23 June 2019 Istanbul mayoral election

[Kavagrad]

How is it a myth? They voted no and they made them vote again

That's the myth, yes. Because "they made them vote again" is intentionally reductive and designed to force a narrative about the situation.

Vass, just a quick tip: that was the part of the discussion where you're supposed to explain why it isn't a myth, rather than just repeating yourself in a condescending and accusatory tone.

[Alien Space Bats]

I mean it's not like Trump started demanding that he get two extra years to make up for the time "stollen"[sic] by Mueller or anything.

What does bread have to do with anything?

Or is Donald Trump telling us that he's a fruitcake?

[Vassenor]

I mean it's not like Trump started demanding that he get two extra years to make up for the time "stollen"[sic] by Mueller or anything.

What does bread have to do with anything?

Or is Donald Trump telling us that he's a fruitcake?

Just quoting Trump's typos verbatim.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I mean it's not like Trump started demanding that he get two extra years to make up for the time "stollen"[sic] by Mueller or anything.

What does bread have to do with anything?

Or is Donald Trump telling us that he's a fruitcake?

The cake is a liar.

[San Lumen]

How is it a myth? They voted no and they made them vote again

That's the myth, yes. Because "they made them vote again" is intentionally reductive and designed to force a narrative about the situation.

explain how its myth. Your merely restated what you already said

[Vassenor]

That's the myth, yes. Because "they made them vote again" is intentionally reductive and designed to force a narrative about the situation.

explain how its myth. Your merely restated what you already said

So how is "We've seen your concerns, and made the following changes as a result. What do you think now?" a case of "made them vote again"?

[San Lumen]

explain how its myth. Your merely restated what you already said

So how is "We've seen your concerns, and made the following changes as a result. What do you think now?" a case of "made them vote again"?

They didnt make any real changes plus Ireland was the only country who got to vote on it. They didnt want other countries voting as they were afraid it would be rejected.

[Vassenor]

So how is "We've seen your concerns, and made the following changes as a result. What do you think now?" a case of "made them vote again"?

They didnt make any real changes plus Ireland was the only country who got to vote on it. They didnt want other countries voting as they were afraid it would be rejected.

Let's see your evidence then.

Because I beg to differ.

Brian Cowen, Ireland’s prime minister, has pledged to hold a second referendum on the EU’s reforming Treaty of Lisbon, having received a “satisfactory response to the concerns of the Irish people” from EU leaders at their two-day summit.

He made the statement after securing legal guarantees that the EU would not have any new competences over taxation, that the country’s neutrality would remain intact and that the Irish constitution’s provisions on the “right-to-life, education and family are wholly unaffected” by the Treaty of Lisbon treaty, as the final conclusions of the European Council put it.

The guarantees will be included in a protocol attached to the accession treaty when Croatia joins the EU, expected in 2010 or 2011, giving them legally binding effect. The move means that countries that have already ratified the treaty will not have to re-ratify it on account of changes triggered by the concessions offered to the Irish.

Legal and technical work on the concessions must be completed by mid-2009 and a referendum will be held at some still unspecified date before the term of the current European Commission ends in October 2009.

“I said I would be prepared to return to the public with a new package and seek their approval of it,” Cowen said.

[Zurkerx]

They will vote and vote until they vote the "right" way.

Can someone just shoot this Turkey already /s

Quite scary that Turkey is regressing.

[Alien Space Bats]

Asking for a revote because one of the issues didn't get enough airtime, which is essentially what you're doing, is very undemocratic.

Now I have to take issue with you. I don't think anyone really thought the whole thing through before the referendum — and I really do mean anyone. The "Remain" crowd was negligent because they really didn't think that "Leave" could ever win; and even just days after the vote, there were people on the "Leave" side who admitted that they'd sugar-coated many of the costs and/or problems inherent in quitting the E.U. because it was convenient for them to do so.

Still, that alone isn't grounds for a new referendum. What IS grounds for a new referendum is the fact that the U.K. is having a God-awful time making Brexit actually work. And no, I don't blame it all on May; even if a more Brexit-enthusiast P.M. were in office, I seriously doubt that this process would be smoother.

All of which to my mind suggests that voters would be entirely justified to want (and get) a chance to change their minds. Again, there's no sound principle requiring democracies to stew in their own juices when it's perfectly clear to everyone that maybe, just maybe, they've made a truly horrible mistake.

[Gormwood]

I mean it's not like Trump started demanding that he get two extra years to make up for the time "stollen"[sic] by Mueller or anything.

