Egypt early results show Sisi with 90% of the vote - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/ndj2.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27614776[/url] [quote]Former military chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is heading for a huge victory in Egypt's presidential election, preliminary results have shown. He had gained about 90% of the vote after 2,000 of 12,000 polling stations reported their results. However, turnout is expected to be lower than 45% despite a massive push to get more people to polling stations. Many groups boycotted the vote. Retired field marshal Mr Sisi overthrew President Mohammed Morsi last July. He has overseen a bloody purge of Mr Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood movement in which more than 1,400 people have been killed and 16,000 detained. The Brotherhood said it would boycott the vote, as did many liberal and secular activist groups.[/quote]

Sissy [editline]29th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE]He has overseen a bloody purge of Mr Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood movement in which more than 1,400 people have been killed and 16,000 detained.[/QUOTE] Fighting fire with Fire I reckon? Perhaps it's the right way in such an environment.

2000/16000 is only 16% of the polling stations.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;44936118]2000/16000 is only 16% of the polling stations.[/QUOTE] its pretty easy to get 90% when you arrest or shoot all the other opposition including secular democracy activists

[QUOTE=NoDachi;44937551]its pretty easy to get 90% when you arrest or shoot all the other opposition including secular democracy activists[/QUOTE] Pretty easy to get 90% if you cheat. Isn't 90% basically guaranteed to be due to voter/election fraud?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;44937551] including secular democracy activists[/QUOTE] The cities start a revolution with liberal ideas in mind and the voting majority countryside are conservative, islamic and like uniforms.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44937588]Pretty easy to get 90% if you cheat. Isn't 90% basically guaranteed to be due to voter/election fraud?[/QUOTE] With turnout around 45% and no serious challenger having stood: not necessarily

The largest party was the Muslim Brotherhood, which is gone now so...

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44937588]Pretty easy to get 90% if you cheat. Isn't 90% basically guaranteed to be due to voter/election fraud?[/QUOTE] In this case the absurdly high numbers come from the fact that the strongest opposition was basically shattered and their voterbase had to either choose between voting for the people behind it, abstaining, or voting for parties that they see as too liberal. Meanwhile the weaker liberal voters basically just watched the democracy they created immediately fall to pieces, undoubtedly causing many to question if there's even a point to voting. Additional fraud isn't even necessary, really.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;44937802]In this case the absurdly high numbers come from the fact that the strongest opposition was basically shattered and their voterbase had to either choose between voting for the people behind it, abstaining, or voting for parties that they see as too liberal. Meanwhile the weaker liberal voters basically just watched the democracy they created immediately fall to pieces, undoubtedly causing many to question if there's even a point to voting. Additional fraud isn't even necessary, really.[/QUOTE] But even by western standards 90% is high. Even in "landslide" elections that seems high. In the 1984 American presidential election, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states, but he only had 59% of the popular vote with 53% turnout. 45% isn't really that low in comparison (but I'm not an expect on the situation in Egypt so there's that.) There was some study showing that anything above 60% for one candidate is fishy. I'll see if I can find it.

Well first of all 53% of America is a lot bigger than 45% of Egypt. Second, the Democrats still existed when he was elected and continued to exist after he left office. And third, Reagan didn't do anything in particular that made Democrats and Nixon-era Republicans feel like there was no point in voting.

I think that whole new democracy thing also kind of matters. George Washington was a shoe in to win since he was kindof a military hero of the revolution like this man advertises himself as. The liberals are fragmented and the Muslim Brotherhood is gone so...

i think the BBC jumped the gun on that one, 90% of 1/6th of the vote is not a win at all

[QUOTE=Sableye;44938104]i think the BBC jumped the gun on that one, 90% of 1/6th of the vote is not a win at all[/QUOTE] If a candidate's getting 90% of the vote and the votes are distributed throughout the country (they are; it's hard to find a single region that isn't reporting 90%+ for Sisi) then you can call the election very early on. It happens in US elections too, a fair few states are usually called the very second polls close: California in 2012 is one example I remember.

They dont have an electoral college... Its just a straight popular vote

[QUOTE=Sableye;44941492]They dont have an electoral college... Its just a straight popular vote[/QUOTE] Most places don't have an electoral college. That's in an incredibly American (not to mention pointless!) thing.

Anyway, most of the ballots have now counted and he's on 93% [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27614776[/url]