Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull
From: jhull@spp2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Elections in Nicaragua
Message-ID: <291@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 17:51:43 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.291
Posted: Mon Dec  3 17:51:43 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 03:37:06 EST
References: <566@asgb.UUCP> <234@rlgvax.UUCP> <12@mit-athena.ARPA> <240@rlgvax.UUCP> <2231@mit-hermes.ARPA> <50@uwvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 30
Summary: 

In article <50@uwvax.UUCP> myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes:
>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
 trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP		13817 Yukon Ave.
					Hawthorne, CA 90250