the thing that makes it smell the most in my mind is how secretive as well as how quickly they announced the results....like a hour after polls closed they were saying he won....and they have to hand count ballots with 80% or whatever crazy turnout they had
plus the percent seems outta wack....have we ever had a POTUS with 63% of the popular vote.....i kinda doubt it...and there were other guys running that typically in iran draw more than the reported 1% or whatever......
by the way why don't we in the US have elections on say a friday (that's when iran voted) think that would help turnout vs. a tuesday.....anyway just always wondered why we had elections on a day that probably would promote the least amount of participation (possibly by design by our one party system LOL)
by the way why don't we in the US have elections on say a friday (that's when iran voted) think that would help turnout vs. a tuesday.....anyway just always wondered why we had elections on a day that probably would promote the least amount of participation (possibly by design by our one party system LOL TIZ
saturday even better.......in panama they have them on sunday........i agree our two/one party system does it on purpose
saturday even better.......in panama they have them on sunday........i agree our two/one party system does it on purpose
even US government asking twitter to not shut down for maintenance i'm sure the CIA is busy at work sifting through the stuff as all media essentially banned from iran now
----------------------------------------
U.S. Government Asks Twitter to Stay Up for #IranElection Crisis
A short while from now, Twitter (Twitter) will go down for maintenance due to extraordinary circumstances: The #IranElection Controversy. Originally scheduled to perform maintenance last night, the work was moved to 2 PM PT today so that Iranians could tweet about the crisis.
With members of the media kicked out of Iranian cities, millions joining in on protests, and violence erupting all across the turmoiled state, Iranians have been turning to Twitter, YouTube (YouTube), Flickr (Flickr), and other social tools to get the word out about what’s happening on the ground.
Well, it looks like Twitter may have had someone pushing for it not to go down last night, during peak Iranian hours: the U.S. State Department
According to a CNN blog post, the U.S. government is connecting with Twitter and other major social media companies to make sure that the flow of information from Iran remains uninterrupted. While the Obama administration itself keeping out of the Iran controversy on official channels, it is making sure that information coming from people on the ground is getting through to the rest of the world.
The biggest revelation is that the State Department asked Twitter not to go down at its original time last night in order to allow Iranians to tweet out what’s happening in their cities. It also seems that U.S. officials are watching the chatter on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook (Facebook), and elsewhere to keep up-to-speed with the situation on the ground. Social media communication is even more important, since the U.S. has no embassy or official relationship with Iran.
If all of this is true, it demonstrates several things. First, the U.S. Government understands just how instrumental these web tools are to the #IranElection situation. Second, the U.S. government is actively using Twitter to monitor the situation on the ground in a way that even journalists can’t match. And third, that it really wants everyone to know what’s happening in Iran.
The U.S. may be keeping out of the politics of the Iran election crisis, but it’s clear that it has a deep and vested interest in the streaming information coming out of Iran. It could even be that Twitter would not have rescheduled their downtime if not for the State Department. The outcome of these protests will have a significant effect on world relations though, so its actions do not surprise us.
If you are looking to better track what’s going on in Iran, we suggest reading our in-depth article on the subject, HOW TO: Track Iran Election with Twitter and Social Media.
----------------------------------------
U.S. Government Asks Twitter to Stay Up for #IranElection Crisis
A short while from now, Twitter (Twitter) will go down for maintenance due to extraordinary circumstances: The #IranElection Controversy. Originally scheduled to perform maintenance last night, the work was moved to 2 PM PT today so that Iranians could tweet about the crisis.
With members of the media kicked out of Iranian cities, millions joining in on protests, and violence erupting all across the turmoiled state, Iranians have been turning to Twitter, YouTube (YouTube), Flickr (Flickr), and other social tools to get the word out about what’s happening on the ground.
Well, it looks like Twitter may have had someone pushing for it not to go down last night, during peak Iranian hours: the U.S. State Department
According to a CNN blog post, the U.S. government is connecting with Twitter and other major social media companies to make sure that the flow of information from Iran remains uninterrupted. While the Obama administration itself keeping out of the Iran controversy on official channels, it is making sure that information coming from people on the ground is getting through to the rest of the world.
