Voting: how it was

Click to increase so, the sensation did not occur: candidate No. 1, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin won the 1st round. The campaign of the Cold Civil War, during which people learned that without Putin they were waiting for the collapse of Russia and the war of all against all, and the political opponents of the prime minister were declared traitors who “run behind the hill”, had their fruits: more than 60% gave their votes to Vladimir Putin. However, already the day before the vote on March 4, the insiders called the bar, below which candidate No. 1 should not drop: 58%. It is not surprising that the Exit-Polls conducted by the state VTsIom gave exactly this figure (58.3%), and 59.3%close to power. According to independent observers, Vladimir Putin scored a plus or minus 50%, and in any case he went in the 1st round, although balancing on the verge. That's exactly why in the most anti-Putin cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg) a variety of falsification technologies were involved, primarily with absenteeism. Officials took into account the lessons of December: remembering the resignation of governors, whose regions gave “United Russia” less than 40%, this time none of the heads of the regions allowed themselves to fall below 50%. For example, in Arkhangelsk, United Russia scored 31.9%in December, the governor was removed, in March the region issued 79.2%to the mountain. Exactly the same thing happened in Vologda, Volgograd, Primorye. The national republics were familiar to the Prime Minister-President of the Prime Minister: from 60% (Mari El) to 99.82% (Chechnya).

"

This is Putin’s victory not in the fight against real rivals, but in the fight against society. He was provided with interest by mobilization of the extremely orthodox, belligerent part of society

"

Voices of protest , perhaps, was unexpectedly the success in these elections of the head of the ONEXIM Mikhail Prokhorov. After the shame with the party, the analysts considered him an outsider of the campaign. Stereotype: Russia will never vote for a person whose fortune is estimated at $ 18 billion, was seriously shaken - not least thanks to the successful participation in the debates of Prokhorov himself. It could be assumed that Moscow would cast a vote for Prokhorov, where average wealth is ten times higher than the average in the country. Indeed, in the capital, at the time of signing the number in print, Prokhorov came close to the leader of the Communists Gennady Zyuganov, and in St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg even a little bypassed him, gaining from 12% to 15%. Also, a good result for the newcomer of the presidential campaigns gave Prokhorov university cities (Perm, Tomsk) and the most western region of the country of Kaliningrad. He scored inexplicably a lot (10%) in Karelia (maybe because Mikhail Khodorkovsky sits here in Segezh?), Udmurtia and the Magadan region. But in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, where in the village of nonsense, Prokhorov pays taxes and where he spent a lot of time at Norilsk Nickel, the result of his expectations: 6% in Norilsk and 8.5% in general along the edge. By the way, Mikhail Prokhorov had already stated that he would not accept the possible invitation of Vladimir Putin and he would not occupy any state debts.

As for Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the Communists scored less than the Communist Party in the parliamentary elections: at the time of signing the number - 17%, while in December the Communists had almost 20%. Obviously, as analysts predicted, the Communist Party of the Communist Party naturally decline, and besides, Prime Minister Putin, whose rhetoric was primarily aimed at the poor and the elderly, who was difficult to survive, as well as employees of the military -industrial complex, who used to vote behind the Communist Party, was taken into this campaign from Zyuganov.

The outsiders were the obvious losers of this campaign, the LDPR leader of the person-party Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the former speaker of the Federation Council, the leader of Fair Russia Sergey Mironov. For the first time in 20 years of his participation in the main election of the country, Zhirinovsky sank to 4th place: most of all, he gained in the east of the country (10%), where he is traditionally popular, and in Central Russia a politician who put the slogan “I am for the Russians!” On his banners almost everywhere lost to Mikhail Prokhorov.

The failure of the year can be considered the results of Sergei Mironov. If in December in the parliamentary elections his party gained more than 13%, accumulating a large percentage of protest votes, then in March Mironov lost both his and strangers, gaining a little more than 3%. Even in the worst for Fair Russia, the summer months of 2011 was higher - about 5%. Mironov’s campaign was so nondescript, the St. Petersburg comrade Putin himself was so afraid to offend the recent cartridge that even Mironov’s statements in support of the requirements of Bolotnaya brought nothing to him.

Not only state employees and students from all over the country, but also the Cossacks and citizens of the neighboring countries, the split country, political scientist Gleb Pavlovsky, commenting on the results of the vote, said that the country split out: large cities did not recognize the results of voting. “According to those protocols that we have already received from observers, Putin scored only about 50%. In Moscow, Putin has less than 48%, although the head of the Mosgorisburkom Gorbunov and speaks on a blue eye: not a single “carousel”. Of course, you need to understand that these are numbers without the Caucasus, Tatarstan and other “reliable” places, but it is still interesting what numbers the CEC will give after the final calculation of Moscow, ”said Dmitry Oreshkin, one of the creators of the Observer Observer project. “Compared to the December elections, more exquisite violation technologies were used,” says Alexander Kynev. - Minimized direct stuffing, in return transferred a number of plots directly to enterprises, where it is easier to control the will of citizens, and additionally included in the lists of subject citizens. This is a new technology that was rarely used before, but now it has become mass. It is important to understand: this is Putin’s victory not in the fight against real rivals, but in the fight against society. He was provided with interest due to the mobilization of the extremely orthodox, belligerent part of society. The main danger now is that the winners can say: since we have completed the plan by interest, you can tighten the nuts and plug your mouths dissatisfied. ” “I do not think that the results of the elections for someone in the West were a surprise,” says Philippe Hanson, professor of the Royal Institute of International Relations. “Putin’s return to the presidential chair can hardly be called a positive phenomenon for Russia - your country deserves the best.”