Based on Terror Free Tomorrow Poll, Ahmadinejad Victory Was Expected

Judging from commentary in the blogosphere, many Americans are already convinced by suggestions that have been carried in the media that the Presidential election in Iran was stolen. [Some press reports have been a bit more careful: the lead paragraph of the front page story in Sunday's New York Times says that "it is impossible to know for sure" if the result reflects the popular will.]

But the evidence that has been presented so far that the election was stolen has not been convincing.

Iran does not allow independent international election observers, and there is a scarcity of independent, systematic data.

But shortly before the election, Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation published a poll that was financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Based on this poll, the official result - a victory for Ahmadinejad in the first round - was entirely predictable. "Ahmadinejad Front Runner in Upcoming Presidential Elections," the poll reported.

The poll was conducted between May 11 and May 20, and claimed a margin of error of 3.1%. Among its respondents, 34% said they would vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad, 14% said they would vote for Mir Hussein Moussavi, 2% said they would vote for Mehdi Karroubi, and 1% said they would vote for Mohsen Rezai. Declared support for these four candidates represented 51% of the sample; 27% of the sample said they didn't know who they would vote for. [This accounts for 78% of the sample; the survey report doesn't explicitly characterize the other 22% of the sample, but presumably they were divided between those who did not intend to vote and those who refused to respond to the question. The survey reported that 89% of Iranians said they intended to vote.]

If one merely extrapolated from the reported results - that is, if one assumed that the people who refused to respond or who didn't know voted for the four candidates in the same proportions as their counterparts who named candidates, the following result would have occurred on June 12:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 66.7%
Mir Hussein Moussavi - 27.5%
Mehdi Karroubi - 3.9%
Mohsen Rezai - 2.0%

The Iranian Interior Ministry said Saturday afternoon that Ahmadinejad received in the actual election 62.6% of the vote, with Moussavi receiving just under 34%, the Times reported.

Now, of course it is reasonable to suppose that the opposition might well have taken a greater share of the previously undecided vote than the share of the decided vote that they already had. Indeed, the Terror Free Tomorrow poll reported:

"A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don't know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system."

So suppose that we allocate 60% of the 27% who told pollsters they didn't know to the two "reform" candidates, Moussavi and Karroubi; and 40% of the undecided vote to the two "conservative" candidates, Ahmadinejad and Rezai. And within each camp, suppose we allocate the votes according to the proportion of reform or conservative votes they had among those in the survey who named candidates. In that case, this would have been the result on June 12:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 57%
Mir Hussein Moussavi - 36%
Mehdi Karroubi - 5%
Mohsen Rezai - 2%

When you account for the scaling up of the numbers from the poll, these numbers differ from the Interior Ministry numbers by less than the poll's margin of error.

The Terror Free Tomorrow poll had another important result. One of the arguments being made that there must certainly have been fraud is the claim that Ahmadinejad could not possibly have won the Azeri city of Tabriz, as was reported by the official results, since Mousavi, who is Azeri, is from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Juan Cole, for example, makes this argument.

Here's what the Terror Free Tomorrow poll had to say about that:

"Inside Iran, considerable attention has been given to Mr. Moussavi's Azeri background, emphasizing the appeal his Azeri identity may have for Azeri voters. The results of our survey indicate that only 16 percent of Azeri Iranians indicate they will vote for Mr. Moussavi. By contrast, 31 percent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad."

Thus, according to Terror Free Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad had a 2-1 lead among Azeris over Moussavi.

It shouldn't be shocking to anyone who carefully follows U.S. news coverage of foreign countries - particularly "adversary" countries - that in the absence of good data, Western observers would come to the conclusion that Moussavi had majority support. There is an unavoidable tilt in the reporting of Western observers. The Iranians that Western observers talk to - like the Venezuelans and Bolivians that Western observers talk to - are a skewed sample of the population: disproportionately English-speaking, disproportionately well-off, disproportionately critical of their governments. That's why anecdotes and observations are no substitute for hard data.

Of course, none of this proves that the election was clean and legitimate. But it does suggest that claims that it was "impossible" for Ahmadinejad to win a fair election should be treated with extreme skepticism. On the contrary, based on the Terror Free Tomorrow poll, not only was it plausible that Ahmadinejad would win - it was extremely likely.

Certainly, Juan Cole is right when he says that regardless of the election result, the Obama Administration should press forward with its diplomatic engagement with Iran - as the Administration has promised to do.

But we ought to reserve judgment on claims that the Iranian Presidential election was stolen until such claims are substantiated.

UPDATE: Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation have an op-ed in today's (Monday's) Washington Post, making the same argument that I made here - that the official election result is consistent with their pre-election polling.

