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

On Fabricated Election Results in the Donetsk People's Republic
EG

On Fabricated Election Results in the Donetsk People's Republic

The results of the election for the Head of the Donetsk People's Republic were fabricated.

Alex Kieev wrote:

Minutes of the Central Election Commission of the DPR page 1

Minutes of the Central Election Commission of the DPR page 1

You won't believe it, but the election results in the DNR were fabricated. Here are the election results published on the official website of the Government and Supreme Council of the DNR:

  • Zakharchenko: 765,340
  • Kofman: 111,024
  • Sivokonенко: 93,280

In total, 969,644 votes. Now let's calculate the percentages:

  • Zakharchenko: 78.93000%
  • Kofman: 11.45000%
  • Sivokonenko: 9.62000%

Again, the percentage points match exactly to the individual voter, just like in the LNR's May referendum: first, they wrote down the percentages, and THEN calculated the absolute numbers based on them. But when votes are actually counted, rather than results fabricated, the process should be the other way around. The LNR already learned from this mistake and didn’t repeat it, but this time it happened in the DNR.

The number of invalid ballots was 43,039, making the total number of voters (valid plus invalid ballots) 1,012,683. Calculating the percentage of invalid ballots from this total gives us 4.25000%!

Minutes of the Central Election Commission of the DPR page 2

Minutes of the Central Election Commission of the DPR page 2

Interestingly, on the official website of the Government and Supreme Council of the DNR, the percentages for the candidates differ and do not match the absolute numbers in the protocol! Here are the percentages given in the text of the announcement:

  • Zakharchenko: 77.51%
  • Kofman: 10.03%
  • Sivokonenko: 8.21%

If calculated based on the total number of votes for the candidates, the percentages would match those listed earlier. However, if calculated based on the total number of votes for candidates and invalid ballots, the percentages turn out differently:

  • Zakharchenko: 75.58%
  • Kofman: 10.96%
  • Sivokonenko: 9.21%
  • Invalid ballots: 4.25%

Even the proportions of votes for the candidates differ from what is stated in their own protocol below this announcement!

So, what do we have? The number of polling stations was reduced several times over, artificially creating long lines at the stations. After keeping some elderly voters in the cold for a couple of hours and taking the necessary photos for the media, they simply fabricated the election results. And those elderly voters stood in the cold for nothing: their votes were not counted, because first the percentages were calculated, and only then were absolute numbers derived from them.

Print
1836
Данные для статьиfull
Laboratory support for articleno
Theoretic depth
  • Observation
Please login or register to post comments.

Articles on the Elections

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

Андрей Бузин 0 8919

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 9740

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.

 

A bell, a saw, an axe

EG 0 34518

Journalists "Важных историй" Alesya Marokhovskaya and Alexei Smagin made a curious "explainer" in their article. Recommended.

"Analysts believe that the last vote on amendments to the Constitution was a record-breaking vote on the scale of falsifications. They cite many complex graphs to prove it. «Important Stories» made a simple visual «explanation» which should help to understand them".

RSS
First45679111213Last