The “carousels” are a thing of the past, stuffing are made a little ... What forms the scam is now taking in the elections. Falsification. A short course

September elections will be held without "voting on hemp." But even in the absence of this electoral innovation, surprises for these three days may be enough for five years forward. "New" talks with political strategist Vyacheslav Belyakov about which and from whom we can expect falsifications and violations - and how to prevent and neutralize them.

Do not buy everyone

- Starting with a disclaimer. Falsification in the elections is a criminally punishable act, so we cannot point a finger on anyone, claiming that this person or commission faked the results of the vote, until this was established by the court, which is rare, ”the source explains. - And, as a rule, we are talking about violations of the procedure that do not ultimately reliably establish the voting results. Yes, as a result, commissions are disbanded, chairmen are brought to administrative responsibility, but criminal punishments are extremely rare.

But, firstly, the recognition of even single facts strongly shakes the system. Secondly, if you punish everyone, who agrees to the flap? Thirdly, often falsifications are prevented by the forces of candidates or observers before they are documented.

Now to the point.

The first and main trouble of the electoral system is that the election commission is only formally independent. The precinct commissions consist mainly of state employees, it is quite easy to put pressure on them.

However, the opposition is wrong, when it is trying only to falsifications to explain its political failures.

Yes, the country has a real problem with the financing of political processes (those related to the party of power are well financed). And the election campaign is expensive. Therefore, the opposition often works unprofessional - but explains everything by the fact that the vile power "draws and throws it."

We are not talking about the electoral “sultanates”, where it is not clear at all whether people go to the polls or just some numbers are driven out-individual national republics, where always at 100% and 90% of them are for power. We are about the rest of Russia, where to attribute, even with poor observation, you can only several percent ... You cannot, for example, buy everyone in the district. Well, let 100 votes. And here it depends on the turnout: if the turnout was “dried” and you have 1000 voters, then this is 10%. And if the opposition tried and mobilized supporters, 5,000 people came, then 2% - and this is a completely different matter. The same story with a table of hundreds of ballots.

Not the CEC draws the results

- Clause one, which would be nice to know to everyone: most falsifications are possible only with the help or forces of precinct election commissions. And few parties are responsible for their formation responsibly. Recall the example of the whole country: voting in the trunk on amendments to the Constitution in Vladivostok - Larisa Rudenko, teacher, was engaged in this. The video was accidentally shot and distributed by the head of the Growth Party in Primorye, Kirill Batanov. They grabbed-and Rudenko is a member of the commission just ... from "growth"! The party used to be a spoiler in the region, and how it stopped - it began. And so all the time - there are a lot of commissions, and party construction in Russia is not at a very high level.

All stories that the CEC painted the results is nonsense. There is a simple ligament: PEC - TIK. It does not happen that there are only numbers in the protocol, and in the GAS “Elections” are others! If your observer has a protocol differs from entered into the system, then there is another protocol somewhere. And this is a personal problem of observers and candidates who missed the moment when the numbers have changed.

The commission in the process of filling out the protocol, for example, may be mistaken. Or make a decision on the recount - even the next day. And you will not prove that this is falsification. And the observers, who at two in the morning received their copy of the document and went home, may not be present. So, after all, often they cannot even get the right copy of the protocols. Tick ​​then looks at such pieces of paper and reasonably declares: your filkin letter is not properly certified, not signed. And what is difficult to take a correctly designed copy and make sure that the results are driven into the system with you?

Observers, candidates and their representatives have the right (and must) control the entire process: from the start of the work of the precinct election commission to the entry of data into the GAS “Elections”. It is very difficult to change the results in this system. These are egregious stories. So there are different extremes: the urns are set on fire on polling stations, and “bombs are laid”-as a result, it turns out that while “the bomb” was laid, 1000 people voted.

Good old "carousels"

- They are already a thing of the past. The classic “carousel” - when a person takes his empty bulletin on the street, gives the organizers, they put the daw in the right place and give them the next, he lowers the filled into the urn, and takes an empty one and so on. This is a voter bribery control system, invented in an era, when there were no smartphones and it was impossible to photograph how you “worked” your 500 or 1000 rubles. Now they are no longer engaged in such things - this is an archaic and a crazy waste of time.

