Iran’s Election: The Odds of Fraud
EmailAn outfit called Terror Free Tomorrow claims in an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that the contested Iranian elections likely were not fraudulent, since a pre-election poll it sponsored showed the declared winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with a big lead.
TFT’s own data, though, tell a different story – as, oddly, did its own previous polling analysis.
The poll, done by telephone last month, found 34 percent support for Ahmadinejad vs. 14 percent for Mir Hossein Mousavi. The incumbent led by “a more than 2 to 1 margin – greater than his actual margin of apparent victory in Friday’s election,” today’s op-ed says. “Our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.”
Strange, then, that TFT’s analysis of these same data last month predicted a runoff.
The problem with both analyses is the vast number of respondents who declined to answer the vote preference question at all. Fifty percent either said they had no opinion (27 percent), refused to answer (15 percent) or favored “none” of the candidates (8 percent) – higher levels of non-response than on any other question in the survey.
To declare Ahmadinejad comfortably ahead based on these data is to assume that the people who did not express a preference divided precisely the same as those who did answer the question. This theoretical calculation produces a majority for the incumbent. The question is whether such a calculation is justified – and the reality is that even TFT did not make this leap in its pre-election analysis.
Rather it leaped in another direction, noting that “the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate,” because more than six in 10 respondents who expressed no opinion “reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system.” It went on to predict “that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50 percent threshold.”
As today’s claim that this poll reliably indicated a large lead for the incumbent is ill-supported, so is the previous analysis. We’re not told precisely what informed the judgment that “more than 60 percent” of undecideds looked like reformers, whether this included refusals as well as no-opinion respondents, or how robust the conclusion may have been. Nor does today’s piece explain the turnaround from the earlier evaluation.
(4 p.m. update: Note also that TFT's 34-14 percent figure isn't even limited to the 89 percent of respondents who said they intended to vote. Including non-voters in a vote estimate is as inexplicable as the rest of its approach.)
TFT’s op-ed today defends its data by noting that respondents gave “politically risky” responses to other questions, including that many “said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran’s supreme leader.” The phrase “change the political system" in fact was not part of that question, leaving open the possibility of misinterpretation. More to the point, though, is the level of non-response specifically in the vote-preference question.
A critical factor in the accuracy of pre-election polls is that they actually measure voter preferences. There are many ways to encourage likely voters to state a choice – simple steps such as encouraging respondents that their answers are confidential and asking them which candidate they lean towards. The TFT poll’s flaws are evident in the fact that half its respondents didn't express a vote preference at all – a result that makes evaluation of its data in hindsight a highly fraught exercise.
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
les visble, I agree. Anything voiced by America’s main stream media should always be taken with a grain of salt. ABC along with all the other media outlets we’re all beating the war drum and were echo chambers for the Bush Admin in the buid up to the Iraq invasion. I don’t trust any of them, period.
Posted by: FreedomIsPriceless | June 15, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Clearly the neocons have an agenda to push. They want war. They need their boogeyman. They need Goldstein.
Posted by: justmy2 | June 15, 2009, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
A zionist? Where are you getting this information? And what does the affinity between media coverage and pro-war US policies have to do with Zionism? Judaism? etc?
If you could please make a substantive critique of Langer’s analysis or article — or even explain how his reading of the data is biased by a specific personal interest (though all data is), that’d be great.
Otherwise you’re just a racist.
Posted by: Really? | June 15, 2009, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
But in regard to vote fraud in Ohio, ABC is XYZ.
Posted by: Gordon | June 15, 2009, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
Dear Mr. Langer:
I’m sure that if you put the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and do a few simple calculations it will all become clear.
If you assume that everyone in the poll _who voted on June 12_ and who did not state a preference in the poll broke 60-40 for the opposition, and you account for the fact that for Question 27, _the sample is 1001 people_, i.e., _the whole sample of people interviewed_,(see page 52), _not just likely voters_ – i.e. 15% of the sample weren’t at the polls on election day, when the official turnout was 85% – then indeed the TFT poll predicted an absolute majority for Ahmadinejad in the first round. It should take you five minutes to work this out in an Excel spreadsheet. Let me know if you have any trouble with the math.
Best,
Robert Naiman
Posted by: Robert Naiman | June 15, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
Just “shows to go ya” how much you can rely on pollsters. Wonder if the TFT poll considered how many Iranian voters DON’T EVEN HAVE TELEPHONES!!! And what are the (conflicting??) results of Gary Langer’s own polling — and of course, the demographics surrounding them? He never even mentions his own numbers. Talk about a negative article!!! Just tear down the ‘other guys’. Don’t present ANYTHING real or substantive.
Posted by: BigBearFromTX | June 15, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
Terror Free Tomorrow claims it is non-partisan. But it’s advisory board includes such notables as Sen. John McCain, former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former Senator Bill Frist.
Ken Ballen, also a Republican, has worked closely with John McCain and I assume shares his hawkish views on Iran and unconditional support of Israel.
The re-election of Ahmadinejab is a huge boost for the GOP and Israel by lending legitimacy to their arguments for tougher sanctions and possibly military action against Iran.
Posted by: Jezreel | June 15, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
Gary, there are two points missing from your analysis:
1. The Ballen and Doherty voter survey was done by phone. If you were a citizen of Iran — where being jailed or beaten can be a consequence of expressing dissent — what are the odds that you would answer truthfully if a stranger were to call you on the phone to ask you who you planned to vote for, for president?
2. The Ballen and Doherty survey was performed in mid-May. It has been widely reported that Mousavi became much more popular during the period from mid-May to the June 12 election.
