Features

mburbank · #1

Opposition Alleges Afghan Election Fraud

By DANIEL COONEY, Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan's first direct presidential election was thrust into turmoil hours after it started Saturday when all 15 candidates challenging interim leader Hamid Karzai alleged fraud over the ink meant to ensure people voted only once and vowed to boycott the results.

Preechr · #2

HE'S DOING THIS JUST TO MAKE ME LOOK FOOLISH!!!

Preechr · #3

Bush Says Afghan Election a 'marvelous Thing,' Claims at Least Partial Credit

By Jennifer Loven Associated Press Writer
Published: Oct 9, 2004

ST. LOUIS (AP) - President Bush said Saturday that the voting in Afghanistan was a remarkable achievement due in some part to his administration.

"A marvelous thing is happening in Afghanistan," Bush told a breakfast fund-raiser for local Republican candidates. "Freedom is powerful. Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school, and their mothers were whipped in the public square, and today they're holding a presidential election."

In his remarks, Bush mentioned nothing of political chaos that marred the elections. Later, White House press secretary Scott McClellan played down the difficulties and proclaimed it "a great day for the people of Afghanistan."

Voting day passed relatively peacefully, but it ended in political turmoil as the 15 candidates opposing interim President Hamid Karzai threatened to boycott its result because of alleged widespread fraud. All 15 charged that many voters cast multiple ballots because supposedly indelible ink used to identify those who had voted was removed easily.

Officials of the independent United Nations-Afghan election body refused to stop the voting to avoid denying many Afghans the right to cast their first vote ever.

"You've seen a lot of enthusiasm. ... There was large voter turnout. Free and fair elections are taking place," McClellan said. "All indications are that the election has been peaceful and orderly."

Of the turmoil, McClellan said the election commission is in place to deal with any problems.

Bush noted that the first person to vote was a 19-year-old woman, Moqadasa Sidiqi, in Islamabad, Pakistan, who had fled her country during Afghanistan's 1990s civil war and expressed joyous disbelief that she was casting a vote.

He said her vote would have been impossible without the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001 that ousted the Taliban regime that "ruled that country with such barbarism." After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush ordered the invasion to unseat the Taliban militia's radical Islamic government and eliminate the al-Qaida terror bases it harbored.

Sidiqi was "voting in this election because the United States of America believes that freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world," Bush said. "This is an appropriate day for America to remember and thank the men and women of our armed forces who liberated Afghanistan."

AP-ES-10-09-04 1221EDT

mburbank · #4

True she wouldn't have gotten to vote without our intervention, but if it turns out that vote was no more meaningful than Sadaam %100 vote of confidence before we invaded, how much of a big deal is it?

Zhukov · #5

What percentage of Afghani voters do people think can read?

Quote:

Afghanistan's first direct presidential election

April 27 1978, President Mohammad Daud was overthrown by popular insurrection. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (Pro-Moscow Stalinists) set up a new government and proclaimed Mohammad Taraki president. Soon after his position was affirmed by an ELECTION.

I bet that that the upcomming "election" will have a lower voter turn out, too.

Ant10708 · #6

but was it a direct election?

El Blanco · #7

OK, this much controversy over the election and nobody is rioting?

How long ago would this kind of thing resulted in bloodshed?

Thats progress at least.

And can anyone clarify what was wrong with the ink? Or do we all just take this on face value?

FS · #8

Well, if it's been so long since you even had elections, when something goes wrong you're probably just gonna say "psh. Nothing's changed." and go home again.

The thing with the ink was that the method of making sure someone doesn't vote twice was to mark one of their fingers with a black marker. I take it Afghanistan doesn't have registered voting. I saw a journalist, after listening to some stories of people who'd voted, go in to have his finger inked, and then outside remove it fairly easily with some spit and a tissue.

AChimp · #9

That's what happens when Crayola sponsors your election.

Preechr · #10

They passed out a bunch of ballots a while ago, but some folks thought they might have some sort of value so they took more than one. It's unknown how many people did this or how widespread, but it opened up the opportunity for multiple voting for X number of people.

The solution was to have two types of ink available at each voting station, one indelible, for marking thumbs, and the other normal for filling in one's ballot. It was reported that at some stations, the workers had accidentally switched inks, and people were able to remove the ink from their thumbs which potentially opened up the voting to abuse.

I'm sure there's an easy method for determining the type of ink on each ballot, though it'll be pretty labor intensive and still imperfect, but that would at least give the candidates an idea of how widespread the problem was and allow them some data from which to make and educated decision as to whether or not the problem was abuse or random and simple election day snafus.

My working theory at this point is that Karl Rove, knowing people would blame Republicans if it looked like Karzai was being installed as head potentate of our new Afghan colony, set this whole thing up so that the abuse would be obvious and everyone would know it was just a big frame job by the Democrats.

This has got Karl Rove written all over it.

El Blanco · #11

So, is Karl Rove an agent of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. now? Because people are starting to blame him for a whole lot of shit when there is no proof something bad even happened.

And in that region, when it looks like someone is making a powerplay with some underhanded moves, you don't just say "psh, nothing's changed".

Preechr · #12

IT WAS A JOKE!!!

...and I think he meant the people would go home feeling as if things hadn't changed. If the election seems fixed, then they'd get all bummed out thinking the whole concept of democracy was just a big sham.

El Blanco · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

IT WAS A JOKE!!!

damn, I'm usually good at picking up on that.

Quote:

...and I think he meant the people would go home feeling as if things hadn't changed. If the election seems fixed, then they'd get all bummed out thinking the whole concept of democracy was just a big sham.

But thats my point. They wouldn't just go home. Shit would burn. At the very least, the supporters of the rival parties would try something.

mburbank · #14

Blanco, you have point and I shouldn't be so flippant. I agree with you, the lack of violence under these circumstances is progress.

Whoever asked about literacy, I heard on NPR that in addition to names, each candidate had a pictorial glyph. Sort of like tha cash registers at fast food restaurants.

Zhukov · #15

Ok, how many voters will be able to recognise a candidate? How many voters will give a fuck? How many voters wont get swayed by cheap bribes?

Don't bother yourself because I know that this will probably be a more fair election than in some places.