Il coordinamento delle organizzazioni di monitoraggio del voto in Ucraina hanno stilato l'elenco delle contestazioni che dimostrano la truffa elettorale di domenica.
DURING THE CAMPAIGN
Favouring one candidate
"The abuse of state resources in favour of the prime minister demonstrated a widespread disregard for the fundamental distinction between the state and partisan political interests."
The state-funded media displayed "overt bias" which "continued to favour the prime minister in news presentation and coverage of the campaign".
Abuse of power
"Some citizens whose livelihood depends directly or indirectly upon the state were placed under duress to acquire and hand over to their superiors an absentee voting certificate".
"Observers reported that these documents were collected in the workplace on an organised basis."
Dubious data
The IEOM says the election was "compromised by significant shortcomings" including:
the inability of the local state executive to produce accurate voting lists
a lack of transparency in the tabulation of the first round results
the reluctance of the Central Election Commission (CEC) to grant relief on complaints, thus impeding legal redress
POLLING DAY
Intimidation
"Observers reported that...a significant number of polling stations commissions (PSC) members had been dismissed or ejected".
"Police were present in a majority of polling stations visited. In some instances unauthorised persons were interfering in or directing the process."
The IEOM reports that harrassment was greater than it had been in the first round of voting the previous month, and worst in central and eastern Ukraine. These regions appear to be more strongly pro-government.
Extra votes
"A high number of votes - approximately 5% - were added to voter lists on election day. Almost all the added voters used asbsentee certificates."
Voters using absentee ballot certificates "were transported by bus in a number of regions".
Mystery votes
"Despite the suspiciously high turnout in in some regions, overcrowding was reported by IEOM observers to be less of a problem in eastern regions than elsewhere."
The IEOM gives two examples of suspiciously high turnout. Both cities are in eastern Ukraine - 96.3% turnout in Donetsk and 88.4% in Lugansk.
"Far fewer voters were turned away from polling stations due to inaccuracies in the voter list during the second round than in the first round, but once again there was a regional variation, with fewer voters being turned away in the east".
VOTE COUNTING
Open to tampering
"Problems included lack of sufficient attention to ballot security and counting procedures. In almost half of polling stations, unauthorised persons were present, including police and local government officials."
"The last minute dismissals by Territorial Election Commissions (TECs) of hundreds of Polling Station Commisions appointed by the opposition in Kirovohrad, a key marginal region, and others in Donetsk, Zakarpattiya, Zaporizhia, Kyiv, Khmlenitsky, Odesa and Volyn, lessened transparency."
