5 ms·

The question whether the election was rigged matters for the same reason that the question of Iraq's WMDs mattered: this information is influencing Western publ

The question whether the election was rigged matters for the same reason that the question of Iraq's WMDs mattered: this information is influencing Western public opinion and government decisions right now. Also, going "it doesn't matter 'cause you're bad anyway" whenever someone calls attention to the substance of your accusations strikes me as a bad faith tactic.

ellyagg 17y ago
Ha. To be blunt, I don't think most folks on Hacker News are thinking about this in good faith. If some other country this community doesn't like a priori, say the US, killed a bunch of its citizens after an election, there'd be zero chance everyone here would be rationalizing away statistical improbabilities in the election results. > Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. If, for example, Broward County had come up 71% for Bush in an election, that would have been considered proof of election fraud around here. In this case, it's rationalized away. Poof.
dant 17y ago
I don't think the argument is that "you're bad anyway". Regardless of who you are, how you got into that situation and whether the protesters have a point, with a protest movement that big and motivated your options are same: crush the protests, re-run the election or form a unity government. If you choose to crush the protest then you give up the "government by consent of the people" type contract that you have with society. I think it's that fact that will drive western opinion more than the actual legitimacy of the result.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- riffic 17y ago
  exactly. It matters little anyways because it seems that Ahmadinejad and Yazdi were just going to prepare a coup anyways -- http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279948 http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279948 Choice words from this Yazdi figure: "Islam cannot accept that a group of people congregate and decide to initiate laws for themselves" (Ettela'at, 1 Oct. 1993) (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi#Quotes_by_Ayatollah_Mesbah_Yazdi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi#Quo... )
- cousin_it 17y ago
  At this point I can't sincerely pick any side as the good guys. On one hand, I'm already sick of cookie-cutter "color revolutions" where "nonviolent" protestors oh-so-conveniently invite the support of Western nuclear superpowers to topple regimes unfavorable to the latter. On the other hand, I'm already sick of the only offered alternative, the emerging "multipolar world" fraternity of Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez et al. I kind of envy you Westerners. You have a simple moral principle that tells you which side to pick, a never-failing axiom: democracy is always best. But the recent history of my country (Russia) has given me a huge and readily observable data point against your axiom. So I can't honestly share your faith, even though I'd like to.
  - abefortas 17y ago
    I am a Westerner and I have no such moral principle.
  - dant 17y ago
    So what's your point? That the people who want a say in how they're governed shouldn't express a view because the people who don't like to have a say are sick of hearing it?
    - cousin_it 17y ago
      I assume you're referring to the second sentence of my comment. The idea of protesting against bad governments, all the way to armed rebellion, is perfectly okay with me. But I intensely dislike the idea of appealing to a foreign power to settle an internal dispute, especially if the appeal gets prompted by same foreign power. The classical conception of sovereignty, now sadly defunct, had an apt name for this technique: treason. Today it's called "color revolution".
      - ajuc 17y ago
        So protest is right if people go to kill their government by themselves? And when they can't do it by themselves and call for help, this is treason even when they didn't wanted the government that rules them in the first place? Now that's black and whit simplistic view of world. Is the concept of treason even relevant when you live in a your country and somebody rules it without your (and other people living there) agreement? I mean - I live in Poland, after WW2 Soviet Union ruled here (ok, not directly but by proxy:), is treason of such proxy government really treason? For me it's heroism, because people in Poland didn't wanted that government in the first place. Also - for me peaceful revolution is better than blood bath revolution any time.
kevinpet 17y ago
You're assuming that whether the reported totals matched the votes is the only relevant point. It is not the responsibility of critics to show that an election was fraudulent. It is the responsibility of a government to convince the populace that the election was legitimate. If a large portion of Iran thinks that the election was fraudulent, that's a good enough reason to support their efforts to replace that government. Al Gore should have gotten his Nobel for preserving the republic by letting the 2000 election die in an orderly fashion rather than for his climate scaremongering.
philwelch 17y ago
Debating the validity of Iran's election results at this juncture is kind of like worrying about whether Caesar is too ambitious after he's already crossed the Rubicon. Shooting peaceful people to death in the streets and cutting off any means for the outside world to learn about these atrocities tells us all we need to know about the Khamenei/Ahmadi regime.
- scott_s 17y ago
  The validity of the election results still has the potential to change Iran's government, so yes, it's still worth talking about. If there is enough evidence of fraud, and the world and all the Iranian people know it, then there's a higher chance the current regime will relent. If the evidence is inconclusive, then the regime is more likely to remain in power and preserve the status-quo.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    How does that follow? Would anyone worth consideration seriously believe this government is legitimate even if the election wasn't fixed? What sane person says, "oh, they've shot dozens of people to death and tried to cover it up, but at least they didn't rig an election"? The regime had their chance to relent, and they only cracked down. It's not up to them anymore.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      I believe you are interpreting what I'm saying in the wrong manner. The Iranian government is autocratic and has probably abused its power to maintain that power. I take that as a given in any discussion of recent events. But that fact alone does not mean they will lose their power. Unfortunately, it probably is up to them, since they have most of the power in Iran. In order for the Iranian government to lose its power, it must either relent and cede some power in the hopes of maintaining what some of what they have, or the Iranian people have to revolt. Both are more likely to happen if there is solid evidence that the election is rigged.
      - 17y ago

ellyagg 17y ago

Ha. To be blunt, I don't think most folks on Hacker News are thinking about this in good faith. If some other country this community doesn't like a priori, say the US, killed a bunch of its citizens after an election, there'd be zero chance everyone here would be rationalizing away statistical improbabilities in the election results. > Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. If, for example, Broward County had come up 71% for Bush in an election, that would have been considered proof of election fraud around here. In this case, it's rationalized away. Poof.

