The Election in Iraq

9-23-04 | Liam

[Liam]

Regarding the upcoming election (January next) and the possiblility that not every providence would be able to participate:

Did the Union hold elections in the South in 1864? These places are in rebellion. It would seem reasonable to skip over them as long as that is true.

[cripplecreek]

I think that's how they intend to deal with it. It's only around 3 of 18 provinces that are problematic.

[LS]

Not a good analogy. The Union held elections in all areas in which the Union had "control," including Missouri and West Virginia. Because the status of the Rebels was not yet certain, former Confederates in places like New Orleans and western Tennessee, which were under Union control, were not (I don't think) allowed to vote.

Iraq has never been anything but an independent nation---not former sections of the United States. Even during occupation, there was no question about Iraqi sovereignty. At worst, Alawi could declare certain areas "still in rebellion" and exclude them from the election process, but he couldn't do that with too much (i.e., all the Sunni regions).

[Liam]

I wasn't suggesting that Iraq was part of the US, but that elections aren't invalid because the will of the people in areas in rebellion aren't included.

[LS]

Yep. That's exactly right.

[dutyhonorcountry]

I really don't understand why this has to be such a concern. If there's concern that polling sites would be attacked or voters would be attacked, why not find a decentralized, secure method? A few states have had tons of success with ballots by mail. If the iraqis have reliable telephones, that could be an option.