What's the deal with the Iranian elections?

#freeiran

That's a 'Twitter' 'hashtag' that's winging its way across the Internet right now, spread viraly by millions of 'Twitterers' decrying the alleged election fraud that took place in Iran.

But let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. Are these accusations of fraud authentic?

Don't get me wrong. I loathe incumbent president Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād as much as anybody. I was fervently hoping for the predicted landslide for his opponent, reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh.

But when the election results came in - with Ahmadinezhad winning the election by an average of two votes to one - I was suspicious of just how fast people started crying 'fraud!'

It would be desirable and convenient for the disgusting Ahmadinezhad to be ousted from office, but we must never allow ourselves to buy into the belief that if you want something to be true, you can make it true (kind of like fundamentalists to try to with creationism.)

As much as I'd like to join in the clamor for electoral equality, let's examine the evidence first.

Iran's a big country and this election saw a voter turnout of nearly 85%. That meant almost 40 million votes were tallied (according to BBC Persian.) Of those votes, Ahmadinezhad won over 24.5 million of them.

Contrary to the cries of 'fraud,' this actually matches the results predicted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion. Three weeks before the election, this non-profit group held an independent poll and found that twice as many people pledged to vote for the incumbent president as Mousavi.

Supporting this analysis, Guardian contributor Abbas Barzegar argued that the western response to the election results showed complete ignorance of the real situation in Iran. Western media, such as the BBC and the New York Times, tended to concentrate on opinion and analysis from more liberal Iranians, coming from wealthier parts of the country. This ignored, according to Barzegar, "the wide support Ahmadinejad enjoys in poor and rural communities."

There is some logic to that opinion. If residents of only New York City and San Francisco had been polled in the leadup to the 2004 Presidential Election, nobody would imagine George W. Bush could win a second term. However, that's exactly what he did - with the support of America's infrequently opinioned 'heartland'

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, in an article in The Politico, pointed out much the same thing. In the 2005 Presidential Election, when facing similarly moderate Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinezhad won with almost 62% of the vote. That's practically the same result as in this disputed election - but, of course, there was no outcry of 'fraud' last time around.

It's certainly true that we, in the West, made certain assumptions about the election that didn't necessarily hold true. Mousavi, for example, was expected to poll well in his native Azeri provinces. However, Ahmadinezhad's speaks fluent Azeri and ran a blinding campaign in the two provinces (even quoting Azeri and Turkish poetry onstage.)

To quote the United States Intelligence Service, as they pragmatically analysed the results: "It is not outside the realm of possibility that Ahmadinejad won this election."

They, too, conclude that the Western media were relying on biased opinion from expatriate Iranians and urbane, pro-Western correspondents from capital city Tehran. The US officials wearily noted: "Tehran is Tehran, but it’s not Iran."

M K Bhadrakumar, writing in the Asia Times, dismissed even the post-election protests as 'inconsequential' - carried out by wealthy, young members of the 'Gucci crowd.' They are unrepresentative of the 'real Iran' and "the rural poor who, in their multitudes, form the bulk of voters and constitute Ahmadinejad's political base."

In short, it possible - perhaps even likely - that the election results were as fair as can be expected to be in a country like Iran.

Certainly, there are questions raised. At least 30 polling sites reported voter turnout of 'over 100%' and the New York Times reported a leak from the Interior Ministry hinting at a fraud campaign that had "been prepared for weeks."

But are any of these allegations truly convincing? Walter R. Mebane Jr., professor of political science and statistics at the University of Michigan (and an expert on detecting electoral fraud) concluded: "There are suspicious elements here, but there's no solid evidence of fraud."

Likewise, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett suggested that the anomalies identified in the Iranian election results were less significant than those of the 2000 Presidential Election in America (specifically, the debacle in Florida.)

I certainly don't want to be identified as a supporter of Ahmadinezhad - but in objective, rational analysis of this election, the evidence strongly suggests that his victory is legitimate.

We don't have to like it, but we may have to accept it. The media circus surrounding the 'election fraud' is damaging our credibility. It sends a message to the people of Iran that America and the west are only willing to support sovereign democracy if the people of that nation vote 'the right way.'

In this instance, they didn't. But that was their choice to make - and in the absence of any cold, hard, credible evidence to prove otherwise, we might just have to shut up and accept that.

Obama wins...

Last night, America made the choice between marching towards change and progress, or clinging to the status-quo.

Fortunately, my adopted nation did not disappoint. The overwhelming support for Barack Obama reminded me why I love the United States and, deep down, what great-hearted, aspirational and wonderful people Americans are.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain were, in their own ways, outstanding candidates. From a personal basis, I came into 'election fever' fully behind McCain, who I thought represented determination, bravery, independence and a rare willingness to embrace ideas from both the right and left wings of American politics. But, I realise now, the 2008 wasn't between two men.

