The effect of absence, or voting in the context

Still, there are still women in Russian villages! Journalist Irina Alksnis writes : “All minimally sane people, even if they really do not like what is happening and they personally do not like the Russian government, are aware that the figures received during the vote reflect the true state of affairs in the country: in the issue of amendments to the constitution, the state actually cost three quarters of the active voters of Russia ... Once again, the most serious change has been included in our lives: the election in Russia really became more honest, and trust in them increased markedly. ”

Robe to ask: she, perhaps, will say that in the USSR 99.9% of the workers honestly supported the indestructible block of communists and non -partisans? The Soviet Union relied on such bright heads and reproduced them with tens of millions. Today they are experiencing stormy Renaissance.

Do we have the right to demand that a person understands at least a little bit of mathematical statistics? No, not entitled. We do not even have the right to demand that he even understand at least something.

Since the beginning of the 90s, since they began to publish more or less complete electoral statistics (its volume and quality grew before the beginning of the zero years, and then, with the era of V.E. Churov, they began to be bought up; 2020 will go down in history as the beginning of agony), the country did not encounter such large-scale falsifications. We are returned to the Soviet practice of drawing results, but by oversight (or maybe this is already a criminal plot of pests, inspired from abroad?!) Forbidden to prohibit the publication of the results in polling stations. Comrade Stalin would never have allowed this: one nationwide percentage reported - and enough with you! Rejoice.

Sites in Russia are about 95 thousand. The data array attached to them immediately fell into the hands of the bespectacled traitors of the Motherland with scientific degrees according to statistics, the theory of probabilities and the Big Data Management. They, unlike I. Alksnis, perceive the numbers not by the heart filled with faith in the second coming of the scoop, but through rational algorithms. Who filter muddy electoral water and quickly get a dry residue: this is believable, it is doubtful, and this is almost incredible. In fact, the file-2020 is the documented sentence of the Putin vertical. The only question is in terms of announcement and in the ability of some people to understand what is written.

The simplest and most visual calculations, almost on the fingers, without any Big Data, have been conducting a wonderful specialist in electoral statistics Sergey Shpilkin for more than 10 years. They got used to his method and even began to understand. Although not all, of course.

From a number of parameters recorded in the protocols of the precinct election commissions (PEC), Spilkin’s visualization for the sake ofonly two most obvious: the percentage of turnout and the physical number of the voters who said “yes” or “no”.

Imagine that you are in the 10th grade of high school. On the horizontal axis, we put off the percentage of turnout, on the vertical - thousands of votes “for” or “against” filed in the relevant areas. You do not have to be an excellent student to figure out that under normal conditions, the alignment of votes in areas should not depend much on the turnout. If there really were three quarters of active voters “for” (as Ms. Alksnis believes), then these three quarters should at about the same frequency (and more often than others!) Meet in a wide variety of areas: what about a phenomenon of 35%, that with a firing of 95%. At the same time, the majority of PECs should have indicators of turnout somewhere in the middle-not 35 and not 95 percent, but about 65-70-as soon as we were announced to the average appearance of 68%.

This is how the precinct data are distributed in all countries where voices are honestly considered. It doesn’t matter what the average turnout is at least 40%, at least 70%, it doesn’t matter what a specific percentage of “for” or “against”: in all cases the schedule resembles the bell, is approximately symmetrical, does not have sharp fractures and has one maximum somewhere in the field of average values. In other words, the normal distribution of the name of Karl Friedrich Gauss. It regularly works everywhere except Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, Chechnya, Transnistria and some other corners of social progress and electoral stability. However, the precinct data there, following the covenants of Great Stalin, prefer not to publish.

Nothing like Gauss in the distribution of data presented by Pamfilian heroes is close. There is a benign (smooth and almost symmetrical) small peak around the appearance values ​​of 40–45% and 65% of the vote corresponding to this turnout. (Shpilkin on the vertical axis does not place the percent “for”, but natural numbers, which is more correct. But counting at interest for a middle tenth grader, thank God, is not a problem). After the first peak, a “normal” decrease begins - the descending branch of the bell. Which, however, is quickly ill with the appearance of the second “abnormal” peak - more massive and bearing signs of rude falsifications. Just on the failure between the peaks and the areas where the average official turnout is recorded - 68%. Which theoretically should meet more often than others - that is, correspond to the peak, not the pit.

Should, but does not correspond.

