Dossier on the Election in the Lab

Dossier on the election available in the Lab -a collection of election information from our site. All materials where this election is mentioned.

Election Cards

A triumphant victory over myself

A triumphant victory over myself

The Kremlin considers the results of the vote on constitutional amendments a triumph: 

«Unequivocally, [the Kremlin] considers [the results of the vote on constitutional amendments] a triumph. In fact, a de facto triumphant referendum of confidence in President [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has taken place», — Dmitry Peskov, the head of state's press secretary, told reporters on Thursday, TASS reported.

«World press about the election: this is Putin's triumph», wrote «Vesti».

So, two triumphs. The «Yes» option garnered 57,747,288 votes in the 2020 constitutional vote, Vladimir Putin in the 2018 election — 56,430,712 votes — virtually the same amount. In some ways, that's not surprising, since the goal in both cases was the same — more than half the popular vote.

On the other hand, it means that in about half the precincts in the country, more voters voted for the amendments than for Vladimir Putin in 2018, and in half the precincts, — fewer.

At the other end of the spectrum, it means that more voters cast ballots for the amendments than for Vladimir Putin in 2018.

That is, in half of the polling stations Putin 2020 defeated himself 2018, and in half — lost to himself.

  1. Let's compare 2018 and 2020 polling stations by region and number. Of the 96766 precincts, 2020 has 94391 precincts similar in number (105.7 million voters out of 108 million «paper» voters). We'll limit ourselves to that subset.
  2. Let's divide the 2020 precincts into two groups: precincts in which more voters voted for Putin in 2018 than for the amendments in 2020 (44975 precincts, 51.8 million voters in 2020), and vice versa (49416 precincts, 53.9 million voters).
  3. Let us plot the distributions of votes for the two groups of precincts. They turn out to be radically different.

Plots where the amendments received more votes than Putin — by and large lie in the «tail» of the comet.

Plots where fewer — are divided between the nucleus and the tail, and most — in the nucleus.

Surprising, isn't it?

Or is it unsurprising? It's just that the amendments defeated Putin where there was some really badass cheating in 2020.

And lost — where they counted honestly, or where they cheated more in 2018 than in 2020.

 

 

Print
20973
Данные для статьиfull
Laboratory support for articlefull
Dossier's Block

RF President 2018 RF Constitutional Referendum 2020

Theoretic depth
  • Observation
Please login or register to post comments.

Articles on the Elections

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 0 8059

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».

Review of the ROIPP report "Mathematical Tools for Delegitimizing Elections"

Андрей Бузин 0 7784

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!

Mathematical tools for delegitimizing elections. Report

Report of the Russian Public Institute for Electoral Law (RPIEL)

EG 0 8489

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.

 

RSS
First34568101112Last