It was a choice between two paths. The one America has blithely trod for the last eight years, which has led us to:

A costly, bloody war we entered into without reasonable justification; the erosion, or outright elimination, of the values, freedoms and liberties the United States was founded on; stagnation politically, socially, economically and scientifically and the polarization of America between 'red' and 'blue' states, each showing outright contempt of each other.

Or the other path, which offered:

Nothing. Nothing concrete, anyway. Just the promise of change, the audacity to hope that things would be different. A step towards humanism, rationality and tolerance. A deliberate decision to discard conservative ideology and dogma, which is ultimately just as destructive as the socialist rhetoric the right-wing fear so much.

Keeping a close eye on this race over the last few months, I learned so much about America. As John McCain embraced the core conservatives who won victory for George Bush in 2000 and 2004, I realised that this election was probably going to be the most historic election in my lifetime - and an acid test of whether or not the United States truly lived up to the vision I'd seen through what my fellow expats called my 'rose tinted spectacles.'

But, you know what?

America didn't fail this test.

Everything I'd come to fear - the accusations of racism, of stubborn conservatism, of fear-mongering and hatred and outright lies - came to nothing.

The vast majority of Americans saw that the choice came down to staying where they were, or moving forward. So they tightened their bootlaces and took that first step.

Last night, on Fox News, I watched the map of the United States sweep with blue. I felt the palpable excitement building as people realised - yes, this was really happening.

And, this morning, it feels like waking up to a spring morning after a long, cold winter.

Everybody I've met has seemed upbeat, hopeful, positive and proud today.

Proud of themselves and proud of their country. Excited about what lay ahead, because wherever this new, uncharted course took America, it meant we were leaving what went wrong behind us.

Hope is a very powerful force. In many ways, Barack Obama's election means little. It'll be seventy days until he's sworn in - and many months more before we begin to see the changes he's promised.

But like a battle-field rally, this election result has breathed new life into the American dream. This morning, it's as if everybody who supported Barack Obama realised that: "If, together, we can achieve this... What can't we achieve?"

Maybe it'll be another Camelot. Maybe it'll be a disaster. Whatever happens, however, the next page of American history has been left tantalisingly blank. It's up to us to fill us in.

And for me, today marks a special event. As I say with Mini-Militant bouncing on my knee, watching the morning news, I realised that this was another of those 'you'll always remember where you were when it happened' events.

Except unlike the shooting of JFK, or the death of Diana, or the falling of the Twin Towers - this is a historic day we'll remember for all the right reasons.

Thank you, America, for holding firm when I was in doubt. I'm enormously excited to be part of whatever happens next.

Top 3 Reasons to vote for Barack Obama

With the election in just a few days, it's time for a quick run-down of why it makes sense to vote Democrat in the upcoming election:

1. The past 8 years. So we've had Pearl Harbour 2.0, followed by Vietnam War 2.0 - and we top it all off with The Great Depression 2.0. We've also had a Republican president and a Republican majority for six of the last eight years. Coincidence? Je pense pas.
2. The Democratic Majority. As a result of the foul-ups of the last eight years, voters will be putting Democrat majorities in both the Senate and Congress. What will that mean? That a vote for John McCain would be a vote for absolute deadlock. Nothing will get achieved and nothing will change.
3. The world's opinion. The world's sympathy was with us after the devastation of 9/11. Seven years later, the Eurosnobs [Like you, surely? Editorial Bear] are mocking us and the Middle East is more convinced than ever that America is 'The Great Satan.' Barack Hussein Obama will at least stand up and prove to the world that America is not entirely run by angry, white Republicans.

Don't get me wrong - I like John McCain. But I liked him a whole lot more when he was the maverick who crossed party lines on several key issues, instead of the reluctant spokesman of the frustrated right wing, as he appears to be now.

But the fact is, there's a reason George Bush has been the most unpopular president in recent history - and it's not George Bush. Getting rid of the spokesman, while keeping just about all of the rest of 'Team Bush' in the White House - would simply continue us trotting blithely down the same old path we've been trudging down for the best part of a decade. We need a change.

Remember Bill Clinton? The charming President whom the world respected, yet seemed down-to-Earth enough to go for a beer with? Remember how he presided over an affluent country and even produced a surplus in the budget? Well, I miss that kind of president.

His worst sin was fooling around with an intern and fibbing about it. He didn't start any wars, he didn't trample the constitution underfoot and his vice president certainly didn't shoot anybody in the face. Right now, with house prices down 40%, unemployment soaring, people's retirement accounts disappearing and soldiers still dying every single day on foreign sand, a jolly old horndog president like Clinton ain't looking so bad, is he?

Barack Obama is one better: He's a Democrat who probably won't get caught with his boxers around his ankles. That'll be a relief for those who believe (for whatever entirely retarded reason) that getting a blow-job from an intern is somehow more reprehensible than conning a nation into a bloody foreign war.

