The Bush administration played down voter turnout yesterday in determining the elections' legitimacy and urged Americans not to get bogged in a numbers game in judging the balloting, a reflection of the growing concern over how much the escalating insurgency and the problem of Sunni participation may affect the vote.
The article goes on:
For months, the administration has promoted the elections as a major milestone in its efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and then the wider Middle East and Islamic world. But the continuing insurgency and the inability of U.S. forces to stabilize Iraq almost two years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein has forced the administration to redefine the context, goals and role of this first vote.
Oh sure, the press reported on Saddam's sham elections as if they were real so the new Iraq won't be able to match 100% of the vote for one candidate and no ballots will be cast in blood as a sign of devotion, but I'm not talking about contrasting the upcoming elections with Saddam's last resounding reelection. How did the press view the virtually uncontested Abbas election?
Mahmoud Abbas was elected Palestinian Authority president by a landslide, results showed Monday, giving the pragmatist a mandate to resume peace talks with Israel — but also leaving him with the tough task of reining in powerful armed groups.
Yes, a landslide against no oppostion:
Abbas won 62.3 percent of the vote, the Central Election Commission said. His main challenger, independent candidate Mustafa Barghouti, won about 20 percent. The remaining five candidates scored in low single digits.
Given the emphasis on turnout as a factor in determining whether a vote is legitimate, surely the voter turnout was high in this election. Well that is in doubt:
Questions about voter participation are a possible point of contention between Abbas' Fatah movement, which was pushing for a high turnout, and the Islamic militant group Hamas, which had called for a boycott.
Read waaaaaay down in the article and we find out:
The Central Election Commission changed voting procedures midway through the election, keeping polling stations open an additional two hours and allowing voters to cast their ballots at any location, not just in their hometowns One election official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the changes came after heavy pressure from Fatah, which feared a low turnout could weaken Abbas.
No questions about this irregularity from our hyper-vigilant press? None at all? This isn't odd and doesn't cast doubt on the victory of Abbas? I read elsewhere that the Palestinians simply threw open the balloting stations to anybody whether or not they were registered.
But the President hailed the election, as the article noted, so who am I to complain? I hope the President's pronouncements on the Iraqi elections are equally reassuring to the press.
We need to press forward with elections. If this one isn't perfect, then the next one will be better. And the one after that better. This is more than can be said for Saddam's elections. And quite possibly more than can be said about the Palestinians' elections despite the hope that things will be different after Arafat. I hope so. In both places.
But compare the turnout in the two elections. I'm sure somebody will report the Palestinian figures by the time of the Iraqi elections. And then compare the press coverage.
All I ask is that we keep Jimmy Carter far away from this election.
