Translated material
: Science against falsifiers
Is it possible to scientifically prove that there were falsifications in the elections? Mathematics and sociologists are seriously fighting this task. One hundred percent guarantees that there were falsifications, however, scientists cannot yet give. But they record anomalies in the Russian elections, and the assessment methods improve.
Falsification during the elections is not only the scope of the attention of civil society and the authorities. They can also be an object of scientific interest. Serious scientists are also interested in falsifications in the elections: first of all, mathematicians and sociologists. However, as a specialist in electoral statistics, teacher of RASH, said during the public lecture “Polit.ru”, The PhD Candidate Faculty of Political Science of the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, USA) Kirill Kalinin, a number of methodological problems are on the path of researchers.
First of all, falsification is not so easy to identify, since they are latent. And any anomaly in electoral statistics can be interpreted as a manifestation of falsification, although in reality it is completely optional. The problem is that the lack of socio-demographic data in the areas does not make it clear whether the abnormalities are explained by something other than falsifications. Therefore, scientists, unlike civilian activists, speak of falsifications neatly.
There are two types of data that scientists analyze in search of electoral anomalies: direct (the results of the centrisburkom) and indirect (data of hundred-polls and exit Pols). The electoral data of the last few elections when voting for power and in the analysis of the turnout are far from normal “Gaussian” distribution: two peaks are allocated in relation to the turnout-in the area of turnout is 50-55 percent and in the region of 100 percent. What is an anomaly, because for turnout, with reservations, there must be a normal distribution. Mathematician Sergei Spilkin gives an example of voting in Moscow during the latest elections. In December 2011, the distribution of the appearance of the city was “two -humped” (that is, there was a second peak at large values of the turnout), and already in Putin’s elections “pure Gaussky”.
In addition, local peaks are also observed in the “round” meanings of the turnout - also an abnormal phenomenon.
According to Kalinin, some patterns, abnormal at first glance, cannot be unequivocally called falsifications. Say, a high correlation of the appearance and the result of voting for United Russia (the higher the turnout, the higher the result for the EP and lower for other parties), which many observers called evidence of stuffing after the December elections, cannot be unequivocally recognized as falsification for the scientist. Since a certain “third factor” may well affect the turnout and the result.
According to Igor Zadorin, the head of the Zirkon group, who led the open opinion during the election project, the problem is that one mathematics of falsification cannot be caught, sociological models of describing anomalies are needed. Say, two neighboring houses may really vote in various ways, if one house is departmental, and the second is ordinary. Or in the event that (Zadorin noted that this has already happened in the local elections) in one of the houses before voting broke the sewer or turned off hot water.
The electoral abnormalities are also revealed with the help of the Benford law, when experts look at the distribution of the second significant number of the number (in the number 1756 it will be the number 7, in relation to the elections - the number of votes votes or the number of votes for the party/candidate). This method is also imperfect: according to Kalinin, with a significant share of “strategic voting” (say, according to the “Navalny strategy” - anomalies are obtained for any party, except for the party in power). In relation to Russian elections, anomalies are revealed, and their number from 2003 to 2011 has invariably grew. In the last Duma elections, say, scientists recorded a large number of zeros and fives, with a lack of nine and three, which indicates some distortions of the results of the will.
In addition to the analysis of direct data, experts also look at the data of surveys and exit fields. The problems that arise when working with this materials are in a simple consideration: it is unclear how the data obtained from the respondents correspond to the real process of expression of will. If so, the deviation of the official result from the results of the surveys can be considered evidence of falsifications and thus evaluate their volume. But how much can you rely on indirect data?
What sociologists are reproached with is well known. There is a sampling problem: inaccessible respondents (and they relate to certain social groups with a allegedly similar attitude to the elective process and political preferences) to a lesser extent fall into the field of view of half stars.
Sociologists are trying to solve these problems. To normalize the results of the survey, they conduct “weighing”, taking into account the opinions with a certain coefficient. And during the “open opinion” experiment before the last election, polls were conducted by phone, and both on mobile and stationary. As a result, the result of Putin almost coincided with the data obtained by sociological firms.
Kalinin also spoke about how they, together with the Levada Center, tried to level the factor of “socially approved answers”. Two sublords were made, both of them were asked the same set of “insensitive” to ideological preferences of questions, but in one of the groups there was no “sensitive” issue (regarding who the respondent would vote or whether he would go to the elections). Comparing the results, sociologists were able to cut off the “socially approved answers”. Thus, the drainage methodology is improved and comparing their data with officially declared can also be assumed falsifications. An analysis of indirect data should correlate with the results of the analysis of direct data, otherwise the conclusions can be incorrect.
Firstly, lawyers usually require one hundred percent guarantees of evidence, and sociologists and mathematicians do not operate on such concepts, and secondly, we have such a court and the CEC. And in the United States, where, according to Kalinin, there were appeals to mathematicians as experts on electoral issues, the conclusions of scientists have not yet accepted the final and more so evidence.
See also: Tatyana Kosinova, components of the systemic stuffingGrigory Kolyutsky Observation Organization in Zyuzino Jan Rachinsky imitation of honesty what the electoral statistics of Yang Rachinsky about Churestvo and Falsity can say