Talk:Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Iraq  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


228 coalitions, political entities prepare for Iraq's legislative poll font size ZoomIn ZoomOut kevin J waldroup


I would like to add a section at the beginning lookin at the overall impact of the election on Iraqi politics. I realise that this could be considered highly speculative but I think it would be a useful summary anyway.

Please let me know what you think AndrewRT 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

public opinion[edit]

"The results of a public opinion pool conducted in Babil province showed some interesting findings; the poll conducted by al-Mada research institute interviewed 460 men and women in a random sample technique from both the urban and rural parts of the province. When asked if they were going to vote or not, 96.7% answered with “yes” while in only 3.3% of the cases the answer came as “no”. When asked which list they’re going to vote for, 41.6% said they’ll be voting for the United Iraqi Alliance, second came Allawi’s “731 list” with 24.6% while all the rest of lists shared 15.5% of the votes in the poll. The remaining 13.8% said they hadn’t made up their minds yet, something not unusual if we know most people know very little about the lists’ they’re supposed to chose from. This poll showed that 77% of the interviewed people knew only the head of the list (24.8%) or a few more members of their favorite list (52.2%)."

kevin J waldroup December,8 2005

Is it worth adding a new section on polling / campaigning? AndrewRT 12:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Voters interviewed as they left a polling station in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad showed 48 percent voted for the UIA, with Allawi's list scoring 38 percent."

kevin J waldroup 12:16 PM December,16 2005

"There are no reliable opinion polls but observers expect the Shi’ite United Iraqi Alliance share of the vote to fall, from the 48 per cent it won in January to perhaps about 40 per cent. The Kurds are predicted to win about 25 per cent of the vote, and may be pushed hard for second place by Allawi."

kevin J waldroup 3:16 AM December,17 2005

"In Arbil, the alliance took 86 percent of the votes while the Kurdish Islamic Party took only 3.4 percent, according to a PUK official. In Dohuk, the alliance claimed 76 percent, and 71 percent in Sulaimaniyah.

In the Sunni-dominated province of Salaheddin, the capital of which is Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, a Sunni coalition that included the Iraqi Islamic Party led with 45 percent of the votes. It was followed by Allawi at 30 percent, an electoral source said."

kevin J waldroup 2:54 PM December,17 2005


I am curious about the fatwas that are being issued by sunni clerics. here in this article we have: "However, the Association of Muslim Scholars, which is influential in the Sunni community, has called for a boycott of the December elections, which could have an adverse impact on the Iraqi Accord Front's success."

But right now I am reading a new york times article in which they report: "Despite the violence, more than 1,000 Sunni clerics issued a religious decree instructing their followers to vote Thursday, boosting U.S. hopes the election will encourage more members of the disaffected minority to abandon the insurgency."

Do we have a source for the first quote? Are there conflicting fatwas among the sunnis?

I'm looking forward to this election! NPPyzixBlan 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so I added the information about sunni clerics urging followers to vote. Not a fatwa, but there were more than 1,000 sunni clerics telling their followers to vote. added a source and everything....cheers. NPPyzixBlan 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sunnis dont issue fatwas. They just sit around being sunnis. Occasionally someone'll say takbir but the most the other sunnis'll do is "allahu...meh." 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

slight rewording[edit]

I reversed the wording [1] to get what I think is a more accurate nuance here. It isn't that "Both groups have been linked to the insurgency" but rather than "The insurgency has been linked to both groups." The first seems to me to assign a collective blame to all members of the groups, while the second more accurately suggests only that the insurgency is made up of a (presumably quite small) fraction of both groups.

I make content edits so rarely that it probably bears repeating that I'm just editing as an ordinary editor here. --Jimbo Wales 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I think we'll let you. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

purple ink[edit]

I've seen on the news purple ink which people dip their fingers in just before they put their ballot papers in the box. I was wondering what it is for. Is it just an ink which doesn't wash off for a few days so they can tell if someone has already voted, or is there another reason? --Nathan 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just to stop people voting more than once. 09:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

Representation of Women[edit]

can we find a source citing the figure about 25% of seats being for women? there's got to be a good one out there somewhere....NPPyzixBlan 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I heard it on BBC News... ah, just found it on the website. Done. --Nathan (Talk) 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! This page is looking a little better now. NPPyzixBlan 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Violence and security[edit]

Sadly I don't have time to write this, but there should be mention of some of the violence that happened during the election and security measures taken to prevent it (I heard on NPR that they baned bicycles in one city). Broken S 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


This needs tidying badly, but I don't know enough about the topic to do so. For example, this sentence: This election will see the participation of two communities (or sects) - the Sunnis and the Sadrists

Are these Sadrists the same as the Shia/Shi'ites mentioned elsewhere in the article? 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