dant 17y ago

I don't think the argument is that "you're bad anyway". Regardless of who you are, how you got into that situation and whether the protesters have a point, with a protest movement that big and motivated your options are same: crush the protests, re-run the election or form a unity government. If you choose to crush the protest then you give up the "government by consent of the people" type contract that you have with society. I think it's that fact that will drive western opinion more than the actual legitimacy of the result.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
riffic 17y ago
exactly. It matters little anyways because it seems that Ahmadinejad and Yazdi were just going to prepare a coup anyways -- http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279948 http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279948 Choice words from this Yazdi figure: "Islam cannot accept that a group of people congregate and decide to initiate laws for themselves" (Ettela'at, 1 Oct. 1993) (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi#Quotes_by_Ayatollah_Mesbah_Yazdi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi#Quo... )
cousin_it 17y ago
At this point I can't sincerely pick any side as the good guys. On one hand, I'm already sick of cookie-cutter "color revolutions" where "nonviolent" protestors oh-so-conveniently invite the support of Western nuclear superpowers to topple regimes unfavorable to the latter. On the other hand, I'm already sick of the only offered alternative, the emerging "multipolar world" fraternity of Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez et al. I kind of envy you Westerners. You have a simple moral principle that tells you which side to pick, a never-failing axiom: democracy is always best. But the recent history of my country (Russia) has given me a huge and readily observable data point against your axiom. So I can't honestly share your faith, even though I'd like to.
- abefortas 17y ago
  I am a Westerner and I have no such moral principle.
- dant 17y ago
  So what's your point? That the people who want a say in how they're governed shouldn't express a view because the people who don't like to have a say are sick of hearing it?
  - cousin_it 17y ago
    I assume you're referring to the second sentence of my comment. The idea of protesting against bad governments, all the way to armed rebellion, is perfectly okay with me. But I intensely dislike the idea of appealing to a foreign power to settle an internal dispute, especially if the appeal gets prompted by same foreign power. The classical conception of sovereignty, now sadly defunct, had an apt name for this technique: treason. Today it's called "color revolution".
    - ajuc 17y ago
      So protest is right if people go to kill their government by themselves? And when they can't do it by themselves and call for help, this is treason even when they didn't wanted the government that rules them in the first place? Now that's black and whit simplistic view of world. Is the concept of treason even relevant when you live in a your country and somebody rules it without your (and other people living there) agreement? I mean - I live in Poland, after WW2 Soviet Union ruled here (ok, not directly but by proxy:), is treason of such proxy government really treason? For me it's heroism, because people in Poland didn't wanted that government in the first place. Also - for me peaceful revolution is better than blood bath revolution any time.

kevinpet 17y ago

You're assuming that whether the reported totals matched the votes is the only relevant point. It is not the responsibility of critics to show that an election was fraudulent. It is the responsibility of a government to convince the populace that the election was legitimate. If a large portion of Iran thinks that the election was fraudulent, that's a good enough reason to support their efforts to replace that government. Al Gore should have gotten his Nobel for preserving the republic by letting the 2000 election die in an orderly fashion rather than for his climate scaremongering.

philwelch 17y ago

Debating the validity of Iran's election results at this juncture is kind of like worrying about whether Caesar is too ambitious after he's already crossed the Rubicon. Shooting peaceful people to death in the streets and cutting off any means for the outside world to learn about these atrocities tells us all we need to know about the Khamenei/Ahmadi regime.

scott_s 17y ago
The validity of the election results still has the potential to change Iran's government, so yes, it's still worth talking about. If there is enough evidence of fraud, and the world and all the Iranian people know it, then there's a higher chance the current regime will relent. If the evidence is inconclusive, then the regime is more likely to remain in power and preserve the status-quo.
- philwelch 17y ago
  How does that follow? Would anyone worth consideration seriously believe this government is legitimate even if the election wasn't fixed? What sane person says, "oh, they've shot dozens of people to death and tried to cover it up, but at least they didn't rig an election"? The regime had their chance to relent, and they only cracked down. It's not up to them anymore.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I believe you are interpreting what I'm saying in the wrong manner. The Iranian government is autocratic and has probably abused its power to maintain that power. I take that as a given in any discussion of recent events. But that fact alone does not mean they will lose their power. Unfortunately, it probably is up to them, since they have most of the power in Iran. In order for the Iranian government to lose its power, it must either relent and cede some power in the hopes of maintaining what some of what they have, or the Iranian people have to revolt. Both are more likely to happen if there is solid evidence that the election is rigged.
    - 17y ago