Friday, May 22, 2009

Re: [IHRO] Election 2009: West Bengal results stink! So does Delhi!


 
palashcbiswas,
 gostokanan, sodepur, kolkata-700110 phone:033-25659551



From: Arun1951 <arun1951@gmail.com>
To: indiagroup <ihro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 22 May, 2009 17:08:11
Subject: [IHRO] Election 2009: West Bengal results stink! So does Delhi!



Indian Parliamentary elections, 2009: Congress Party wins

Is it an EVM heist?

 

 

Many elections have been stolen before. Bush stole US-2000 and US-2004; Angela Merkel stole 2005. Has the Congress stolen 2004 and 2009?

 

The Congress Party, the hand as symbol, won enough seats in our Parliament to form the next government. Years ago Madame Indira Gandhi had mentioned that an unseen hand runs the show. This election proves beyond reasonable doubt that 'the unseen hand' indeed rules.

 

Ever since Electronic Voting Machines' [EVM] were introduced, we don't have a paper trail to check and verify the number of votes polled by a candidate. Supporters of EVM say that it reduces counting time; opposers say that elections must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the count IS amenable to public observation. EVMs DO NOT ensure that. Let is look at some data.

 

West Bengal

 

I am pasting below the data uploaded by the Election Commission of India on their website.

 

The URL is: http://eci.nic. in/results/ frmPCWiseResult. aspx

 

According to ECI data the following facts emerge:

 

  1. In Parliamentary Constituencies 1 to 34 [Cooch Behar to Medinipur] the polling was 115% in Jhargram and 180% in Tamlik. The percentage calculated by dividing the number of persons who voted by the number of total electors. This is still on the website of the Election Commission of India. Please download.
  2. In Parliamentary Constituencies 35 to 42 [Purulia to Birbhum in that order] the polling was 71.49% [Lowest, Asansol] and 87.21% [Highest, Bardhman Purba]
  3. The total population of West Bangal was 80.22 million in 2001, and according to the Election Commission records there were 52,486,980 voters. BUT 76,419,786 VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED, which is 145.6% of the total number of voters.  

 

Delhi

 

This is less obnoxious. Of the 11 million plus voters, 5.7 million voted [51.84%] and all seven seats went to the Congress Party. If we add the total number of votes polled by the winning candidates, it comes to 29.6%, which is NOT a majority vote.

 

Delhi

Total voters

Votes polled

% polling

Winner got

Percent votes polled

Percent of total voters

CHANDNI CHOWK

   1,413,535

      780,445

55.21

     465,713

59.67%

32.95%

NORTH EAST DELHI

   1,677,060

      877,904

52.35

     518,191

59.03%

30.90%

EAST DELHI

   1,604,802

      857,406

53.43

     518,001

60.41%

32.28%

NEW DELHI

   1,373,860

      765,018

55.68

     455,867

59.59%

33.18%

NORTH WEST DELHI

   1,798,442

      857,543

47.68

     487,404

56.84%

27.10%

WEST DELHI

   1,687,782

      883,437

52.34

     479,899

54.32%

28.43%

SOUTH DELHI

   1,542,411

      731,294

47.41

     360,278

49.27%

23.36%

Total

 11,097,892

   5,753,047

51.84

  3,285,353

57.11%

29.60%

 

 

Please remember

 

The mainstream media had been saying that this is an election without issue.

 

When the results were declared, the same mainstream media, pompous idiots that they are, including the psephologists who can't ever get their facts right, declared that the people have voted for a strong central government given the global economic crisis. Ex post facto justification. Habitual, compulsive liars.

 

People do not vote on global issues. Unless of course the Congress Party had quietly slipped the fact that we are moving into total economic meltdown and the third world war! If so, it went above the heads of every journalist in the mainstream media. Habitual, compulsive liars are also ignorant.

 

Stolen elections

 

Please read the following articles:

 

(a) The Stolen Presidential Elections, (updated version, May 2007)

http://www.michaelp arenti.org/ stolenelections. html

(b) Stolen Elections and Media Blackouts; An Interview With Mark Crispin Miller by Carolyn Baker

 http://www.globalre search.ca/ index.php? context=va&aid=10745

 

 

German High Court's Ruling Strikes Down Electronic Voting Under Principles of Democracy Signed by and Imposed by USA After WWII

Paul R Lehto, Juris Doctor
Contact him here:
Lehto.paul@gmail. com

 

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

According to a ruling by Germany's highest court yesterday, computerized voting machines used by 2 million of Germany's 5 million voters in 2005's parliamentary elections are unconstitutional because they are not in line with democratic standards and principles — especially the "publicity" of the vote counting (i.e. transparency, visibility).  The court added that "specialized technical knowledge" may not be demanded of observing citizens, and that government-defined checks or audits are no substitute for the constitutional requirement of publicity via observation.