The biggest revelation is that the State Department asked Twitter not to go down at its original time last night in order to allow Iranians to tweet out what’s happening in their cities. It also seems that U.S. officials are watching the chatter on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook (Facebook), and elsewhere to keep up-to-speed with the situation on the ground. Social media communication is even more important, since the U.S. has no embassy or official relationship with Iran.
If all of this is true, it demonstrates several things. First, the U.S. Government understands just how instrumental these web tools are to the #IranElection situation. Second, the U.S. government is actively using Twitter to monitor the situation on the ground in a way that even journalists can’t match. And third, that it really wants everyone to know what’s happening in Iran.
The U.S. may be keeping out of the politics of the Iran election crisis, but it’s clear that it has a deep and vested interest in the streaming information coming out of Iran. It could even be that Twitter would not have rescheduled their downtime if not for the State Department. The outcome of these protests will have a significant effect on world relations though, so its actions do not surprise us.
If you are looking to better track what’s going on in Iran, we suggest reading our in-depth article on the subject, HOW TO: Track Iran Election with Twitter and Social Media.
here's an article saying the results were probably correct based on pre-polling
also i find the end part interesting
----------------------------------
The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009
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 public opinion survey 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.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.
Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.
also i find the end part interesting
----------------------------------
The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009
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 public opinion survey 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.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.
Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.
DEAC touched on it. They had elections on Tuesdays because people had to travel to polling places and they didn't want to interfere with the Sabbath.
It's all I got
now that, and a few other observations, does raise some serious questions
Iran election turnouts exceeded 100% in 30 towns, website reports
At least 200 polling stations across Iran had participation rates of 95% or above, say sources of centrist Auyandeh site
Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.
In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.
Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed "political expert". Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%.
Ayandeh's source said at least 200 polling stations across Iran recorded participation rates of 95% or above. "This is generally considered scientifically impossible because out of every given cohort of 20 voters, there will be at least one who is either ill, out of the country, has recently died or is unable to participate for some other reasons," the
source said. "It is also unprecedented in the history of Iran and all other democratic countries."
The claims are impossible to verify but they are consistent with comments made by a former Iranian interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who said on Tuesday that 70 polling stations returned more completed ballots papers than the number of locally eligible voters.
Supporters of the defeated reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, have complained that their campaigns' inspectors were refused permission or ejected from polling centres on election day.
Abbas Abdi, a Karoubi supporter who was among the radical students that took over the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, said some polling stations had run out of ballot papers by as early as 10.30am – even though it is standard procedure to issue each voting centre with more ballots than the number of voters.
After polling times were extended beyond the original 6pm closing time, other stations refused to provide ballot papers for fear that participation would exceed the number of voters on the register, Abdi told Radio Zamaaneh, a Farsi-language station based in the Netherlands.
At least 200 polling stations across Iran had participation rates of 95% or above, say sources of centrist Auyandeh site
Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.
In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.
Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed "political expert". Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%.
Ayandeh's source said at least 200 polling stations across Iran recorded participation rates of 95% or above. "This is generally considered scientifically impossible because out of every given cohort of 20 voters, there will be at least one who is either ill, out of the country, has recently died or is unable to participate for some other reasons," the
source said. "It is also unprecedented in the history of Iran and all other democratic countries."
The claims are impossible to verify but they are consistent with comments made by a former Iranian interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who said on Tuesday that 70 polling stations returned more completed ballots papers than the number of locally eligible voters.
Supporters of the defeated reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, have complained that their campaigns' inspectors were refused permission or ejected from polling centres on election day.
Abbas Abdi, a Karoubi supporter who was among the radical students that took over the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, said some polling stations had run out of ballot papers by as early as 10.30am – even though it is standard procedure to issue each voting centre with more ballots than the number of voters.
After polling times were extended beyond the original 6pm closing time, other stations refused to provide ballot papers for fear that participation would exceed the number of voters on the register, Abdi told Radio Zamaaneh, a Farsi-language station based in the Netherlands.
lib blog but decent coverage looks a bit ahead of the guardian
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
