CEC: the Georgian Election Code does not require that the number of voters who participate in the voting be counted by gender.  

AI

The CEC has responded the accusations made by monitoring of possible fraud with this statement.
In the publication, the stated that all accusations in the post-election phase were rejected with undisputed facts and undisputed evidence.
“Today in social networks and the media, information was spread based on “ “, as if the difference in activity levels between male and female , in a significant portion of the precincts, deviates from normal distribution and contains virtually excluded characteristics. This was then presented to the public as “unmistakable proof of election fraud”.
The election administration refuted all allegations in the post-election phase with undisputed facts and undisputed evidence. In this case, we want to inform the public about the following:
The Georgian Election Code does not require that the number of voters be counted by . The enumerators do not count the data according to the rules set forth by the election legislation, and they are not included in data of the summary minutes on the voting results.
Researchers, sociologists, and other interested parties can study voter turnout in a gender-based perspective by using voter gender statistics;
Even though the data, both now and in previous elections, may contain some inaccuracies due to the methods and practices of their processing it is not related to the results of the vote and cannot be related to it. Therefore, it can’t have any influence over it. This is well-known to all parties involved.
When processing this type statistical data, it’s important to consider the category of voters that cannot participate in the election on the day of the voting based on their place of registration. They are: election administrators, inpatients, imprisoned, military personnel whose service requires them to be at a different address than their place of registration.
We are aware that such inaccuracies could only affect a small number voters and only occur in a few precincts. This generalization can only be explained if we are dealing with a lack in electoral knowledge or a deliberate attempt to harm the electoral process.
The organization “Fair Elections”, instead of publishing the results in 2020 of the miscalculated count, published the results in 2024. This unambiguously confirmed the correctness of results of October 26th election, giving the appearance that they are still sowing false perceptions to the public.
We would like to also respond to the information that has been spread on social media regarding the analysis of certain electoral districts, and explain to the public any inaccuracies or mistakes made by the author.
According to the author:
In the 54th Precinct in the Saburtalo District, there are some inaccuracies with the printouts of the preliminary results and the summary protocol. She “didn’t notice” the amendment protocol that was uploaded on the CEC site, and she “didn’t know” whether she did. The data is also incorrectly summarized, and the number invalid ballots are not taken into consideration.
In the 23rd Precinct in Saburtalo District there is error in the number of voters. The documentation for the precinct includes an explanation that a voter brought a laminated card to the precinct, but the registrar checked it and found that it had expired. All data is accurate.
Summary reports for the 7th district in Saburtalo appear to be inaccurate. The author has not taken into consideration the protocol for correction. If this is done, the data will be correct.
In light of all the above, we want to remind all parties interested that relying solely on gender statistical data, its processing methods and reviewing preliminary or final summaries without accompanying documentation does not constitute a legal foundation for discussing the validity the voting results nor a clear indication of the assessment of certain facts”, the statement stated.

 

Read More @ www..ge

Share This Article
Leave a Comment