Translated material
At a crossroads
I was silent for a long time, expecting a reaction to the past elections - both from various associations of observers and voters as a whole.
Now, having read the preliminary reports and memorandums, messages about falsifications, as well as the victorious relations of propagandists, I will express my opinion on the state of affairs.
Let's start with victorious relations.
Now we are all actively trying to convince us that the elections have shown that the majority of the country's population is for Putin. Exactly so: not " most voted ", and not even " most voters ", namely, " the majority of the country for Putin ."
Maybe indeed the majority in the country - for Putin? Maybe he really is a national leader? The president of everyone - and not just those who voted for him? Check.
Supporters of Putin repeat that " the minority should respect the opinion of the majority ." This is true: the Putin minority should respect the opinion of the vast majority of the country's population.
After all, the majority of the country's population never voted for Putin and EP, which follows even from the official data of the CEC. But the real social base "EP" and Putin in the country, of course, even lower, at the level of 2003, when in Russia the latest federal elections without mass falsifications were in fact.
If someone is still not aware of the main methods of falsification, I will explain.
The main resource of votes for the party of power and its candidates has long been a vote at the house.
As you can see, since 2003 it has grown in a shock pace, increasing by 2.7 million and reaching 6.1 million .
The members of the PEC have long been accustomed to the " initiative detours " of residential quarters with portable urns, almost knocking on the apartments and allowing anyone to vote, then issuing it with fake applications. Often, even dumber is made: the contents of portable boxes are elementarily replaced with a pre -printed “left” circulation of ballots with pre -affixed checkmarks opposite the desired column. Therefore, we can confidently assume that almost 100% portable boxes give results only in support of the authorities.
But in relation to the 2012 election, 1% of the vote is 716.7 thousand of the ballots , so that only a vote at home could immediately give more than 8.5% of the vote .
Now - on absenteeism (OS).
According to the law, a voter who on the day of voting will not be able to arrive at the site where he is included in the voter list is entitled to receive an OS and take part in the elections in any site where he will be on the voting day. Upon presentation of the OS on the day of voting, the voter must be included in the additional list of voters, and the OS itself must be seized (by the way, in the last elections, additional lists of voters began to form just like that-without any OS at all).
Typically, employees of the budget sphere, students and workers force to receive an OS and vote in a particular area under the supervision of the authorities (sometimes simply part of the PEC). According to the law, a citizen voting on the OS must be included in an additional list of voters and submit the op -amp upon receipt of the ballot. However, this procedure is really not respected. And if the OU was not seized, then a citizen with him can go to another site and vote as many times as he likes. So in all elections, the "carousels" were organized. In the formal statistics of the citizen voted according to the OS, it enters only where he passes this certificate. In other words: the number of voting along the OS, which we see in the GAS "Elections", you can safely multiply by at least 3 (and you can hardly have time to vote less than 3 times a day, especially if you are delivered to different areas by bus).
If the OU is not passed, then at the time of leaving the site the voter simply becomes included in the additional list of voters on a common basis.
Therefore, it is not surprising to observe the following picture:
We get another 2.2% of the vote. And remember that this is three times less than really voted along the OS.
By the way, in the 2012 elections, the situation generally went beyond the line of good and evil: the “ continuous production cycle” workers who were working on service buses and voted repeatedly in different sections, even without absentee certificates, which almost everywhere simply ended , were massively included in additional lists of voters. And we will never know how many such additional lists in different areas were, because these lists are protected by the law on personal data. We will never know exactly how many times the same people have voted on these lists in different areas.
Moreover, "temporary" polling stations " were also organized specially for them.
For example, such as plot No. 3377 in the village of Mostrenten (10 km from the Moscow Ring Road), in the construction market, between shopping tents with nails, doors and shawarma. 
87%voted for Putin there. Nobody saw voters.
In general, falsification technologies in this election were noticeably enriched. Most of them are manipulations with voter lists. For example, a new, original way has appeared-in the book of voters, according to which the ballots are issued, the number of apartments in really existing houses is fictitious, which is not every voter and will notice. And the wipers or someone else calmly come to the site and vote allegedly as the residents of these linden apartments. Who will check it? After all, the lists of voters are not issued to anyone to familiarize themselves.
Finally, the last resource is an early vote.
It is curious that we have limited the early voting with pomp not so long ago. The results of "restrictions" are evident.
We get another 0.33% of the vote. By the way, in fact, if anyone has a question - how can an early vote, in principle, be a falsification mechanism? - I will reply that stored ballots early voted voters are very easily replaced at night with a pre -printed “left” circulation of ballots with ticks put in the right places.
