Internal US poll shows Sunnis not likely to vote in Iraq election

"BAGHDAD, Jan 6 (AFP) - The preliminary findings of a new internal US State Department poll on Iraq obtained by AFP Thursday shows only 32 percent of Sunni Muslims are "very likely" to vote in landmark national elections this month and only 12 percent consider the event legitimate.

The survey, conducted from December 12-16 by the State Department's Bureau of Research and Intelligence, revealed major concern among Sunnis about the security situation in Iraq, with many saying the threat of violence could keep them away from the polls.

The poll, which has not been released publicly, found three-quarters of Iraq's influential Shiite majority, who make up 60 percent of the country, would boycott elections if called upon to do so by a respected religious leader."
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35720

__________________
Classic American liberal

Their loss. Their decision.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I find it really hard to blame the civilians for the apprehension for voting when there are very real security concerns. And considering it was the US which overthrew the previous Iraqi regime, and has yet to stabilize the country, I find it completely ridiculous to blame them.

But that's not their reason for boycotting the voting. They don't mention security. Leaders of the Sunni's in Iraq just stated yesterday that they would give up their plans to boycott the election "IF" the Americans would give a definite timetable for leaving. And of course, we're not going to do that because we cannot. So yes.....I DO blame them.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Do you really think the primary reason they are not voting is because of security reasons?? It's not the Sunnis that are being killed by their fellow citizens. The Sunnis are used to being in power, and a vote means that they will be nothing more than the minority that they are. Most Sunnis aren't threatening to stay away from the polls because they're scared of being killed, they're staying away because they don't want the election to occur.

I agree with JP5... if they don't want to vote, fine. It's a free country.

It's talking about a Shiite boycott, not a Sunni one. They are not voting, that is not the same as a boycott.

Not the primary reason?
+
+
!=
Secondary reason.
You are partially correct, but don't dismiss voting hazards off hand.
It's a free country in name, but much like Afghanistan there is only a shell of sovereignity in Iraq. It will take many years, and much more surrender of power by the Coalition and stabilization for there to be a free Iraq.

You convieniently left out the paragraph leading up to that statement which said:
Earlier they stated:
Clearly this is talking about a Sunni boycott, not a Shiite one.


As to your other question:
Of course they are going to answer that way!! It's in complete agreement with what I said earlier. The insurgency is a Sunni one. The reason for the insurgency is to reduce support for our efforts in Iraq. They desperately do not want an election to occur. They don't want to be a minority, they want to rule. If you're against the elections occurring, then you aren't going to provide positive responses to Western surveys.

I'm not completely dismissing the fears. I said MOST Sunnis are against the election. I would assume there are a minority who would like to vote, but may fear for their safety from other Sunnis. Thus I agree with the second statement. It would be great if the situation were such that everyone who wanted to vote could, but I believe there will be no convincing the Sunnis so long as they see a way to regain their status. The election will strengthen a sovereign Iraq, and Sunnis will eventually have to decide whether they want to fall in line, or wage a civil war with the majority.

The only references to the word 'boycott' in the article are connected with the Shiites. The one I quoted earlier, and this:
76% Shiite vs. 32% Sunni, in this poll in question would comply with a boycott, if called on by a trusted religious leader.

The word 'boycott' is not synonymous with not voting:
boy·cott
tr.v.
To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion.

Not voting just means for one reason or another, the person(s) in question will not vote. (Whether that be apathy, legitimacy, security concerns, Aliens, Clinton ) There is no direct reference (though it is suggested implicitly along with mentionings of real security concerns) to this lack of voting stemming from a boycott.
Then what's the point of making the poll is "they are going to answer that way"? It makes the entire poll, article and consequently this thread and debate moot.
The article directly disagrees with you, but as you don't accept the article there is little left for me to do. I don't believe you would find any other such figures any more trustworthy, would you?
Besides, it's pretty clear that the US will not postpone any elections unless entirely forced by some radical situation, so attempting to sway the US with these figures this late is pretty hopeless. I agree that the Sunni do have a political reason to not want to see this election occur, but there are other limiting conditions i.e. getting ones brains splattered all over the floor on the way to the booth.
I think a religious breakdown of civilian casualties would include quite some Sunni, an overrepresentation most likely. And many of them killed, either directly or indirectly by the Sunni insurgency.
This poll indicates that a major concern among Sunnis is security. Major is left subjective, but I see little reason for this figure to be too far skewed from the truth. Can we agree that insecurity is a factor?

There is no way of verifying what the majority of Sunnis think as long as the unstable situation hinders open voting. (The Economist has a nice political cartoon about the Iraqi elections this week) So your guesses are as good as my guesses, which are more or less dependant on any numbers filtering through from Iraq. People are still debating whether the insurgency is rising or decling, whether it's 10,000 or 200,000 strong...jada jada.

I'm not so much concerned about the figures themselves, it has been pretty clear that the Sunni minority would not be very receptive to these elections. What annoyed me was the typically laconic response from JP5:
Saying it's tough luck when casting a ballot risks death, in an election in which people in general have little faith, is quite, at the lack of better word, astonishing.
Further, as this insurgency was at least partially fostered (I think most of us can agree on that) by the poor post-war handling of Iraq by the Coalition, I find it even more astonishing that the Iraqis are blamed for not risking their lives to vote for a de facto puppet government.

half the country didn't vote during our Civil War either. It turned out OK.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?