EG / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Categories: Articles by geography, Russia, Unimodality, Dependence of results on the turnout, Kiesling-Shpilkin method, Integer percentages, Observation, Strings of Gabdulvaleev, Geographical Anomalies, Russia A bell, a saw, an axe Scientists who study election statistics are calling last week's vote on constitutional amendments that, among other things, would allow Vladimir Putin to remain president until 2036, the most unfair in 20 years. According data to the Central Election Commission (CEC), with a turnout of 65%, 77.92% of voters voted in favor of the amendments, against — 21.27%. Immediately after the results were summarized, electoral analysts began to publish graphs proving that this result could have been achieved only with the help of large-scale falsifications. For example, in the opinion of physicist Sergei Shpilkin, the actual voter turnout was about 44%, and the share of those who voted in favor of the amendments — about 65%. That is, only 29.3 million Russians supported the amendments to the Constitution. It is not easy to understand the complex analysis and graphs of electoral analysts, so «Important Stories» has prepared a visual explainer explaining why the past vote cannot be considered fair and what was the real scale of fraud. Understanding these graphs will give you a better understanding of electoral statistics and whether you should trust the official voting results. Just scroll down the visualization. #document Print 27557 Tags: FalsificationsRF Constitutional Referendum 2020 Данные для статьиfullLaboratory support for articlefullDossier's BlockRF Constitutional Referendum 2020Theoretic depthObservation Related articles A triumphant victory over myself Doubting Thomas's Crash Test New parameters to explore Funny story about the Tambov region The real turnout in Kuban was ~25% Please login or register to post comments.
Criticism and bibliography Criticism and bibliography Borisov I.B., Zadorin I.V., Ignatov A.V., Marachevsky V.N., Fedorov V.I., Mathematical tools of election delegitimization. Report of the Russian Public Institute of Electoral Law. Moscow, 2020, Alexander Shen / Wednesday, September 16, 2020 0 7769 The peer-reviewed paper again raises the question about the incorrectness of the statistical analysis. But it is based on a misunderstanding: the authors rightly point out and confirm with numerous examples that the histograms of elections may well be very different from the «Gaussian» even in the absence of falsifications. Probably, they have not seen the works mentioned above and assume that so far the conclusions about falsifications are based on the deviation from «Gaussianity». Read more
Funny story about the Tambov region Funny story about the Tambov region Сергей Шпилькин / Monday, September 14, 2020 0 24673 Governor Nikitin's result directly even resembles the cluster of the city of Tambov. One could rejoice, but this result is a draw. The result is a draw. Read more
The real turnout in Kuban was ~25% The real turnout in Kuban was ~25% Ivan Shukshin / Monday, September 14, 2020 0 22734 Kanevskaya, where I spent my childhood, drew the biggest turnout, 97%. And Pavlovskaya - the biggest percentage to Kondratiev, 94%. Crooks. Read more
Review of the ROIPP report "Mathematical Tools for Delegitimizing Elections" Review of the ROIPP report "Mathematical Tools for Delegitimizing Elections" Андрей Бузин / Sunday, September 6, 2020 0 7423 Yes, something must be done with our society, which «still has some flaws». It is very gullible and therefore prefers Shpilkin to Borisov. But it is necessary to implement a number of measures to remove distrust in the procedures for establishing the results of voting». It is possible, for example, to establish not only a captcha for obtaining these results, but to declare them a state secret for disclosure of which one can get 10 years. And for the use of the Gauss function, we should deprive them of the right to correspond. It is time to fight back against the mathematicians who are invading our social processes! Read more
Mathematical tools for delegitimizing elections. Report Mathematical tools for delegitimizing elections. Report Report of the Russian Public Institute for Electoral Law (RPIEL) EG / Thursday, September 3, 2020 0 8085 3 сентября 2020 года на сайте Российского общественного института избирательного права (РОИИП) был опубликован доклад "Математические инструменты делегитимации выборов". In it, the authors criticized one of the methods of analysis: unimodality. They concluded that "with existing methods of mathematical analysis it is impossible to describe and make an assessment of electoral behavior and voting outcomes" and reduced everything to a "political struggle". We suggest to read how convincingly and reasonably they did it. Read more