TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.s. Encouraged By Vietnam Vote

U.s. Encouraged By Vietnam Vote

article from the New York Times in 1967:

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VIETNAM VOTE; Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

___

article above has to be purchased from ProQuest Historical Newspapers, but full text available below, (from kos):

quote:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2) WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power. Significance Not Diminished The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken. The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting. American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring. Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent. Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon. NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.

thanks for the post because its nice to view the iraqi election through a historical lense.

I suppose you supported the war?

...because that's what your post implies.


In other words, the U.S. presence in Vietnam was just because it was defending democracy against the communists.

And when the U.S. pulled out, the communists took over.

Therefore you support U.S. presence in Iraq right?

^^^^

i had a different take on the post. i thought it more of a commentary on how americans might give too much importance to the iraqi elections as a measurement of progress or as an predictor of success (however defined).

in the case of vietam, the elections were a poor predictor of what wold eventually happen. whether this is also true of iraq remains to be seen.

hehe, deja vu!

good post, doesn't prove anything of course, but it keeps our more optimistic folks inline.

You cannot compare the two.

In Vietnam you had a democracy (even if it was flawed), and it was conquered by a dictatorship.

In Iraq, there was a dictatorship and now there's democracy.

^^

I'm not sure if you can't compare the two. in any case, its quite acceptable to merely take from that article, that an election is not a predictor of success (however you define success).

in other words, don't put the champagne on ice yet folks because its too soon.

BTW out of curiousity do you know what type of goverment was in iraq before the saddam's dictatorship? i'm sure you know.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.