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%

 

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar

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.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

•  52
  New Members

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.

.

__,_._,___