• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fixing the Iraq Oct 15th vote

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I knew they would have to find a away to fix the vote to ensure ratification. Now we now how:

Changing the requirement for a province to reject the constitution from 2/3 of the vote, to 2/3 of registered voters.

The GOP are pros at this stuff - and don't bother trying to suggest it is an Iraqi issue.

They could have just let it go, get turned over on ratification, and then started over to work at a better constitution.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=BAK162816
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4309164.stm

What does this do for the legitimacy of the Iraq government? Not good.
What does this do for the likelyhood of civil war (if they are not already in one)? Not good.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
python416 said:
I knew they would have to find a away to fix the vote to ensure ratification. Now we now how:

Changing the requirement for a province to reject the constitution from 2/3 of the vote, to 2/3 of registered voters.

The GOP are pros at this stuff - and don't bother trying to suggest it is an Iraqi issue.

They could have just let it go, get turned over on ratification, and then started over to work at a better constitution.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=BAK162816
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4309164.stm

What does this do for the legitimacy of the Iraq government? Not good.
What does this do for the likelyhood of civil war (if they are not already in one)? Not good.

The GOP never ceases to amaze me. :( This kind of vote would be unheard of here.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
The GOP never ceases to amaze me. :( This kind of vote would be unheard of here.

If you any vote that required 2/3 of all registered voters, you might as well skip the vote all together.

If you can expect 60% voter turnout, it is mathematically impossible to meet the requirement.

Crazy!
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Can any of you war supporters come in a debate why this isn't a pile of crap?

Probably not!

Where are the war supporters?!
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Where are the filthy war mongers when you need then !
hiding after the fact ,as ussual.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Canuck said:
Where are the filthy war mongers when you need then !
hiding after the fact ,as ussual.

Come on! The thread was only started about 11 hours ago, and I'm having a very busy day. No one is "hiding."

Anyway, I think that its a big mistake to ask 2/3rd of voters to say no. You'd be lucky if you get 2/3rds of the people to even come out and vote. We shouldn't place ourselves in a position where its a "major defeat" if the constitution is voted down. It just means they have to go back and debate it and revise it - the democratic process.

Rembember, even if the province thing can't vote it down, it can still be voted down by a majority of voters. Of course, that makes Iraq more of a centralized state, which is not what we want if we're trying to defuse tensions between the different regions.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks like they chickened out and reversed their decision.

Now they are gonna have fix this election the ol' fashion ways. And after showing their intentions, it is only gonna make the outcome more questionable.

Stupidity; par for the course.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1185434
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
python416 said:
I knew they would have to find a away to fix the vote to ensure ratification. Now we now how:

Changing the requirement for a province to reject the constitution from 2/3 of the vote, to 2/3 of registered voters.

The GOP are pros at this stuff - and don't bother trying to suggest it is an Iraqi issue.

They could have just let it go, get turned over on ratification, and then started over to work at a better constitution.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=BAK162816
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4309164.stm

What does this do for the legitimacy of the Iraq government? Not good.
What does this do for the likelyhood of civil war (if they are not already in one)? Not good.

Not only will I SUGGEST it...I will show it to you in YOUR OWN ARTICLE!

Last Updated: Tuesday, 4 October 2005, 14:50 GMT 15:50 UK

UN condemns Iraq charter change

Opposition to the constitution is strongest in Sunni areas
The United Nations has criticised changes to Iraq's electoral law that make it harder for Iraqis to reject the draft constitution.
The two-thirds majority needed in three provinces to defeat the constitution will now be counted from all registered - as opposed to actual - voters.

On Sunday Shia and Kurdish members of parliament pushed through the changes in the referendum rules on 15 October.

Sunni Arabs reacted angrily to the amendments on Monday.

They believed many registered voters may not show up at the polls because of violence.

"We have expressed our position to the national assembly and to the leadership of the government," said Jose Aranaz, a legal adviser to the UN electoral team in Iraq, in an interview with Reuters news agency.

Mr Aranaz said parliament's decision was unacceptable and would not meet international standards.

"Hopefully by tomorrow the situation will be clarified," he said.


Now here's the fun part where I show you how foolish to include the GOP in this...remember Bremer?...GOP appointed?...Let's see what he had to say when he drew up the temporary Constitution that's been used the last two years...

The interim constitution drawn up under US administrator Paul Bremer in 2003 says the following about the issue: "The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of the voters in Iraq approve and if two-thirds of the voters in three or more governorates do not reject it."

But on Sunday, MPs said a No vote from two-thirds of "registered" voters was needed for a veto.

The new interpretation keeps the clause stipulating that only half of actual voters are needed for the text to be adopted


How 'bout that?...They went AGAINST what the "GOP" had wanted...

Another swing and a miss...By now, I guess you'd hope SOMETHING sticks...:roll:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
python416 said:
Looks like they chickened out and reversed their decision.

Now they are gonna have fix this election the ol' fashion ways. And after showing their intentions, it is only gonna make the outcome more questionable.

Stupidity; par for the course.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1185434

So they're going to do it the way GOP appointed Paul Bremer originally wrote it up...

What a conspiracy...:roll:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
Not only will I SUGGEST it...I will show it to you in YOUR OWN ARTICLE!
.
.
.

How 'bout that?...They went AGAINST what the "GOP" had wanted...

Another swing and a miss...By now, I guess you'd hope SOMETHING sticks...:roll:

It is obvious that this attempt at change, or change and then retraction, is a move towards shaping the outcome of the elections and it is the GOP/Whitehouse/Neo-cons calling the shots. That is why the legitimacy of the government is in question. When Iraqis are in control of military operrations on their own soil, then you can say that the US isn't in control.

Face it - Iraq is a mess and it is the policies of your Whitehouse that have made it such. The problem is that the propaganda has set it up so that no matter what, the WH can always fall back to the "freedom is on the march" talking points and people eat that crap up - but then again, many have been eating up the whole list of reasons this WH has been pushing: WMD programs, September 11, Al Quadia connection, human rights, democracy, oil. Oh wait, that last one is the real reason, but wasn't on the official list.

If the US thinks they can move Iraq on the path of stabilization without the Sunnis, they are mistaken - but I doubt they even care. As long as the oil flows, it is all good in Washington.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
So they're going to do it the way GOP appointed Paul Bremer originally wrote it up...

What a conspiracy...:roll:

Oh gee, you don't think the Whitehouse wants this vote to go a certain way?

With everything that is going wrong for the administration, they don't care about this vote?

And you don't think they have a hand in Iraqi politics right now?

Please. This administration has no morals, and anyone who would trust them to play this election by the rules is being naive.

The whole premise of having an election when there is no security IS ITSELF A SCAM!
 
Top Bottom