Thus, now we can evaluate the total resource of the above three methods. It is equivalent to 11% of the vote (based on the appearance in the 2012 elections). But we recall that the “carousel” has not yet been fully taken into account here. Considering that one bus per day could give 1000-1500 votes, the total number of votes that could be falsified in this way is quite capable of reaching 1-2% , in addition to the existing 11%. Thus, we can talk at least about 12-13% of the votes assigned. And Putin, as we know,, according to official figures, scored 63.6% .
Let's evaluate how it looks:
50% of the vote for victory in the first round is 35.8 million people, and Putin without portable boxes, without absenteeism and voted ahead of schedule, “received”, as far as one can judge, only 37.6 million - a little more than 52%. And if you take away from these 52% of the “carousel”, as well as the stuffing and rewriting of the final protocols (and it is unlikely that the share of such violations was less than 2%), it is possible to assume with a high degree of probability that Putin could not gain sufficient real number of votes for winning the first round .
The most close to reality the level of support can be considered the one showed by Moscow. It was in the capital that it was decided to minimize falsifications, since their wild level in December 2011 provoked a massive explosion of discontent and repeated protests of more than 60 thousand people, unprecedented from the beginning of the 90s. Kireev analyzed the current situation well and came to the conclusion that Putin in Moscow almost accurately “ got into the result of EP in the Duma elections ” - almost 47%, which is contrary to trends in all other regions of the country (there is a share of votes in favor of Putin is clearly higher than in favor of EP three). The results in the CAO - the district, most opposition in relation to the authorities are especially noteworthy. For example, “ Putin’s Arbat has the largest fall compared to the result of Osra ... there were 63% for United Russia, but became 40% for Putin . Those who have refuted falsification in Moscow in the Duma elections either should explain this phenomenon or kill themselves against the wall , ” Kireev believes. He is sure that a clear pattern is being traced: Putin received much more than United Russia, primarily in those areas where there were sets of processing electoral ballots (Koibi) . In the Duma elections, the same Koibi saved these sites from falsifications, which allows you to determine the real results of the EP in Moscow as a whole in December 2011-24-25 % with a show of 50% . Now there were 47% for Putin with a turnout of almost 58% . This realistic picture completely fits into what is now visible to other large cities. Thus, if Putin’s spokesman considers the issue of recognizing the presidential elections closed, we consider no less closed the question of recognizing parliamentary elections.
An unconditional innovation this year was a system of webcam with online broadcasting, complicating the stuffing and stupid rewriting of protocols at a low turnout. It was precisely because of this that the unprecedentedly large-scale “carousel” campaign was required-firstly, it was necessary to somehow ensure the masses on the screens, and secondly-to organize temporary areas, where, of course, there were no webcams spinning.
Already on March 4, it became clear that the webcams on which 13 billion rubles were spent were not able to prevent the “carousels”, and the concealment of archives with records in the bowels of the Ministry of Communications made them useless for further analysis of the past elections.
But the main thing, even if we assume that Putin was really able to tear out a little more than 50% of the votes, this does not mean at all that he won honestly how the propagandists are trying to prove. The election campaign was not honest from the moment Putin refused to go on vacation using the loophole in the legislation and announcing that the Prime Minister is not a civil servant, but only by a person who replaces the state position (lawyers who wrote such an editorial of the Law, accordingly, can be considered only by persons with a legal diploma). Putin cowardly refused to participate in the debates with the candidates who had been admitted to the elections, motivating the failure of his time, as well as the need to go on vacation - but he found time to come and speak for mass shares in his support without worrying about any vacation. Moreover, one of the explanations was the unwillingness to “ put one board on one board ” with the sun -like with the rest of the candidates who whispered under his feet. But in the United States, for example, the situation is inconceivable for the president who is about to re -elect will abandon the debate with the contender from another party under such a pretext. But it is understandable-where there is some kind of US president to the great helmsman.
Finally, according to the Medialogi company, designed for 02/27/2012, Putin’s mention in the media was more than 1.5 times higher than the mention of all other candidates combined . The campaign for Putin actually brazenly masked in the media under the "information lighting" of his activities as the Prime Minister.
But we still do not recall the most important trick - in fact, a nomination for a third term using a hole in the legislation associated with the phrase “ two terms in a row ” with the phrase. Logically, from the text of the article of the Constitution, a 2-variant followed: either after 2 in a row, one can never run again. Or-it is possible, but only if someone warms up the presidential chair for you during the intermediate period. Obviously, in their right mind, no legislator would write the norm with the last interpretation. She is never interpreted anywhere around the world. Only with us.
