Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
i'm not really sure where i stand, but i will say that 1. i am glad there was an election and there was a huge (relatively) turnout with littel violence and 2. The results are horribly skewed as to be damned enough to be invalid. 10,000 votes with over 200 candidates is enough to swap everything around. let's say the Last US election didn't involve say.....15 southern states....Sure, 35 states would have voted, so that's a great thing, right....just oops, a section of the country is not allowed to vote, either deliberately or by uncontrollable circumstances....
|
Actually, Iraq isn't using an American-style "first-past-the-post" system. There are far fewer discontinuities under 'proportional representation' than under "FPTP".
There are something like 250 seats in the house being elected.
Any party who gets more than 1/250th of the popular vote (more than 0.4%) gets at least 1 seat.
Who exactly gets every one of the 250ish seats is something I don't know the details of. I suspect it will be a somewhat decent approximation to the popular vote.
With 6 million people voting, 60,000 (made up number) people not managing to vote could make a difference of about 5 seats in the 250 person house.