Technology of deception

Due to which the "gold reserve" of Sergei Sobyanin could form

If Sergei Sobyanin received only 31,886 (that is, minus 1.37%) fewer votes on September 8, he would have to continue the struggle for the post of mayor in the second round. Due to which the “gold reserve” saving for him was able to form - The New Times sorted out

Sergey Sobyanin at the inauguration ceremony on September 12

“My grandmother is 90 years old. They called her to the election: will you come to vote? - No. - And if we arrive? - Then I will vote. - And for whom, if not a secret? For that? - No, for another! As a result, they did not come. ” After September 8, a lot of similar records on social networks appeared. Like those where the observers told how innocently the old people were surprised at the arrival at their own request from the Zavkromom brigades with a remote urns: “Yes, we did not cause anyone!”

All this, of course, does not mean that the voting at home was totally falsified. But without violation of electoral legislation, it was clearly not here - as in a number of other situations that, according to the experts surveyed by The New Times, could well be used by the capital's authorities to achieve the necessary result.

Voting at home

104.7 thousand voters.

Possible postscribes in favor of Sobyanin - from 30 thousand to 50 thousand votes

The fact that the authorities are preparing the “mobilization” of the elderly and disabled people in support of the acting mayor became known a couple of weeks before the vote. According to social networks reported, they were ordered to draw up lists of wards and collect statements from them about the desire to vote at home. According to some reports, for the clarification of their “political orientation”, social workers received 10 thousand rubles.

Closer to September 8, the election of statements from the subdominal ones, often written by one handwriting and with signatures made by one hand, began to arrive in the election committee. Where the members of the commissions in advance the authors of the statements, up to 30% of voters admitted that they were not going to vote at home. Other "applicants" reported this after the arrival of the Izbirkomovites with the end of the Ur (The New Times (The New Times wrote about this in the report "Voting at the House" ).

True, the share of the “subdomers” in the current elections was not so great-4.5% of the number of participating in the vote (in the 2012 presidential election, 3.7% of voters voted outside the sites). But, as Andrei Buzin, a member of the Mosgorisbirkom from candidate Alexei Navalny, explained, in this case, it should be based on the fact that the victory in the first round Sergey Sobyanin was provided by less than 32 thousand votes. And if at least half of the voting at home did this with a violation of the law (and among the “homeless people” of the acting mayor was supported from 80% to 90%), then the court, where the headquarters of Navalny already turned, according to Buzin, should recognize this fact as a significant distortion of the “actual will of voters”.

Additional lists

About 60 thousand voters.

Possible postscribes in favor of Sobyanin - up to 20 thousand votes

Mass voting on additional lists was one of the most common types of falsifications in Moscow in the 2012 presidential election . But during the current campaign, in the framework of the struggle for the cleanliness of the elections, Sergei Sobyanin personally prohibited the heads of capital enterprises to organize the supply of their employees to sites.

However, about 60 thousand people still voted on additional lists. A considerable part of them was composed by respectable citizens who were forgotten to include voters. But it happened differently.

For example, about one and a half thousand employees of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense voted in the site No. 469 in the Khoroshevsky district. All of them came to the site at the same time and, according to the testimony of Tick Anton Nosik, stood in line from eight in the morning to six in the evening. They voted on secret lists, which were prohibited to check the election of the election commission. And in the Arbat section No. 9, the lists were replenished almost a thousand employees of the General Staff, which together presented fresh registration at the place of residence dated September 3.

Rempturing certificates

The number of absenteeism is 10 thousand.

Possible shortage of opponents of Sobyanin - from 10 thousand to 30 thousand votes

In order to avoid “carousels”, “cruise voting” and other frauds, the Mosgorisbirk reduced the number of absenteeisms ten times compared to the 2012 presidential election-up to 10 thousand. Therefore, it was extremely difficult to get absenteeism-the election committee refused to be issued under any prepositions. As a result, many independent members of the election commission and observers who worked in “alien” areas were unable to receive absenteeism and, accordingly, did not vote in these elections.

As the lawyer of the Union of Russian observers Dmitry Krainev told The New Times, only the chairmen of the district commissions, their deputies and secretaries of the PEC (as a rule, representing United Russia), were unhindered, while most other members of the commissions and observers failed to do this. Theoretically, they could be included in additional lists, but this practice was banned by the chairman of MGIK Valentin Gorbunov.

Meanwhile, only 3.5 thousand members of the election committee, the same number of observers and another 3 thousand observers from the naval party of the RPR-Parnas, worked from Navalny's headquarters in the elections. In total, according to Krainev’s estimates, on September 8, they could not vote from 10 thousand to 30 thousand observers and members of the commissions.

"Gray zone"

About 950 thousand voters.

Possible postscribes in favor of Sobyanin - up to 40 thousand votes

Finally, the so -called “gray zone” could become another source of “profit” by Sobyanin - approximately 1.5 thousand out of 3.6 thousand sites where there were no independent observers. In these areas, according to experts, anything could happen - from banal stuffing of the ballots to rewriting the final protocols.

Firstly, the total result of Sobyanin in 2077 areas, from where independent observers transmitted information to the SMS-CIC system (the People’s Healthcraft project) completely coincided with the official data of MGIK and amounted to 49.7% of the vote. Whereas in areas without independent observers of the acting mayor received, according to the official version, 53.7%.

Secondly, the capital’s authorities did not explain why for more than two hours after the closing of the MGIK sections did not give any data on its results, although the results from 1035 sections equipped with coobs were promised to publish no later than 20.30.

Finally, thirdly, there are no explanations of the numerous facts of significant delays with the introduction of results into the SAS system “Elections”. For example, in the Otradnoye area, this process dragged on until the evening of September 9th.

In addition, according to Grigory Melkonian, the “voice” “has reliable data that people from ticks called the weekeys during September 8 and found out where and what observers are.” As a result, by the end of the vote, the authorities knew exactly where to adjust the voting results. And they could well give concrete tasks on wrapping the result of Sobyanin to the values ​​that provide victory in the first round, that is, in the amount of 39.5 thousand votes that make up the same 1.7%, on which the official result of Sobyanin exceeded the calculations of the “people's election”.

At the same time, according to Melkonants, falsifiers could well “work on average values”, that is, to increase the results of the acting mayor where they were originally below the average. In this case, it is extremely difficult to “catch” falsification with the usual statistical methods, since there is neither a splash of turnout, nor a too high result for Sobyanin.