Comments

[kart125]

There is a lot of conjecture about what the actual results were and whether it was rigged. This all really just gets to the overarching issue that any real democracy requires and is dependant upon transparancy in the voting process. For any real democracy to function, the voters must have confidence that their votes actually determine the results. This is only possible with full transparancy. Because the mullahs of Iran shrouded the ballots in secrecy, there is no credibility in any result. Regardless of the purported results, any means of restoring voter confidence in the result has been completely eliminated. Even if the ballots were allowed to be examined, there is no longer any credible provenance of those ballots. What the mullahs, and any would-be democracy, needs to take away from this is that without transparancy in the balloting process, democracy is just a farce and when the voting public is denied confidence in the results, you get what is happening in Iran. A "democracy" where those in power attempt to hedge their bets by obsfuscating the ballot handling puts a peaceful outcome at risk. If Ahmadinejad was in fact the winner, the mullahs have needlessly shot themselves in the foot by preventing full transparancy for a credible Ahmadinejad victory. If Mousavi was infact the winner, then the mullahs have simply stolen the election. Either way, because of the way this election was conducted with no effective transparency, we will never know credibly who was the true winner.

[Rubyslippers]

Here CNN talks with three bloggers about the elections in Iran, the poor response by mainstream media, the credibility of the elections, the Terror Free Tomorrow study, and which source to trust-mainstream or twitter.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/15/videos.iran/index.html

[WoodlandCreature]

What is with the discrepancy in Iran coverage between the iPhone app and the regular Web site? Regular site's main head is all about the stolen election, Obama's careful comments about it and the democratic uprising happening in Iran right now. But on the iPhone app, the main head is for this ridiculous piece defending a clearly methodically flawed study. What's up with that?

[19iowa62]

Let’s say I’m an average Iranian sitting down for breakfast with a bowl of the Persian equivalent of Cheerios and the phone rings “Honey, there is someone on the phone from some group calling themselves the Terror Free Tomorrow and New America Foundation and they want to ask you a few questions”. I’m either going to have milk shooting through my nose from laughing too hard or I am going to get beat red angry. I’d get angry because I was sick of Americans/­Westerners branding my people as terrorists. It may have well been said “Honey there is an American on the phone and he wants to know if you’ll be terror free tomorrow.”

What were you thinking Rock Bros? You’ve already got someone emotionally worked up and you haven’t even asked your first question yet.

[CanHandleTheTruth]

I doubt that any foreign policy study funded by the Rockefeller Klan is going to be impartial.

Just sayin'.....

[Ergon]

I am in awe at the speed with which the election was declared to be rigged.
And the blocking of the IRNA newssite.
And the Huffpi headline "Ayatollah orders probe into election rigging'
No, he is investigating the complaint by the losing candidate Mr. Mousawi.
I am astounded at how some people don't want to wait for that either.

[wereeverywhere]

And I'm in awe at those to willfully slow to see the fraud that has taken place. Even the little sliver of democracy that existed in IRI has been canceled. Surprised by blocking of IRNA site, what about Iran blocking twitter before and after election, not to mention other election abuses.

[Ergon]

Says who, when you are only hearing one side? (see below)

[Ergon]

I also object to getting my news filtered through the same western media, while access to the Iranian Republic News Agency website http://www.irna.ir is being blocked here in North America.
It would be nice to read the other side of the story.

[daveny]

Robert, do you know ANYTHING about polling? The assumptions you make based on a poll taken AT THE START OF THE CAMPAIGN (remember, the candidates were only announced 4 weeks ago) are absurd on face. Other people, including Nate Silver, have ripped apart this sort of shoddy analysis already.

But the fact that you believe that a nationally known, incumbent president, who's only able to garner 34% support a month before the election will somehow *double* his share of the vote in extremely high turnout? What exactly do you suggest convinced people to support him in the last 4 weeks that they didn't get in the past 4 years? Robert, it simply doesn't happen.

That poll was put out by a think tank with a vested interest in promoting an antagonistic relationship with Iran. It's bunk. And next time, before you post about polling, learn something about it first instead of trying to go by your layman's wisdom.

[Ergon]

Your assumptions are flawed in that you're assuming Iranian polling models are the same as North American ones or that polls are always translated into matching results at the ballot box.
It is interesting though to see that the opposition's view is receiving widespread publicity in North America but the Iran Republic's News Agency's newsfeed is being blocked in North America.

[OliverTwist]

Please explain about the Iran Republic News Agency newsfeed being blocked. I didn't even know there was such a thing. How would one get it. In English? Etc. Inform me please.

[daveny]

I'm sorry, but a crappy poll is a crappy poll, regardless of where it's taken. When you have fewer than 50% of respondents declaring a preference, and then an 85% turnout at the polls, you really can't extrapolate from one to the other. It's nothing about "north american" vs. "iranian." It's about mathematics.

Robert makes the assumption that all of those "undecided" or "undeclared" voters would split more or less identically to the declared respondents, without providing any reasoning, logic, or evidence why.

