David Limbaugh apparently doesn't have a problem with the fact that:
"Bush administration is going to tout the Iraqi elections as legitimate even though 'the names of many candidates [and] the locations of many polling places' won't be announced in advance for security reasons."
(The quotes within the quote are from MSNBC's "First Read>").
I don't have a problem, I'll admit, with secret polling places only announced at the last minute if they wind up increasing security, but not announcing the names of candidates in advance; and quite possibly not even during, but only AFTER the elections, in essence means that the people won't know who they are voting for.
David Limbaugh doesn't have a problem with people voting for a list of unnamed candidates? Couldn't such a list be highly manipulated? That is, if the coalition really wants a particular group of candidates to win, can't those candidates just be inserted into the anonymous places on whichever lists win?
Moreover, doesn't list-based voting in itself make things highly manipulable? By putting, e.g., Chalabi on a popular list, the coalition can insure that he gets a position in the government.
Not that the elections are not necessary (without them, the shiites would probably revolt); but let's not kid ourselves that they are this huge significant thing.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment