I hate to say “I told you so,” but I recall a few people not believing me or the pictures that I posted, so consider this a kick in the butt. Even moreso when you consider that the “average” numbers are inflated as well. Election date has been made available on the Interior Ministry’s website.

The Guardians Council, the body tasked with supervising Iranian elections, announced on 29 June its endorsement of the second round of the Iranian presidential election five days earlier, the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported. Yet analysis of election data — available at the Interior Ministry website (http://www.moi.ir) — reveals what appear to be glaring irregularities and raises questions. The data also shed light on provincial interests.

The first item that meets the eye is the increase in the number of polling places. There were 40,805 in the first round of the election on 17 June and 40,979 in the second round. There is no explanation for this increase.

The Turnout Question

Then there are the high turnout levels, which are perhaps the most eye-catching aspect of the Interior Ministry data. Ninety percent of eligible voters in eight municipalities voted in the second round. That is an exceptionally high figure for any country, but it is far higher than Iran’s average of 59.6 percent.

Voter enthusiasm was particularly noticeable in districts of Tehran in the second round — Damavand (100.53 percent turnout), Robat Karim (131.3 percent), Rey (216 percent), and Shemiranat (839.82 percent). These districts were similarly impressive in the first round — as were Jam, Bushehr Province (107.78 percent), Kuhrang, Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari Province (110.39 percent), Mehr, Fars Province (102.23 percent), and Manujan, Kerman Province (112.51 percent in the first round and 108.29 percent in the second round).

There are several possible explanations for the Tehran figures. The Interior Ministry provides data on the number of eligible voters in each municipality. However, one is not restricted to voting at a specific polling station or even in that municipality. As long as one has an Iranian identification card and meets the other eligibility requirements, one can vote anywhere in the country. There are 8,231,230 eligible voters in the capital, according to the Interior Ministry, and 5,367,165 of them voted. This is about 65 percent, which is not much higher than the national average.

Turnout in other major cities was less startling. In Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi Province, turnout was almost 67 percent; in Shiraz, Fars Province, it was about 55 percent; and in Rasht, Gilan Province, it was about 55 percent. In the Khuzestan Province cities of Abadan and Ahvaz, turnout was 44 percent and 50 percent, respectively.

Intimidating Majority?

The more likely explanation for the extremely high turnout figures in parts of Tehran is that out-of-town voters were bused in. Packing polling places in Tehran that are more likely to be visited by foreign correspondents could contribute to reports of “massive participation” and the like. Moreover, the large number of imported voters could serve as a bloc that would intimidate those who are in the minority.

Turnout and results in provinces primarily inhabited by minorities — Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds — was lower than the national average. In nine municipalities in the second round, fewer than 20 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. The lowest turnout figure was 11.87 percent in Bukan, West Azerbaijan Province, where fewer than 16,000 of the approximately 135,000 eligible voters went to the polls. Turnout figures in Ardabil, West Azerbaijan, and East Azerbaijan provinces, were lower than the national average, coming in at 2,398,721 of 5,494,228 eligible voters (43.5 percent). These provinces backed the ethnic Azeri and local son, Mohsen Mehralizadeh, in the first round.

Not to be a drama queen, but, duh! One of the bigger contentions was why my photos showed empty streets and polling places while AP photos showed lines of voters. Besides the bussing of tens of thousands of people, the AP photos were from poor neighborhoods, where voter turnout was in fact around normal. No wonder much of the world got the impression that voter turnout was high everywhere, though if this was the truth, the council wouldn’t have to inflate numbers elsewbere to — what was it? — 800%.