Actual Results of Crimean Secession Vote Leaked 557
An anonymous reader writes "Forbes reported on Monday that The President of Russia's Council on Civil Society and Human Rights very briefly and supposedly by accident posted the actual results of the Crimean secession vote. According to the blog post, which has since been taken down, only 30% of Crimeans participated in the vote instead of the 83% participation officially advertised by Russia, and of that 30% only half voted for secession, which means that 15% of all Crimeans voted for secession rather than the 82% officially reported by Russia. There is no way for this claim to be verified as no foreign observers were allowed during the voting process. The vote is reportedly being conducted again during the 'May 11 referendum on the status of the so-called People's Republic of Donetsk.'" We've had a lot of discussion over the years about election methods and transparency; it would be interesting to hear from Ukranian readers in particular on this topic.
Re:well (Score:3, Informative)
Gore lost on every recount. Get over it.
Yes, every single one. Don't forget that Gore tried to goose the results by having only Dem heavy counties recounted rather than the entire state.
One last thing that just about no one knows about. All of the major news outlets proclaimed Florida to Gore before voting was finished in Florida. Florida resides in two time zones and the northwest "handle" of Florida is heavily Republican. Many voters left lines while voting was open once Florida was called for Gore. IF that hadn't have happened, the recount wouldn't have been close at all.
Observers (Score:4, Informative)
OSCE observers were invited, but the organization declined. Somewhere around 100 international observers from other organizations were present. They might have mostly been Russian schills, but they were there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No international observers? (Score:5, Informative)
You should tell the 30 strong team from Poland, Austria, France, Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Italy and Latvia that they weren't there...
http://rt.com/news/crimea-refe... [rt.com]
Who stands to gain? (Score:2, Informative)
The source, a blog posting, is not at all credible and the fact that its even newsworthy indicates it is being pushed by propaganda. Who stands to gain?
According to what I have read (sorry i didn't bookmark the source) and in my conversations with people from the area, it is very understandable that the people of Crimea would have voted to join Russia. We get the NATO side of the propaganda over here.
Re:In-window popup autoplaying video ads with soun (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No international observers? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, every single one
Except for the statewide recount carried out as a partnership with several news agencies [wikipedia.org] after the SCOTUS terminated the official recount efforts. That one came out with Gore on top, and had Gore requested a statewide recount rather than recounting in only a few counties he probably would have won both numerically and by preventing the court challenge against his weird recounting efforts.
But you knew that, didn't you, liar troll?
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
That narrative is convincing only under duress of propaganda and threat of violence against any pro-unity Ukranians. Russia is effectively fascist; Yanukovych was effectively fascist. AFAICT, the Maidan protests were about severe discontent with Yanukovych's palatial corruption at scales not seen in most places in modern Europe, not just trade alignments -- the small number of right wing extremists that were anti-Yanukovych don't take away from the fact that -- according to most objective observers, journalists, etc -- the vast majority of the voices coming from Kyiv were effectively anti-corruption liberals, not right-wing extremists.
Yet the separatists are playing Wagner, detaining journalists, enacting violence against peaceful pro-unity rallies -- and at the same time talking about defeating fascists, the irony is either lost on them or their intended audience.
Re:well (Score:3, Informative)
As I recall, the Bush camp wanted one recount method, and the Gore camp wanted a different one, and under the rules they each proposed, the other side would have won.
You recall wrong. Bush wanted the recount that was already completed to stand, which would allow the Secretary of State to certify the result in time for the Electoral College, and Gore wanted another recount that would have pushed the result back so Florida's votes wouldn't have counted at all, no matter who won another recount. That's what most people missed. If the electors cannot vote when the Electoral College meets, it doesn't matter who won the state, the votes don't matter. Gore knew that, and he knew he'd win if Florida's electors couldn't vote.
That's what the Supreme Court case was about -- whether the Florida legislature had the authority to define the election process or the courts could change it. The US and Florida constitutions both gave the legislature the responsibility, and the legislature had a process in place for counting and recounting and certifying the results. Gore wanted that changed after the polls had closed, just like he got the counting process changed to include "dimpled chads" in a system that said "poke a hole in a piece of paper" and his voters couldn't manage to do that simple task. A "poke a hole" system that both Republican AND Democrat election officials had approved prior to the actual election.
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Modded insightful by other "Russian World" enthusiasts, apparently.
Ukrainian new unelected leadership is more like Hitler.
Putin's annexation of Crimea repeats Hitler's early annexations one for one, including the "referendum" part.
"Right Sector", the hardcore right-wing faction, is low in head count and public support (1-3%) and has zero representation in the current government. The more moderate but still nationalist-driven "Svoboda" has about 5% support and also not much power. The rest are normal politicians by Western standards.
The current government was temporarily appointed by the parliament, which was the single possible solution after the previous president had failed to suppress the protests and fled the country. A real election is scheduled on May 25, and Russia is trying hard to prevent it in order to prolong the current suspended state.
No-one was "abolishing equal rights". There was a move to revoke a controversial language law introduced by the previous administration, but the temporary president (whom you criticize) has blocked the move, demanding that a new, better version of the law should be negotiated and accepted by the parliament first.
Please stop trolling here.
Re:well (Score:2, Informative)
Gore lost on every recount. Get over it.
Yes, every single one. Don't forget that Gore tried to goose the results by having only Dem heavy counties recounted rather than the entire state.
One last thing that just about no one knows about. All of the major news outlets proclaimed Florida to Gore before voting was finished in Florida. Florida resides in two time zones and the northwest "handle" of Florida is heavily Republican. Many voters left lines while voting was open once Florida was called for Gore. IF that hadn't have happened, the recount wouldn't have been close at all.
