Features of voting on amendments to the Constitution. Detective reporting from Moscow weekends

For each vote, which has been held for the past 10 years in Russia, during which I observed in the plots of voting in all federal elections, this or that falsification technology became somewhat predominant. The methods of deception of citizens changed - carousels, stuffing, rewriting protocols, controlled voting at enterprises, forced voting on the exit.

Whatever type of falsifications, it became known about them thanks to a strong counterweight to falsifiers in the person of “public controllers” - members of election commissions of various levels with the right of deliberate vote (PSG), observers and press.

Different techniques are used to catch and prevent different types of falsification. Let's say that they do not throw a pack of ballots, the observants must have a ballot box and ballots in sight from its seal to the end of the vote count. To catch carousella, you need to look for the transport on which they drive up in the vicinity of the site. To catch the census, you need to be able to receive a correctly certified copy of the final protocol.

The peculiarity of the current vote:

No one will see almost no falsifications due to their absence, but by virtue of refusal to controllers in access to any documents or information.

There are no independent observers at the current vote-they are appointed by the Public Chamber, and even if a professional and independent observer passes in their number, he risks being withdrawn at any moment as soon as he reveals a truly serious violation. Therefore, PSG and the press remain.

What can be at the current voting of the press? We put an experiment, in the first couple of days of voting, visiting more than three dozen sites in two peripheral areas of Moscow - Golyanovo and Biryulyovo with the Tsikovskaya accreditation.

A short answer: the effectiveness of the press as a public controller with the current weekly vote is zero.

Everywhere on the first day of voting, as long as I visited the election commission in Golyanovo, the film crew of Novaya Gazeta - me, the photojournalist Svetlana Vidanov and the operator Igor Finkovsky - were met by the warming faces of members of the district election commissions (PECs).

We willingly shared information about the number of those who voted at home, and with other figures - the total number of those who voted at this hour, the number of “attached” to the site and “who“ rebelled ”from it (the data on the“ attached ”and“ non -“failed” were published before the elections, but, as we wrote, serious mistakes were found in them).

The picture was supplemented only by remarks of “independent observers”, which, in response to the question “who are you from?”, Answered: “From the Housing Housing”. We met voters less than visited plots. There was no one at all in one site, unreleased books with voters' lists lay on the tables, any attacker could steal them or throw anything into the urn.

The number of bulletins with which the election of the election commission was going to go or just went to the homeless vote did not cause surprise (one byomic urn, in my experience of walking, can visit no more than 15–20 voters for exit - because in each apartment you need to make several procedures: explain the voting procedure, check the passport on the application, issue the ballot voter about Leo Tolstoy).

But the very next day, something went wrong in Biryulev. In response to an innocent question - "How much did you vote in the homemen?" -The chairmen of the PEC changed in the person and either called “up” somewhere and reported that they could not disclose this information, or they told me from the threshold-they say, we will not say anything.

The most guessed chairmen began to demonstrate the “knowledge” of the law and demand for every number that we ask, a piece of paper with a request from the editorial office or asked to show the line in the law, where it is written that this particular marinean should give this particular information to this particular information.

Borrowed voters

Meanwhile, in the weekend there were stunning data about the turnout throughout the country - 30% in the first four days. For a sluggish vote that we observed, this is an absolutely unrealistic figure.

Where can she get from? It cannot be explained by any compulsory voting at the place of work, the halter of state employees to real or electronic sections, the handling of “ups”, it cannot be explained - there are simply so many state employees in the country, there are no so many transport for “upsets”. Electronic voting covers only Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod and will not be able to give such an impact on the turnout throughout the country. Independent people who go in the daytime at a speed of five people at half an hour per site of the standard number (my observation in Golyanovo) will never give such a turnout.

Okay, but then where did the weekeys come from?

On the other hand, multiple reports appeared about fantastically large numbers that voted at the house, despite the fact that the commission did not go to so many people, did not enter them in the register and did not put them against their surnames in the voter lists.

Turnout in exchange for statements

The most reasonable explanation of what is happening that can be offered is “borrowed voters”. The scheme can work as follows: the PEC reports to the territorial election commission (TIK) fantastically a large turnout and in the “pledge” of this “turnout” draws the right number of applications for the state voting from among the voters of this site. At the same time, no one goes anywhere with any urn, it does not throw anything under the bush under the bush and does not fill the books: after all, if this is done right away, then citizens can find themselves among those who voted.

Bulletins for such "homeworkers" can be thrown at the final stage-when counting the votes and opening the safe packages.

And fill the lines in the book for anyone. That's exactly why I, perhaps, did not want to say how many homemen voted.

Why not write down all the "homeworkers" with the last day of voting? The turnout is reported to the TIC from PEC regularly throughout the voting period. In order not to create an absolutely incredible peak of “homeboards” on the last day, it is better to smear them throughout the interval. To do this, you have to "borrow voters" - so that the turnout looks natural. But with the filling of books you need to wait, so as not to sleep at all in a way.

It is possible to stop such a schematosis only by comparing the statements of voting with the marks in the list of voters (it should be indicated that the voter will vote at home) and with a register for a subdominal vote, which must coincide with the mark in the list and with statements. For this, the powers of a member of the election commission with the right of an advisory voice are needed.

Therefore, I turned to the deputy of the Moscow City Duma Elena Shuvalova, and she appointed me already during this vote by a member of the Taganskaya district territorial election commission (TIK).

And here, in this report, according to the law of the genre, the results of the testing of Tagan weekends and cleansing them from all suspicions should appear. Or, conversely, a picture of fake statements eaten by the chairman of the early vote. But there will be no rhyme “roses”: this time you will not find out anything about this vote.

