The plot of totals vs Ahmedinejad and Mousavi is clearly fake; the two lines have the following algorithms:-

Ahmedinejad = ((total-488149)*0.6562)+488149

Where on a spreadsheet the user can change the total and the % support (65.62) for Ahmedinejad.

Mousavi = ((total-488149)*(1-0.6562)-488149

it is quite obvious that the pair of algorithms were designed to be able to provide Ahmedinejad with a 2*(488149) or 976298 vote greater than Mousavi. The planned % to be awarded to Ahmedinejad was probably in the order of 55%.
i.e. with a total of 39,270,000 and a 5% loss to the other two candidates+ spoilt ballots, an input of 55% for Ahmedinejad gives 20,570,000 and 16,830,000.

But they panicked, probably when he only got 30% of the ballots, and gave him 65% instead.

Yet his analysis is clearly agenda-driven.
Obamas policy of engaging with the Iranian regime rather than
isolate it would lose credibility if the hardliners won a legitimate
landslide victory in an election.
And why is it so unlikely,that Ahmedinejad has won in Tehran?
He is the citys former mayor.

Mike, it is interesting that you say this will make military action “more likely”. Who will initiate military action and why?

Shouldn’t we seperate out the “progressive cause” which is something we all should be behind and “military action” which we should not.

a) Iranian precincts or districts count and report votes at approximately the same rate.

or

b) For each partial result the tallied vote ratios just happen to coincide with those of the complete result, because reporting places which are more pro-opposition than average just happen to balance out pro-government places

or

c) There is a reporting bias, i.e., some kinds of precints/voting sites/districts count and report votes at different rates*, but voting patterns are approximately the same across the country and between cities and countryside.

Now, a) is conceivable in theory, but from what I read reporting was not uniform. b) requires a series of unlikely coincidences, and c) would mean voting patterns have changed significantly (and congruently) between past elections and the last one.

None of this proves fraud, but certainly seem to suggest it. A proper statistical analysis would take as the null hypothesis the non-existence of fraud, and try to quantify how unlikely that would be. It would be virtually impossible to disguise massive fraud from a full statistical analysis of voting patterns, if detailed results were available. For some reason, I suspect they won’t be. But even with coarser data, one could

- Prove or disprove a) by simple inspection of the places included in each partial tally

- Prove or disprove b) by inspecting subtotal in each tally

- Test c) by comparing reported voting patterns (as a function of region, urbanization and whatnot) in this election with those of past elections.

The catch is that, while we can in principle exclude a) and b), we can at most say about c) that ‘Either there was fraud, or voting patterns changes in such-and-such way’. One is then left with the somewhat subjective task of estimating the likelihood of such a change. This is what Iranian experts are for, and this is where the debate should occur. Of course, were we to be told that, for instance, the ratio between Obama and McCain votes wa the same in both Illinois and Arizona, we would be pretty sure there was something wrong with the results. From the fragmentary reports I’ve read, which seem to be based as of yet on very incomplete data, the reported voting patterns in Iran seem equally implausible. We should not rush to judgment, but my preliminary impression is that this election does indeed look fishy.

__________________
* E.g. smaller rural precincts count quicker than big urban ones, or eastern regions count earlier than western because most people vote before sunset

Har. He can hardly fail to disappoint, having cut this gem:

One way to look at Iran’s scurrilous anti-Israel tirades is as a provocation to focus people on Israel’s bomb, its 41-year occupation of the West Bank, its Hamas denial, its repetitive use of overwhelming force. Iranian language can be vile, but any Middle East peace — and engagement with Tehran — will have to take account of these points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23cohen.html

God bless The New York Times.