Further, the poll was taken at the beginning of the campaign cycle.

I made no assumptions -- I just asked questions and raised issues with Robert's shoddy, mathematically unsound analysis. I certainly didn't imply, or make any assumption that "polls are always translated into matching results at the ballot box." Indeed, quite the opposite, I'm implying that the poll by this group is next to useless -- it tells us nothing about what the "real" sentiment was, and whether it matched up with the officially declared results.

Try reading rather than just jumping to your talking points next time.

[Cynthia707]

BTW, regarding the title of this post...if by "expected" the author means "pre-determined."

As if the regime would release the results of a poll that showed it's opponent as more favored. Why is this poll even being taken seriously by anyone?

[wereeverywhere]

Why? For some reason(s) some people feel compelled to defend the IRI. Private ideologies have turned posters into reactionaries backing reactionaries.

[Cynthia707]

A few reasons:

--- a high number of undecideds- who historically tend to go with challengers rather than incumbents- combined with an unexpectedly high turnout

--- the poll directly contradicts virtually all of the municipal-level polls in days leading up to election

--- in a society where secret police are everywhere, there is a (strategic) tendency to play it safe and tell a stranger that you're going with the incumbent, which was the riskiest question on the entire survey

--- the poll was taken *before* the televised debate, where Mousavi embarrassed Ahmadinejad with how much better he performed

[thebyron]

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com (who knows a little bit about polls) has a great rebuttal to this analysis.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html

[graceland9]

Dear Mr. Naiman - I understand your arguments. They are pretty mathematical, and as I am not so much, I really can't argue back. And maybe you are right. However, I'm just wondering about some anecdotal evidence:

Why are there such MASSIVE demonstrations as a result of the win announcement?
Why were cell phone and text message coverage shut down in Iran?
Why are reporters being forced to leave the country?
Why did a poll on Friday show Moussavi to be the projected winner?

That's what I'm wondering, and I don't think I'm the only one.

[OliverTwist]

There have been demonstrations by different groups. How massive and how representative they have been is open for debate.

The apparant losers of the election are clearly trying to overcome the results by political action both in the country and outside it.

They and the reporters that align with them could be viewed as seditious.

Those who accept some information and reject other information according to their preferences do not usually wind up with an accurate picture of reality.

I view this as a political effort to overturn the apparant election results which is being waged in the HP and elsewhere. The major casualties are trust and truth.

[wereeverywhere]

"The major casualties are trust and truth."
No. Truth is not only the ally of liberation, but is the enemy of theocracy. Long live sedition against the IRI and against all repressive regimes. Sedition is the only reasonable response and progressives are the ones who stand in solidarity with those on the streets in Iran. They are beautiful and deserve our support.

[graceland9]

But that doesn't explain - why the info blackout?

Also - one of the "massive protests" was a five mile long section of supporters, all wearing green for Moussavi. You can see it in the live blog on the election on HP. It's estimated that there are at least hundreds of thousands of people in that one protest alone.

[Cynthia707]

Why should we believe a telephone poll of Iranians who don't know who is calling? There is enormous fear in that society.

The statistical and political evidence of a coup are overwhelming. The Ahmadineja­d-controll­ed Interior Ministry proclaimed an Ahmadinejad victory two hours after polls closed in an election based on paper ballots. All cell phone and mobil-device communications were shut down immediately after the election.

Why would any of this have happened if Ahmadinejad had been confident in his victory???

[jericho4119]

Nice to know that these polls support the results, but to proclaim the information as dispositive takes the analysis a step beyond the data presented.

Election stations were kept open four hours longer than normal, to account for the presence of unexpected voters. Election results were announced two hours post this newly extended voting period. Normal election results are announced the day after voting.

For the Iranian government to experienced unexpected voting and yet announce results ahead of their normal schedule, places the burden on them to prove the legitimacy of their vote tally.

[tuches]

Robert, maybe you can explain this (from Andrew Sullivan's blog):

Imagine if California had voted overwhelmingly for McCain:

According to official results announced by BBC Persian, Kurdistan province has been won by Ahmadinejad. This is unprecedented in the history of the Islamic Republic. For thirty years Kurdistan has voted for the opposition candidates and the turn out is very low. This time around the turn out in this province has been extremely high.

[TruthSeeker09]

Juan Cole responds to the poll and Washington Post op-ed:
[excerpt]

"Here's the important point: 60% of the 27% who said they were undecided favored political reform. As Ballen wrote at that time:

' A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don’t know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system.'

That is, supporters of the challenger's principles may not quite have committed to him at that point but were likely leaning to him on the basis of his platform. They were 16% of the sample. This finding suggests that in mid-May, Mousavi may have actually had 30% support.

If Ahmadinejad got all of the other 11% among undecideds, the race would have stood at 45% to 30%."

http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/terror-free-tomorro-poll-did-not.html