I keep asking myself the question ... what would happen if this, "over voting" in a large number of cities, happened in this country ? What would I do ?

There have been cases of (documented by John Fund) of more registered voters than population by the census folks in St. Louis and Philadelphia, and more votes than registered voters in Milwaukee, but, given the 2000 Florida "games" as a backdrop, this would mean civil war.

All the more reason to go out and buy a gun or 2 or 3 or .....

Because it makes the ayatollahs admit that they made a mistake. That they aren't infalliable. That they are just another Shah.

The next revolution becomes easier.

There isn't really any choice between the initial Islamic Revolution and Ahmadinejad's current version, they're one and the same. Remember the incumbent has been credibly linked to the embassy takeover. What we see is just window dressing.

Which is what prevents me from understanding why the mullahs clamped down as they did - Mousavi would not have been a moderate or a reformer, but their creature just as surely as Dinner jacket is. Anyone in that office is just their puppet, however hip and trendy our leftists find them (recall how the American left swooned over Ahmadinejad just because he trash talked Bush). So far I can only assume they miscalculated and hadn't thought it would have any meaning to the population, and that the population would dare object.

Mind you, ignoring the will of the people, and then being astonished when it manifests itself, is common to "progressive" thinking.

In common with the so-called "realists" or pragmatists, I don't believe the US should intervene where we do not have a strategic interest, combined with the ability and will to do so. Where we part company is my rejection of their fetish for stability. I'll take an Iran in turmoil any day over a stable one under the mullahs. When confronted with a choice between two evils, you can sometimes refuse to make the choice. Kick over the table and make them redeal.

I agree with Mikey - even if they only succeed in changing dictators, the Iranian people will have gotten a taste of self determination. However flawed the result it's a step in the right direction.

There's apparently a proposal afloat in Iran to change the whole government structure, eliminating the position of Supreme Leader altogether. Its proponents have even consulted the Ayatollah al-Sistani of Iraq. I pass on the rumor for what it's worth:

http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/regime-change-iran-movement-se/

Members of the assembly are reportedly considering forming a collective ruling body and scrapping the model of Ayatollah Khomeini as a way out of the civil crisis that has engulfed Tehran in a series of protests--The discussions have taken place in a series of secret meetings convened in the holy city of Qom and included Jawad al-Shahristani, the supreme representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is the foremost Shiite leader in Iraq.

My understanding is that her fiance stated she did not support any of the candidates, including Mousavi -- just "freedom for all":

info on Neda fiance's BBC interview

@Eve M.: "My understanding is that her fiance stated she did not support any of the candidates, including Mousavi -- just "freedom for all""

An Iranian hippie?

I'm more inclined to believe the reports that she held specific ideas as to what "freedom" meant to her.