At any stage, a person who has been bribed or forced, who is threatened, can always show a figure in a pocket. After he put a daw and photographed the ballot, you can put the daw for another or more candidates, thereby spoiling the ballot for voting. You can lower it into the ballot box, or you can leave the booth and ask the commission to give you another, new (because I made a mistake and spoiled).

Throwing

- If people did not come, and the ballots are thrown, then the numbers in the protocol of the commission will never converge in life. And this is a direct path to canceling the results on the site. The number of voters in the lists should correspond to the number of ballots in the urn. The numbers should always fight! But if you put 50 extra forms, where to get 50 people? Just enter. Therefore, we say: if you see that there are no people on the site, and the commission writes something intensely in books, you must definitely look, ask, control.

The commission transfers the turnout every two hours. This is a mandatory form of reporting. But during the day she can slowly add 10-15 people. And if at this moment the situation is not tracked, you can be sure that these 50-100 ballots (for the whole day) will be in the urn. A little bit-but if you multiply by the number of sites ...

The same trigger is the departure of the commission to the underly voting without a signed registry of applications. This is often fixed in areas.

You can take exactly as much ballots for just as much as you have applications. If the commission has left without a registry, there is no doubt that upon returning this document will have, and there will be 100 people in it,

And their vote in principle can meet about 15 minutes.

If you monitor each stage, then with a probability of 90% of the commission they will not even try to falsify something. And if the observer picks in the nose, does not understand where to look, and just puts his sticks - and then it happens “oh, I have a stick 100, and 500 voted, how so?”.

Psychological pressure techniques

- It is interesting to look into history. The stuffing was originally used as a method of raising the turnout. Some time ago there was a threshold of turnout. And people did not really want to go to uncompetitive elections ... And in such conditions it is very easy to explain why we need to reach the ballots: an expensive state employee, we spent five million on the polls, they will not take place - they will have to spend five more, and this, by the way, is a new repair in your school. But why throw empty ballots, if possible filled?

The threshold of turnout was canceled-but the ordering does not always disappear from the tasks of state bodies.

And yet this is a stick about the two-edges. If you can convince an honest person to break the law, then you will certainly find the arguments not to do this. Technologies for the fight against violations are greatly tied to the techniques of psychological pressure. You come and say to the chairman of the commission: “Friend, I see everything. Better no need. And then the cameras are standing, the phones are now with everyone, and the observers have every right to shoot the video on the site. You will do something, we will take it, we will pour on YouTube. And you are a teacher at a music school ... You will probably be dismissed - but children, parents, friends will see everything ... ”And it is highly likely that a person will refuse to violate.

The universal installation of cameras sharply reduced the number of violations. This is an indicative story that the Central Election Commission, who made such a decision, and the leaders in the highest echelons of the authorities do not really understand what is happening on the weekends and where the results come from. On the one hand, there are fewer violations. On the other hand, we saw a certain amount of horror. There are incidents with "state" cameras, but, I repeat, no one prevents observers from setting their own. Another question is that it is difficult and expensive.

Be that as it may, candidates who are not tied to the party in power should engage in political activities, and not just wiping the pants. Parliamentary parties receive financing from the budget. What does it go for? Providing central devices, some incomprehensible promotions, rallies, brochures with boring speeches, Merch, something else. In fact, the money is eaten. Although, in my opinion, it is much more logical to invest them in the elections. But why, if the recruitment of some parliamentary parties live not by elections, but agreements?

There is no trust in the system

- There are several innovations. Firstly, a three-day vote. Obviously, watching three days is three times more difficult and more expensive. It gives much more opportunities for mobilization, including not very legal. Last year, it shows that sometimes for some reason something happens with envelopes during storage. Prints are opened at night - well, the humidity is high. On the one hand, do not prove that something was changed there in this envelope, but the opposite is unprovable. Naturally, everyone thinks only one thing.

- If the ballots in envelopes are replaced - respectively, the commission becomes less empty. Or in a pack with empty they are placed filled (but this blind man will notice). Or they do not become smaller, but then these ballots of a special sample were printed somewhere. So, one of the falsifiers should have a way out at the printing house ...

