Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Democracy

Apparently it means different things to us in the US vs. us in Iraq.

A little know problem has cropped up with the Iraqi Constitution, as you probably know. The Sunni Arabs (the bad ones that supported Sadam Hussain - not the Shites who are the good ones now and support Iran (who is part of the Axis of Evil - but let's move on)).

Where was I? Oh yea, the Sunni's don't like the constitution. Mainly because it is "federal" not national. It gives a lot of power to the "states" in Iraq. The Sunni states are poor, the Kurdish and Shite have a ton of oil. That kind of sums up the issues right there.

The constitution can be voted down by a majority, or by a 2/3s majority in 3 of the states. The Sunnis can probably muster that - or can they? According to an AP writer, the definitions have been finalized in English and Arabic for the "official" rules.

Well the definition of the word "voter" means 2 different things. Not all that unusual in a document, but in this case "voter" means 2 different things in the same sentence.

The constitution will not be approved if it doesn't receive approvel from 1/2 of the voters nationwide. So if 100 people vote, it needs 51 of them to vote for it. Also, the constitution will not be aproved if it rejected by 2/3s of the voters in 3 states or more. So, one would assume, if 100 people vote in each of 3 states and 67 of them vote no in all three states it would be rejected.

No quite. Turns out that in the first case (51% to win) it is 51% of the voters. In the second case (2/3s of voters in 3 states say no) it is 67% of registered voters.

Problem solved.

(Here is a Link to the NY Times if you don't believe Salon)