Iraq's New Constitution

[Darkhawk28]

I mean, how lame is this?

Two-thirds of REGISTERED voters have to reject this constitution in order for it not to pass. I am convinced that we're TRYING to make a civil war start in Iraq. This whole constitution bit is a sham and a setup.

It's not bad enough that we tampered with the vote on the original election, but we have to rig this "referendum" is order to score a few political points for the President and his administration. "Hey look, freedom's on the march."

It was bad enough when we thought 2/3 of actual voters had to reject this "constitution", but the odds of getting 2/3 of REGISTERED voters is nearly impossible.

Let's look at some numbers:

1,000,000 (number is just for example purposes) registered voters
Let's assume a wonderful 80% turnout... 800,000 ACTUAL voters

2/3 * 800,000 = 533,360 votes needed to reject
2/3 * 1,000,000 = 667,000 votes needed to reject

So in actuality 83.375% of votes cast have to reject this constitution in order for it not to "pass".

Wow, what a mandate!!! This is such an embarrassment.

And, we're increasing military operations in Sunni territories just in time for this. That'll help turnout. :roll:

Link

But I'm sure, some in this forum will still claim some "moral highground" on this.

 

[jpeyton]

The vote is just a roadblock before the real fireworks begin, I'm sure.

Almost to the big 2K mark guys. With democracy like this on the march, no wonder.

 

[azazyel]

I better go get a dictionary, not sure if my definition of democracy matches the current one

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Ehhh... It's not quite like that. Not even close actually.

The vote is still based on a 50%+ majority. If more than half the votes cast in the election are for the constitution, it passes.

There was a loop-hole installed into the process that was designed to give the minority sunnis a way to defeat the constitution even if a majority of Iraqi voters voted to accept it. That loop-hole was: If 2/3 of the voters in three (out of 18 total) provinces voted no, then the constitution would fail regardless of the total national vote tally.

It doesn't take a 2/3 majority to kill the constitution. A simple 50%+ majority will pass or fail it unless there are three provinces (out of 18 total) who vote no by 2/3.

You can unwad your panties now.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: azazyel
I better go get a dictionary, not sure if my definition of democracy matches the current one

make sure you pick up the GOP-approved one. It includes a number of changes to the standard english dictionary, such as the new meaning of "last throes".

 

[Darkhawk28]

Whozyourdaddy,

This constitution will pass in the non-Sunni regions, but they've rigged it so it's a "guarantee" (CBS News' words just now) that the constitution will pass in the Sunni regions. Or should I say, guarantee not to be rejected.

Sorry, my "panties aren't in a wad", you're just wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I don't think the new language that dicerns between actual voters for approval, and registered voters for rejection is the right thing to do. But I do have a problem with the OP.

Who is "we?" Do you have any proof that the US was behind this whatsoever and that it wasn't the Shia majority in the Iraq parliament that made this change? If so, please present your proof.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Whozyourdaddy,

This constitution will pass in the non-Sunni regions, but they've rigged it so it's a "guarantee" (CBS News' words just now) that the constitution will pass in the Sunni regions. Or should I say, guarantee not to be rejected.

Sorry, my "panties aren't in a wad", you're just wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

The constitutional vote in Iraq is a simple majority vote.

The issue of 2/3 is as follows: The Sunnis managed to have a provision installed in the vote whereby a 2/3 no vote in three provinces would equate to a "no" on acceptance of the constitution regardless of the overall outcome of the election.


The constitution can be killed in two ways.
1. If the Iraqi people don't want the constitution a simple majority "no" vote will kill it.
2. If 2/3 of (now registered) voters in 3 of the 18 provinces vote "no" the constitution dies.


And how is it a good thing that a small minority of people can thwart the will of the majority of the electorate anyway?

 

[Todd33]

And how is it a good thing that a small minority of people can thwart the will of the majority of the electorate anyway?

Good question! Now get rid of the US senate and the electoral college. These piss ant red states piss me off.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Whozyourdaddy,

This constitution will pass in the non-Sunni regions, but they've rigged it so it's a "guarantee" (CBS News' words just now) that the constitution will pass in the Sunni regions. Or should I say, guarantee not to be rejected.

