POLLS AND MAGAZINES OF NON certify PLEBISCITO BUSATO

With some misleading or unfounded statements, the plebiscito.eu website tried to justify the inconsistency of the numbers of voters in the March online plebiscite 2014.

In one of its pages ( cLICK ) Giane (pseudonym of Gianluca Busato) states that a “Demos survey conducted by prof. Ilvo Diamanti and published in Repubblica on Monday 24 last March, which have substantially certified the high turnout to the Venetian vote” not “Extremely positive reviews of the Plebiscito.eu platform of specialized US magazines, Which, For example, PcWorld, Network World, Computer World“. but it's not true.

Nell’Article in question of the Republic ( cLICK ) Ilvo Diamanti instead wrote that “Quasi 2 and a half millions. With a "plebiscite" outcome: 89% of "Yes". Naturally, The data are hypothetical and not verifiable“, that is, diamonds here repeated only the statements of Busato, in fact not verifiable, and in fact he continues by talking about “measure, maybe, not "plebiscite", Like the one declared by the "Venetists", MA, However, majority.“, And then he explains. “This is confirmed by a Demos survey, conducted with a representative sample of Venetian voters in recent days (to be precise: THE 20 and the 21 March). Participation in the referendum, from data, it comes out reduced. ” then I defraud Busato, “But it remains, Anyway, very significant. Almost half of the Venetian voters, Indeed, claims to have voted or to be intended to do so“.

The survey it is available here (cLICK) and shows that only the 48% of those entitled they would have expressed their intention of voting or having voted, and of these, THE 78% he wanted to vote for yes or he would do it.

In a nutshell, the Demos survey would have indicated in approx 1.800.000 (THE 48% of eligible voters) who said of “having voted or to be intended to do so“, under the quorum necessary and far from 2.360.235 votes declared by Busato, and in practice it has no at all “substantially certified the high turnout to the Venetian vote” As Busato says.

In reality then there’ intention to go to vote for many collided with the difficulties of voting and with the few gazebo available.

But let's go back to what he writes “Giane” On the plebisito.eu website , Why also indicated “Extremely positive reviews of the Plebiscito.eu platform of specialized US magazines, Which, For example, PcWorld, Network World, Computer World“.

In reality, the author of all the articles of the three magazines was only one, Philip Willan, that I was asked to find out how he verified the votes. He replied to me saying that his article actually it was an interview to Gianluca Busato, is that He did not in any way verify the data communicated by the organizers, limiting himself to reporting the data said by Busato, indeed finding “somewhat incorrect” by Busato use the article as a alleged confirmation of the validity of the referendum. (I would be ashamed )

But the fact is that from the original article of Willan a benevolent hand canceled the doubts that the author had put in the article, because some disputes on the validity of the numbers were also mentioned, doubts mysteriously eliminated by the version published by editors in the United States, without warning it.

It is to be wondered: How come from the United States give credibility to the Dubbie statements of Busato by eliminating the doubts of the authors? I don't think the online space is missing!

However, Busato's data is proven are not true, not just for The already known international counters (And I'm waiting for the reply in Il Giornale) , But because Busato himself told the press that about the 5% of the votes was expressed by phone, And this cannot be true. In fact, the 5% of the votes expressed would have been approximately 118.000 votes, But the only telephone line exploited all week for 11 hours a day would have allowed to collect it to the maximum 14000, So they would have wanted to be at least 9 telephone lines to collect 118.000 votes, But there was only one.

As regards the alleged international certifier, Others is only a completely unqualified person to check for an online vote, an ex ambassador, And it would not have been the opportunity to confirm anything since there was no field verification at the time of the vote. Since the regularity checks are made after the vote and not during ?

What is striking is the benevolence of a certain press, that it has before “pump” media the plebiscite also during the vote, And then not only did he emphasize the result, but they did not give voice to the detailed criticisms. Among these supporters “media” There are the Republic and the newspaper, which certainly historically are not related to independentist thought.

What is evident is the impossibility of busato to justify international counters, THE 10% traffic on the site arriving from South America, its mystification on surveys and articles to certify the non -certifiable, and those strange articles cut by an American hand ……. And the verification committee is still waiting for Busato to answer the questions and above all give us the opportunity to check the data, in order to dissipate doubts.

Everything seems aimed at passing a completely fallocoled plebiscite to legitimate, and carried out in a state of military employment as in the 1866.

Unfortunately An IPR Marketing survey (cLICK) confirms the probability of a scam on numbers, since the Venetians for the 63% are contrary to independence, so only the 37%, 1,4 millions of Venetians would vote for a referendum for independence. This is also after the arrests of the new Serenissimi that the Venetians have perceived as unmotivated.

Note that the IPR data is not in contrast with that of Demos, because Demos said the intention to vote for the 48%, But only the 78% He wanted to vote yes, equal to 1.100.000. Busato presented more than double numbers than the surveys, unjustifiable numbers precisely according to the surveys that he mystifying he says they give him reason (reversal of truth).

I have the impression that Busato was looking for a legitimacy for his declaration of the Venetian Republic, legitimacy that however has not had and unfortunately still there is no.

Meanwhile, his republic therefore risks solving himself in an attempt “software” of subversion as they are without both internal and international legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the residents of the Veneto do not agree (also because many are not Venetian!). or maybe, in this case, Luckily.

The page of index on the plebiscite (cLICK)