Is 15 out of 18 enough ?

[polm]

In 1864 the U.S. held elections without all states included:

http://www.nationmaster.com/en...dential-election,-1864

The winner was Abraham Lincoln.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Do you really think a "Lincoln" is amongst the candidates for office in Iraq? Hell, even a "Douglas" would be acceptable at this point.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Do you really think a "Lincoln" is amongst the candidates for office in Iraq? Hell, even a "Douglas" would be acceptable at this point.

I do NOT think a Lincoln is amongst the candidates for office.

I simply meant to point out that elections CAN and probably should take place, even if the entire country isn't able to vote.

 

[conjur]

But those three provinces that may not be involved in the elections contain quite a few people. Enough so to "disenfranchise" a sizable portion of the population.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: conjur
But those three provinces that may not be involved in the elections contain quite a few people. Enough so to "disenfranchise" a sizable portion of the population.

this could very well be the truth. It is up to the Iraqi people to either accept or reject the election process.

what did the US have then (1864) that Iraq does not have now ?

Is it a general confidence, or lack thereof, in the candidates ?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: conjur
But those three provinces that may not be involved in the elections contain quite a few people. Enough so to "disenfranchise" a sizable portion of the population.

this could very well be the truth. It is up to the Iraqi people to either accept or reject the election process.

what did the US have then (1864) that Iraq does not have now ?

A Civil War

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: conjur
But those three provinces that may not be involved in the elections contain quite a few people. Enough so to "disenfranchise" a sizable portion of the population.

this could very well be the truth. It is up to the Iraqi people to either accept or reject the election process.

what did the US have then (1864) that Iraq does not have now ?

Is it a general confidence, or lack thereof, in the candidates ?

As Red Dawn pointed out, we had a Civil War. Iraq has a sizable insurgency that is constantly dismissed and underestimated (publicly) by the Bush administration.

 

[onelove]

well, freedom haters hate democracy (and presumably also apple pie and chevrolet), so why should their provinces be included?

Really, I have to agree with the Rumsfeld coalition on this one. You just stage the election for Allawi and keep propping him up until he gets assassinated. Hopefully, you keep him in a popemobile protected by hired goons from S. Africa so that doesn't happen for at least a few months, at which time hopefully world attention will be focusing on a different crisis.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Do you really think a "Lincoln" is amongst the candidates for office in Iraq? Hell, even a "Douglas" would be acceptable at this point.

I do NOT think a Lincoln is amongst the candidates for office.

I simply meant to point out that elections CAN and probably should take place, even if the entire country isn't able to vote.

I'm forced to agree with you. We need to get out of Iraq ASAP and I don't ever see us as being able to conduct a totally fair election in Iraq. Hell, we can't even do that in our own country. Let's get this charade over with.

 

[Genx87]

I bet that would make you feel all warm inside wouldnt it?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: conjur
But those three provinces that may not be involved in the elections contain quite a few people. Enough so to "disenfranchise" a sizable portion of the population.

this could very well be the truth. It is up to the Iraqi people to either accept or reject the election process.

what did the US have then (1864) that Iraq does not have now ?

A Civil War

King George is working on that. It will come soon enough.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: conjur
But those three provinces that may not be involved in the elections contain quite a few people. Enough so to "disenfranchise" a sizable portion of the population.

this could very well be the truth. It is up to the Iraqi people to either accept or reject the election process.

what did the US have then (1864) that Iraq does not have now ?

Is it a general confidence, or lack thereof, in the candidates ?

If we have the election open and only part of the country is allowed to vote then you give the other parts reason to keep fighting. You give them ligement issue and distroy any creditablity we might have left.