Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2009

Astronomer Boudewijn F. Roukema at the Centre for Astronomy of Nicolaus Copernicus University Torun in Poland has launched an analysis of vote counts of 366 voting areas, which had been published by the Iranian Ministry of Interior, and has applied Benford’s Law in order to detect election fraud. According to these calculations, “the null hypothesis that the vote count distributions satisfy these distributions is rejected at a significance of p ≤ 0.007, based on the presence of 41 vote counts for candidate K (Mehdi Karroubi) that starts with the digit 7, compared to an expected 21.2-22 occurrences expected for the null hypothesis. A less significant anomaly suggested by Benford’s Law could be interpreted as an overestimate of candidate A’s (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s) total vote count by several million votes.” 

The study is not completely convincing. Still, the observed anomalies may be explained by chance alone. Moreover, figures 5 and 6 (pp. 5, 6) may have erroneously been exchanged. The motivation of conducting such an analysis is definitely driven by the assumption that the incumbent Iranian president was in urgent need for massive manipulation to become re-elected. That might not even be the case, as I have argued before. The brutal abolition of demonstrations in the previous two weeks have shown the true face of this regime which cannot easily been overthrown, in particular if one has to assume massive western support of  a “Green Revolution” with now rather deleterious outcome, as we experience these days. Sad to say but Iran may be on its way to a police state.

The online manuscript by Dr. Roukema (as of June 16, 2009, i.e., 4 days after the election!) which has been submitted to the Annals of Applied Statistics can be found here.

Read Full Post »

Somewhat hidden on Iranian government-funded presstv’s webpage you may find this Monday’s sensation. Ten or 13 killed demonstrators on Tehran’s streets, among them 19-year-old Neda, whose shocking death millions around the world have watched in an extremely graphic video, have possibly not died in vain. Iran’s Guardian Council has to admit today that probes into ballots boxes have proved a massive election fraud. In 50 cities, they contained more votes than people eligible. So, rumors that the 11 million additional ballot papers had been in the boxes before the day of election have had all reason. The remarks made by the Council’s spokesman, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, that “[s]tatistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate — the incident has happened in only 50 cities” really won’t matter. He should know that election fraud is independent of magnitude. And who believes authorities in Iran anymore? And who cares?

It is quite amazing that the more than 646 ‘irregularities’ (emphasis by presstv) reported by the three defeated rivals of the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Messrs Mousavi, Rezai, and Karroubi, were partly acknowledged today. Former president Mohammad Khatami has proposed, in the meantime, an impartial committee to investigate the complaints about the results of the presidential vote.

Although nullification of the June 12 election as urged by the latter might in fact be at hand, power struggles within the system might have moved the Islamic Republic of Iran closer to what everybody fears most, a Pasdaran-controlled police or military dictatorship. Four-hundred-and-fifty-seven people had been detained after Saturday’s riots in a massive crackdown.

Read Full Post »

So far, President Obama had been reluctant to comment on the results of last week’s presidential election in Iran, the possibility of massive election fraud and the continuing demonstrations in Tehran and other larger cities. It won’t matter who will be the president, we read, the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or his main rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi. “It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” Obama told CNBC News. Obviously, the American President doesn’t want to weaken the opposition movement by showing overt partisanship.

Even in his latest remarks on demonstrations in Iran, made in an interview with CBS, he only stressed his hope that “ultimately the Iranian people will obtain justice.” “Now, what we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to, I think what Dr. King called the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.”

While yesterday’s Friday prayer sermon by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran had been interpreted as threat of future violence if demonstrations would go on, little may be found in this regard in the transcript of the speech by the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN):

“In these elections the people truly performed their duty. Their duty was to come to the polls and this duty was performed in the best possible way. However, we and you have more serious duties to attend to. Those — from politicians, heads of parties and directors of political currents — who can exert some influence on the public and are listened to by some groups, should be very careful of their conduct. They should be very careful of what they say. If they show the slightest extremism, the repercussions will be felt by the body of the people and can lead to a very sensitive and dangerous situation which even they cannot control. We have seen examples of it. When extremism starts in a society, any extremist move can fuel other’s extremism. If the political elite ignore the law, or cut off their noses to spite the face, whether they want or not, they will be responsible for the bloodshed, violence, and chaos (that will follow).” [emphasis added]

In addressing the people of Iran, he made very clear that all four candidates who had been allowed to run for presidency by the Guardian Council (more than 450 had been rejected) had been campaigning within the system.

“Of course, they have different opinions. They have different plans. They have a range of differences in their various political stances. But all of them belong to the system. All of these four people are members of the system. This race took place within the system. […] [It] was not a race between the insiders and outsiders of the system. It was a race inside the system between the members affiliated to the system, who have such records. I know all of them closely. I am familiar with their thoughts, ideas, and traits. I have worked with them closely. I know all of them.”

