Iraq election (one day after): Who is counting the votes?
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
Sun Oct 16 15:29:33 PDT 2005
Paul and I seem to agree that a 2/3 vote in one or more provinces should not
be allowed to veto a constitution that receives majority national support.
So far, so good.
Paul suggests that provinces that vote against the constitution should be
allowed to opt out of the nation, but, let me repeat, that is not acceptable
to the Sunnis. The point of my earlier post is that the Sunnis adamantly
oppose any breakup of Iraq. They neither want to leave nor to go along with
Paul's very brief post suggested that we had not brought much of value to
the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam and allowing them to vote as they
did a couple of days ago. That would seem to suggest that there is not much
difference between elections now and elections under Saddam, a notion that I
just can't understand.
Perhaps if I'd accused Paul of not valuing the sacrifice of our dead and
wounded soldiers, then a charge of McCarthyism might be reasonable. But here
it is not. What I did was to contrast the kind of elections that Iraq had
under Saddam with the kind just held. I did so rather sarcastically, which
probably was not appropriate, and for that I apologize to Paul.
Perhaps Paul might consider how some list members may react to a casual
assumption that the Court in Bush v. Gore did not care about majority rule.
(I assumed he was referring to a majority of votes cast in Florida; I
assumed he was not making the point that the majority in Bush v. Gore
somehow should have overridden the constitutional provision for an electoral
college and awarded Gore the Presidency because of his higher national
popular vote.) Paul's brief post seemed more designed to insult than to
provide an argument, and I reacted to that.
More information about the Conlawprof