Looks like the new Iraqi constitution will be approved.

Post #227,857 by Another Scott 10/3/05 6:31:32 PM Reply	Looks like the new Iraqi constitution will be approved. [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4306094.stm\|The Rules Have Changed] (BBC story): Sunni Arabs have reacted angrily to a decision by Iraq's Shia-dominated parliament making it harder to reject the new constitution in 12 days' time. The two-thirds majority needed in three provinces to defeat the constitution will now be counted from all registered - as opposed to actual - voters. Many registered voters may not show up because of violence, it is argued. Saleh al-Mutlaq, of the Sunni group Iraqi National Dialogue, called the change a "clear forgery". "They want this constitution to pass despite the will of the people," he added. BBC Baghdad correspondent Caroline Hawley says violence, intimidation and US military offensives could keep many Sunnis away from polling centres. 'Implausible' change 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. Many Sunni Arabs oppose the draft constitution on the grounds that its federal provisions could lead to the break-up of Iraq. In elections for the transitional parliament in January, less than 60% of registered Iraqis voted after Sunni leaders called for a boycott. It's a bad situation and this change will certainly inflame the opponents. But it is a change that can be argued for. If people don't vote due to intimidation, then how can the real will of the people be known? If a constitution that the vast majority of Iraqi voters want is rejected under threats in a few areas, then how is that respecting the will of the people either? In other words, why should the insurgents get to dictate whether the constitution is approved? The best solution for constitution supporters would be for there to be a large turnout of people who vote yes in the Sunni areas. The best situation for Sunnis who are opponents is to turn out in large numbers and not boycott the vote. Maybe we'll be surprised. I'm hopeful that some sort of constitution will be approved and that the politicians will then work together to modify it as needed to protect the rights of everyone. Yeah, I'm an optimist. Cheers, Scott.
Post #227,880 by Simon_Jester 10/3/05 9:17:56 PM Reply	Did I read that right? The two-thirds majority needed in three provinces to defeat the constitution will now be counted from all registered - as opposed to actual - voters. I'll admit I didn't read the article...but 2/3 majority needed to DEFEAT the constitution? Shouldn't it require a majority (or 2/3) to ORDAIN and ESTABLISH the constitution? <low whistle>
Post #227,882 by ben_tilly 10/3/05 9:19:38 PM Reply	That they have to move that generous of a bar speaks volumes I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,889 by Another Scott 10/3/05 9:50:59 PM Reply	Yes, that's right. And it seems reasonable to me. Just a majority in the whole country can't vote the constitution in if a large group objects. [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_constitution_ratification_vote,_2005\|Wikipedia]: Article 61 of Iraq's Interim Constitution of 8 March 2004 lays down the rules for the approval of the proposed permanent constitution. The proposed constitution will be approved if in the referendum both a majority of voters nationwide vote "yes" and there are not at least three governorates (of the country's 18) where two-thirds of the voters vote "no". The latter criterion was originally written into the interim constitution to ensure that the permanent constitution would be acceptable to Iraq's Kurdish minority. However, in the early stages of the campaign, support for the constitution appears to be weakest among Iraq's Sunni community. Since three governorates have substantial Sunni majorities, it seems possible that Sunni votes could result in the constitution's rejection. The idea seems reasonable to me: the Shia majority can't ramrod a constitution in over the objections of the Kurds and/or Sunnis. Of course, if the rules can be rewritten before the vote, well... HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #227,912 by ben_tilly 10/4/05 1:37:09 AM Reply	I think you're talking past each other What Simon is noticing is that it takes a supermajority to not accept the proposed Constitution. So if 2/3 of the country objects, it still becomes the Constitution. That's the opposite of what you're describing as natural and reasonable. Apparently dislike of the proposed Constitution is running so high that they think it might get rejected anyways, so they are preventing that by changing the rule to 2/3 of the registered voters, not 2/3 of those who voted. Given a guaranteed low turnout in some areas, that makes it effectively impossible for the country to reject the Constitution. Once it has been established, of course, it will be up to US guns to enforce acceptance. I don't think anyone paying attention is stupid enough to take odds on it surviving past the removal of our guns from the equation. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,918 by CRConrad 10/4/05 4:11:33 AM Reply	Yeah, but it appears "Simon" is wrong and Scott is right. Ben writes: What Simon is noticing is [...] Well, no -- just like the Bush administration was wrong to say it had "learned" of Saddam's attempts to buy African Yellowcake (they knew or should have known it wasn't true; you can only say you "learned" stuff that you later still think is true; you say you "heard" what you later know to be lies, not "learned" them), you're wrong to say "Simon" (it's a pseudonym, BTW, not a real name; hence the quote marks) is "noticing" anything here. [...] that it takes a supermajority to not accept the proposed Constitution. So if 2/3 of the country objects, it still becomes the Constitution. Yeah, that's what Simon is claiming, but AFAICS, he's wrong. That's the opposite of what you're describing as natural and reasonable. Sure it is; but since that's not the actual case, the actual case -- as Scott reports Wikipedia has it -- may still be natural and reasonable. In fact, from what little I've seen here, I myself tend to think it is. Apparently dislike of the proposed Constitution is running so high that they think it might get rejected anyways, so they are preventing that by changing the rule to 2/3 of the registered voters, not 2/3 of those who voted. Given a guaranteed low turnout in some areas, that makes it effectively impossible for the country to reject the Constitution. "Apparently" to you, perhaps, but that's not how it appears to me from Scott's Wikipedia quote: The proposed constitution will be approved if in the referendum both a majority of voters nationwide vote "yes" and there are not at least three governorates (of the country's 18) where two-thirds of the voters vote "no". Let's parse: The proposed constitution will be approved if in the referendum both a majority of voters nationwide vote "yes" [...] AND: [...] and there are not at least three governorates (of the country's 18) where two-thirds of the voters vote "no". The first bit says, as is natural and reasonable, that it takes more than 50% total, of all voters nationwide, to approve. Apparently -- to me -- the controversy is about the second bit, where any three provinces out of 18 can veto the whole thing -- in effect, any one-sixth of the nation has the power to thwart the remaining five-sixths' wish to adopt the constitution. To demand that it at least take two-thirds of this one-sixth to do this, doesn't seem all that unnatural or unreasonable to me. It only means it takes one-ninth of the population, instead of just one-twelfth, to potentially cancel out the will of all the remaining eight-ninths (instead of eleven-twelfths). [This is all of course somewhat simplified so as to be arithmetically straightforward; it assumes the provinces are all equal in population size.] So the two-thirds thing really isn't unreasonable. The "all registered" vs "all voting", OTOH, might be... But I'm not too sure even of that, yet. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #228,027 by ben_tilly 10/4/05 5:23:59 PM Reply	Correction noted But still I don't like changing the rules just because it doesn't look like you're going to get the answer that you want. Furthermore the veto power for each section was supposed to serve a purpose. In short, safeguards are meant to be used in case of emergency, not removed while the accident is under way. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,920 by CRConrad 10/4/05 4:20:01 AM Reply	No you didn't:2/3 in 3 of 18 provinces = 2/3 of 1/6 = 1/9!
Post #227,899 by Silverlock 10/3/05 10:42:02 PM Reply	Like thats a bad thing Many Sunni Arabs oppose the draft constitution on the grounds that its federal provisions could lead to the break-up of Iraq. ----------------------------------------- George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty. --Donald Dean Richards Jr.

Welcome to IWETHEY!