So, in principle, Obama is right. It wouldn’t matter. Can it be that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iranians have not really understood that simple fact?

Read Full Post »

Mass demonstrations in particular in Tehran these days, even with casualties, give the strong impression that the majority of the Iranian people will not accept the results of last week’s presidential election when the incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yielded allegedly a landslide victory over his main rival Mir Hossein Mousavi. Western media spread claims of fraud and rigged results. One especially ridiculous example of how to manipulate the lay public opinion was the use of regression analysis of cumulative counting results after polling stations had been closed which has been launched by tehranbureau, an exile Iranian organization located in the US. The mere nonsense of such an analysis was quickly debunked by mathematician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. But the risks of manipulating the public by fraudulent reporting are still present. 

Detailed results of the election have been released in the meantime by Iran’s Interior Ministry and can be found here. Although fraud cannot be proved or disproved at the moment and most probably never, claims of fraud are still around and growing. But do the demonstrators on Tehran’s street who are in favor of the largely unknown, rather colorless Mousavi whose political program would not, in the West, really been regarded as that of a reformer, represent the majority of the Iranian people? On election day, FiveThirtyEight had published some opinion polling results showing that Ahmadinejad always led since April. Unfortunately, even these polls were largely confined to Tehran and, if either conducted or monitored by the government, must be considered untrustworthy.  

A nationwide public opinion poll had been conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow. Its conclusions, published on Monday this week by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty in the Washington Post, indicate that the 2 to 1 margin in favor of Ahmadinejad was already visible in mid-May. It was based on telephone interviews conducted by a neighboring country. In that survey, the breadth of support for Ahmadinejad was apparent. Even Azeris, the second largest ethnical group in Iran favored Ahmadinejad by a 2 to 1 margin, although Mousavi had stressed his identity as an Azeri. Some analysts have taken the mere fact that Mousavi lost the election even in the two Azerbaijan provinces as strong evidence that the election results had been rigged.

Ballen and Doherty write: “Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.”

Today’s situation in Tehran and other large cities might in fact escalate. If it is being settled and President Ahmadinejad is resuming his second term, crackdown and terror will definitely increase and another round of oppression of the opposition in Iran commence. Insofar the outcome of this election is a true tragedy for the country, but it had to be expected. It might even reflect the will of the silent majority of have-nots in the vast country. Ahmadinejad’s competitors in the campaign were not really alternatives of the ideological hardliner who still (but how long?) enjoys sympathy and full support by the real leader of the country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Read Full Post »

According to official announcements, the incumbent Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the election with 62.6% of the votes while his main challenger, former prime minister and reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi, yielded a disappointing 33.8%. The two other candidates, former speaker of the parliament Mehdi Karroubi and former Pasdaran commander Mohsen Rezai only became also-runs.

There have quickly been claims of rigged election results in Iran and massive fraud. While Mr. Mousavi did not use this particular word, he talked about a charade. In western media, a graph circulates which seem to provide indisputable evidence of rigged results. Data are derived from six announcements of incoming voters’ counts of the Ministry of Interior itself. The data (cumulative voters counts for Mr. Mousavi and cumulative counts for Mr. Ahmadinejad), if displayed in a scatter plot, show that the incumbent president always got about twice as many votes as his rival. A regression line is provided and an R2 of 0.998 calculated for the correlation.

iran1

This analysis is, of course, nonsense. It cannot prove that the Iranian presidential election was fraudulent. A charming example from the recent U.S. American election by Nate Silver is provided here. He supposed that voters’ results are announced in a similar fashion as those from the Iranian Ministry of Interior, i.e., in six large waves. For example:

Wave 1: 23,564,027 for Obama; 18,862,194 for McCain

Wave 2: 36,772,827 for Obama; 30,199,247 for McCain

Wave 3: 49,333,482 vs. 39,911,405

Wave 4: 57,230,954 vs. 47,112,351

Wave 5: 63,176,968 vs. 54,474,198

Wave 6: 69,498,216 for Obama; 59,948,240 for McCain

See the graph below. An R2 of 0.996 can be calculated which is, of course, complete nonsense. No proof for election fraud at all. Simply due to violating fundamental assumptions in linear regression.

iran2

What is dangerous here is that journalists, who should have some basic skills in mathematics and in particular statistics, spread, intentionally or unintentionally, wrong, in fact fraudulent, information.

There are other means of proving that the results of the Iranian presidential election were rigged. That the Iranian people re-elected the old foe with whom any collaboration with the West will not become easier does not mean that the Iranian people has been fooled. At least as long as the opposite has not been proven.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.