunni's actually came out to vote and be part of the process. They hope this will continue now as the elections draw near and the constitution is tweaked.
Will it? I don't know. I believe the American government is still attempting to place western values on a middle eastern culture that wants no part of our value system. The outcome of this election may well be renewed violence and opposition.
But regardless, the adminstration is saying the Iraqi's have a constitution. Of course they do. It was guaranteed not to fail.
posted by Senihele @ 10:12 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I was wondering what you liberals could say after the President did what you said could not be done: create a democracy in Iraq. What are you claiming now? It was rigged.
You ignore the fact that 63% of voters turned out and 78% voted for the charter. Yeah, that sounds rigged to me.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ah, Mr. Stewart, you missed one small, tiny, important thing in your stereotyping. I am not a democrat. I have been a republican for over 30 years.
I did not suggest the election was "rigged" vote wise. (Altho 39,000 votes in a district with 36,000 registered voters does raise a red flag imo) I DO suggest that careful pains were taken to make a "no" vote almost impossible to obtain.
So your tactic to discussion means morphing what the original poster said and then debunking your own faulty premise? LOLOL Okay..yeah..that's an intelligent tract.
I did not call you a Democrat. I called you a liberal.
I must have misunderstood your last sentence. When you wrote, "it was guaranteed not to fail" I thought you believed the outcome of the election was "arranged by means of deceit", i.e., the definition of "rigged."
Your comments clear up a rather obfuscated entry.
Obfuscated? No. Not if you're competent in content reading. The entire post centered around the percentage of votes against the issue.
Tell ne, would you accept a levy that was guaranteed to pass unless 2/3's of the population actively voted AGAINST it? Would you find that sort of process acceptable?
I understand the need to avoid the ramifications of a failed constitution but at the same time let's acknowledge that the deck was stacked for passage. That will also have consequences.
Post a Comment
<< Home