I am really starting to wonder if politicians in the European Union and its member states making statements against the do-over election in Istanbul truly don't want to see fair elections in Turkey.

What could be more natural than a do-over election after it was proved that there was fraud and corruption in the March 31 elections for the Istanbul mayor's office?

Is it normal for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) metropolitan mayoral candidate to lose with a minimal amount of votes even when he almost won all of the district presidencies and the majority of the metropolitan municipality assembly members in Istanbul in the same polls?

According to the investigation, it is clear that these results were prepared months before. It was proved that dead citizens, those not residing in Istanbul or fake citizens also voted somehow. The addresses of fake voters proved to be empty warehouses, farmlands and unused buildings.

Just recounting 10 percent of election ballot boxes proved that over 10,000 votes were declared "invalid" with fraud and all of these votes proved to be "valid" votes cast for the AK party candidate. If all of the votes were to be recounted, the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) candidate who claimed to have won probably wouldn't have in reality with a 13,000 difference in votes.

In addition, a big scandal that allowed this has been revealed. It was proved that around 3,000 people who were not public officials worked as balloting committee members. The number of total votes in ballot boxes where these people were present was larger than the difference between the vote difference of the CHP candidate and the AK Party candidate. Doesn't this prove that the elections in Istanbul for the metropolitan mayor's office were not "fair" and "clean?"

The Supreme Election Council (YSK) declared, after a long period of investigation and meetings, to redo the elections for the Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor's Office. And it gave the final decision as a committee where representatives from all parties were present. After the decision of the YSK to redo the elections, 10,560,963 voters in Istanbul will vote again in 31,124 ballot boxes on June 23.

Thus, isn't it strange to have statements from the U.S. and EU that disregard "election fraud" and criticize the do-over elections?

Especially in the EU and certain EU member states, some people are content with "trampling on democracy" and "theft of voters' votes" just because they don't want to see an AK Party mayor in Istanbul. They "accept" fraud that they would never allow in their own countries.

That the CHP is a socialist international member party is one reason, so starting with European social democrat executives and politicians, all of whom have problems with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, oppose the renewal of elections in Istanbul. This is very interesting. Those who accuse Erdoğan of being a dictator are becoming laughingstocks. Turkey is a democracy, and governments come and go with elections. Those who are governing can also become victims of "election fraud." The candidate desired by the U.S. and the EU can only be elected through fraud. Let's point out that 53 percent of voters in Turkey supported the AK Party and Erdoğan in the last elections. Other than Istanbul, only in Ankara did the CHP take the mayor's office from the AK Party. In İzmir, the CHP has always won. In Antalya, every election shifts from the AK Party to the CHP or vice versa. Cities like Adana and Mersin have Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) mayors, and they lost in this election. In short, it is important to analyze the election results properly.

Now the citizens of Istanbul are going to elect their mayor with an election that is in accordance with the law, and that is fair. Either the AK Party candidate or the CHP candidate is going to be elected. And since it is going to be a fair election everyone's conscience is going to be clear. Where is the problem? Leave Turkey alone. The citizens of Istanbul are keenly aware of everything. In democracies, the winners are not those who "shout the most," but those that receive the most votes.