The second Anti-Gaussian peak gives a maximum of about 85% about a turnout (with close values ​​of the votes “for”). The schedule on this part demonstrates fractures and teeth familiar to specialists (partly resembling the profile of the Spasskaya Tower) at numbers, multiple of five. Translated into Russian, this means that polling stations with a clear of exactly 50, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95 percent are often found disproportionately in comparison with neighboring, where the turnout was not 50%, but, let's say, 48–49 or 51–52%; Not 60%, but 58–59 or 61–62%, etc. The explanation of the anomaly is simple: the bosses of the plots with an increased turnout (they make up the body of the second irregular peak), without excruciating, painted the figure that they were ordered. We ordered 75% - get 75! We need 85% - please 85! If customers and performers are slightly smarter, they would draw 73% or, say, 86% for smoothing the picture. But what is not, that is not.

The dry residue, squeezed by the Pilkin method, is impressive. The second unnatural peak of distribution is higher and more massive than the first and consists of at least 23 million “abnormal” votes. That twice as much as the standard scale of the postscript in the Churov era : then the “abnormal” were 10-12 million. Soon, a more complete and multidimensional picture of distortion, described by other methods and at other angles of vision, would be presented with a variety of authors. To the great disappointment of Irina Alksnis and her colleagues in the publication of Ilya Uglova, who decisively, but not too competently undertook to expose the “crooked spilkin”.

The topic of ambitious stupidity is inexhaustible and with the revival of Soviet priorities is becoming more and more relevant - but now not about it. So far, in the first approximation, we see that not 74 million voters (68%) really came to the vote, but less than 50 million (this turnout does not reach 45%), and not 58 million voted for the amendments (with a yavka of 78%), but less than 35 million (65%of the actually voting). Against the amendments of at least 17-18 million people.

You can carefully estimate the final contribution of the boycott: at least the order of values. We will proceed from the data of Levada Center sociologists who interviewed potential ignorants (boycotts are an integral part of this group). Those who firmly stated that they would not go to vote, asked how they would vote, if they still went-for amendments or against? 27% could not or did not want to answer, 18% said that they would vote “for”, and 56% “against”. Total, among those who decided to ignore the vote, opponents of amendments prevail. About three quarters.

According to the first calculations of Spilkin, 46-49 million people really took part in the vote. In total, we had 109 million voters. Therefore, there were at least 60 million ignorants. It can be carefully assumed that of them about 45 million (three quarters) are those who rather do not like the change in the Constitution. Imagine that at least half of them (22–23 million) nevertheless decided to come and put up her inner protest in the “against” show. In this case, the number of real votes “no” would exceed the number of votes “yes” in a proportion of about 40 million by 35 million, with a real turnout about 70%. At the same time, the total falsification resource would be noticeably limited: in order to stab 23–25 million fake votes in the total result, the number of voters would have to be lifted up to 100 million (with a turnout above 90%). But it will be completely Chechnya-whale. Or, about the same - the USSR. It is interesting how the comrades from Rusnext would react. Probably rejoiced at the unprecedented rally of fraternal peoples?

I’ll make a reservation again: the assessment is rude and conditional. The other cannot be today. But the dimension is approximately understandable: the problem of boycott applies to tens of millions of dissatisfied.

Total, in the dry balance.

1. V.V. Putin took a decisive step down, closely bringing the electoral system of the Russian Federation to the best Soviet samples. The process of electoral degradation began after the 2004 election, accelerated in 2008 and is now approaching logical completion.

2. The next record of Russia was recorded in the favorite national exercise “Lifting from the knees bent”: the volume of falsifier was immediately doubled. Earlier, manipulations with early voting were used only by individual regions, and now this valuable experience has been introduced already on a all -Russian scale and is stretched for six days. According to official figures, 55% voted ahead of schedule. So, on Sunday, July 1, only 13% of the total list voted (68–55 = 13). From this it follows that about the same number of voters (about 9% of the list), as on the main voting day, came to each of the days of early voting to sites on average. Our earth is great and abundant, there are probably people who are ready to believe.

3. Electronic voting gave results that are more likely to the data of Spilkin than to the numbers of the CEC of the Russian Federation. Especially in the Nizhny Novgorod region, where it turned out 60% of the pros and 40% “against”, and in offline - with the mass use of “dose” - 81% by 19%. The electoral administration in the field is still careful with the new technology and does not know how to adapt it to achieve the goals. So Koibi (settings for the processing of ballots) in the first years of operation showed honest numbers - until the comrades in the localities were looked closely at them and groped for slack.

4. Skilkin’s calculations capture only the coarse methods of falsifier - namely the physical additive of the votes “for” (postscribes, stuffing, the drive of bonded voters, etc.). In all these cases, the unnatural growth of support is accompanied by an unnatural growth of turnout - and the model caught this. By the way, once again: the manipulators are not interested in faning the turnout, but in the inflating of the percent “for”. The growth of turnout is rather a pleasant, but optional consequence. People were forced not to vote for the sake of turning, but from a long -established empirical rule: if the dependent voter under the pressure came to the site, then in three cases out of four he will vote “for”. Just in case. Why does he need unnecessary problems?

