DU this CNN Int POLL

hit this up!

flawed elections bother me...obviously it doesn't bother rumsfeld.


QUICKVOTE
Should elections still go ahead in Iraq if they only cover three-quarters or four-fifths of the country?

yes 38%
no 62%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main0600/

edit

This question could reflect what could be happening in this country. So what, a few blacks, expats, soldiers, are disenfranchised...

now the repukes will actually TESTIFY before Congress that 3/4 or 4/5 amounts to democracy close-enough for government work????

Looking forward to our own VOTER REVOLT on Nov. 2. Please work as hard as you can every day towards removing the busheviks.

I guess not allowing all voters to be counted, much like the 2000 election, is bringing Iraq our form of democracy.

4910 Votes

1910 No
3090 Yes

Rumsmy need to go!

Done - 62% no

Should elections still go ahead in Iraq if they only cover three-quarters or four-fifths of the country?

Yes 38% 2499 votes

No 62% 4073 votes
Total: 6572 votes

If they actually do make things better, that's good for our troops.

If they are seen as a sham to the Iraqi people, that's bad for bush.

I don't think there is a wrong answer here.

Too bad more people don't see the fact that this question even has to be asked as being THE problem.

I heard a good quote, I think from Joe Biden, yesterday that said something like, having this election in a limited number of provinces would be like having a US election where California, NY and Ohio weren't allowed to vote. I don't think the American people would think that was fair.

Excellent point Sen. Biden.

Sonia

..who I love by the way. I love how whenever he talks they put up the background of Dover. He might be in DC, but the same Dover background is there. Anyone else notice this?

Anyway love the guy.

Disagree with this statement.

Yes it would be eliminating certain provinces, but these are provinces that are actively fighting said government. Sure there are plenty of poeple there that aren't, but the poeple who are in control are fighting the Iraqi government.

A better example would be, should the United States have not held an election in 1864 because the poeple in teh south couldn't vote? Sure they declared themselves a separate country, but the whole point...ok not the whole point of the civil war (...just say slavery. Slavery it is sir!...)...was that the US didn't recognize that. The south was still part of the United States. How many poeple voted then?

Look what needs to happen is, I think, an election held as fairly as possible. Sure it's going to not be perfect, but a government elected by 75% of the peopel is better than one elected by 0%. HOpefully the election after that they can get everyone to be able to vote.

...flawed elections bother me too, but do we really think we can ever get it perfect? we can't even do that in this country.

Right now the 'government' there is completely and utterly undemocratic. They were appointed. I'd rather have 75% of the Iraqi people choose their government than 0%.

How would you feel if you were there? You'd rather have a government apointed by a foreign power remain in place?