Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Elections in Nicaragua Message-ID: <1251@dciem.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 17:01:32 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1251 Posted: Thu Dec 6 17:01:32 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 17:37:35 EST References: <566@asgb.UUCP> <234@rlgvax.UUCP> <12@mit-athena.ARPA> <240@rlgvax.UUCP> <2231@mit-hermes.ARPA> <50@uwvax.UUCP>Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 37 Summary: > ================ > >Hmm. Yes, I suppose that external aggression tends to unite a country's > >people, as evidenced by the recent elections in Nicaragua, which have been > >conclusively shown to have been fair (from all I have read, e.g. the New York > >Times). > > > If by "fair," you mean the ballots cast were cast by people entitled > to vote and were counted correctly, I might agree with you. > > But the accounts I have been reading allege: > 1. many people did not vote for fear of harassment, exile, or being > killed. > 2. many who did vote did so out of fear of harassment, exile or being > killed if they could not show that they had voted. > 3. many who might have run in opposition to the Sandinistas were > killed > 4. many who might have run in opposition to the Sandinistas did not > do so out of fear of harassment, exile, or being killed > 5. many who did run in opposition to the Sandinistas were killed or > had their campaign meetings disrupted by armed thugs > This does NOT fit my definition of fair elections. P.S. No, I don't > know what "many" means & I probably wouldn't believe anyone, even > myself, who said he had firm numbers. > > -- > Blessed Be, > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > ================ You mis-read. (S)he said Nicaragua, not El Salvador. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt