The first round of presidential elections in Ukraine has taken place. The main official stage is the counting of votes for each candidate. Counting as a process can be attributed to simple arithmetic, which children are taught already in the first grade. At the end of elementary school, mathematics begins. In high school – algebra and geometry. Many conscious citizens consider mathematics to be the queen of the sciences. Physicists consider mathematics to be a service that helps to represent real life events with a formula. An apple fell – there is a formula that describes the fall. The people expressed their will – there is also a formula. I remind the most forgetful – the formula can also be represented by a picture – the graph is called. I will not choke people with formulas, but I will please with pictures.
And one more reminder – all natural processes in nature are described by a beautiful overturned bell. In mathematics, it is called the Gaussian normal distribution. As soon as a person intervenes in the process – well, he practices genetics there, or chemists with an appearance – then immediately the beautiful Gaussian curve begins to change nervously and lose its ideal shape.
In the world of mathematical description of elections, it has long been shown that the phenomena of people coming to the polling station, as well as the results of their voting, are a natural process. The graphs of these processes coincide with the form of the Gaussian normal distribution. The abnormal form of the schedule becomes in the presence of manipulations, stuffing, the implementation of plans for the turnout and other pranks of totalitarian regimes. Churov’s tails and saws have long been known in the neighboring Russian Federation – here you can read in detail and consider visualizations and classifications of violations of a free electoral process and examples of graphs for countries with free and transparent electoral processes.
In the distant naive 2012, we already analyzed and showed the stuffing of rigs, calculated something and tried to explain to the leaders of the parties the importance of “analysis”. In the same period, our service received its ideological development.
How much time has passed – and our politicians have not yet advanced beyond taking blood and urine jars, no matter how new it is. Star Wars is being waged with new digital media in the old pastures of analogue feudal relations: overlords, Venetian masks, gladiatorial arenas… The scenery has simply been repainted and electricity has been supplied to colored light bulbs.
Let’s go back to Gauss. The old man confirms that Ukraine can be proud and show off the beautiful forms of its charts. The almost classical form of the distribution of the precincts of the first five leaders of the presidential race looks like a classic example from a textbook – there are no saws, tails and other elements of undemocratic electoral incidents.
Easy tailings for 100 percent turnout may be due, among other things, to natural conditions – closed institutions, for example, usually ensure the absolute participation of their citizens. The figures are interesting who and with what score won in such areas. In total there are 199 such pieces and the administrative resource is not noticeable:
- Zelensky 98
- Tymoshenko 51
- Poroshenko 26
- Boyko 17
- Vilkul 2
- Lyashko 2
- Gritsenko 1
- Smeshko 1
- Tymoshenko Yuriy 1
It should be noted that Yury Tymoshenko won at polling station 51574 of the 12th district, at the University Clinic of the Vinnitsa National Medical University, perhaps it was the department of ophthalmology and there were only one glasses for four patients.
Working with graphs and tables, in principle, can spoil the eyes, because. I want to look at every bump and hump. The graphs show that the nature of the curves was somewhat different for Poroshenko and Gritsenko from the rest of the participants. Most likely these are regional differences. However, we will try to look at each break. We consider the assumptions that the administrative resources of the authorities worked for Gritsenko as far-fetched and unrealistic. At the same time, it is hard to believe that all former and experienced candidates have not tried to use the old methods of increasing the number of votes. Next, we consider each hump and compare it with the turnout percentage. It is known that Churov’s saws (throw-ins) are well compared with round numbers (5, 10, 15, etc.)
The graph shows bumps along the entire line of the number of sites with their winners. Each surge has its own turnout percentage. Each candidate has a common maximum point of 63%, except for one – Boyko, after 60% turnout in his polling stations went down. They did not make it, there were not enough people, apparently. The row 40, 45, 50, 55, etc. looks very suspicious. Take a closer look. It can happen to anyone, but given the regions and the experience of the regions in their estates, I would open the archives and double-check the data of the sites with Boyko’s victory a hundred times.
In general, mathematics has practically no complaints, we are preparing for the second round. Democratic and transparent elections should not play a cruel joke on our future.
