Elections coming up
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:51:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Elections coming up
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
Author Topic: Elections coming up  (Read 218946 times)
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,968
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2005, 03:26:53 AM »

When is the next national election in Canada for Prime Minister?

That's up to m.Duceppe

No, it's upto Mr. Cadman and Mr. Kilgour.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: May 19, 2005, 04:22:09 AM »

When is the next national election in Canada for Prime Minister?

That's up to m.Duceppe

No, it's upto Mr. Cadman and Mr. Kilgour.

Well if m.Duceppe had decided not to play silly buggers (like that's ever going to happen Roll Eyes ) the votes of Messrs. Cadman and Kilgour wouldn't matter Wink
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,968
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: May 19, 2005, 08:55:21 PM »

When is the next national election in Canada for Prime Minister?

That's up to m.Duceppe

No, it's upto Mr. Cadman and Mr. Kilgour.

Well if m.Duceppe had decided not to play silly buggers (like that's ever going to happen Roll Eyes ) the votes of Messrs. Cadman and Kilgour wouldn't matter Wink

Bah... it doesn't matter anymore. I think I'm going to cry now. It's all Cadman's fault. Damn hippy Conservative.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 19, 2005, 11:03:26 PM »

The Ethiopian Parliamentary election was held on May 15, and at least didn't erupt into violence. Might be fair, might not.

Details here. Kiki
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: June 14, 2005, 08:17:58 PM »

Does anyone have any thoughts regardig the upcoming elections in Iran?  It appears the former President Rafsanjani is leading in the polls, though he may not win an outright majority without a runoff.  He is also running on a platform of a non-nuclear Iran--not sure how that will play with the theocrats who pull the strings of government.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: June 14, 2005, 09:54:14 PM »

I don't really think the polls matter in Iranian "elections". No doubt a reformist and moderate would win in a fair election, but we all know that's not happening.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: June 14, 2005, 11:17:12 PM »

true, I think nearly 1,000 candidates registered for the elections, but the mullahs trimmed it down to 6 candiates that they feel wouldn't rock the boat--at least not too much
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: June 15, 2005, 12:06:49 PM »
« Edited: June 15, 2005, 12:10:01 PM by WMS »

From, what else, Stratfor sources: Rafsanjani will win, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing - he's about the only person in Iran with the power and desire to open relations with the U.S. While he's no democrat - ruthless ambitious political pragmatist fits Raf the best - he's better than anyone else the mullahs will allow to win. That's why the vote will go his way - the other candidates will be worse!

The Ethiopian Parliamentary election was held on May 15, and at least didn't erupt into violence. Might be fair, might not.

Details here. Kiki

Things kinda went downhill after protestors demonstrating against claimed (and quite possible) electoral fraud got shot and killed...details if I can find them. Sad
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: June 15, 2005, 12:12:49 PM »

Iran just needs to overthrow their government already. They overthrew the Shah pretty easily, I don't see why it'd be a problem
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: June 15, 2005, 04:51:32 PM »

Iran just needs to overthrow their government already. They overthrew the Shah pretty easily, I don't see why it'd be a problem

Guns, guns, guns...one side's got them all. Now if there was an Iranian NRA, and an armed populace... Cheesy
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: June 15, 2005, 07:56:05 PM »

That was also true with the Shah.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2005, 10:47:57 AM »


I think the Shah lost the support of the Iranian military. The mullahs haven't yet - also, developing nukes is really popular amongst all of Iranian society, so that helps out the mullahs. And the young people aren't ready to put their lives on the line yet either...
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2005, 06:52:10 PM »

The Shaw was also taking orders from the US.   Jimmy Carter linked continued US military and economic aid to nonlethal forms of crowd dispersal.  Far more Iranian students left the scene of protest crying from  tear gas than from bullet wounds. 


In hindsight, had the Shah followed Napolean's advice and given the crowds  a whiff of grapeshot, rather than Carter's teargas, he may have held on to power.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: June 18, 2005, 08:47:33 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2005, 08:49:53 PM by Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional »

except most of the people who wanted the Shah out were not Islamic fundamentalists. They mostly did support Khomeini, but simply because he was a leader of anti-Shah opposition, not because he was a fundamentalist. Khomeini and his hardliners didn't take complete control of the country until about a year later. You can't blame people for wanting their dictator out and it's stupid to blame Carter therefore, he and the rest had no way of knowing that someone way worse would take over.

