Entertaining arithmetic

Notes on the margins of the protocols of past elections

The September by-elections of deputies to the regional Assembly in Pskov have almost been forgotten. Either they elected someone, or they didn’t. Comments and analytical articles have been published. But the statistics of the elections, on closer examination, give rise to serious reflections. For example, about corruption in elections.

The law allows citizens who for some reason cannot take part in elections on voting day to vote early. Reasonable democratic procedure. But, as they say, you just give us a car, and we can break it ourselves.

According to the law, if more than 1% of voters took part in early voting at the polling station, at the request of candidates or members of the commission, a separate count of these ballots is carried out.

It so happened that in the September elections this happened all the time. We decided to look at the early voting numbers and compare them with the official campaign final results.

The statistics of fair elections (there are such in the world) suggests that with early voting, if “otherworldly forces” do not interfere in it, the results are quite close to the final ones. Simply put, if the election was won by candidate NN with a score of 40%, and his rivals scored, for example, 30% and 15%, then with early voting, the balance of power will be approximately the same, with minor deviations. Public sentiment is public sentiment.

If the results of the early expression of the will of citizens are significantly different from the final ones, then there is reason to talk about one or another impact on the voting process.

The methods of such influence can be different, from stimulating the early turnout of sincere supporters through disinterested persuasion, to direct bribery of voters.

So, food for thought.

In constituency No. 1 (elections were not held), Igor Goloborodko was the first with a score of 49.55%, followed by Vladimir Baranov (14.44%), followed by Alexander Antipiev (11.97%). According to the results of a separate calculation of the results of early voting, Goloborodko received 89.45% of the vote, Baranov - 4.02%, Antipiev - 0.5%.

In constituency No. 3 (elections were not held), Sergey Nikiforov (45.09%) took first place, Vasily Bobalev came second (32.24%). In early voting, Bobalev won (40.30%), while Nikiforov came second (32.84%).

In constituency No. 4 (elections were held, turnout 28.27%), Aleksey Bolshakov won (34.35%), followed by Alexander Prokofiev (16.80%), then Viktor Balynsky (12.30%) and Irina Shmatkova ( 11.51%). Early voting gave the following picture: Bolshakov (55.89%), Prokofiev (11.50%), Shmatkova (5.68%), Balynsky (5.61%).

In constituency No. 6 (elections did not take place), the picture of early voting is most different from the final election results. The first was Elena Bibikova (44.82%), ahead of Vladimir Vasiliev (18.71%) and Lev Shlosberg (16.33%). When counting those who voted early, the following picture emerged: Vasiliev (61.75%), Bibikova (29.49%), Shlosberg (4.15%).

We cannot claim that the candidates who won the early voting with such a significant advantage bribed the voters. To date, not a single criminal case has been initiated, there are no testimonies, no court decisions.

Meanwhile, it is known from various sources that some candidates paid through intermediaries to voters for voting in their favor from 50 to 300 rubles. Who sold out, sold out. It can be said that the poverty of the people pushes people to sell their civic dignity. And we can say that whoever does not have civic dignity, he himself is looking for a buyer among the candidates. Because there are.

Buying votes is practically meaningless when there is a high voter turnout. Judging by the figures received, several hundred votes were bought, but with a low turnout of citizens, this could decide the fate of the elections, especially at the local level.

They say you just need to have a conscience. Good recipe. But it is at least naive to expect the appearance of politicians with a conscience all the time in the elections.

It is hard to believe in the ability of the prosecutor's office and the police to resist the violation of the electoral rights of citizens, we do not have a single example of their successful response to such crimes. It seems that the guards of the law did not receive orders to comply with the law. And they are not used to defending the political rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution without a command.

Meanwhile, irresponsibility is the most favorable environment for committing any crimes. Everything can be repeated in the next elections. You can even say with certainty that it will happen again.

Konstantin Minaev.