Separatists May Be Exaggerating Ukraine Referendum Turnout By 300%
Separatists in Luhansk oblast have officially announced that 96 percent of
eligible voters approved the referendum on independence (See: Ukrainska Pravda).
According to the KyivPost election
update, separatist officials are reporting 89 percent for seceding and 10
percent against in Donetsk Oblast. Donetsk and Luhansk make up the lion’s share
of the contested Donbass region.
East Ukraine separatists are celebrating what they claim is a huge electoral
victory in the May 11 referendum. These Crimean-scale election results are pure
falsification. I report here more believable results that show one third
the turnout of the separatist claims and confirm earlier polling data that show
70 percent of East Ukrainians want to keep a united Ukraine.
As Moscow eagerly accepted as gospel truth the referendum results, the
Western media reacted with confusion. German
television news led with “a majority voted clearly in the referendum for
separation.” The Wall Street Journal (See Vote
in Ukraine Emboldens Separatists) points out the unclarity of the
referendum question and its chaotic (and illegal) circumstances, but concludes
that the “long waits at some voting stations helped turn simmering anger
against Kiev into open defiance.” The New York Times (See: Chaos
Marks Ukraine Vote on Separation) reports large crowds and a festive
atmosphere at polling stations, while expressing doubts about the election
process.
The general Western media takeaway is that, indeed, large numbers of
disaffected voters stood in long lines to vote in favor of “independence,”
while pointing out the chaotic atmosphere and warning of the opportunities for
massive voter fraud.
No major media outlet has dug into the Crimean-like election results – 89 to
96 percent in favor, despite a Pew survey taken shortly before the referendum
(See the Pew Foundation, Despite
Concerns about Governance, Ukrainians Want to Remain One Country) showing
that less than 20 percent of east Ukrainians favor secession and 70 percent
want a united Ukraine. The chasm between the result predicted in a fair
election and the 90 percent plus reported vote should raise serious eyebrows.
Simple logic and observation yield quite different results and reveal that
the Pew poll was remarkably on the mark despite the demonstrations, armed
clashes, and presence of Ukrainian troops nearby.
Facts about the May 11 referendum supplied to me by a knowledgeable Donetsk
professor (whose name I withhold for safety reasons) offer material for an
independent calculation of the actual Donetsk referendum results:
In Donetsk (a city of one million), 35 polling stations were combined into 9
in the city center, representing a total of 80,000 eligible voters. In other
districts, one sixth of the usual polling places were open. Moreover, the
polling stations were located in schools and not in larger venues like concert
halls, large factories, or other public buildings. The polling stations lacked
voter registration roles, so poll workers had to write down by hand each
voter’s name, address, and passport number. Poll workers complained
about working unpaid and that regular poll workers refused to work without pay.
(On this latter point, see Novaya Gazeta, Lugansk: Not a
referendum in the real sense of the word).
My Donetsk colleague observed the whole day of voting from an outdoor café
opposite a voting station in central Donetsk, keeping count of the voters going
in. According to his tally, the station processed a maximum of 2,500 voters for
the day, or about 200 an hour, or about 3 a minute. The greatest numbers came
in the late morning and early afternoon. By evening, the flow of voters had
fallen to a trickle. He saw no lines.
Applying these observed numbers to the 9 central districts representing
80,000 eligible voters, we get a turnout (what in Russian is called yavka)
of 28 percent versus the official claim of 89 percent!
It must be noted that one voting station (Donetsk’s School No. 9) claims
that it processed 6,000 voters on May 11. This racing assembly line would have
had to write down the names, addresses, and passport numbers of voters at the
rate of one voter every ten seconds. Those who recall the Soviet period would
want to award the head of this polling station a Stakhanovite medal.
Independently of my Donetsk colleague’s exercise, a Facebook
post reports a similar experiment conducted in Mariupol, a city of slightly
under a half million, the site of violent street demonstrations and fighting of
late.
Facebook tally of Mariupol vote. First line: voters per minute, then per hour, then per day for a total of 14,400. Source. |
The calculation (shown here as a graphic) is based on the fact that
separatists opened four polling stations (all in schools) to service a
population of some 330,000 eigible voters. (Each voting station would therefore
have to be prepared to handle 82,000 voters (with a hundred percent turnout) or
2 voters a second! No wonder there were long lines. To handle these
numbers, each station would have had to have a 30 mile-long line queuing in
front.
The Mariupol calculation uses a maximum capacity of one person a minute
(rounded to 5 persons for 4 stations), which yields a maximum number of voters
in 12 hours of 14,400 for the four stations, for a 5 percent voter turnout
versus the official claim of 96 percent. Quite a difference. Perhaps
Mariupol is where the purported
pre marked ballots were used.
Note as well the photos of the huge
voting urns being emptied for the press. They contain hundreds of ballots not
tens of thousands.
Poll workers emptying ballot boxes for counting for the press. Photo John Moore/Getty Images |
In both the Donetsk and Mariupol
cases, separatist officials will argue that they opened unofficial tents and
other makeshift voting locations, but these, at best, would have accounted for
a small portion of the vote. Residents were told to go to the official voting
stations. In fact, the only real crowds that were observed by reporters were in
Mariupol. This was probably a deliberate move – few voting stations guarantee
voters standing in line. (See photo).
Crowds waiting to vote at one of the four voting stations in Mariupol — cited as proof of huge turnout. |
We need not worry about the
statistics of those voting who voted yes. Only the strongest of no voters would
have entered a polling station in Donetsk or Mariupol, where he or she would
have encountered men toting AK47s and manned by separatist poll workers. To add
insult to injury, the voting urns were transparent plastic, so observers knew
whether the voter checked “yes” or “no.” The Noyaya Gazeta account
describes the vote counting scene at a polling station, as each worker calls
out when he or she comes up with a rare no vote. As a first approximation, we
can say that the percentage of yes votes should be close to 100 percent, given
the voting environment. Anything other than that would be a surprise.
In sum, reasonable calculations
based on observation, logic, and experience place the percentage of eligible
“Peoples Republic of Donetsk” voters who turned out to vote at under 30
percent. Virtually all those who cast their ballot voted yes. The
under-thirty-percent result conforms closely to the earlier Pew poll. Moreover,
it is consistent with the 24 percent (Luhansk) and 32 percent (Donetsk) turnout
calculated by the Ukrainian government. (See Kyiv Post Turchinov
calls referendum a farce).
The turnout figures I come up with
are not the final word. As time passes, more information will leak out, and we
can have a more precise count of the real vote. I publish my results early
because the crazy and fantastic official results will be hammered on by Putin’s
propaganda machine until people start to believe them. Recall that the true
figures (See: Putin’s
‘Human Rights Council’ Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results)
for the sham Crimea election did not come out for two months. By that time, it
was already too late.
In the meantime, I wonder why
Donetsk and Luhansk separatists insisted on a vote outcome that would do North
Korea’s Kim Jong Un proud.
repost from here
repost from here
No comments:
Post a Comment