Funny. 28 million Iranians rejected the boycott. Enough said.

And 25 million rejected Moeen shall we say? And 22 million rejected Rafsanjani, and 22 million rejected Ahmadi Nejad, and so on more rejected others. What are we left with? "Everyone please shut up and go home, you are all rejected!"

If what you say is true, then had those who voted for Moeen joined the boycotters, then still 25 million would reject the boycott. Now, beside "Moeen voters", who else, or --let me be precise-- what type of voters, might one hope to have joined the boycott?!

Just for the record, my previous comment was a response to your comment in its original form. That is, only your first sentence. You then added some more stuff to it. Boycott was from the beginning a *fantastic* idea.

Er, let me correct myself: those who did not vote, some 18 million actually rejected all the candidates, so that number must be added: Rafsanjani was rejected by 40 million, and so on upward. Counting this way, boycott was rejected by a fewer number of people and is the clear winner!! By the way, those who think the boycotters made Moeen: How about Karrubi's votes, or even Mehr Alizade's votes. So, aren't those to blame by the same logic?

One more comment: the numbers I present are not to show that the boycott was good, or fantastic. They are to show that this approach, this numerology, is incorrect. What do the votes represent? Nobody really knows! To know, there must be models that need other bits of information that are not available. As I have said many times before and repeat here one last time: An idea such as of boycott must be criticized and perhaps refuted not based on the number of people who vote (out of fear, gut feelings, etc.) when a meaningful discussion has not taken place yet, but on reason. The reasons may refer to the "experiments" of boycott and its already known results.

I was an advocate of voting for moeen, but I don't blame the boycotters if they thought it's the best feasible way for Iran toward democracy. But whoever expressed an oppinion as an adventure in activism assuming it's inconsequential, just to see how (and if) this toy (Iran) reacts, not to do the best thing for the country was irresponsible. Whoever saw this as a computer game to be played on a laptop did slightly an immoral thing. Immoral but not stupid.

Just to clarify some of my ideas: I don't think the succss of Ahmadinejad was expected by the heads of power structure. I think - of course these are guesses,no way to know any of them for sure - that they were counting on Moeen to come up with Rafsanjani. The military folks are still too weak to take control, but there is no doubt tbe militarists are getting stronger. I agree that numbers by themselves are meaningless. What boycott needed from the activists, writers and intellectuals was clarification and a common voice. I think a 50% turnout and a strong solid camp behind boycott should have been considered a success. It wouldn't have been a huge success, but a success nevertheless. The last parliament elections had a turnout of around 50% too, if I recall correctly. This is a problem, but as I said in the comments of... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

JRez, While you're at it, please bear in mind that this website is visited by around 150 people (if the FToI poll is any indication) who have access to internet, can read English, and have the time and the interest to get themselves involved in exactly this type of activity. I wouldn't have you or anybody else here expect this "toy" to cause an action (or inaction) by several millions.

Just to be clear, I don't blame boycotters for Moeen's failure, because I believe all of them together made up such a (relatively) small population, that their participation would not have made a substantial difference anyway. In other words, if we claim Moeen was not elected because of an attempted boycott, then we're in fact taking boycotters too seriously and giving them too much credit. Obviously (assuming the election was not rigged) the problem lies elsewhere. I don't know where, but maybe democracy is not (yet) for Iranians, or at least this particular type of democracy is not for us. For example, maybe we should elect a bunch of guys so they in turn select a president for us, like what happened in Iraq.

SG, This website doesn't have to be connected to the milions directly. Some of the 150 nodes connected to this webste may be connected to something of the order 100 through their weblogs. Or they may affect one person who writes in a popular website like gooya. The exponential dependence of the number of people at the end of the tree on the number of layers of nodes in between can make a website like this more than a toy. I don't say it necessarily is more than a toy but it may be. It will be nice if we somehow test this by trying to spread a rumor in this website and see if it ever reaches the millions in Iran

I don't deny that something somewhere in this universe at the right moment may trigger a young Iranian political genius to do or say something that starts a process that eventually would lead to the overthrow of the IRI. It just seems to me --especially after this election-- the likelihood of such an event originating from the world of internet is very much overestimated.

"...the pro-participation advocates basically provided the regime with the large number of votes it so desperately needed..." The above sentence is quite naive and baseless. The regime does not desperately need any vote. There is absolutely no threshold for the level of participation in the elections that can trigger any time bomb in the regime. Any popular movement that is needed to overthrow any system is more likely to form and survive in a "motivated participating" society rather than in a "pessimistic boycotting" one.

SG, This is a small website with very limited viewers, and it is a plcae to discuss things like this. Trying to have a better understanding of important events, even among ourselves, is not a waste of time or energy. This is not the end of the world. There is future with more important challenges, and we are a small element in its shaping one way ro the other. We belong to the more educated portion of our society, don't you agree that we have a higher responsibilty to try to act more and more rationally and with open eyes as time goes by?Don't you think we also owe it to ourselves to see things better by presenting it in different lihgts and trying to refute each others assertions? Bahram, There is no reason to consider the boycott movement as pessimistic. It can be an active, principles and very... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

Many say what is written in the blogs are not influential on the masses. There is some truth in that. But the blogs do reach the human rights organizations and activists around the world. They should be used to bring about an international support for the prisoners, instead of inciting others to vote.

I have to admit that I do not know nearly as much about Iranian politics. The sad thing is, that being said, I am more knowledgeable than most of my American counterparts. After taking an Islamic law class in law school, I became intrigued with Iran. I fully respect the Muslim peoples' rights to govern themselves. (I myself fell in love with the religion in just a few short weeks.) The Iranian people should be able to govern themselves through free and open elections, should that be your choice of governance. This means Iranians should be free to elect who they want, not who Ayatolla Khamenei favors or the West favors. While I respect your opinions about boycott, the reality is that boycotting the election does, in a real sense, silence your voices. Does participation in a not-so-fair election have the same power as participation in a free and... [more at the permalink of the entry above]

This is addressed to those of you who think "international pressure" can do sh!t: "The current military junta came to power in Burma in 1988 after crushing a pro-democracy uprising." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4107692.stm

Hey guys: I am trying to think outloud here (i.e. I haven't decided what I am doing on Friday, but here is a thought). As I said it before, the second round of voting is just a sham meant to get people worked up and make them to vote Rafsanjani. His coronation was debated long time ago. He wouldn't have thrown his hat (i.e. turban) into this election race if leader's hand wasn't behind him. The system is pushing him forward to smooth over international rows over Iran's nuclear activities and so on. He is the only one that regime can trust in saving its butt in the current sticky political situation. Without him they have trouble weathering the upcoming storm -- I am not saying it would be impossible for them, but just difficult. The point I am trying to make is that his coming to power is... [more at the permalink of the entry above]