Iranian Voters Flood Polls in Tight Race

[cire4]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian voters streamed to polling stations Friday, snubbing dissidents' calls for a boycott in the closest presidential race since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Results will decide who inherits a long list of challenges, including nuclear talks with the West and demands for reform at home.

Turnout appeared stronger than expected and polls stayed open an extra four hours, with voting booths even set up at Tehran's main cemetery for those paying weekly visits to family graves. But the contest could still end with no clear winner, forcing a runoff next week.

Some credited U.S. denunciations of the election for goading more Iranians to cast ballots after a Western-style campaign that has reshaped Iranian politics. A runoff would almost certainly include front-runner Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, a political veteran and leader of the Islamic Revolution who now portrays himself as a steady hand for uneasy times.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_elections_20;_ylt=Av5pJ.s1hb5mUoCRVXD0pYlSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Funny how Bush intended to degrade the elections in Iran, but actually ended up giving them more legitimacy. Perhaps their democracy isn't so shabby afterall...

[Imajika]

1. Well...

"Funny how Bush intended to degrade the elections in Iran, but actually ended up giving them more legitimacy. Perhaps their democracy isn't so shabby afterall..."

...if you think it is okay for an unelected religious council of guardians to make decisions on who can run and who can not....then yeah, that isn't too shabby.

How about we allow the religious fanatics to set up a similar council here in the US? They can pick whom our candidates will be, and we can all happily go to the polls and cast ballots for the choices they graciously allowed for us.

Imajika

[Kagemusha]

2. You haven't heard?

They're banding together to interview Republican candidates for the next presidential election, talking about maintaining their unity and expanding their influence.

It's not far from what you just mentioned.

[cire4]

3. Is it really that much different from the "democracy" in the US?

Unelected corporate donors and party elites have the same power as the Iranian religious councils. They decide who can run and who cannot through the distribution of money.

In Iran, candidates who can't get the Islamic council support can't run....

In the US, candidates who can't get corporate or high donor support can't run.....

Voters in both "democracies" have their choices restricted to only those who meet the approval of some unelected group....

[Imajika]

4. Nonsense

"In the US, candidates who can't get corporate or high donor support can't run..."

They might not get financial backing, but in the United States pretty much anyone can legally run.

Kucinich ran. Sharpton ran. They got zero corporate support, but they were allowed to run. Was it nearly impossible for them to get their message out? Yup. But could they run, and were they allowed to debate the more "serious" candidates? Yes, they could. Many, many people right here on DU contributed to Kucinich. He ran, he just lost.

In Iran, if the Guardian Council doesn't approve of your candidacy - you are disqualified and can not run at all. Period.

There is no comparison at all.

"Voters in both 'democracies' have their choices restricted to only those who meet the approval of some unelected group...."

Wrong. In the US, you may get ignored or slammed in the press, and be unable to get significant donations - but you can run and establish a following. In Iran, if you don't get the approval of the Guardian Council you can't even run. Hundreds of Iranians whom wished to be candidates were barred by the Gaurdian Council.

Imajika