Quote:
Originally Posted by CShine
Like hell it's misleading. There's not one word in the thread title about foul play. Furthermore, an election which is incapable of allowing tens of thousands to cast their votes is fundamentally flawed by its very nature. There doesn't have to be intentional corruption for an election to be worthless. When the election doesn't have the ability to record the votes of tens of thousands of people, how can you POSSIBLY call that a valid election? When you've got more than 200 candidates, tens of thousands of votes can DEFINITELY give you a different outcome.
But then, you're not the only person on this thread who doesn't give a damn that Iraqis were denied their voting rights in huge numbers. Fact is, the more I talk to people about this the more I see that a lot of folks out there really don't care if an enormous number of Iraqis were robbed of their right to vote. All they care about is spinning the election for Bush's political gain.
|
I agree 100%. I think its much preferable to return to the previous election system, which had near 100% turnouts. Of course, there was only one candidate and those who didn't vote for him were beaten at the very least, but that's irrelevant. Why it seems obvious to me that it was Bushco's plan all along to disenfranchise Iraqi's. For shame, Bushco, for shame.