Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Would you vote?

  1. Yes.

    17 vote(s)
  2. No.

    16 vote(s)
  3. I don't know.

    5 vote(s)
  1. Jan 27, 2005 #1


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Knowing the danger of terrorism, if you were an Iraqi living in Baghdad, would you vote in the upcoming election?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 27, 2005 #2
    no, we all know the american puppet is going to win anyways, if you support him you don't need to vote and if you don't support him your vote won't be counted.
  4. Jan 27, 2005 #3
    In exchange for a vote, I would ask for transport to-and-from the polling station in an M1A1, and free 4-year room and board in an American base.

    Or else I would move to a neighbouring country, Turkey or Iran, depending on my feelings towards America.

    Anyone knows how many votes needed for the elections to be legitimate?
  5. Jan 27, 2005 #4

    It doesn't matter if the person you are refferring to a puppet wins or not.
    The drafted constitution still has to go the people to be passed or rejected.
    The subsequent new REAL government has to be voted on after that.

    There are plenty of checks in this process.
  6. Jan 27, 2005 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I would write myself in, because I wouldn't trust anyone else. :biggrin:

    Besides, I like to stir things up. :smile:

    Seriously, there will still be a problem with the insurgency, and the fact that many Sunnis already feel disenfanchised, and many may not vote - combination of resentment to Shi'a and/or intimidation from those Sunnis who do not wish to participate in the election process.

    The US is trying to not show its presence, which will greatly reduce security to those who will ostensibly risk life or limb to vote.

    It is worrisome that many of the candidates are still not listed because of security reason. So no one really knows everyone who is running, or what the positions are regarding policies.

    Even with a 'successful' election, the future is still uncertain.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2005
  7. Jan 27, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ok, I'll need to explain my purpose here. I'm wondering, as a general principle, how important is voting? Is it worth risking your safety? I should have realized people would turn this particular example around on me. So how about if you were a Palestinian who wanted to vote for Abaas against the will of the terrorists? Or even an American who voted last November under the threat of terrorism (what if it were more credible?). edit: there was a polling location where a white powder was dropped on the floor and the polls closed because people thought it was Antrhax. Turns out it wasn't, but even if it was, I would have gone there to vote if I had to.

    As a general principle, would you risk your life to vote?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2005
  8. Jan 27, 2005 #7
    I would have voted last election regardless of threats, even if they were credible. Voting in iraq? That's a question of considerable complexity that I don't know if I can answer. Don't get me wrong, democratic governments have the capability to be better than all the other kinds.

    Its just that they aren't always.
  9. Jan 27, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    From a culture with no tradition of participatory government to the U.S.? And, since when is it NOT a risk of life and limb voting in this country? Not dragged by the heels to the black maria type risk, but some rather unusual ballot security measures in common use do subvert the concept of "secret" ballot, and do result in sanctions for "incorrect" exercise of vote for members of "voting blocs." You teach for a living? You will vote for the following school board candidates, referenda, whatever --- usually your own choices, but in a high stakes election, you will be informed and watched --- not by Uncle, but by the parties playing for the stakes.
  10. Jan 27, 2005 #9
    I'd cast a write in vote. If that wasn't possible then I wouldn't go out to the polls. Infact, if I lived in Iraq, I think I would have tried to leave the country a few years ago.
  11. Jan 27, 2005 #10
    My life is worth more than to tilt the election by 0.0001% in any paticular direction, now... if only there was a more empowered way for the average citizen to express himself politically.
  12. Jan 27, 2005 #11
    yes, the "former" CIA agent will get "elected"; the US's puppet will get in, just as they always have.
  13. Jan 28, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't vote, exactly for the reason you give: it is too dangerous and the gains are too low. I think these elections are a joke, because of the security problem, and the outcome will have not much legitimity.
    I can understand the political reasons for the US to want to keep this voting at the said date and everything ; and honestly no I don't think that the US will trick the outcome on purpose.
    The political reasons are clear:
    - they came with guns "in the name of democracy" so democracy you will eat!
    - it will give their presence (or their withdrawal) a more legitimate character on paper, in that it is now "in agreement with a democratically elected representation of the Iraqi people"
    - when they plan something, they do things according to plan.
    - it would mark a kind of symbolic end to a situation which is highly uncomfortable

    But honestly, these elections cannot be taken seriously. In the same way as confessions under physical threat have no value in court, elections in *these* security conditions have no legitimity (except of course if it turns out that 80% of the Iraqis went to vote! Something that would surprise me strongly, but we'll see). But even without the security problem, there has been a total lack in transparency concerning the candidates, their programmes, their past etc... So this is nothing else but biased lottery.

    If it turns out that on election day, there is a major slaughter, I think that's the responsability of the US. If not, and if it turns out that there is a high level of participation, then I'm wrong, and I have to admit that the US did achieve something over there. If a bearded religious maniac comes out of the
    hat, well...
  14. Jan 28, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'd vote, the threats of not - voting are in long term quite intimidating themselves.
  15. Jan 28, 2005 #14
    Think about it this way:
    Picture that you live in the year 1900 in America. Pretty much the whole government is corrupt, in the pockets of trusts. France decides "Man, those Americans have a ****ty life, living under that corrupt government and all, let's go liberate them." So France comes over, destroys our government, kills 10 or 20 thousand civilians with mis-guided artilery fire, has a prison abuse scandal or two, and then sets up elections. Would you vote, Russ?
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2005
  16. Jan 28, 2005 #15
    :mad: Definitely not voting.

    :zzz: TGIF, I am going to have a really early night, you guys have fun.
  17. Jan 28, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You lost me in the second sentence, wasteofo2 - are you saying the US circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002?

    This election, guys, is the first opportunity these Iraqis have ever had to select any part of their government. Please don't forget that.
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2005
  18. Jan 28, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I wouldn't have dared.
    In addition, I would be very skeptical if the new government in Baghdad should interfere with and suppress the traditional local authorities where I lived.

    Saddam Hussein knew how to handle local magnates; sometimes threatening them, occasionally supporting them.
    Hussein was never a totalitarian dictator like Hitler or Stalin; a brutal dictator, to be sure, but he knew perfectly well that attempts to coerce local magnates too strongly would only lead to his own fall.
  19. Jan 28, 2005 #18
    I'm not saying that the us circa 1900 was comparable to Iraq circa 2002, I only selected 1900 because it was the first highly corrupt time that popped into my head.

    The era really isn't important though. If at any point, America had a government that wasn't that great, and some foreign nation that you hated took it upon themselves to topple it, killed thousands of civilians with mis-guided artillery, then set up elections, would you vote in it?

    And wasn't there some Iraqi parliment in the early 1900's?
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2005
  20. Jan 28, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think you miss the point - "wasn't that great" is not a good reason to overthrow a government, so the scenarios aren't at all comparable.

    If I was living in Germany or Japan in 1945, I would have voted in the elections set up by the Allies - that is a comparable scenario.
    Dunno, but I doubt anyone alive today in Iraq voted for it.
  21. Jan 28, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Iraq didn't exist until 193...2?...9? something like that.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?