- Coded "results" were available on the ECI website in the versions of the spreadsheet CandidateAC.xls downloaded between the 6th and 11th of May. They contained "results" for all but 47 of the 8071 candidate. If EVM’s were secure with DEO/district collectors, and elections were not even held in many constituencies, how was did the ECI have this data?
- Was this data not in control of the ECI? Was their site hacked? Or was data from various EVM's uploaded in advance? Was this generated by someone in access of the website?
- How can the ECI distinguish between real and dummy data?
- If this data is generated as test/dummy data by "Genesys" software that collects and transfers data from districts to the ECI then:
- Why did this happen during the poll process?
- Why did the ECI not put up notice to the effect on its website?
- Why did it not react to the alert to this data sent to them on the 6th of May by NIC and Dr Anupam Saraph? Why is there no response to date? Why is there no clarification on this?
- If the purpose of the test is to match names with votes, why were the names coded to match the order in which they appear on the EVM?
- If it is just meant to tally the match, why was the data changing for at least some constituencies in this period?
- Why do 108 winners tally with winners as per this data?
- Why do the ranks of 662 candidates match the finally declared?
- In many cases multiple ranks in the same constituency match - this is a highly non-random event considering each of the 'n' candidates in a constituency would have '1/n' chance of making it to any position and p positions matching is a low probability chance with probability 1/(n)**p.
- If previous years data is used to generate "dummy data", why are there only 108 matches? Also where does the data for those who did not contest previously come from?
- Why was this data "sanitized" on the 15th of May?
- Why were the final results never uploaded onto the spreadsheet?
- Why was the link to the spreadsheet removed on the 15th of July when the media asked the ECI questions about it?
- Why has the ECI not replied to the mails and [of the meeting with ECI] sen to them by Dr Anupam Saraph and Prof Madhav Nalapat?
- Why does the voters and votes polled data reported by the ECI in different documents on its own website differ significantly?
- The existence of this data also contravenes the Order passed by the Supreme Court on 19-01-2009, in writ petition ( C) No. 207 of 2004th See ECI press release on the Supreme Court Order
EC predicted on its spreadsheets on May 6, 2009 the Rank 1 (winning), Rank2 and Rank3 candidates (while poll was to close only on May 13, 2009). In a total of 108 constituencies, the number of votes polled by the winner. matched remarkably with the final declared results. Here are some samples of the results of EC “predictions” or pre-counting analysis.
State Lok Rank 1 Rank2 Rank3
AP 42 11 6 4 Assam 14 5 5 2 Gujarat 26 4 5 1 Haryana 10 3 1 1 K'natak 28 8 8 6 MP 29 4 6 4 Maha'ra 48 12 9 9 Orissa 21 1 3 3 Punjab 13 5 3 1 R'sthan 25 3 4 4 T'nadu 39 6 2 1 UP 80 20 7 5 C'garh 11 3 4 2 J'khand 14 2 3 4 Pondi 1 0 0 1 U'khand 5 1 1 Coded "results" were available on the ECI website in the versions of the spreadsheet CandidateAC.xls They contained "results" for all but 47 of the 8071 candidates.
Kalyanaraman 16 August 2009