This is democracy, correct?:

No Room for 'Nyet' in Ukraine's Crimea Vote to Join Russia

I read not just here but another site in which Russians (let's suggest, neo-Soviet viewpionts) that option number two allowed to remain part of Ukraine.

Citations below:
“The restoration of this [1992] constitution would be a step towards notional independence under Russian control... Those citizens who were content with Crimea remaining part of Ukraine on the same basis as it has been for the last 20 years do not have a voice in this referendum. There is no third option available.”

At first glance, the second option seems to offer the prospects of the peninsula remaining within Ukraine.

But the 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from doing that.

This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia.

With the pro-Russian assembly already saying it wants to return Crimea to Russia, this second option only offers a slightly longer route to shifting the peninsula back under Russian control, analysts say.
The option of asking people if they wish to stick with the status quo - in which Crimea enjoys autonomy but remains part of Ukraine - is not on offer.

Medvedev said the vote would be fair, however. People only had to answer one question in the referendum, he added, before correcting himself to say there were in fact two questions. “Either to be with Russia or to be with Ukraine,” he said. -end

So, it's either Russia now or Russia later? That's fair and democratic, right? Unless someone here wants to explain what is wrong with the logic in the article. Also, the rationalization has much propaganda in suggesting they (i.e. Crimea) either sticks with a radical 'far-right' Ukraine or Russia (neo-Soviet). Yet, as I explained previously, there is no real 'far-right' in Ukraine that has power or influence. Unless, this description includes full cooperation and allegiance to US and Israeli groups. Nuland, one of the major orchestrators, is Jewish. So, is the interim PM. There are a number of Government appointees recently, who are as well. They are all given the approval from those in the US that bankrolled the revolution after it escalated and not much has changed since the previous regime except for some different people in higher positions. Ultimately, it will not be a 'far-right' regime but a US-sanctioned Government with some radicals in military positions. However, they are only 'far-right' in the sense that they are against 'Russian' (read: Kremlin) control. They want their own power. But, calling them nazis is inaccurate. Svoboda and Right Sector have both communicated with Jewish organizations and the ambassador in Israel. Svoboda has pledged to build a large Jewish museum in Ukraine. There has been assurances from Jewish communities that they're on their side. None of the far-right organizations that are publicly in the news have been outspoken against the USA or EU. The initial position was they were against any outside influence or control. It was a quest for independence and sovereignty but it is nothing of the sort. So, Ukraine has been taken by one 'side' that has no sincere concern or regard for their citizens but only profit and power and a second side, Russia, who is also opportunist and have imperial ambitions. The 2nd side, Russia, also has little regard for their own citizens but is infamous for propaganda and pretense - and is not any more trustworthy than the current Government in Ukraine. Ukrainian citizens, both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are in the middle, not to mention everyone else living there.