[lbo-talk] 1400%

[ravi]

On Jun 27, 2009, at 12:57 AM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Michael Smith wrote:
>
>> This "1400%" pseudo-number is clearly going to become a Bloody Shirt.
>
> It's not pseudo-number, Michael.  It's perfectly standard procedure  
> when comparing elections to consider the absolute number of votes  
> rather than their shares precisely because, as you say, so many  
> things change -- the field, the issues -- that's it's often hard to  
> compare.  But what doesn't change is that to increase your vote, you  
> have to get people to vote for you who didn't the first time for one  
> reason or another.  You have to get those votes from somewhere,  
> usually at some cost to your base. Sometimes people double their  
> vote between elections in absolute terms.  It's rare, and it's  
> remarkable.  But nobody ever 14-folds it.
>

Is this the report under discussion:

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

It seems to have no mention of 1400%. Can someone shed some light on  
where this number comes from?

	--ravi