"The ruling of Germany's highest court affirmed the principles required for a constitutional voting system that makes Self-Government possible, which include the following tests:

1.   No "specialized technical knowledge" can be required of citizens to vote or to monitor vote counts.  (This is a simple application of democracy's equality principle combined with an aversion to an aristocracy of experts.)

2. The constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count.  (The court noted that the government substitution of its own check or what we'd probably call an "audit" is no substitute at all for public observation or "publicity" - the term of art favored by Founders of the USA.)

3.       A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards, the court states in its ruling on the NEDAP system used in the 2005 elections. 

4.    CONCLUSION: As a result of these principles, a source in Ireland concludes that "all independent observers" conclude that "electronic voting machines [are totally] banned in Germany" because no conceivable computerized voting system can cast and count votes  that meet the twin requirements of publicity:  being both "observable" and also not requiring specialized technical knowledge. 

Sources: European media (links at bottom.)

Consequently, the 2009 elections in June and September may not use existing machines and will be on paper, hand counted.   

http://markcrispinm iller.com/ 2009/03/german- high-court- honors-us- democratic- principles- paul-lehto. html

 

I have no sympathy with CPM and their allies who got a drubbing in this election. But every person has a responsibility to question the methods adopted to conduct the elections.

 

I suspect that this election result needs a complete review, if necessary to rescind the results.

 

There are other trends which none of the psephologists have bothered to analyze. As one wit said: they have made their money, now they are holidaying.

 

Kind regards

 

Arun Shrivastava CMC

 

PS: the Data is pasted below:

 




http://eci.nic. in/results/ frmPCWiseResult. aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 CAUSE FOR CONCERN

 

 

My analysis

Sl No

ST Code

ST name

PC No.

PC Name

 Vote polled

 Total electors

%

 

Winner

 Votes received

% of total elector

% of vote polled

459

S25

West Bengal

1

Cooch behar

           2,240,116

           1,329,086

168.55

 

AIFB

     999,984

75.24%

44.64%

460

S25

West Bengal

2

Alipurduars

           1,866,175

           1,229,301

151.81

 

RSP

     768,945

62.55%

41.20%

461

S25

West Bengal

3

Jalpaiguri

           2,061,096

           1,252,142

164.61

 

CPM

     938,081

74.92%

45.51%

462

S25

West Bengal

4

Darjeeling

           1,931,172

           1,214,818

158.97

 

BJP

     994,584

81.87%

51.50%

463

S25

West Bengal

5

Raiganj

           1,794,486

           1,108,383

161.9

 

INC

     902,641

81.44%

50.30%

464

S25

West Bengal

6

Balurghat

           1,749,129

           1,010,257

173.14

 

RSP

     775,864

76.80%

44.36%

465

S25

West Bengal

7

Maldaha Uttar

           1,841,615

           1,101,096

167.25

 

INC

     879,979

79.92%

47.78%

466

S25

West Bengal

8

Maldaha Dakshin

           1,657,048

           1,052,093

157.5

 

INC

     886,296

84.24%

53.49%

467

S25

West Bengal

9

Jangipur

           1,867,821

           1,087,054

171.82

 

INC

  1,013,180

93.20%

54.24%

468

S25

West Bengal

10

Baharampur

           1,902,831

           1,179,938

161.27

 

INC

  1,083,052

91.79%

56.92%

469

S25

West Bengal

11

Murshidabad

           2,101,499

           1,192,567

176.22

 

INC

     992,282

83.21%

47.22%

470

S25

West Bengal

12

Krishnanagar

           2,089,718

           1,223,082

170.86

 

AITC

     886,678

72.50%

42.43%

471

S25

West Bengal

13

Ranaghat

           2,292,563

           1,329,436

172.45

 

AITC

  1,149,239

86.45%

50.13%

472

S25

West Bengal

14

Bangaon

           2,155,881

           1,249,587

172.53

 

AITC

  1,093,005

87.47%

50.70%

473

S25

West Bengal

15

Barrackpore

           1,738,902

           1,081,237

160.83

 

AITC

     857,067

79.27%

49.29%

474

S25

West Bengal

16

Dum dum

           1,950,142

           1,212,220

160.87

 

AITC

     917,652

75.70%

47.06%

475

S25

West Bengal

17

Barasat

           2,049,547

           1,226,654

167.08

 

AITC

  1,044,616

85.16%

50.97%

476

S25

West Bengal

18

Basirhat

           2,074,893

           1,198,579

173.11

 

AITC

     958,389

79.96%

46.19%

477

S25

West Bengal

19

Joynagar

           1,831,628

           1,143,648

160.16

 