Anyway, there's going to be a runoff. The candidates are Rafsanjani and Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad, the ultra-conservative hardliner mayor of Tehran. Rafsanjani is expected to win. A good thing since he is relatively moderate although not as reformist as the current president (who actually is relatively very progressive but has had his hands tied by the mullahs the whole time in office), so there probably won't be much progress under, but it's better than the hardliners obtaining more power.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,218


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: June 26, 2005, 09:50:38 AM »
« Edited: June 26, 2005, 09:53:07 AM by Lt. Governor Dean »

July elections:
3: Albania, Parliament
3: Mauritius, Parliament
3: Tunisia, Senate
4: Burundi, House
10: Kyrgyzstan, President and parliament
10: Luxembourg, referendum on the European Constitution
17: Palestinian National Authority, Parliament
19: Burundi, Senate
unknown: Armenia, referendum on constitutional amendment

August elections:
19: Burundi, President
unknown: Singapore, President
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: June 27, 2005, 01:57:51 AM »

From, what else, Stratfor sources: Rafsanjani will win, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing - he's about the only person in Iran with the power and desire to open relations with the U.S. While he's no democrat - ruthless ambitious political pragmatist fits Raf the best - he's better than anyone else the mullahs will allow to win. That's why the vote will go his way - the other candidates will be worse!

So much for Stratfor.  What are they saying to explain their errant guess prediction?
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: June 27, 2005, 11:22:53 AM »

From, what else, Stratfor sources: Rafsanjani will win, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing - he's about the only person in Iran with the power and desire to open relations with the U.S. While he's no democrat - ruthless ambitious political pragmatist fits Raf the best - he's better than anyone else the mullahs will allow to win. That's why the vote will go his way - the other candidates will be worse!

So much for Stratfor.  What are they saying to explain their errant guess prediction?

That they were surprised, for one thing - they admitted they got it wrong, and examinied why. Let's see...

First the summary of their big story on it:
"Iran: A Victory for the Hard-Liners
June 25, 2005 02 19  GMT

Summary

Preliminary results of the Iranian presidential election indicate that hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the mayor of Tehran, has defeated reformist and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the runoff presidential election held June 24. Ahmadinejad's victory shows some signs of tampering by the regime, and signals that Iran's clerics are not interested in reconciliation with the United States. The victory, however, could complicate a number of issues for the clerics. "

And some snippets from that article:
"Initially, Stratfor forecast that Rafsanjani would win the elections. Rafsanjani represented the best chance for political reconciliation between the clerical regime and the reformist camp, as he had gained support from both sides. He had also gained the lead in the majority of polls before the first round of elections. Moreover, with a showdown with the United States regarding Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons looming, the West also showed interest in Rafsanjani due to his statements that the time for reconciliation between the two sides may have come. "
[paragraph in between on how the Iranian regime 'influenced' the results]
"Rafsanjani's search for better relations with Washington is the thread that unwound his previously favorable relationship with the clerics. The regime, by refusing to allow Rafsanjani to take the political helm, is signalling the Bush administration and reformists that the regime is not ready or willing to make conciliatory actions toward the United States. Instead, the regime is sending the message that it is willing to accept the difficult consequences that could follow a policy clash with the reformists -- which will likely include some elements of public backlash the regime has tried so desperately to avoid."

Now from their daily Geopolitical Diary, one of my favorite things about them:

"The defeat of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in Iran's presidential runoff over the weekend surprised much of the world -- including us."

"Though there is much about the inner workings of Iran's political system that has been opaque since the Revolution of 1979, two things are clear: The clerics continue to wield the utmost power, and Rafsanjani somehow has fallen from grace.

Ultimately, the election outcome signifies that the locus of influence within the Iranian establishment has shifted, and the political structure must be remapped for forecasting purposes. "

"The line in the sand, we suspect, was crossed when Rafsanjani publicly said he would spend considerable effort in pursuing rapprochement with Washington -- contingent, of course, upon a change in U.S. attitude toward Iran. This potential interface -- at a time when the Bush administration is aggressively touted a democratization offensive in the Middle East and elsewhere -- logically would be perceived by the unelected clerical establishment as a serious threat to its political legacy. The rapprochement stance, coupled with a significant domestic movement calling for political reforms, eventually would have sounded the death knell for the clerics. Thus, an Ahmedinejad presidency."

See, they admit when a forecast goes awry...
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: June 27, 2005, 07:30:00 PM »

I still think that they pursue an overly Amero-centric interpretation of events.  Ahmadinejad's victory can be explained largely in terms of Iran's internal politics.  Clearly, his policies resonated enough for him to become the most popular of the anti-Rafsanjani candidates, and the mullahs were canny enough to offer the voters a choice of which style of hard liner would be president.  Given that the mullahs have made it abudantly clear that in certain areas they aren't going to let the President decide things, I think that the Iranian voters made the perfectly logical decision to base their votes upon the issues that the mullahs would let the next presidemt handle.  It's hard to say how much monkeying around the mullahs did in the electoral process, but Bush with his foot-in-mouth comment about the validity of Iranian elections certainly gave the mullahs added incentive to work against the most pro-Western of the candidates they allowed to run.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: June 28, 2005, 01:34:28 PM »

I still think that they pursue an overly Amero-centric interpretation of events.  Ahmadinejad's victory can be explained largely in terms of Iran's internal politics.  Clearly, his policies resonated enough for him to become the most popular of the anti-Rafsanjani candidates, and the mullahs were canny enough to offer the voters a choice of which style of hard liner would be president.  Given that the mullahs have made it abudantly clear that in certain areas they aren't going to let the President decide things, I think that the Iranian voters made the perfectly logical decision to base their votes upon the issues that the mullahs would let the next presidemt handle.  It's hard to say how much monkeying around the mullahs did in the electoral process, but Bush with his foot-in-mouth comment about the validity of Iranian elections certainly gave the mullahs added incentive to work against the most pro-Western of the candidates they allowed to run.