Given these material deficiencies, Ballen’s and Doherty’s survey results were simply NOT MEANINGFUL, and it was irresponsible of the Washington Post to publish the article.
Michael Herrinton
Oakland, California
Posted by: Michael Herrinton | June 15, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
You people are joking, right? ABC was the only mainstream to show both sides in the buildup to war. And, in case you missed it, EVEN THE MEDIA can only go with what they know- and everyone, INCLUDING THE LIBERALS, were voting for the war because the information released at the time said Iraq was involved.
ABC was the FIRST of the media outlets to start questioning it. Of all the media, ABC is by far the most reliable and to condemn them through hindsight is beyond ridiculous.
People like you make me sick- without the ability to actually understand what they’re seeing through anything but the myopic lenses of your personal bias.
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2009, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
You people are joking, right? ABC was the only mainstream to show both sides in the buildup to war. And, in case you missed it, EVEN THE MEDIA can only go with what they know- and everyone, INCLUDING THE LIBERALS, were voting for the war because the information released at the time said Iraq was involved.
ABC was the FIRST of the media outlets to start questioning it. Of all the media, ABC is by far the most reliable and to condemn them through hindsight is beyond ridiculous.
People like you make me sick- without the ability to actually understand what they’re seeing through anything but the myopic lenses of your personal bias.
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2009, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
I am an Iranian. You guys also forgot to notice that in Iran everything has happened in the last month ending in the election. Before that, nobody knew the final candidates. The huge difference in the election turnouts compared to the poll shows that something moved the people to vote for change and I can tell you the debates in the last two weeks was that moving factor together with a wise campaigning by Moussavi.
Posted by: Amir | June 15, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
A poll that was done a month ago would not be valid because Mousavi only campaigned for four weeks and Ahmadinejab has been in power four years. People didn’t awaken to hope and feel that change was possible until Mousavi brought the possibility to them. More people by far live in the cities in Iran than live in the country villages and it was the city people who were so strongly for Mousavi while the more religious villagers supported the hard line Amadinejab.
Posted by: karela | June 15, 2009, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm
I hope Mr. Moussavi has good body guards or leaves the country quickly because I guarantee you he isn’t going to live long. Ahmadinajad is a dictator (what’s the deal with his eyes he squints severely must need strong glasses)and he doesn’t like opposition. People like him are total narcissists. I fear for Moussavi’s life. Anyone who says anything against Big “A” must have a death wish. The guy is a nutso…
Posted by: Sharon McConville | June 15, 2009, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Did the US secret polices hire thugs to riot after election in Tehran? As they have done in Santa Clara, Georgia, & so many other places? If so, we can expect the ELECTION INQUIRY COMMITTEE to concentrate on uncovering this?
Posted by: William Scully | June 15, 2009, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
I am an Iranian and I think the results were accurate at the time but it has missed some critical facts which led to the wrong conclusion.
the poll has not any information from may 20th until the election date ( july 12th). this 22 day period is extermly important.
here are a few facts:
1- For the first time ,only 3 months befor election date, Mossavi’s name appeared as a potential candidate .Mossavi was totally absent during the last 20 years. No picture, no idea presentation in T.V. or any other media. Only old enogugh people could recall him and those mostly remembered him as a fanatic person with socialistic views. 3 months ago almost nobody viewed him as a serious and powerful opponent to Ahmadinejad.
2- Offical election campaigning started on May 20th, interestingly enough the same date this poll finished gathering information.
3-On May 22th for the first time Mossavi appeared in T.V (after 20 years).
4- July 3rd (9 days before the election date) was a turning point. It is the date Mossavi and Ahmadinejad had a debate in national T.V. The majority found him more tolerable than Ahmadinejad and weighed Mossavi as the only candidate who could prevent Ahmadinejad from re-election.
Posted by: persian2500 | June 16, 2009, 3:22 am 3:22 am
The possibility that there was fraud in the Iranian election?
If Iran was a Vegas gambling house, they’d take in enough money to balance the current U.S. budget!!!
Posted by: crackmeupp | June 17, 2009, 1:26 am 1:26 am
Is it possible that Ahmadinejad’s victory could have been legitimate? Check the results of a search from newssift.com to see postive sentiment surronding Ahmadinejad:
Posted by: Ryan H | June 18, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
How do I get a job writing news analysis for ABC? I am great at fiction and guesswork, too. I just guess we will never know now, will we?
Remember what Mark Twain said…..
Posted by: justj joey | June 18, 2009, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm
Here are some facts:
1) No incumbent candidate in Iran has ever lost the election. Ahmadinejad has been in the public eye for how many years? 4 as a President and about 20 or so before that as a governor of one of the provinces. Moussavi campaigned for only 4 months! While the TFT poll may not reveal the nature of what happened it does reveal that Ahmadinejad has more support than Western media are portraying him as having.
2)While the western media is big on proclaiming this to be some “twitter revolution” only 35% of Iranians have access to a computer connected to the internet. So it’s not as if the Twitter feeds can claim to represent the whole country.
3)A summary of polls available at fivethirtyeight shows that even by June 9th Ahmadinejad still had a lead in available polling (polling in that case that occured in Tehran only via phone.) That was just 3 days before the election, and it didn’t include the country side at all which was expected to vote heavily in Ahmadinejad’s favor.
4) It reveals the bias of our press that they continuely label the protestors as non-violent when there is videographic evidence that protestors have thrown rocks and incendiary devices at police, and government buildings have suffered from bombings. While most protestors are indeed peaceful it reveals that our press is willing to lie to coverup the truth some of the protestors have been incited to violence.
Posted by: Daniel | June 22, 2009, 9:28 am 9:28 am