The Summer of Stolen Elections: What the U.S. reaction implies

After the results of the June 7th election in Lebanon came in, the American media gave nothing but praise and well wishes to the American-backed Lebanese government. Most notably, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times said that the vote was a "clear repudiation of Hizbollah's coalition program." Everyone in the American media touted the elections as "free and fair," and a perfect example of a successfully functioning democracy. President Obama said, in regards to the elections, that "Once more, the people of Lebanon have demonstrated to the world their courage and the strength of their commitment to democracy." What the media (for the most part) failed to mention is what actually happened in the Lebanese elections on June 7th.
First of all, before the election even began, there were charges of unprecedented vote buying. In some close districts, votes were being bought for as much as $2,000. This method would undoubtably favor the government backers as they are the rich elite class in Lebanon and have sufficient economic means to makes such deals. Also, thousands of ex-patriots were given all-paid trips back to Lebanon to vote in the elections, and they overwhelmingly voted for the American backed government (it is no surprise as to who paid for the trip).
Even more importantly, the fact is that the Lebanese electoral system doesn't even favor majority rule. What the media didn't tell us is that Hizbullah actually won the majority of votes at 55%-- almost to the same margin as Obama in the 2008 elections. But because every major religious group in Lebanon is allotted a certain number of seats in parliament based on an agreement in 1989, population isn't factored into the equation. For example Sunnis have about 842,000 as population goes and the group was given 27 seats. Maronite Christians have about 697,000 in their population but receive 34 seats. So although Hizbullah won a clear majority, it only received 45% of the seats. Hizbollah actually only ran 11 candidates and all of them won easily and the current parliament only actually changed one seat from the previous one-- a far different story than what was reported by the American media.
In Iran a situation has developed in which the media has been reporting fairly accurately. The results of the election are widely disputed and there is evidence that the government did not give accurate election results. Groups of young people have taken to the streets protesting the results; the government has used violence and terror in putting down the protests (both peaceful and confrontational). Many conservatives have said that the United States sides with those who want freedom and a free and fair election. There has been no indication that the Iranian government will change the results or have a redo of the election.
Finally, moving to the most recent stolen election in Kyrgyzstan,international monitors are accusing President Bakiyev of massive fraud in national elections. So far results show him ahead with 85% of the vote, but both opposition candidates have dropped out of the race saying that the election is "fake." The media and Obama have remained silent; we can expect that it is no coincidence, as just last month Bakiyev decided to reverse the closure of a U.S. military base that has been vital to the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.
This summer has been a bad one for democracy. Stolen elections and fraud seem to a running theme, at least in the world of reality. If you believe the world of the American media and American officials, then you know the United States is ready to defend democracy wherever it may be threatened. But in the unfriendly world of reality, the facts say otherwise. This regrettably is not the first time the United States has broken promises to democracy. We can all too clearly remember the promises made to the Palestinian people in the wake of their 2006 elections. The message from the United States is clear: Stolen elections are OK, as long as the right people steal them.