They're a private company and their forecasts are used by their customers, which are probably dominated by Americans. They're also pretty much realists on foreign policy and so the impact the election has on the policies of the world's sole hyperpower+ probably is more important than the impacts on internal Iranian politics. Geopolitics over everything else, basically. And that's as much as I can guess, given that I don't work there or know anybody there. Wink
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: June 28, 2005, 01:42:19 PM »

That's beside the point though...americocentric(or any other xyzcentric) viewpoints will lead to false interpretations of facts.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: June 28, 2005, 01:50:53 PM »

That's beside the point though...americocentric(or any other xyzcentric) viewpoints will lead to false interpretations of facts.
Maybe, although I personally think it's more of a realist vs. liberal foreign policy viewpoint that affects the topic in question. As for said topic - the Iranian election - Stratfor admitted they (like everybody else, for that matter Wink ) got it wrong and were looking at why that was. You can disagree with their analysis of why, although given that there wasn't much space in-between the two candidates on Iranian-specific issues - two extremists, remember? - the notion that the election turned on policies vis-a-vis the U.S. is reasonable, as what else was there for the voters to base a decision on?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: June 29, 2005, 02:34:56 AM »

That's beside the point though...americocentric(or any other xyzcentric) viewpoints will lead to false interpretations of facts.
Maybe, although I personally think it's more of a realist vs. liberal foreign policy viewpoint that affects the topic in question. As for said topic - the Iranian election - Stratfor admitted they (like everybody else, for that matter Wink ) got it wrong and were looking at why that was. You can disagree with their analysis of why, although given that there wasn't much space in-between the two candidates on Iranian-specific issues - two extremists, remember? - the notion that the election turned on policies vis-a-vis the U.S. is reasonable, as what else was there for the voters to base a decision on?
This election was fought almost 100% on the economy.
And they didn't get it wrong "like everybody else", btw. Polls done between the first round and the runoff all showed Ahmadinejad winning, although they underestimated the scale of Rafsanjani's defeat.
One other thing that should be obvious from these elections is that Rafsanjani didn't lose because "he has fallen out of favour with the Mullahs" - he was very much the establishment candidate. Which isn't the same as the Islamist candidate, or the Mullahs' candidate...but isn't the opposite either.
I came upon a very interesting article about Ahmadinejad's record as mayor of Tehran btw, see if I can still find it...
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: June 29, 2005, 12:15:53 PM »

That's beside the point though...americocentric(or any other xyzcentric) viewpoints will lead to false interpretations of facts.
Maybe, although I personally think it's more of a realist vs. liberal foreign policy viewpoint that affects the topic in question. As for said topic - the Iranian election - Stratfor admitted they (like everybody else, for that matter Wink ) got it wrong and were looking at why that was. You can disagree with their analysis of why, although given that there wasn't much space in-between the two candidates on Iranian-specific issues - two extremists, remember? - the notion that the election turned on policies vis-a-vis the U.S. is reasonable, as what else was there for the voters to base a decision on?
This election was fought almost 100% on the economy.
And they didn't get it wrong "like everybody else", btw. Polls done between the first round and the runoff all showed Ahmadinejad winning, although they underestimated the scale of Rafsanjani's defeat.
One other thing that should be obvious from these elections is that Rafsanjani didn't lose because "he has fallen out of favour with the Mullahs" - he was very much the establishment candidate. Which isn't the same as the Islamist candidate, or the Mullahs' candidate...but isn't the opposite either.
I came upon a very interesting article about Ahmadinejad's record as mayor of Tehran btw, see if I can still find it...
Actually, another source of mine mentioned something about corruption being an issue, as 'ol Ahmad appears to be clean, whereas Raf - and a LOT of the ruling mullahs - are definitely not. Could make it difficult for Ahmad to do much about the economy if corrupt mullahs stand in the way of any moves to improve it. I think everyone before the first round was expecting a different result. Wink After the first round is another matter. Stratfor got it wrong, no doubt about it...but they admitted it, unlike many a news source (Newsweek and CBS on other issues, where they didn't really admit they got it wrong, but weaseled out of it). It's not as if this was a free and fair election anyway. Tongue
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: June 30, 2005, 02:05:31 AM »

I seem to recall reading that Rafsanjani is a crook
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: June 30, 2005, 05:00:00 AM »

He's certainly a very rich (supposedly) "self-made" man. That's bad enough for most Iranians. Would be bad enough in many European countries, actually. Wouldn't matter in Italy or the US...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 11 queries.