What does bread have to do with anything?

Or is Donald Trump telling us that he's a fruitcake?

It's like a tinier part of him than his hands realize what he got himself into and is subliminally begging the rest of the world for help.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Empty words Atatürk was not a dictator,It was Turkey's hero

(Image)

Dictator is a neutral term in the way I use it, but he certainly didn't come to power democratically and didn't hold power democratically. He also did a lot of things that at the time the populace resented him for.

Authorization to Atatürk Grand National Assembly of Turkey has with give vote yes Political Islamists they call the dictator

[United Muscovite Nations]

Dictator is a neutral term in the way I use it, but he certainly didn't come to power democratically and didn't hold power democratically. He also did a lot of things that at the time the populace resented him for.

Authorization to Atatürk Grand National Assembly of Turkey has with give vote yes Political Islamists they call the dictator

Look, you're going to have to get better at speaking English before any kind of discussion is possible. I mean that in the kindest way.

[Hurdergaryp]

Authorization to Atatürk Grand National Assembly of Turkey has with give vote yes Political Islamists they call the dictator

Look, you're going to have to get better at speaking English before any kind of discussion is possible. I mean that in the kindest way.

That would make communication easier, yes. Google Translate won't cut it.

[Shofercia]

Asking for a revote because one of the issues didn't get enough airtime, which is essentially what you're doing, is very undemocratic.

Now I have to take issue with you. I don't think anyone really thought the whole thing through before the referendum — and I really do mean anyone. The "Remain" crowd was negligent because they really didn't think that "Leave" could ever win; and even just days after the vote, there were people on the "Leave" side who admitted that they'd sugar-coated many of the costs and/or problems inherent in quitting the E.U. because it was convenient for them to do so.

Still, that alone isn't grounds for a new referendum. What IS grounds for a new referendum is the fact that the U.K. is having a God-awful time making Brexit actually work. And no, I don't blame it all on May; even if a more Brexit-enthusiast P.M. were in office, I seriously doubt that this process would be smoother.

All of which to my mind suggests that voters would be entirely justified to want (and get) a chance to change their minds. Again, there's no sound principle requiring democracies to stew in their own juices when it's perfectly clear to everyone that maybe, just maybe, they've made a truly horrible mistake.

This raises an interesting question - what do we do if the politicians routinely ignore the Referendum, as is the case with California's death penalty. Initially I was anti-death penalty, now I'm on the fence, but I feel that the death penalty is something that you and I can both use as an example, since we can talk about it in the context of the Referendums, and without playing politics, which is why I'm not going to mention party names.

It all started when California passed Proposition 17 in 1972, in response to Charles Manson's and Sirhan Sirhan's cases being commuted to life sentences, from the death penalty, in 1969. There have been numerous attempts to repeal it through the ballot box, and they all failed, with the latest attempt coming in 2016. And yet, Governor Gavin Newsom refuses to execute anyone, claiming that the policy is a failure. Of course it is, since he refuses to carry it out. That's wrong.

My issue is that politicians should not be able to block Referendum Results through deliberate sabotage. This might just be what May and her faction are attempting to do. You claim that a pro-Brexiter PM might have different results - which might be true, but why deny them a chance? You cannot proclaim that a policy is a failure, when it is being sabotaged to look like a failure. If Nigel Farage attempted the negotiations, and failed, then you can ask for a revote. But having a revote just because he might have failed? That's not democracy.

[Phoenicaea]

turkey, russia, even italy and argentina. 'post-democratic' regime's illness spreads, marching on the feets of minus habens as regents, in the absense of rule of law.

syria and venezuela are spearhead of this mafia form of government, genocide is what logically follows. we know, our thirst for peace won t be ever satisfied, without justice.

[Vassenor]

turkey, russia, even italy and argentina. 'post-democratic' regime's illness spreads, marching on the feets of minus habens as regents, in the absense of rule of law.

syria and venezuela are spearhead of this mafia form of government, genocide is what logically follows. we know, our thirst for peace won t be ever satisfied, without justice.

We heard you the first time two pages ago.

[Phoenicaea]

^ thank you

[Nea Byzantia]

Who's ready?

[Nea Byzantia]

Now I have to take issue with you. I don't think anyone really thought the whole thing through before the referendum — and I really do mean anyone. The "Remain" crowd was negligent because they really didn't think that "Leave" could ever win; and even just days after the vote, there were people on the "Leave" side who admitted that they'd sugar-coated many of the costs and/or problems inherent in quitting the E.U. because it was convenient for them to do so.