The problem of the opposition now, in comparison with the post -sophisticated situation in December, in one thing is the lack of murderous obvious evidence of falsifications , since this time the emphasis was made by the authorities on such methods that are not amenable to accurate calculation and fixation (in contrast to the stuffing and rewriting of the final protocols, on which the authorities and burned in December). That is, it is impossible to understand exactly how many temporary polling stations were formed throughout the country, how many additional lists were on each polling station, and how many voters were in such lists, it is also impossible to evaluate how many buses with “carousel” pursued throughout the country ... There are only one thing clear: there were thousands of such violations. There were so many that, given all of the foregoing, all other methods of falsification combined, all the injustice of the election campaign itself, we can assume that Putin did not win the first round, which means that it is safe not to recognize the legitimacy of the current presidential elections .
Power itself knows the price of these elections well. Preliminary results have not yet been announced, the internal troops and reinforced police detachments were pulled into the capital, and irrigated vehicles entered the central streets, which rose between potential danger and the most important government buildings with an iron wall. Moscow, and therefore the whole country, as if preparing for war - was not mentioned out loud, but it was clear to everyone: if anything - the power would not stand at a price. However, this was not required.
Putin felt like the winner in the evening on the same day, on the Manezhnaya Square, where thousands of people with the flags and banners gave out by organized groups, and where the unfortunate Medvedev congratulated him with his own voice.
“ We showed that no one can impose anything! Nobody and nothing! We showed that our people are able to easily distinguish a desire for novelty, to update political provocations that set only one goal - to ruin Russian statehood and usurp power ,” Putin shouted into the microphone.
A few hours later, during the teleconference with Nizhny Tagil, after listening to the memorized congratulations of the workers, he again demonstrated that it was for him that the country is divided into "his" and "strangers" :
" You put in the place of people who were finished ... it turned out that your intellectual level is two orders of magnitude higher than those who considered himself a person on whom God fell asleep ... You showed what the Russian people are. You showed that you are a head above any loafer, any talker ."
And this says a person who positions himself as a national leader?! He clearly makes it clear how he relates to those who do not consider him his president: we are all loafers and talkers, setting ourselves only one goal - to ruin Russian statehood and usurp power . He is not even trying to be the president of the whole country - he is the president only of the part that voted for him.
And what part voted for him? Let's see :
“On the evening of March 4, Russia was divided into two parts - on the one hand, those who are against Putin, and on the other - those who are for the current government,” writes Y. Zagoret . - “ No one is better than state employees who have been driven to the rallies and elections, knows the price of this support. No one is better than the organizers of falsifications . No one is better than Putin himself and his environment ... does not understand the price of this victory in the elections. It is extremely dangerous to rely on such support, because it is one thing - to agree for a couple of thousand rubles to go with a flag to the square or ride a bus on the day of elections, and quite another - in which case to defend a distant and already shallow president. ”
At the same time, Yu. Saprykin writes correctly: “... rallies of recent months have not reached a single goal. On the other hand, many goals have been achieved that were not directly declared. The emergence of thousands of observers - people who consider the honesty of an elected procedure with a vital value - is only one of them. Remember yourself: three months ago, a rally for 5 thousand people was considered an unprecedented achievement .
... I do not really believe in the further escalation of protest actions ... If this escalation did not occur in the previous months, if the number of rallies participants does not grow in exponent, but remains at the level of 60-70 thousand people in Moscow-there is no reason to believe that this number will sharply increase in months subsequent , unless the authorities commit any flagrant stupid things. The key point in the “orange scenario” is not at all installing tents on the central square, but the presence of a participant in the election race, in which, in the opinion of a significant part of the population, the victory is stolen . The idea of honesty of elections in itself, regardless of the participants in these elections, is an important, but not so enthusiastic one.
... The problem is not that the “protest is drained”, and not that in a peaceful and coordinated form it is not dangerous for the authorities (and, in general, it is not too noticed by it ), but that the social base of this protest, which has grown sharply over the past months, still rested on its ceiling . To increase it, we need, as they said in Soviet times, asymmetric steps. ”
We know what steps we need, and take them.
Most people - for whom they vote - accept power as a given. Many of those who supported Putin on March 4 vote for the current government in any election - regardless of what this power is the name. The tension in society, which began to grow immediately after the elections to the State Duma, did not disappear with the end of the presidential election.
Stability, under the banners of which Putin enters the third term, has come to an end .