Sadrists are a group (an organisation, maybe? Don't know) made up of Shi'ites. The way that bit is phrased now in the article is just fine. It implies that the Sunnis and the Sadrists didn't vote before, but are voting now, which, to my knowledge, is true.----Nathan (Talk) 08:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Shi'a refers to one of the main sects of Islam, who split from Sunnis early in the history of Islam. Most Iraqis are Shia. Iraq contains the most holy cities of Shi'ism (after Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem which are important to all Muslims) - Najaf and Karbala - which means you have many leading Shia clerics based in Iraq who are not themselves Iraqi.
An important element of Shia teaching is that everyone must chose a example, or guru, who he should follow. Politically and religiously the Shia of Iraq split into two broad groups when faced with repression from Saddam. One opted not to oppose the persecution - led by al-Sistani - and one opted to oppose - led by Ayatollah al-Sadr. al-Sadr was later murdered, allegedly by Saddam. It is not accurate to say these are two "sects" - they are both Shi'a but have certain political and religious differences.
Sadrists are those who follow Ayatollah al-Sadr and his religious successors. Not all Sadrists follow Moqtada al-Sadr (Ayatollah al-Sadr's son) who is not qualified enough as a cleric to be an example himself. I understand the al-Fadhila party consider themselves Sadrists but follow Ayatollah Yacoubi(sp?) instead.
Hope this clarifies a little. In terms of the article, I would like to remove the word "sect" and clarify that Sadrists are a group within Shi'ism. User:AndrewRT 17/12/05


I have already added a legitmacy section and think others should add things. After all this election is being put on in an occupied country. Wikipedia must give perspective to this election. It is easy to paint this as a rosy election living in America. We must make sure that we tell all the facts and investigate the rigging of these elections which was already done in January. If contributors only read the NY times they are only getting one side of the story. Contributors must read from European and Middle-eastern online sources.

Agreed. I read Allawi is alleging fraud and intimidation by UIA in the south - can we include this too User:AndrewRT 19/12/05

Form A Government[edit]

"In an interview with The Associated Press, Al-Dulaimi predicted that Shiite religious parties would be unable to form a government - even though they are widely expected to take the largest number of seats." kevin J waldroup 12:07PM December 17, 2005

What's your point? --Nathan (Talk) 01:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Although it is highly speculative, would be good to have some bits in about the likely government, comments by UIA, sunnis etc. User:AndrewRT 19/12/05
Well, if you think you can do it NPOV then go ahead.

Allocation of seats[edit]

I have put in an estimated calculation for each province of how many seats each list is expected to get. These numbers are not obvious from the source - which only gives votes recieved - so I thought I would explain here how I've calculated them.

I've assumed that the seats are allocated per the D'Honte system: Within each province, you allocate the seats one by one according to which party has the highest ratio of votes:(seats already allocated +1)


Kirkuk 9 seats: KA 51.89%; UNL 14.24%; ITF: 11.62%; IAF: 6.17%

1st seat goes to KA; ratios become:

KA 51.89%/2=25.95; UNL 14.24%; ITF: 11.62%; IAF: 6.17%

2nd seat to KA

KA 51.89%/3=17.30; UNL 14.24%; ITF: 11.62%; IAF: 6.17%

3rd seat to KA

KA 51.89%/4=12.97; UNL 14.24%; ITF: 11.62%; IAF: 6.17%

4th seat goes to UNL

KA 51.89%/4=12.97; UNL 14.24%/2=7.12; ITF: 11.62%; IAF: 6.17%

5th seat goes to KA

KA 51.89%/5=10.38; UNL 14.24%/2=7.12; ITF: 11.62%; IAF: 6.17%

6th seat goes to ITF

KA 51.89%/5=10.38; UNL 14.24%/2=7.12; ITF: 11.62%/2=5.81; IAF: 6.17%

7th seat goes to KA

KA 51.89%/6=8.65; UNL 14.24%/2=7.12; ITF: 11.62%/2=5.81; IAF: 6.17%

8th seat goes to KA

KA 51.89%/7=7.41; UNL 14.24%/2=7.12; ITF: 11.62%/2=5.81; IAF: 6.17%

9th seat goes to KA

Total KA - 7, ITF - 1, UNL - 1

There are other ways of dividing up the seats and I'm not sure exactly the method laid down in Iraq, but I thought as they're uncertified partial results I didn't think it was necessary to calculate it more precisely. AndrewRT 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Great work, but why does the Unified National List (#829) get a seat in Baghdad, when they got only 0.01% of the vote? - SimonP 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. This should refer to List 667. According to wikipedia they are both headed by a person called Saleh al-Mutlak - is that right? AndrewRT 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Does this Calculation follow the actual system?

