On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Michael Smith wrote:
> > http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
> >
> > Here's another quaint idea. Try reading the report, all of it even.
>
> I did, actually. Found it quite unconvincing -- an exercise in
> tendentious, parti-pris statistical thumbsucking.
Really? So in Kurdestan province, where Ahmadinejad went from 22,353 votes in 2005 to 315,689 votes in 2009 -- an increase of over 1400% -- you find this a normal result that happens all the time in normal elections? And that the candidate should suddenly shift from 6% of the vote during an election he won -- evidence that they really, really didn't like him, which makes sense, since demographically it's quite against him -- to 51%? While the vote itself doubles? That strikes you as a perfectly normal thing that nobody should be surprised at?
The appendixed tables are full of shifts like that. All of them based on the official Iranian counts.
Doesn't bother you, though, huh? Seems like statistical nitpicking?
And the fact that the total volume shift could only be accounted for by Ahmadinejad getting 100% of the new voters, 100% of the Rafsanjani votes, and 44% of the former reform voters (in addition to keeping all his all his previous voters) strikes you as perfectly believable?
Interesting.
Well, I guess the hope that someone on your side would engage these numbers seriously is a vain one.
Michael