christopher cocca

Editors on Wikipedia have broken down the Chatham House findings nicely:

According to a scientific analysis by Professor Walter R. Mebane, Jr., from Department of Statistics of University of Michigan, considering data from the first stage of the 2005 presidential election produces results that “give moderately strong support for a diagnosis that the 2009 election was affected by significant fraud”.^[19] This notion is also supported by the NGO UK-based thinktank Chatham House for a number of reasons:^[20]

• More than 100% : In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100% was recorded.
• No swing : At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent Conservative majority.
• Reformist votes: In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also took up to 44% of former Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.
• Rural votes: In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces in 2009 flies in the face of these trends.