Like it or not, it's time for a change and it's time for a damn Democrat in the White House!

I mean, come on... Vote Obama because, if for no other reason, it's the Democrat's 'turn' to have a President! The Republicans have had their eight years. Now it's the Democrats turn (that's how American politics works, right?)

I'm sorry, guys; but Republicans are just going to have to sit tight and wait for Caribu Barbie to take her hotseat in 2012 or 2016.

That election will be a riot, I assure you.

Swing States Remove Voters From Ballot?

NEW YORK - Tens of thousands of eligible voters have been removed from rolls or blocked from registering in at least six swing states, and the voters' exclusion appears to violate federal law, according to a published report. See Full Story Here.

Hang on. Didn't this happen in 2000 as well? Look where THAT got us! See Full Story Here.

Death and Taxes...

Let's get something straight. The Republicans are not the party of 'low taxes.'

Oh, they sell themselves as exactly that and many blue collar voters fall for it.

Many angry working-class Republicans I know go apoplectic when they hear somebody is thinking of voting for the Democrats.

"Do you want them to raise your taxes? 'Cos that's what they'll do..."

But let's get something straight. For the working and middle class, it's the Republicans who have raised taxes pretty much consistently:

Ronald Reagan's 'Reaganomics' involved MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthy, but payroll taxes for the working man actually increased.

Bush Snr promised 'No New Taxes' and immediately reneged when he hit the office.

Bush Jnr's tax cuts made rich people richer - but even if he didn't tax the middle and working classes more, his economic mismanagement has them on a tighter budget than ever before.

Basically, the Republicans have failed to make good on their 'low taxes' promise at every opportunity - but they still wheel out the same old dog-and-pony show and gullible voters lap it up.

Well, let me set the record straight. If you're voting this election on taxes alone, here's how McCain and Obama match up, according to The Tax Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution:

If you're in the bottom 20% of taxpayers (making less than $20,000 a year) the 'low tax' Republicans will save you just $21 in taxes. Compare that to Obama's tax strategy, which will see an additional $567 in your pockets - almost 30 times more (and real money, as opposed to less than the cost of a family sized bucket of fried chicken.)

That's in addition to a lot of welfare programs being set up to help poorer people with the cost of health care, housing and education.

The next 20% of tax payers, making up to $66,400 a year, would be given back $325 under McCain's strategy - but get an extra $1,100 under Obama's plan.

In fact, the only time McCain trumps Obama is in addressing the top 1% of American tax payers, making $600,000 a year or more.

Under McCain, they'd claim back almost $50,000 a year. Obama would actually tax them more - an average of just under $94,000.

The Break Down

The strategy is simple.

McCain knows that to keep his campaign coffers full, he'll have to extend an olive branch to the big spenders and large corporations. Nobody who makes $600,000 a year wants to be hit with a nearly hundred-grand tax hike, so it makes sense to do whatever they can to get McCain elected (including donating to his campaign.)

The smoke-screen appears when it comes to the working and middle class - including the core regiment of blue-collar, red-state voters who help keep the Republican party in office.

They get hit hard every time they vote a Republican into office - but keep doing so because of the hyth of 'trickle down' Reaganomics.

Basically, the theory that the less that rich and the big companies have to pay in taxes, the more will get filtered back into the economy to increase wages and create jobs.

The problem is - Reaganomics doesn't work. The rich don't 'trickle' their money into anywhere except their savings accounts. That's why they're rich. Corporations don't 'spread the wealth.' They might make more profits, but that doesn't prevent them axing jobs and 'streamlining.'

The fact is, poorer people feed more of their tax rebate back into the economy because they have to. Take the bottom 20% of Americans, who make just $20,000 a year. If they got an extra five hundred bucks, do you think they'd just keep it in the bank?

No - they'll spend it. On groceries, gas and utilities. If they were lucky, on vacations and summer camps. They'll use that money and it will trickle up.

Added complexity...

It's not quite as simple as I've made it appear. Obama's got some pretty silly ideas about distributing corporate profit and McCain's got some pretty practical ideas about reducing other costs - like health care.

Both of their tax-cut schemes do something dumb - they dip the country even further into debt. Obama's tax cuts land America with a cheque for $3.5 trillion. McCain, despite representing the part of 'fiscal responsibility' (another Republican misnomer), would rack up $5 trillion in debt with his plans.

Who to vote for...?

Obama's tax cuts might not mean much if the economy tanks. McCain might float your boat in other areas, like the right-to-life, national security or cleaning house in Washington.

But it's worth asking yourself when you're in the voting booth this November: If somebody offered you $1,000 in cash to vote for Obama over McCain, would you do it?

Because for 40% of Americans, that's exactly what it equates to.