Still, that alone isn't grounds for a new referendum. What IS grounds for a new referendum is the fact that the U.K. is having a God-awful time making Brexit actually work. And no, I don't blame it all on May; even if a more Brexit-enthusiast P.M. were in office, I seriously doubt that this process would be smoother.

All of which to my mind suggests that voters would be entirely justified to want (and get) a chance to change their minds. Again, there's no sound principle requiring democracies to stew in their own juices when it's perfectly clear to everyone that maybe, just maybe, they've made a truly horrible mistake.

This raises an interesting question - what do we do if the politicians routinely ignore the Referendum, as is the case with California's death penalty. Initially I was anti-death penalty, now I'm on the fence, but I feel that the death penalty is something that you and I can both use as an example, since we can talk about it in the context of the Referendums, and without playing politics, which is why I'm not going to mention party names.

It all started when California passed Proposition 17 in 1972, in response to Charles Manson's and Sirhan Sirhan's cases being commuted to life sentences, from the death penalty, in 1969. There have been numerous attempts to repeal it through the ballot box, and they all failed, with the latest attempt coming in 2016. And yet, Governor Gavin Newsom refuses to execute anyone, claiming that the policy is a failure. Of course it is, since he refuses to carry it out. That's wrong.

My issue is that politicians should not be able to block Referendum Results through deliberate sabotage. This might just be what May and her faction are attempting to do. You claim that a pro-Brexiter PM might have different results - which might be true, but why deny them a chance? You cannot proclaim that a policy is a failure, when it is being sabotaged to look like a failure. If Nigel Farage attempted the negotiations, and failed, then you can ask for a revote. But having a revote just because he might have failed? That's not democracy.

Politicians DO routinely ignore the Referendum result - that is, if it doesn't align with their interests. Democracy is, in that sense, illusory. Its little more than a thinly veiled Oligarchy; as the Politicians and the Fat Cats who finance their reelection campaigns get to call all the shots. To quote Stalin: "Its not who votes that counts; but who counts the votes." (at least, I think it was Stalin. I could be wrong; I'll admit it.)

One of the best examples of this is what happened in Greece in 2015. Brexit is a great recent example; here now, with Erdogan, is another.

[Senkaku]

Can someone tell His Sacred and Imperial Majesty to just dispense with all this kabuki and get to the coronation already lol

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

(Image)

Who's ready?

We are ready !

[Phoenicaea]

@Hakinda Hersey, long live the republic. i share sincere political solidarity with you, this is trustable because what happens there, will come here in some way.

[Risottia]

... Erdogan is taking Turkey deeper into dictatorship.

Right tense, wrong aspect. Try a perfect.

[Vistulange]

Alright, your resident Turk and recent voter checking in. While I am Turkish, I do not reside in Istanbul, but instead am residing in Ankara, the capital city. That means I have not voted in Istanbul, but instead have voted in Ankara, and I'm proud to say that I voted for the CHP candidate Mansur Yavaş. That more importantly means I cannot vote in Istanbul, even if I move there in the next few weeks, because the registration for the elections is based on residence and registration in Istanbul on the lists of the 31st March elections.

The Election Process Itself and Voting - How We Voted in this Election

Now, let's get down to business. The Supreme Electoral Council (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu, YSK) is the legally authorised body in Turkey in regards to elections. The YSK's decisions are final and cannot be appealed in court. Below the YSK sit provincial electoral councils (il seçim kurulu), and below those, municipal electoral councils (ilçe seçim kurulu) who make decisions based on their respective jurisdictions, but their decisions can be appealed and go up one tier, that is, municipal to provincial, and provincial to the YSK itself.

The election process is simple enough. Prior to voting, the ballot box committee, composed of members of political parties. Every participating party is permitted to send their own officials there to oversee the voting process (not really, but the details are really too detailed, and would make this post even longer). They swear their oaths, and from 09:00 onwards, you can enter the designated classroom of whatever school you are designated to, the classroom which has the ballot box you have been assigned to, usually somewhere very close to your house, and you wait in queue with your ID card. You wait and you chat with other prospective voters, and finally it's your turn to vote. You walk up to the ballot box committee and take the four separate ballots (for metropolitan mayor, for municipal mayor, for municipal parliament, and for neighbourhood "chief"), as this is a local election and you are voting in a metropolitan city, and they give you a single envelope, and they give you a single seal which is imprinted "YES". You are to strike the seal on a 2cm circle below the party and candidate name, in its own column.