Sorry, my "panties aren't in a wad", you're just wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

The constitutional vote in Iraq is a simple majority vote.

The issue of 2/3 is as follows: The Sunnis managed to have a provision installed in the vote whereby a 2/3 no vote in three provinces would equate to a "no" on acceptance of the constitution regardless of the overall outcome of the election.


The constitution can be killed in two ways.
1. If the Iraqi people don't want the constitution a simple majority "no" vote will kill it.
2. If 2/3 of (now registered) voters in 3 of the 18 provinces vote "no" the constitution dies.


And how is it a good thing that a small minority of people can thwart the will of the majority of the electorate anyway?

Sorry, but a minority in this country can kill Constitutional amendments, so that argument doesn't wash.

Like I said earlier, the Shiites and the Kurds will probably vote for the "Constitution" (even if they don't, it'll be rigged so that they did), but the Sunni provinces will NOT. And frankly, they have reason to not want this "Constitution", so they rigged the game further so that it'll be nearly impossible to reject it. Glad to see you feel democracy is only for some and not for others.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
And how is it a good thing that a small minority of people can thwart the will of the majority of the electorate anyway?

Well, when YOU, just to pick a person at random, live in a small bedroom community county adjacent to Washington, DC, and some outside power decides you two will be joined, to be decided by a straight majority vote.


And please don't make the stupid political fundamentalist mistake of arguing against the straw dog details of my example, it is simply a hypothetical postulation which directly answers your question I quoted above.

It is intended to get you thinking.

Edit: Ha ha, between the time I decide to jump on this idiot question and the time that I post, two of my betters have already posted better, pithier replies!

 

[Engineer]

Iraq reverses constitution election rules (reverts back to original)

 

[Dissipate]

Helloooooo people. A constitution is a fvcking piece of paper. It certainly isn't anything anyone has to obey. People actually think that if politicians get together in Iraq and sign some document that order will be restored. How childish.

 

[Red Dawn]

Would mean much more if they instead of us had to stand up and fight for it.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would mean much more if they instead of us had to stand up and fight for it.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Iraq reverses constitution election rules (reverts back to original)

issue resolved.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Whozyourdaddy,

This constitution will pass in the non-Sunni regions, but they've rigged it so it's a "guarantee" (CBS News' words just now) that the constitution will pass in the Sunni regions. Or should I say, guarantee not to be rejected.

Sorry, my "panties aren't in a wad", you're just wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

The constitutional vote in Iraq is a simple majority vote.

The issue of 2/3 is as follows: The Sunnis managed to have a provision installed in the vote whereby a 2/3 no vote in three provinces would equate to a "no" on acceptance of the constitution regardless of the overall outcome of the election.


The constitution can be killed in two ways.
1. If the Iraqi people don't want the constitution a simple majority "no" vote will kill it.
2. If 2/3 of (now registered) voters in 3 of the 18 provinces vote "no" the constitution dies.


And how is it a good thing that a small minority of people can thwart the will of the majority of the electorate anyway?

The big issue was that they were defining "voters" in two different ways. For it to be vetoed 2/3 of REGISTERED voters had to shoot it down, but for it to pass it only needed a majority of ACTUAL votes (ie those that voted, not those were just registered.) Thisi s what the UN and US objected to.


Personally I don't care. Whatever gets the job done and our boys out. If they reject the constitution and then they get to spend another year setting up new elections & bickering about a new constit. while our guys are getting shot up for their sake, well, I'd just as soon see them shove the constit. up thier assses and light it on fire. The Sunni's F'd up and boycotted the election. Now boohoo they don't like the results. Too bad, amend it later. I don't like Bush, but we don't get to "re-do" the 2000 or 2004 election bc the losers don't like the outcome.

Would mean much more if they instead of us had to stand up and fight for it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would mean much more if they instead of us had to stand up and fight for it.

Yup, it was the help we got from the French in the Revolutionary war that got that old pernicious liberalism disease going in this country and doomed us from the start.