- Printing of ballots is a huge shavings. The more people are involved in the falsification system, the more, as in any crimes, the risks that the information will leak. Yes, and the printing house does not work in the printing house-why is it for them at all? Such cases are very rare. But we remember how in Vladivostok a man came to Frunze Tick in 2017 in 2017, having previously talked with the chairman of the commission by phone with money and ballots. His goal was just to change the ballots in envelopes - but not three -day, but early voting, purely technically this is the same thing. And somewhere he took these forms for voting! And after all, he offered people the money in full confidence that they would take, tear the envelope, throw out the ballots, put new ones there, put the seal, sign ... Another question that they did not do that, but called the police and the FSB-but did the same political strategist move? Stupidity or positive experience? Somehow he reached the thought that instead of a trip to jail, he was waiting for a trip to the resort?!

The same with a three -day vote.

Any procedure when the ballots lie somewhere and no one looks at them, adds options to a piggy bank of possible violations.

But even at the same time - the voting procedure in Russia is regulated, complex and this is good. There is nothing wrong with early, three -day, home -to -house voting. The procedures themselves are normal. The question is their application. To cancel them so that there are no falsifications - the idea is so -so. It’s easier then to cancel all the vote. Why do you need elections at all? It is not clear who, there, are not clear, the bandits are torn to power ... And now another fashion is that the inagents are torn!

- On the primaries of United Russia, we all saw miracles with electronic voting.

- The primaries of “EP” are not related to the electoral process. This is a purely intra -party story. Imagine that it would start if the numbers changed as chaotically as on the EP website on the CEC website - 1000 there, 1000 here! And then they would have been shrugable: they say, the system is imperfect. The country would have stood on the ears. And “United Russia” at least henna.

As for the real electronic voting - it is incomprehensible, because it is opaque. Although the electronic system itself can be protected, and it is normal that people vote on the Internet. In some countries of the world, the majority of votes are already taken into account in electronic format. And we generally have no confidence in the system in society, and therefore it is quite natural that voters do not believe in the results.

But, for example, mail voting in the United States is the most archaic, uncontrolled scheme: you receive an envelope with a ballot, you print it, vote and send it back. In the last election, Trump made a complaint against postal voting - and there millions of ballots were taken into account by mail, and many were simply lost. But there is trust in the system at times higher!

There will be falsifications while everyone does not care

- But there are also koibi, the data of which seem to be impossible to falsify. But sometimes we see how the protocols are made on one mathematical formula on all complexes of processing of one type of bulletin of one type. Any car can be reprogrammed. And the most interesting thing-I myself watched a couple of times: Koib issues one protocol, the representative of the commission presses the print, and something that was sent to him on Wi-Fi from the neighboring office crawls out of the printer. It is ridiculous, but it happens! Or from daddy they are trying to take out a pre -printed “correct” protocol. But this is also a matter of observation! In the end, the observer or member of the commission has the legal right to demand manual conversion of ballots inside Koib. Why doesn't this happen? Yes, because members of the commission want to go home as soon as possible.

We have a requirement: each ballot should be shown - but each election is considered to be in the corners. Why?! Maybe, of course, the commissions are trying to put and put in this pack filled ballots from another pack. But in 90% of cases, this is too lazy.

- We summarize. The struggle against scam is an expensive thing. It turns out that very rich people will definitely come to power in the bulk?

- Not so. Falsification in the elections will exist until everyone does not care. As soon as competition and personal interest appear, such actions, firstly, will become socially condemned, and secondly, impossible. An increase in turnout is the first and main method of combating fraud. In the second hand - observation.

Is it possible to teach observers systemically, and not for a lot of money before each election? Need to. How many Russians do we have with an active civic position who can afford to spend Sunday guarding an honest vote? They need to be found and united. Who should do this? Politicians and political parties. Work should not be done last summer, but systematically. You have new elections as soon as you won or lost the previous ones.

We have many “sewn” campaigns - elections to the State Duma, in the parliaments of the regions, municipal thoughts or committees. Different candidates from different parties (or one) could build this system or pay for observation. Will they do it? I think no. For various reasons.

We touched on a point of several points - but there are a lot of such things. This is a huge system that you need to understand, which can be trained. But we must have a political will to do this - and this is much more complicated than to scribble the heartbreaking posts on Facebook about how our country should live and how evil prains will again steal all the elections ...