Article 16 of Iraqi Election Law "Seats allotted to electoral districts shall be allocated to entities through the system of proportional representation and in accordance with the following procedures:

1- The total number of valid votes in the district shall be divided by the number of seats allotted to the district to obtain “the election quota.” 2- The total number of votes obtained by each entity shall be divided by "the election quota" to determine the number of the seats to be allocated to each entity. 3- The remaining seats shall be allocated by the method of the largest remainders."

Also, For instance if the United Iraq Coalition wins 34.49 Seats, and the Kurdish Gathering wins .6254 seats, Who would get the seat by largest remainder? Do you consider lists that were not able to win a seat without the "method of largest remainder"? Massrepublican 6:49 PM, December 21, 2005 (EST)

Thanks for posting this. I wasn't aware of the actual system used. I can recalculate the seat allocations based on this but I'm confident it wont make a significant difference. AndrewRT 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of governorates[edit]

I've noted that the IECI has issued results translated into English. However the translations are not the same as those used on these pages. For the time being I have kept the names as used previously, but I was wondering if people thought we should move over.

We have the same issue with the names of governorates too - e.g. they spell it Theqar, we spell it Dhi Qar.

Also, I notice they refer to Kirkuk province. Does anyone know if the name has officially been changed from At-Tamim?

Finally we have not been consistent spelling "Governorate" or "Governate". Is this an Americanism? Which is correct? AndrewRT 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Results are in![edit]

Final results of the election have been certified:

Wish I had time to update this article, but I don't -- that link should be a good start for those who do... --Jfruh 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

More results:

--Jfruh 19:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


This new elected government doesn't appear to have a very strong mandate, does it? It only appears to have a plurality, not a majority. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a coaltion will probably be formed between the Shii and another group. This will set the agenda of government, because both the government's legislature and executive branches hinge upon the organization of Parliament. --Vector4F 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
From a humanitarian point of view, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I'm hoping that the weakened mandate will help prevent any sort of majoritarianism, while not undermining the government's strength to achieve unity. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, remember that a 2/3 majority is needed to form a government under the current arrangements, which was built into the system to try to prevent majoritarian triumphalism. Whether a government that needs a supermajority to stay in power can function remains to be seen. --Jfruh 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Wouldn't the map be more appropriately placed with the article on the January 2005 election? It is confusing here.

Defintely. I removed it. --Jfruh 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

New Government & Impact[edit]

I would like to move these sections to new articles but would like to ask for advice on naming. Is there a standard elsewhere I could follow? "Government of Iraq elected December 2005" or "Government of Iraq formed 2006" AndrewRT 13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The standard for other countries is to number them, e.g. 29th Canadian parliament or 101st United States Congress. I doubt we could find such a name for the Iraqi government, however. - SimonP 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In states like France and Poland, successive democratic regimes are numbered, interspersed by numbering of imperial or royalist "restorations". E.g. right now the State in France is the Vth Republic and the parliament is probably the 10th Parliament of the Vth French Republic; and the polish parliament is probably the 5th Parliament of the 3rd Polish Commonwealth (sometimes translated as Republic, though Commonwealth is more accurate). i'm too lazy to actually look these up in the wikipedia right now, but they shouldn't be hard to find. But then the problem with Iraq is the rather uncertain legitimacy and what the name is - the elections were accepted reluctantly by the US under popular pressure from Iraqis and the results in both cases were probably far from what the US authorities wanted, but at the same time, they were hardly the conditions for legitimate elections (though i'm not sure if legitimacy is necessary for deciding what the parliament's name is). The naming system of the parliament should be that which Iraqis consider legitimate (as a name) - translated into English (though they probably have an "official" translation) - which is not necessarily the one imposed by the US occupation.
Maybe just start with a temporary name like [[2nd post-invasion Iraqi Parliament]]? But really you need to read up on the history of Iraq, which in terms of the present geographical boundary goes back to the British invasion... i guess... Anyway, i haven't made much concrete suggestions here, but i wanted to point out that IMHO there definitely is some solution (so i guess i disagree with SimonP on this), i'm just too lazy to look for it, sorry. i trust the wikicommunity to look around and think a bit... :) Boud 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


The article starts with "Following the ratification of the Constitution of Iraq on October 15, 2005", but in the "Impact of election" section (under "Debate over Federalism and Succession") it is stated that "The elected Assembly will have the difficult task of ratifying a constitution". Is this a different kind of ratification or simply an error? 13:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Justice and Future Coalition[edit]

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Justice and Future Coalition per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice and Future Coalition. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:57Z

Rename "parliamentary"[edit]

Please contibute to this discussion about renaming this article Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Iraqi legislative election of Dec 2005 with logos.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Iraqi legislative election of Dec 2005 with logos.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Iraqi legislative election of Dec 2005 with logos.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)