More time -consuming methods of falsifier - for example, the transfer of part of the votes “no” to the “Yes” column - are not accompanied by an increase in the turnout and are not fixed by the Pilkin model. Therefore, its calculation establishes only the lower border of the falsifier: at least 23 million “abnormal” votes for amendments.

5. The idea with the strike of election commissions failed. Those few who supported her were mainly from the independent members of the PEC and their absence only made life easier for manipulators. The idea with a boycott, on the contrary, worked - but, as always, rather in the interests of the Kremlin. In general, practice shows that the opposition will work better when it acts with “positive” rational initiatives such as “smart voting”. But “negative” initiatives - opening, exposing and led to clean water - are much more effective from the point of view of populism and maintaining the image of irreconcilable wrestlers. Therefore, the rulers of the Duma and the masses are more often advocated for the boycott, and experts are mainly for participation.

6. Those who came and voted against - a low bow. Thanks to them, the show can be dissected and explained its wrong side to those who have not yet understood. It was they who, which was impossible, which was impossible before, showed how the falsifier’s machine works: it does not so much steal or kill the voices of the opposition (which the supporters of the boycott are noisy, and what is actually not so), how many fake votes are filled with a mountain of fake votes. Now, “against” really voted to 20 (at least 17-18) million people. If something was stolen from this amount, then very little: the process is too troublesome. But by 30–35 million real votes “for”, another 20–25 million painted. And in the end they received announced support of 55 million.

7. And more about the "game in thimbles." That we are dealing with thimbles - there is nothing to argue here. It is impossible to win with them, but you can not lose. And this means the following.

Firstly, not to allow you to inspire a critically tuned, almost something, that it is in a hopeless minority (“Three quarters for !!”).

Secondly, not sitting at the table with thimbles, you will not make an evidence plot about how they fool people's heads.

Thirdly, it is time to admit that the country is difficult. In relation to the thimbles of Tuva and Chechnya - one, and Moscow and Peter are completely different. In Moscow, where Navalny in 2013 collected 0.65 million votes (by the way, again an example of the success of the “positive” initiative!), They listen to it by the word. Even against the background of a synchronously declared skepticism from Navalny, Yabloko and Parnassus, more than one and a half million Muscovites still came and spoke out against amendments. In ninety -five weekends, amendments did not pass. If the opposition politicians simply said nothing, the official Moscow account in percent would not be 65:35, but closer to 60:40 or to 55:45. Instead of individual opposition PECs on the map of the city, most likely, whole districts would have appeared free from zeroing.

And if democratic politicians actively called to come and vote against, then along with the Nenets AO (just after the attempt to join everything is clear: the interests of the population and the local nomenclature temporarily coincided), another protest region could have appeared - not the last in importance.

It is difficult to say whether the voters would consider it a victory or not - the case depends on the interpretation. But the empirical fact is that they were not called against voting against us. We were more or less clearly called for a boycott. Which humanly is very clear: to campaign for participation is risk. Most likely you fly. Politicians do not like to lose and should not love; The politician should be configured to win. The boycott is a purely risk-free strategy and even vice versa: firstly, “I warned!”, Secondly, an additional bonus for uncompromising.

8. All this is understandable, understandable and predictable. But it's a little about something else. If the Kremlin feels that he already lacks a falsification resource (50 million votes will be attributed hard even for such a country as Russia) - it is possible, it will simply cancel any voting games. For example, in order to save folk money. And there will already be completely none to resist him-with the exception of the Naryan-Mar or the mythological uprising of the masses, in which people who are bruised by Soviet education try to make out an alternative. In fact, this alternative is not and will not be - the uprising of the masses took place only in the school course of the history of the USSR and in the revolutionary epic. And the real problem today is that after a boycott to bring their voters to the next electoral cycles - what Navalny and Yabloko, and Parnassus hope for - may be very difficult.

The fact that the Kremlin chooses the elections is understandable and predictable. This is a normal trajectory for the African, Latin American or Asian leader. In general, it is clear and why the liberal opposition helps (or does not interfere) in this. However, it is completely incomprehensible how, after a total discredit of electoral and all other legal institutions regulating political competition, 17 million square kilometers of Barbara, who came after Putin, will be divided. Through backstage agreements, through military coups and street provocations, through the civil war? In any case, not through legal procedures.

Special thanks to Julia Galyamina, Leo Schlosberg and other "apple trees" who did not hesitate to go against the current. As a result, they won by fixing the positions of the leaders of the new wave of “You's Vote Matters”.