Translated material
Ordinary theft
How and why falsify the results of the elections in Moscow
Photo: Golovinskiy.mos.ru
Mass violations in the municipal elections in Moscow were a surprise for many. There is enough everything: from anecdotal cases, like the accusation of the observer, that he bit a member of the commission, to full -format falsifications. What is it connected with?
Enchances against the administrations
In Moscow, a paradoxical situation has developed: the interests of the Central Election Commission and the Mosgorisbirkom are faced with the interests of the leadership of prefectures and administrations. On the one hand, the CEC and MGIK are interested in making municipal elections without violations. On the nose is the presidential election, and Ella Pamfilova has repeatedly stated that September 2017 would become preparation for them. To ensure the legitimacy of the next presidential period, Vladimir Putin must create in society the feeling that the upcoming elections will be honest and objective. In this sense, municipal elections were to become a "front window."
On the other hand, prefects and heads of administrations need controlled councils of deputies. Despite the almost complete lack of authority, these tips are integrated into the distribution of budget funds. It is not surprising that local tics ( territorial election commissions. - NT), consisting of employees of the administrations, primarily solve the tasks of their direct authorities, and only then - the global tasks of the Central Election Commission. Everything is used, from the use of the administrative resource and illegal campaign to direct violation of the Criminal Code. Somewhere, like on Arbat, hundreds of military personnel are connected to a vote. In Izmailovo, the chairman of the commission was hiding from the victorious candidates, refusing to enter data to the GAS “Elections”. In the Nagornaya, the chairman of the commission, instead of the name of one candidate, read out the name of the other to distort the voting results.
One of the most egregious and clumsy examples was the falsification of the voting protocol of the precinct election commission (PEC) No. 2742 of the district of Vernadsky, the chairman - the Oryol Vera Alekseevna.
Everything is used, from the use of the administrative resource and illegal agitation to direct violation of the Criminal Code
Three anomalies
Kira Lukyanova is a candidate from the Yabloko party, the mother of four children and a psychologist who worked in a kindergarten for children with autism, cerebral palsy and Down syndrome for many years. Vernadsky Avenue was nominated in the area, in the Troika with Yablokniki Vladimir Landov and Alexander Sorokin. Lukyanova was the leader in voting in his area and claimed first place. However, an abnormal, statistically impossible result was suddenly revealed to the PEC No. 2742: Flikov - 146 votes, Sorokin - 141 votes, Lukyanov - 13 votes. How to explain the difference 11 times between members of the same team?
Independent candidates suggest that the votes were stolen in favor of their competitor - Elena Mamaeva, candidate from United Russia. The fact is that, taking into account these votes, Lukyanov occupied the second, and perhaps even first place in his district, while Mamaeva was not even part of the five finalists. Analyst Vladimir Barinov prepared a schedule on which the voting results were visualized: one of the candidates has an abnormal failure at the PEC No. 2742, and the other has an abnormally large number of votes.
What does this testify? According to independent observers, the conclusion is obvious: the voices were stolen from Lukyanova and attributed Mamaeva. This was necessary in order to radically change the alignment in the Council of Deputies. If the three independent candidates entered the Council, this would make it impossible to re -election the head of the municipality Alexander Sukhorukov, a protege of the local council, with whom the activists of the district have an old conflict.
How can falsification become possible? The fact is that out of the nineteen PECs ( precinct election commissions. - NT) of the district of Vernadsky, one remained “undisguised”: the independent candidates did not have enough observers. It was here that the protocol was forged, and very clumsy: the gap between Lukyanova and Mamaeva is far from the only anomaly. So, the result of voting for Mamaev at the PEC No. 2742 is the largest of all candidates at all weekends of the district (163 votes, look at the final table).
The third anomaly is the number of votes cast for Glovkov and Sorokin (146 and 141, respectively). Apart from Mamaev, their results in this area are the most significant throughout the district, not in any area, not a single candidate gained anymore. How is it possible? The fact is that at the PEC No. 2742 residents of 10-16 houses vote on Udaltsova Street. These are the old Soviet cooperative houses in which professors live, employees of Mosfilm and other representatives of the intelligentsia. It is not surprising that they traditionally support the candidates from Yabloko and actively participate in the elections: it is on this site that the highest turnout was recorded among all the UIKs of the district, much higher than the average in Moscow (by 30%).
Calculator as electoral technology
Against this background, the result of Kira Lukyanova simply looks ridiculous. To steal voices on such a site, and even so clumsy is the same as pulling a wallet out of a pocket under the sight of the television cameras. But the leadership of the council and the prefecture, apparently, went to Va-Bank: there were no other ways to hold other ways to the Council of Deputies Alexander Sukhorukov. Time was running out, and the chairman of the PEC No. 2742 Vera Orlinskaya decided to “drown” the objectionable candidate, simply considering the necessary difference on the calculator and casting votes to the candidate from United Russia.
According to independent observers, the conclusion is obvious: the voices were stolen from Lukyanova and attributed to Mamaeva
The local tick refuses to recount the votes, referring to the lack of complaints of observers: there were no complaints, it is not needed and recount. However, the Candidate of the Communist Party Vladimir Zhilin said that he was present at the polling station No. 2742 at the time of the vote count and recorded that in an enlarged form of the protocol (the table on the wall where the number of votes by the marker) appeared a completely different figure: 83 votes for Lukyanov instead of 13 specified in the protocol. Unfortunately, Zhilin did not take a picture of the table, but rewrote the data on the paper and did not take the certified copy of the protocol. However, he personally talked with Kira Lukyanova and agreed to confirm in court that the numbers did not coincide. In addition, he confirmed his words in the presence of dozens of witnesses at a meeting of the Council of Deputies of the new convocation, held on September 14. Thus, there is no doubt that falsified data on voters' votes were deliberately entered into the final protocol of voting in section No. 2742.
The struggle is in full swing
Pavel Abraham, a researcher at NIFI, a specialist in statistics and a member of the TIK with the right of an advisory voice, at the night of summing up was present in Tik. Immediately, to identify an abnormal deviation, he wrote a complaint addressed to the chairman TIK Stukalova Svetlana Viktorovna.
An emergency night meeting was convened, at which the commission refused to satisfy the complaint and conduct a re -counting of votes. (The video recording of the meeting is posted in the public domain on YouTube ).
A complex positional struggle began, in which independent candidates and observers act on the one hand, and on the other, members of the TIC district of Vernadsky Avenue. Complaints and requirements for recalculating the votes are submitted, statements are written to the police, an archive of video broadcasting from the site in the Moscow City Wharus was requested. At the same time, the district activists began the campaign to search for those who really voted for Lukyanov in section No. 2742: they placed messages in the district groups and stuck ads in the district. Over the first day of the campaign, more than 30 people responded, who in writing confirmed that they had voted in this site to Lukyanova. And not only to her, but to the whole “three” “Lukyanova-Sorokin fluids”. In total, in one day, more than 60 people signed statements in the TIC and the Mosgorisbirk with a demand to count the vote. Now activists are trying to deploy a campaign to Moscow as a whole in order to achieve maximum publicity. Lawyers of the Yabloko party and a well -known specialist in elective legislation Stanislav Rachinsky work with the team. Sergei Mitrokhin prepares an application to the prosecutor’s office, to which it will be attached to the requirements of residents of the district to count the votes to the PEC No. 2742.
District activists began the campaign to search for those who really voted for Lukyanov in section No. 2742: posted messages in the district groups and stuck ads in the district
There is a typical “Contractor’s incident”: the stubborn reluctance of the members of the TIK of the district of Vernadsky Prospekt Vernadsky to count the votes to the PEC No. 2742 completely discredit the Mosgorizbirk, the CEC and personally Ella Pamfilova. What can be trust in the elections of the head of state, even if municipal elections are held with gross violations and falsifications? The only thing that can save the CEC reputation is a timely reaction to the identified violations.
* The author is a researcher at the Center for the Sectoral Economics of the Research Financial Institute, a member of the territorial election commission of the district of Vernadsky with the right of an advisory vote, an independent observer.