Circus in Taganskoy Tick

At about o'clock in the afternoon on June 29, I appeared in the TIK of the Tagansky district with a full set of documents necessary for the appointment of a member of the Tick with an advisory voice: the decision of the deputy Elena Shuvalova, my consent, and also took a copy of the passport and photo.

The chairman of TIK Rimma Petrovna Bakhtiarov under the cells of our journalists and, under the witnesses, took my documents to make my certificate of a member of Tick, without which I could not exercise the authority. However, instead of filling a few lines and setting a seal, which usually takes 2-3 minutes (and I have repeatedly visited the TIC), she began to refer to various imaginary reasons why she could not do it now (there is no secretary, a lot of work, coronavirus), and under the camera defiantly proceeded with my documents to the toilet, and then went out into the street.

After that, my documents disappeared, and Rimma Petrovna with them.

After waiting for it for about an hour, I called the police and made a statement about the disappearance of the chairman of the TEC with my documents. Passionate police officers brought me to the Taganka police department, where I wrote a statement on the commission of Rimma Petrovna crime under Article 141 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Obligging by the exercise of electoral rights or the work of election commissions”), as well as the theft of my documents and my personal data.

However, the police were not going to catch the kidnapper and stopping her sabotage of my work. We went to complain in the Mosgorisbirk (MGIK) and arrived there at 16:45. Chopovtsy let us in with the press cards operator, but, having phoned the superiors, they did not allow us to go further than the front, and then they completely squeezed us out into the street. At the beginning of the sixth, Mosgorduma deputy Elena Shuvalova appeared, and in front of her, the Chopovtsy completely closed the door to the key. Elena Shuvalova called the police.

We have a question for Mr. Ermolov, the chairman of the Moscow City Warrics.

Do you really think that you have the right to prevent the Moscow City Duma deputies to the premises of MGIK?

All this time, Novaya Gazeta, the photo correspondent of Novaya Gazeta, was in Tika (until 18:25), and all this time in Tick was not Bakhtiarova.

As long as the outfit was driving, the information about the abduction of my documents and about the prevention of my work by Rimma Bakhtiarova reached the public headquarters to control and monitor all -Russian voting - the assistant to the editor -in -chief of Echo of Moscow, Alexei Venediktov, contacted me at this headquarters. According to Tick’s position transferred to me from the headquarters, it was very interesting to track how the structure of the lies of the TIK changed, which they hung Venediktov and other members of the public headquarters on the ears.

At first, the version of the election commission, as I was presented to me, was-“Bakhtiaova is afraid to get infected,” and therefore I escaped from me (this from 13 p.m. until the evening, yeah), and they say, it is about to do everything. Then the lies became thinner and more interesting: supposedly “Shuvalova refused to enter the MGIK, she was offered” (not true, she did not even speak with her).

Later, thanks to the efforts of the public headquarters, a certain person called Mgik at about 8 pm and made me a strange proposal: to pick up the documents “at 14:00 on Tuesday” (which is for nonsense, the direction is made in 3 minutes, and such a long prevention of the performance of my duties could not be justified). Then the lies of Tika became even thinner: “And Shuvalova already has a representative in Tik Taganka, and while she calls him out, nothing will happen” (this representative was withdrawn exactly by the very document that I was appointed and who stole Bakhtiarov from me).

Robbery in tick?

After meaningless communication with the police outfit at MGIK, who refused to stop the offense, since “they are not a election”, we handed over another appeal to the police, this time on a deputy form, General Baranov to Petrovka, 38, and went to the Tag Taganka, where we met Rimm Petrovna.

Having stated that “she is not,” she failed to explain to us where she was my stolen documents and why she does not want to give me a certificate.

She refused to speak with the representative of MGIK, who just called at that moment on a speakerphone. Instead, with the help of a police officer on duty, kicks and kulakov kicked out with the words “went out” of deputy Shuvalov, her assistant and us and us, Igor Finkovsky. The policeman motivated this by the fact that the room is sealed.

We call the outfit again, the deputy Shuvalov again writes an application for a crime under Art. 141 of the Criminal Code. The "senior" appears - Major of the Tagansky police department Fomichev. He refuses to capture the criminal, although she rummages somewhere nearby, citing the fact that they do not catch criminals, but consider papers. He also refuses to give her a warning about the inadmissibility of violation of the law, motivating this with the end of the working day with Bakhtiarova.

After the police left, we examined the “sealed” tick through the windows. In the room there was an unknown person similar to Bakhtiarov.

Despite the “end of the working day”, she worked - she took an official phone, sat at a working computer. I called the police again in connection with a probable robbery of TIC-after all, if in a sealed and locked room the lights and some people sit in the treasury, they are rummaging through the robbers that penetrated through the window.

The police did not arrive within 2 hours after the call. At 23:33 the “robbers” continued to be in Tik.

***

Pamfilova's unpleasant questions

I believe that a schematosis with the homeless is not the only type of falsification that independent PSG interfere with this vote. For its implementation, it is completely critical that PSG get to the site as later as possible, so as not to have time to reconcile registers with statements, applications - with books. When counting votes for this, there are no more possibilities. Therefore, it was necessary to turn the banal stationery procedure for issuing PSG certificates into the battle of peoples at least for this.

However, there is no Bakhtiarov questions, they are to Pamphilova. We would like to hear public answers to them:

• Who lowered to the PECs and Tiki instructions not to report the number of people who voted?

• Why do independent public controllers do not receive immediate access to the register of subdominal people, their statements for the subdominal vote, records in books, acts of issuing ballots for home -made voting?

• Why do TIKs sabotage the work of independent PSG and PRG?

• Why does the PSG have no way to seal a room with safe with PRGs in order to control that there will be no one in it at night?