August 14, 2020, 17:40, TUT.BY
Internet platform “Golos”, together with the “Honest People” initiative has published an interim analysis of the election results in their Telegram channel. According to the platform representatives, the analysis is based on a comparison of the official election committee protocols and the data from voters.
As of today, “Golos” has more than 1.24 million registered users that already submitted photos of 507,477 voting sheets.
As it was reported previously, the platform published its results after the official data from the Central Election Committee (CEC) had been published.
The developers of “Golos” mention in their press release that, despite the blocking of the Internet, they have already received and checked more than 500,000 photographed voting sheets. They found almost 300 polling stations, where the voting results were fraudulent.
– Together with the whole country we oppose cruelty and violence that authorities allow themselves. We call to stop all actions that suppress people’s rights for freedom and expression of will. We have collected a massive pool of data, based on which can be stated that the results of the presidential election are fraudulent. During the next few days we will publish the full detailed nationwide report. However, already now we have some proof. We are glad to see that many election committees have respected the people’s decision and counted the votes honestly. At the same time, we are disappointed that hundreds and maybe thousands of polling stations will appear on the “Golos” map as places where the people’s choice was stolen. – this was the statement from the developers.
Also, in one of the Telegram posts was communicated that as of today from 5,767 polling stations’ final protocols already 989 have been processed. Based on the comparison results of the election committees’ official protocols and voting sheets photos from the users was highlighted that there are “at least 298 polling stations, where the election results are fraudulent”. Today the share of the “dishonest” protocols is 30%.
– However, this number in the “Golos” report mainly depends on the number of processed and verified photos of each voting sheet for each polling station. – say the developers. – It is important to mention that protocols were processed upon their arrival. There was no special selection of the polling stations and/or protocols.
According to the official protocols, at these 989 polling stations (17% of the total) 393,193 votes were given to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. This is 66.8% of all 588,622 votes that she received, based on the results of the CEC.
Arithmetically, it turns out that the remaining 4,778 polling stations (83% of the total) account for only 33.2% of the votes won by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.
Based on this, it can be argued that the official data from the polling stations’ final protocols differ from the presidential election results announced by the CEC.
The statistics of the candidate Aliaksandr Lukashenka also raises questions. Based on the official protocols, on the same randomly selected 989 polling stations he received 62,5% of the votes. This is significantly less than the final CEC results of 80.1%. It is important to understand that even the result of 62,5% cannot be considered reliable due to electoral fraud. Which, in turn, is presented in each third polling station that have been processed as of today. It means that the result of 80.1% becomes mathematically and logically impossible.
To detect fraud, the results of the election committee protocol are compared with the amount of voting sheets’ photos per polling station, submitted to “Golos”. If one of the polling stations exhibits more voting sheets’ photos than reflected in the official protocol, there are reasons to say that the results might be fraudulent.
On the map of “Golos” you can see how the data was compared.
It is noted that the reception of voting sheets’ photos and data processing continues.
The final report of the platforms “Golos”, “Zubr” and “Honest People” will be published on August 18th – after all data has been processed. This report will contain detailed information on each polling station with the list of all violations and falsifications. The final protocols, based on which the calculations were made, will also be published. Furthermore, all received voting sheets will be published on the map of “Golos”, so the users could count the results by themselves.
The situation around the platform “Golos”
On August 6th, Aliaksandr Lukashenka instructed to assess the legality on alternative vote counting during the elections.
He said: “Another topic – alternative vote counting on the election day. Both, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the courts should access the legality of such initiatives. In courts, if such appeals will be received there.”
On the same say, the chairwoman of the CEC, Lidzija Jarmoshyna, made a video message where she expressed her regret that in our country “a political scam called the Internet platform “Golos” is being introduced.”
“Basically, what you are being offered is the creation of the shadow Central Election Committee”, – said Jarmoshyna and called the platform “a harmful and criminal project”.
She added – “They assure you that in this way you are taking control over the expression of will. No, my dears, this is not control. This is the creation of a distorted elections result in order to devalue the official elections result and, based on this, organize riots. Therefore, it is being introduced.”
“Golos” project team responded to the head of the CEC: “the only goal of the platform “Golos” is to make sure that the official results are credible. It is just a service that does not campaign for any of the candidates and cannot distort the result of the elections.”
After the statements of Lukashenka and Jarmoshyna, the Prosecutor General’s Office considered that online platforms “Golos” and “Zubr.in”, which call for taking photos of the voting sheets on the polling stations, send the photos to the platform and participate in the alternative vote count, are conducting sociological polls and research without accreditation. For this, their founders must face administrative charges.