IND

     892,373

78.03%

48.72%

478

S25

West Bengal

20

Mathurapur

           2,095,668

           1,227,408

170.74

 

AITC

  1,130,578

92.11%

53.95%

479

S25

West Bengal

21

Diamond harbour

           2,107,651

           1,294,860

162.77

 

AITC

  1,129,005

87.19%

53.57%

480

S25

West Bengal

22

Jadavpur

           2,168,436

           1,331,589

162.85

 

AITC

  1,080,948

81.18%

49.85%

481

S25

West Bengal

23

Kolkata Dakshin

           2,013,066

           1,505,638

133.7

 

AITC

  1,151,535

76.48%

57.20%

482

S25

West Bengal

24

Kolkata Uttar

           1,753,237

           1,366,647

128.29

 

AITC

     920,700

67.37%

52.51%

483

S25

West Bengal

25

Howrah

           1,987,314

           1,344,746

147.78

 

AITC

     954,730

71.00%

48.04%

484

S25

West Bengal

26

Uluberia

           2,019,521

           1,251,590

161.36

 

AITC

  1,028,325

82.16%

50.92%

485

S25

West Bengal

27

Srerampur

           2,162,085

           1,395,431

154.94

 

AITC

  1,139,213

81.64%

52.69%

486

S25

West Bengal

28

Hooghly

           2,323,828

           1,405,684

165.32

 

AITC

  1,147,398

81.63%

49.38%

487

S25

West Bengal

29

Arambagh

           2,326,395

           1,374,933

169.2

 

CPM

  1,260,316

91.66%

54.17%

488

S25

West Bengal

30

Tamluk

           2,296,759

           1,271,233

180.67

 

AITC

  1,274,973

100.29%

55.51%

489

S25

West Bengal

31

Kanthi

           2,248,357

           1,249,775

179.9

 

AITC

  1,213,166

97.07%

53.96%

490

S25

West Bengal

32

Ghatal

           2,178,394

           1,354,861

160.78

 

CPI

  1,117,856

82.51%

51.32%

491

S25

West Bengal

33

Jhargram

           1,429,533

           1,241,580

115.14

 

CPM

     821,038

66.13%

57.43%

492

S25

West Bengal

34

Medinipur

           1,920,600

           1,262,984

152.07

 

CPI

     912,595

72.26%

47.52%

493

S25

West Bengal

35

Purulia

            904,518

         1,257,799

71.91

 

AIFB

   399,201

31.74%

44.13%

494

S25

West Bengal

36

Bankura

            984,604

         1,268,611

77.61

 

CPM

   469,223

36.99%

47.66%

495

S25

West Bengal

37

Bishnupur

         1,054,149

         1,237,966

85.15

 

CPM

   541,075

43.71%

51.33%

496

S25

West Bengal

38

Bardhaman Purba

         1,124,373

         1,289,311

87.21

 

CPM

   531,987

41.26%

47.31%

497

S25

West Bengal

39

Burdwan - durgapur

         1,135,028

         1,353,380

83.87

 

CPM

   573,399

42.37%

50.52%

498

S25

West Bengal

40

Asansol

            893,704

         1,250,114

71.49

 

CPM

   435,161

34.81%

48.69%

499

S25

West Bengal

41

Bolpur

         1,078,811

         1,307,736

82.49

 

CPM

   538,383

41.17%

49.91%

500

S25

West Bengal

42

Birbhum

         1,017,493

         1,221,926

83.27

 

AITC

   486,553

39.82%

47.82%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPM+allies

                      15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AITC

                      19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BJP

                         1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INC

                         6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent

                         1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

                      42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delhi

Total voters

Votes polled

% polling

Winner got

Percent votes polled

Percent of total voters

CHANDNI CHOWK

   1,413,535

      780,445

55.21

     465,713

59.67%

32.95%

NORTH EAST DELHI

   1,677,060

      877,904

52.35

     518,191

59.03%

30.90%

EAST DELHI

   1,604,802

      857,406

53.43

     518,001

60.41%

32.28%

NEW DELHI

   1,373,860

      765,018

55.68

     455,867

59.59%

33.18%

NORTH WEST DELHI

   1,798,442

      857,543

47.68

     487,404

56.84%

27.10%

WEST DELHI

   1,687,782

      883,437

52.34

     479,899

54.32%

28.43%

SOUTH DELHI

   1,542,411

      731,294

47.41

     360,278

49.27%

23.36%

Total

 11,097,892

   5,753,047

51.84

  3,285,353

57.11%

29.60%

 

__._,_.___
International Human Rights Organisation (IHRO), of the Indian subcontinent, is a NGO, with national focus and overseas lobby network. It agitates both in India and internationally.
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

No comments: