Electoral fraud started when they stopped inking fingers

We can state with ease that neither Turkey’s population is known (the data issued is tainted by considerable fraud) nor, in consequence, are civil registry ledgers correct. The coming three elections will be elections in which the civil registry and its ledgers will undergo the greatest falsification. All the issues pertaining to electoral integrity started when they stopped inking fingers. It was brushed over with society being fed gibberish like: “What’s all this? Are we a backward society that we are to place marks on everyone?” The guys saw what was coming and did away with inking fingers. What was this about? Why, then, with even postal voting available in many countries in the world, was this being done to us? Because a sound parliamentary system had not taken shape among us and sometimes there might come to power parties that used the system to win elections but did not recognise the laws and the system and would twist everything to stay in power permanently.
In the past, India ink that would not come off for a day was applied to fingers in anticipation of political parties’ endeavours, be they erroneous or fraudulent. This prevented multiple voting, but inking of fingers was dispensed with in the 2007 elections.
 
Empty building voters
In the local authority elections of 29 March 2009, voters’ rolls compiled on the basis of the Address Registration System began to be used.
The 2010 elections ushered in a new era marked by debate over the presence and absence of voters and dead people appearing to be alive along with, to top it all, the head of FETO’s laconic confession: “Raise the dead from their graves and get them to vote.”
There were documented media reports of hundreds of voters being registered at empty buildings and the existence of 8,000 voters in areas with a population of 10,000.
In 2013, for example, MHP Kocaeli MP Lütfü Türkkan proposed in a bill he submitted to the parliamentary speaker’s office that voters’ left index finger be marked with indelible ink after they had voted; by way of reason, he pointed to the controversy over address-based voters’ rolls and the casting of multiple votes.
 
14,000 voters deleted
I look at things that were written in 2008 and the same issue was being raised: “There were four families from Yozgat shown as living in my home on the lists.” Batıkent Kent Koop. Quarter Headperson Şükran Ayaz was commenting, “Queues were forming at civil registry offices because of incorrect records. The person’s statement is taken at face value when they register. The person could have entries made for ten people at their home.” Because what you state goes.
CHP Muratpaşa Sub-Province Chair Ercan Erkan was monitoring deletions from the lists and was saying, “There are 322,000 voters in Muratpaşa Sub-Province, while 14,000 voters have been deleted from the lists.”
In December 2016, Clean Election Platform spokesperson Yaşar Okuyan noted, “Non-AKP- voters have been eradicated one be one from voters’ rolls and the AKP embarked on the election with an 8-10 per cent advantage having doctored the voters’ rolls.”
April 2017 saw the publication of an abundance of reports carrying headlines speaking of the ruling party’s electoral fraud. LDP General Chair Cem Toker investigated the issue and had the following to say: “The number of voters grew by ten million between 2007 and 2011, the reason being ‘transfer to the address-based system.’ ‘Where did you get the system from?’ ‘We got it from the Turkish Statistical Institute.’ ‘Where are the records for this?’ ‘We destroyed them within six months.’ It is fully flawed. Why would a state institution destroy such important things within six months?”
Six million extra voters appeared in one year in Turkey! It supposedly increased thanks to the transfer to the address-based system! The recent past is awash with news of electoral fraud. If you delve into it you will be deluged.
 
Why am I dredging this up?
Turkey’s population is unknown; data is tainted. A census from scratch accompanied by a curfew must be conducted and everything must be reorganised accordingly. Voters’ rolls are full of millions of bogus entries to the benefit of the ruling party. They are untrustworthy.
But we know that this ruling party would never do such a thing. There is deafening silence from the CHP.
Some people ask, “Am I an idiot?” and entertain the idea of not voting and boycotting under these circumstances. This is a dangerous trend that is gaining ground. If the boycott is unable to involve the vast majority, 40-50 per cent, it will all be for naught. Small-scale boycotts only benefit the ruling party and result in legalising millions of bogus voters.
In response to the ideas and facts I have set out in four articles, the CHP must wage a widespread information campaign about these reams of bogus lists prior to the election. Despite this, it will contest the election, mobilise the people and strengthen its hand with the policies it develops over the election and afterwards.