# Talk:Battle of Suoi Chau Pha

Not sure why this sentence is here but I wonder what research Ham the popular historian did here. The Time magazine article trumpeted it as a success, but according to a journal article by Prof James McAllister that I have been working on for an article on this, the elections were designed as a PR to show that SV was now civilian democracy not a junta, but Thieu and Ky rigged the vote, and secondly it was a PR disaster as some US senators in Congress and media made a lot of noise attacking SV because it was rather clear that it was rigged; Ky actually openly said he wasn't going to let any civilians win or take power, and when the Constitutional Assembly ruled the election to be fraudulent, Thieu ignore them and just arbitrarily jailed the runner up Truong Dinh Dzu anyway. YellowMonkey  (new photo poll)  00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

McAllister, James (2004). ""A Fiasco of Noble Proportions": The Johnson Administration and the South Vietnamese Elections of 1967". The Pacific Historical Review. 73 (4). Berkeley, California: University of California Press: 619–651. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Penniman, Howard R. (1972). Elections in South Vietnam. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Also the table in Penniman, pp 231-2 says the turnout in Phuoc Tuy was 88.4% and according to that, about 10 provinces had a higher turnout. I'm inclined to distrust Ham if it contradicts some other source, especially a well-known mainsteam professor (eg, not Chomsky), I don't think he checks very carefully for silly bloopers, Nick-D agrees Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Military_history_of_Australia_during_the_Vietnam_War YellowMonkey  (new photo poll)  00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey mate, cheers for this. I think you may be right about Ham, and the way I have written it does neglect the allegations of corruption and ballot rigging entirely. I guess at the time the elections may have been seen as successful by some segments because of the high turn out which is what I was trying to convey. I have checked the official history which says the turn out in Phuoc Tuy was "over 90 per cent of registered voters" but it doesn't say anything about it being the highest of all provinces. (see McNeill and Ekins page 243). I'll have a chop at rewording and maybe add a footnote to discuss the discrepancies. If you don't mind please have a look when I'm done and let me know if any further changes are required. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well the ballot might show security I guess, although for more cynical observers, one's national ID card was stamped so if you don't vote, the next time your ID is checked anywhere they could come to the obvious conclusion, per Karnow's book YellowMonkey  (new photo poll)  22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Another valid point I'm sure but then I guess I'm not really trying to write a history of the election, mearly a few sentences about it for operational context (i.e. specifically how it was viewed by 1ATF comd in Phuoc Tuy in September 1967). Of course if you think what I have written misses the mark please feel free to suggest further inclusions. Thanks again mate. Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)