Striking the seal within the column of the party without any "overflow" towards the other columns will get you a valid ballot, though also a fair bit of annoyed murmuring from the ballot officials during counting. What will get your vote invalid is, obviously, multiple seals in varying places, or a seal placed between columns, regardless of how close they are to one side. Those ballots will be struck as invalid votes during counts. Anyway, you've now voted. You fold your ballots and stuff them into the single envelope, which you close. There is a single sealed ballot box in the classroom - your envelope goes in there, through a small envelope entrance. You place the seal in front of the ballot committee, and you proceed to sign across your name with a pen, indicating that you have voted, and then you take your ID from the committee, and go out, job done, and have lunch.

At 17:00, voting ends. From this point onwards, any and every citizen has the right to watch the counting process. First, the envelopes are checked for validity, i.e. having the seal of the YSK on them¹, and other regulations. Envelopes which fail to satisfy the criteria are put to one side and their numbers are written down in an official report. This report can be viewed by the public. Then, the number of envelopes is compared to the number of signatures. If there are more envelopes than signatures, an envelope is chosen without being opened, at random, and is burned. This process continues until there is one envelope per signature. The spare ballots and envelopes are wrapped, sealed, put aside, and their numbers are also written down in the official report.

The counting process then begins. It cannot be interrupted, even in the case of protests and irregularities. Once started, the ballots are counted until finished. The head of the ballot committee holds up the ballot so the voting seal is clearly visible, and reads out the vote loudly and clearly. Two members of the ballot committee are responsible for marking down vote counts for every party on their own sheets of paper. This paper will have been shown to the watchers to be blank and unmarked prior to the counting process. The entire ballot box is counted in this manner, with every read ballot being placed onto the table in a visible and discernible manner.

The official report for the results for a given ballot is signed by the entire ballot committee and is put up for public display for a week. A copy of this report, upon request by party and independent candidate representatives, is given to them following the committee's signing of it. Everything pertaining to the count is put into an "electoral bag" (basically a large sack, really, even though the YSK likes calling it an electoral bag), closed, sealed with the ballot committee's seal, and signed by the committee. The chairman of the committee along with two members of the committee, chosen by allocation, are tasked to escort the bag to the designated municipal electoral council as fast as possible, without any delays. The merging of official reports at the municipal electoral council is done before the representatives of the political parties.

The reason I've explained all of this is so you can understand the Turkish electoral process for these elections. Being a person who has been taking part in these elections, one way or another, since the 2014 local elections, I can testify that there are very little irregularities, at least in metropolitan areas. The AKP, contrary to Western myth, do not fraud their way to victory in elections. The regulations put up by the YSK - which I've described in detail up there - are actually observed and followed, and are not just on paper. Now, for the scandal surrounding the re-run of this election.

2019 Istanbul Local Elections, and Why the Annulment is a Scandal

The AKP has protested the results of these elections stating "mass fraud", but that's not the whole story. Amongst their complaints were that the ballot box committees were formed irregularly. The problem with this is that these ballot box committees are made public some time before the elections, and the Law on the Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Rolls, linked below but unfortunately in Turkish, clearly specifies in Article 119 that complaints against these are to be made within two days of the lists going public, and that the decision of the provincial electoral council is final, that is, it cannot go to the YSK.

Remember that bit about "political party representatives" on the ballot box committees? Yeah, that's where the AKP is basing their protests on. It's the detail. In truth, it's composed like this: The five political parties that got the most votes in the previous general elections in that municipality elect one permanent and one substitute member to the committee. In addition, two public servants, or public bank employees, are chosen by allocation, with one permanent and one substitute. The AKP is stating that these two members were not, in fact, public employees.

Based on this, what did the AKP say? The AKP claimed that out of the four ballots we put into that single envelope (remember, we got four ballots!), only one, the metropolitan mayor ballot, is fraudulent. The YSK accepted this reasoning. The scandal part comes when you look back, and see that on the 20th of April, the YSK rejected by an unanimous vote a complaint by the Good Party in Bursa for the exact same reason, that the ballot box public employees were not in fact public employees. Thank you for reading this far - and I'm always open to questions and whatnot.

---

¹ This was the decision partly overturned by the Supreme Electoral Council (YSK) which was so controversial in a previous election. Mid-election, at around 16:30, the YSK announced that the envelopes which did not bear their official seal were permissible as valid ballots.

---

External resources

Turkish Elections Law, Turkish
Turkish Elections Law, English (Be aware, this is a PDF download, and is also an unofficial translation. Good enough, though.)