Certainly, the West recognized Poroshenko's elections in Ukraine as honest and lawful three months prior to their carrying out, when conversations about them just started. No more honest thing could ever happen!
Though I still have some vague feelings that fascist junta in Kiev should have used experience of fascist Churov at least out of principle: "If good thing should vanish!" Such experience! 146%! Probably, being once bitten, I am twice shy, as none of Poroshenko's rivals state doubts in his convincing victory, nevertheless I decided to revive old customs and to practice arithmetic a little.
I am not an expert in the details of elective technologies, but there are principles which are clear to all. Voters vote on their sites, the precinct election commissions (PEC) count their voices, they make out protocol using results of votes. Then this protocol is brought to the district election commission (DEC), where it undergoes testing. Up to this point protocols are sheets of paper and the results of vote are numbers on these sheets. It means they are what everyone can look at and touch. Only after check in DEC, as the head of the Central Election Commission of Ukraine M. Okhendovsky explains: "commissions have the right to direct data about results of vote via electronic system “Elections”. Thus, after the work of DEC results of vote turn into electromagnetic signals invisible for eye which make various transformations invisible for eye in the computers of the system Elections, after it something like: "By the results of processing of 60,15% protocols of snap elections of the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko gains 53,72%, the ex-prime minister Yulia Timoshenko - 13,08% of votes" appears on the screen.
What’s necessary to understand from it? That nobody – no person or people - doesn't calculate the results of vote, and even doesn't see how calculation is taking place. Actually, already become invisible to us results of vote are invisibly calculated by programs installed into the computer inaccessible to us. Are you specialist in development of programs? Me too. Do you have access to this computer? The same with me.
Therefore I will return to what we, people, certainly see.
Election of the president of Ukraine took place in 29 thousand polling stations, therefore, protocols were made by 29 thousand PEC. Thus, when the Central Election Commission in Kiev gave data about the next percent of the counted protocols, it reported about the results of vote of the next 290 protocols, that is the quantity of protocols which make 1%.
As it’s told above, at first those protocols were directed from PEC to 189 DEC for check, and then to the computer with system “Elections”, that is on the average DEC processed 153 protocols arrived from PEC.
Taking into account 35 million voters, 1200 registered voters on the average were accounted for each precinct election commission. Though all this is on the average.
Actually, in large cities there are about 5000 voters in one PEC, say, in semi-million Mariupol there are only 80 PEC. While in villages with the population in 500-1000 inhabitants with inhabitants who went abroad to earn money protocols of DEC may have data about several hundred voted.
Thus, if protocols went into computer system Elections from city DEC, 290 such "city" protocols (one percent from all protocols) contained data on vote of over one million voters. While the same 290 "rural" protocols contained data on vote of only 100 thousand voters.
Now the question is what protocols began arriving the first into the Central Election Commission – "city" or "rural"? I think that "city", "fattest". Why? Because city DEC are territorially closer to PEC and less number of protocols arrives to PEC serving city DEC, therefore they are checked and sent to the system Elections and the Central Election Commission quicker.
One more thing. Vote went in conditions of boycott of elections by inhabitants of southeast areas. In Donetsk (the most occupied area of Ukraine) and Lugansk areas elections were in general interfered. The succeeded to organize only 8 district election commissions from necessary 22 in Donetsk region, and protocols from only 1000 PEC arrived to them. District commissions worked in ordinary rooms without exit to the system Elections, part of Donetsk DEC had to be in general evacuated from the region so that they could check protocols from PEC without problems. 1000 protocols of DEC of Donetsk region contained data on results of vote of only 100 thousand voters from 3,3 million registered voters, that is on the average only 100 voted made 1 protocol.
Question: what do you think, what protocols began arriving first to the Central Election Commission – "fat" from Kiev and Lvov or "thin" from Donetsk? I also think that protocols from embraced with flame of civil war areas started coming the last. Surprisingly, but it is possible to show this difference on example.
When the computer of the Central Election Commission counted first 2,14% of protocols (that is data of 621 protocols PEC) that were results of vote of 354 645 voters. That is approximately (rounding up) 166 thousand voters make one percent of protocols, and on the average 571 voters per one protocol. Following described above logic, it is maximum number of voters per one percent and protocol as those were the first, "fattest" protocols which arrived from "city" PEC and from the cities with population made zombie by Poroshenko's mass media.