Oh come off it. Florida actually had laws at the time governing recounts and how they should be done. Gore requested a recount according to those laws--there was no provision for a statewide recount. So he requested a recount where there were irregularities (i.e. huge discrepancies between exit polling and actual voting results). He did not request a recount where there were no irregularities, because there was no legal or rational basis for him to do such a thing.
Florida was called for Gore because the exit polling revealed that even if every one of the panhandle voters cast their ballot for Bush, Gore still would have won. Yeah, those panhandle voters may have been discouraged, just like Hawaii voters are discouraged every four years when their votes actually don't make a difference in who wins. Calling elections before all votes are cast is done because it CAN be done, accurately, once a certain percentage of the vote is known.
But it turned out, the exit polls were way off--way off to a degree that exit polls haven't been off by in recent memory. Now, if you're partisan, you can say that's because either there was a problem with the exit polling, or because there was a problem with the voting, depending on your bias. But you cannot say that Gore tried to goose the results, or that the media reporting favored Gore. Not with a straight face, anyway, you can't.
Re:well (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize stopping the flow of gas to Europe would hurt Europe more than it would Russia, don't you? That is why there are only economic sanctions going on and not the stopping of gas purchases because Europe needs that gas. And Russia knows this.
The supply lines run from Russia to the west, not vice versa.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
Cause it's large Tartar population...
Large compared to what? To population of Tatars in Boston or New York? They are a minority in Crimea.
... and 25% Ukrainian population wouldn't oppose...
Not all ethnic Ukrainians are pro-Ukraine.
...Heck, how many Russians oppose Putin in Russia...
Only the vocal minority in the bigger cities. Most of Russia, which is mostly rural, supports him. Those who like Putin, just go about their lives instead of wasting time campaigning against him.
... Just can get the guy unelected though.
Can't unelect a democratically elected president when most of the country actually likes him.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Observers (Score:3, Informative)
Forbes DID NOT report this (Score:5, Informative)
Let me point out that the article was based in the op-ed column by Paul Roderick Gregory, who referred to a web piece that we can no longer find ourselves. This guy has been posting anti-Russian articles, often quite ridiculous ones, about once a week of Forbes's web site. In my view, this guy is simply a neo-con mouthpiece and has zero credibility.
Re:No international observers? (Score:4, Informative)
Mr Piskorski has often commented that "Ukraine is a fallen country". He appeared on Russia Today tv station as "western expert" claiming Maidan was inspired by Western countries, and repeating Putin rhetorics.
He was accused of being Russian agent since 2007. He is collaborating with CIS-EMO, who go to "observe" various elections in Russia, and produce reports positive for Russia.
All in all - those observers were likely just used by Russians to validate "elections".
Re:well (Score:4, Informative)
Except for the statewide recount carried out as a partnership with several news agencies [wikipedia.org] after the SCOTUS terminated the official recount efforts. That one came out with Gore on top
Thanks for the link - I remember when the study came out but had lost track of the details. The wiki article indicates that Gore would have won only if the most generous standards for determining voter intent (e.g. dimpled chad, slight mark on optical ballots, etc.) were consistently applied in a statewide recount. So yes, there is a scenario in which Gore "might have won", but the wiki article also mentions some important caveats that make it impossible to say with certainty what the "correct" result of counting every ballot would have been.
liar troll
That's a bit excessive, as what he said is technically correct - Gore lost every official recount, and the study you link to indicates he would also have lost every recount effort he was asking for in court.
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong. There was an option to stay in Ukraine. Check your facts. Moreover, the Forbes article is garbage. The guy was posing hysterical anti-Russian garbage for months. The report said that _probably_ 30-50% of voters voted, with 50-60% voting pro-Russian. So why does the guy lowball his numbers? Forbes is the last place you should consult for the truth in international politics, by the way. It's a typical conservative, neo-con mouthpiece.
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
Quite honestly, I don't think they are true.
I was there around 18 months ago and the place had a very Russian (rather than Ukranian) feel to it. It is an accident of recent history that the Crimea ended up in the Ukraine at all, it was also taken for granted before the vote that there was a large majority for secession. That majority had not been evident in the Eastern regions as of a week or so ago, what effect the Ukranian Army marching in is going to have on public opinion - I would not want to hazard a guess. The secessionists there were using all means up to and including murder of public figures to intimidate the locals, but an army fighting their way in could also cause antagonism.
Western perception is of the Ukraine is that part of the country orientates itself westwards and part towards the north (Russia). It is a simplification but wtf. The problem is that whoever was in power, they lined their own pockets. When the last west-leaning government was voted out but still in power, they proclaimed Stepan Bandera a Hero of the Ukraine. Bandera was a figure who (to a certain extent) cooperated with the Nazis against the Soviets and Russians, and whose followers "ethnic cleansed" around 70 000 Poles - mostly women and children - around 1943. He himself was interned at the time because the Nazis considered Ukrainians to be only slightly less sub-human than they saw the Russians. Bandera's people had nothing agaist Ukrainian Jews.
Still, those who distrust "western leaning" politicians have been provided with good reasons.
Re:All about the Eurasian Union (Score:5, Informative)
The only US involvement was in the legitimization of the leader of the new government, which was the subject of the leaked wiretap by the FSB, where the American Ambassador says "f* the EU".
Except that was well before there was a new government... So a US "diplomat" trying to help organize a new government in Kiev while the old one is still in power is actually pretty clear evidence of US government involvement.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It was a part of the Ottoman Empire for considerably longer than it was part of the Russian Empire (1485-1783 = 298 years versus 1783-1954 = 174 years).