Imitation of honesty

Falsification in the calculation and transfer of votes in the presidential election is practically impossible due to three- or even four-fold duplication and information verification, the deputy chairman of the CEC Leonid Ivlev told reporters.

The point is not that nothing is impossible in Russia, but that Mr. Ivlev, to put it mildly, is cunning.

Webcams that he talks about do not allow you to control the main stage of the election-the counting of votes. It is at this stage that most falsifications are taking place. So it was in the elections in December, this happened this time.

However, in the last election, the scale of falsifications turned out to be noticeably smaller-not so much because of webcams, but due to more organized control by society.

The results of this control in specific areas have yet to be summed up - but a message entitled " CEC has refuted the election for elections posted on the website of the voter league ."

“22 reports were checked that the number of votes in paper protocols issued to members of the commission and observers diverges from the information entered into the GAS“ Elections ”. "We compared the data of paper protocols / received from the sections / s" GAS "Elections" - they completely coincide with each other, "Ivlev assured."

Perhaps TASS journalists do not understand that “denying” and “refuting” are completely different things.

To refute, it is necessary, at least, in good faith to state the point of view of the opponent. No one in the Voter League, I think, doubts that those paper protocols that collect the GG. Churov, Ivlev, etc., coincide with the data in GAS "Elections".

The problem is different - the data in the certified copies of the protocols issued to observers do not coincide with official data. For some reason, difficulties with an understanding of the creature of the problem arise only among representatives of one party and one presidential candidate.

At the same time, following the example of their leader, they evade any debate in every possible way, preferring solo performances. Contrary to his own promise, Mr. Churov did not even come to a meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society, sending a CIDULK on extreme employment at the last moment. Boxing in correspondence is the favorite sport of Churov, and here he may well break into the champions.

They turned cowardice into a strategy. Why debate, if they already have any problems with the TV? If the opposition has no opportunity to ask questions publicly - who finds out that the cycles did not give a full answer to a single question?

Since even in the most egregious cases the courts take the side of the election commission and the current government, it remains to analyze the official election results.

But this is enough to detect large -scale falsifications. The vote of many tens of millions of citizens is subordinate to the laws of statistics; Therefore, it is much more difficult to invisiblely falsify the results than to fake any protocol of the election commission. Of course, the analysis of the results allows not all violations to detect. For example, the notorious “carousels” and not very massive stuffing during voting dissolve in the total mass of the results - and to identify the work of observers in the elections is extremely important.

Note that the CEC does not seek to facilitate the analysis of the results of the elections - there is no single table in all polling stations on the CEC website. Thank you, there are enthusiasts who download this data and bring together. The data analyzed below were taken from Alexei Shipylev ( http://shipilev.livejournal.com/99071.html ) - this is what was on the CIK website at 4.17 in the morning, 93,477 sites.

Let's look at the schedule showing the distribution of the number of votes for candidates depending on the turnout.

The main attention after the December elections, the commentators paid the “beard of Churov” (i.e. the abnormal right side of the schedule) and the peaks on “round” interest. Now the picture has changed a bit - the beard is older, and the peaks are lower, but this is the same landscape. As in December, the picture is somewhat crushed by the “Chechen peak”; Let's look at the plots with a turnout up to 995 ‰ (‰ - ppm, 0.1%):

First of all, the total 600 ‰ is attracted to the total of 600 ‰ for all schedules (by the way, the final forecast of the Levada Center gave a show of 60.3%). Apparently, this was a real turnout in the elections - and therefore, the posts amounted to over 4.5 million votes (we will not specify in whose benefit). Of course, this is half as much as a similar assessment in the December elections. You can even say that these elections are twice as honest than the December ones. But twice as honest - by no means the same as honest. It is not enough to steal half as much to be considered an honest person.

The second, no less significant circumstance: peaks on the "round" values ​​of the turnout - 850, 900 and 950 ‰ (85, 90 and 95%). These peaks undoubtedly indicate a file of data after the end of the vote. They could not arise naturally, and they cannot be organized by throwing during voting-because some kind of crazy voter can come to the very closure of the site and ruin all the beauty. With the number of voters on a site of 2000 people, only two extra people are enough for the appearance of 85% to 85.1%.

We see even more noticeable peaks on round values ​​on another schedule, where votes in areas with the same resulted result are shocked for each candidate:

There can be no rational explanations for such a “inclination” of voters (and only Putin's supporters) to “round” interest. On the contrary, the love of officials for round numbers is well known. We will not reproach them for this - after all, they themselves, not wanting it, help to clarify the picture.

Note that the addiction to round numbers is much more often manifested in the southern regions - maybe this climate affects? For example, data on the Krasnodar Territory:

The picture has changed somewhat compared to December (see the December elections, see Churestvo and Falsity and the fight against Gauss ), but did not at all better - as in most regions, however.

It's not only about Chechnya, where there is neither the possibility nor the need to comment on the results.

But for example, Tatarstan, where official results still have little in common with reality and common sense:

The efforts of observers were not always and not everywhere led to success. For example, already on the day of voting from St. Petersburg, there were reports about the expulsion of observers and other stories, familiar in December. Is it surprised that the official results of the elections on the graph does not look too elegant?

What did the “doubling of the honesty” of the current elections come from?

Partly from small improvements in many regions - in the same St. Petersburg, in December, the picture was even more unsightly (and this would have remained without observers).

And partly - from inexplicable changes in several large regions.

For example, the results of the Moscow elections in December:

But the March results:

It remains only to repeat after Maxim Pshenichnikov ( http://oude-rus.livejournal.com/581787.html ): “I don’t even know what those who say that the first schedule is completely normal due to the heterogeneities of the capital's metropolis will say.”

But the most amazing, perhaps, occurred in the Chelyabinsk region.

Here are the voting results December 4:

And suddenly the same people who voted almost voted for United Russia do not show any similar support to the “national leader” at all:

It is difficult to assume that over the past 3 months, another population was brought to the Chelyabinsk region.

It is no less difficult to convince any sane person that both of them were obtained as a result of honest elections.

The results in Moscow and Chelyabinsk is a convincing argument that

At least one of these elections were dishonest and should be re -carried out.

In fact, of course, both of them were purely dishonest - starting with the nomination and course of agitation and ending with summing up the results.

But if we talk only about violations during voting and counting, that is, a significant difference.

The frauds in the presidential election did not affect the result of the result - there was no one to choose from the Kutza Assortment proposed by the public; As a result, according to most experts, Putin really scored more than 50% (although much less than 63.6% declared). In general, these were the efficient half -election of a semi -president.

A completely different story with elections to the Duma. Even in the absence of opposition parties in the ballots (partly refusal to register, partly illegally dissolved), United Russia could not get the majority.

According to the most optimistic calculations for EP, it really received no more than 41% of the vote. This means that Mr. Naryshkin takes its place illegally, as illegally and the rest of the distribution of posts in the Duma, based on the falsified majority of united Russia.

This means that fraud in the December elections significantly distorted the actual will of voters.

The most reasonable thing that can make power now if it does not want to rock the boat is to declare that after adopting amendments to the legislation on parties and the election, early elections to the State Duma will be held.

We remind you that on March 15, as part of the Public Lectures project, Polit.ru will be performed by the PhD Candidate Faculty of Political Science of the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, USA), RASH teacher Kirill Kalinin with a lecture on the topic “How to explore electoral falsifications?” For more details, see the lecture announcement .