When the Central Election Commission declared results of calculation of 99,07% of protocols, there were already 17 995 750 voters in them, and after calculation of 100% protocols reflected will of 18 019 456 voters. The difference is 23 706 voters making 0,93%. Or (rounding up) the difference makes 25 thousand voters per 1%. As 1% is 290 protocols, 88 voters make one protocol of the last counted percent.
As you can see, we began from 166 thousand per percent and 571 voters per protocol, and finished with 25 thousand per percent and 88 voters per protocol. Statement that the “fattest” protocols arrived first in the Central Election Commission is confirmed.
Yes, but it is confirmed only for the first and last percent.
Something illogical happened in intervals between the first and last percent. For the sake of brevity I won’t give intermediate data. Here you are the results of processing of 90,21% of protocols (26 161 protocol). It appears that those protocols already reflected will of already 15 959 042 voters. It means that now not 166 thousand which logically are maximum but 177 thousand voters make each percent from these 90,21%, and each protocol from these 26 161 describes will of not 571 voters, but already 610 voters. It’s not clear why, but the rule "the father in, the deeper" appears here.
If we look what one percent and one protocol “means” now at further calculation, we will be surprised even more. There’s difference in 8.86% which means 2 036 708 voters between 90,21% and 99.07% already described above. If we divide one number by other, we will see that 1% of protocols describes here will of not 166, but already 230 thousand voters, and one protocol – will of not 571, but 793 voters.
It turns out that on a course of calculation of the results, the Central Election Commission received protocols not with decreasing quantity of votes from distant and problem PEC, but protocols in which quantity of votes accrued and grew by 1,4 times. Probably it really was so, probably, I don't take anything into consideration, but if it proceeded like that till the end. Though actually growth was only to 99%.
The number of voters per one protocol in the remained percent fell at once by 9 times (!) - from 793 voters to 88. If it could be so? Here not only the logic, but also the theory of random numbers is powerless.
I won't be afraid to call it miracle! Not elections, but Saint Jorgen’s holiday.
I will emphasize. It is a question not of stuffing, not about what Lyashko complains: "they stopped letting voters go to a site No.800060 that contradicts to electoral laws. While about 300 unidentified persons were selectively allowed to enter it after 23.20! Those violations were recorded by our observer Babanin E.B. Shame to …!... I demand recount of votes! I will fight for each vote which you, friends, gave me and my team!" These falsifications in PEC are natural and we don’t talk about them.
It is a question about external, not visible stuffing of voices into the system Elections on a course of calculation already after vote and after sending protocols to Kiev.
If stuffing took place, how many voices were added? It is surely possible to say that there were enough of them, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. The head of the Central Election Commission of Ukraine M. Okhendovsky and that programmer who wrote and entered stuffing program into the system Elections can give exact number and addressee of stuffing.
What was the purpose of stuffing?
First version. They stuffed equal quantity of ballots to each to increase voting turnout. Though if someone is interested in it? Well, there would be not 60, but 52% of turnout. What's the difference?
The second. They helped Tymoshenko. It’s hardly possible. It’s senseless to help to the loser.
The third. They helped Poroshenko to win in the first round. There’s nothing to object here.
I suspect only stuffing, while transfer of voices from one candidate to the other is possible, as it was in the Russian Federation before appearen”e of its State Automati” System “Ele”tions”. Then they managed to take 100 voi”es away from Zyuganov and 10 from less signifi”ant figures like Zhirinovsky and Tuleyev directly in PEC and attributed them to Putin. As no one in the Russian Federation was ever send to prison for falsification of elections, no one in the Russian Federation ever had s”ruples to forge vote results. Probably, for Ukraine it’s a wonder.
By the way, it’s even easier to take voi”es for, say, the same Tymoshenko and to give them to Poroshenko in ”omputer.
As to me, I have doubts in honesty of Poroshenko's elections. Certainly, these are only doubts.
So, it is necessary to check these results. It isn't difficult to do it in Ukraine as each candidate for president of Ukraine should have protocols from all DEC and he needs only to summarize 189 figures with those who came to vote and 189 figures of those who voted for Poroshenko. To compare them with figures published by the Central Election Commission. Just in case. It’s better to be safe, than sorry!
Probably, they have already did it and everything coincided, or, probably, I prompted them something necessary.