The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Maps of Russian Electoral Fraud
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Russia blogger Seva Bashirov made a map of the incidence of “suspicious votes” as per Sergey Shpilkin’s method (not necessarily all fraudulent, but there’s certainly a correlation) during these elections.

map-russia-2018-fraud

Here is a similar map for the 2011 Duma elections (methodology is different, so scale isn’t comparable).

russian-elections-2011-fraud-map

And in finer resolution:

map-russia-elections-2011-fraud

One of the previous threads raised the question of fraud in the second tour of the 1996 elections, so I might as well address that now that we’re on this topic.

The reality is that Yeltsin won, regardless of the falsifications.

Even the most falsified Russian elections ever, the Duma elections of 2011 [see the two maps above], only bumped up United Russia by no more than 11% (probably 8-9%).

In 1996, the difference between Yeltsin and Zyuganov was almost 14% points – while the fraud map looked something like this (Yeltsin did far better than he “should have” in Tatarstan and the South Caucasus based on his results in the first round), but there was no significant fraud in the vast majority of ethnic Russian regions:

map-russia-1996-fraud

Clearly bumped Yeltsin up by 2-3% points, but certainly not by enough to make a difference to the outcome.

Other evidence: The polls immediately before the second round all had Yeltsin out in front.

Alexander Kireev has a comprehensive explanation (in Russian) of why the falsifications in 1996 could not have stolen victory from Zyuganov.

And just for fun, a map of the incidence of reported bribery in Russia:

russia-corruption-map-2011-fom

Clear correlations with the pattern of Putin-era electoral fraud, which is why I have always maintained it is a local phenomenon as opposed to centrally managed.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Map, Russia, Russian Elections 2018, Vote Fraud 
Hide 21 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. A.A. says:

    According to this map Ingushetia barely had any electoral fraud in 2018, lol. Or am I’m reading this wrong? Maybe the map maker made a mistake there…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Ingushetia here

    Actually it shows us one way in which Shipilov's method can miss out on falsification - they fraudulently raised the turnout (such a high turnout in Ingushetia is not credible), but actually made sure to credit all the candidates equally as turnout increased. Didn't expect such sophistication from them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The Chicago system was that the ward boss got the precinct captain a city job and the precinct captain got out the vote. It was a mutual understanding easily monitored and untraceable. Line up the incentives and work gets done on the local level.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. @A.A.
    According to this map Ingushetia barely had any electoral fraud in 2018, lol. Or am I'm reading this wrong? Maybe the map maker made a mistake there...

    Ingushetia here

    Actually it shows us one way in which Shipilov’s method can miss out on falsification – they fraudulently raised the turnout (such a high turnout in Ingushetia is not credible), but actually made sure to credit all the candidates equally as turnout increased. Didn’t expect such sophistication from them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @A.A.
    That still makes the Ingush significantly more pro-Putin than their brotherly Chechens, right? Interesting to see that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. A.A. says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Ingushetia here

    Actually it shows us one way in which Shipilov's method can miss out on falsification - they fraudulently raised the turnout (such a high turnout in Ingushetia is not credible), but actually made sure to credit all the candidates equally as turnout increased. Didn't expect such sophistication from them.

    That still makes the Ingush significantly more pro-Putin than their brotherly Chechens, right? Interesting to see that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. What about the 1993 constitutional referendum? Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

    “Voter turnout was officially reported as 54.4%,[5] over the 50% threshold required to validate the referendum.[3] However, doubts remained over the accuracy of the turnout figure, exacerbated by the quick destruction of ballots and area tallies.[4]”

    A relatively small (<5%) fraud could change the results (validate an otherwise invalid referendum). This also greatly expanded the power of the president, directly leading to the dictatorship of Putin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. melanf says:

    This is a really shameful article.

    Shpilkin’s method is fake, it can’t be used. According to Shpilkin the distribution of votes must be Gaussian, any deviation – falsification.Here are the “falsified” voting results in the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia, and the most honest election results in a democratic Israel.

    And what’s the difference? The Gaussian is missing, the distribution of votes the same

    And here are the results of the elections in Poland.

    According to Shpilkin’s method, these results are completely falsified. Poland is a dictatorship?

    One of the previous threads raised the question of fraud in the second tour of the 1996 elections, so I might as well address that now that we’re on this topic.
    The reality is that Yeltsin won, regardless of the falsifications……

    Even the most falsified Russian elections ever, the Duma elections of 2011 [see the two maps above], only bumped up United Russia by no more than 11% (probably 8-9%).

    Exit poll in the 2011 elections showed from 48% to 43% of the EP. The official results of the elections are 49% . You either have to admit that Shpilkin is a crook, and his method is fake, or admit that exit polls are being falsified , and that exit polls are not proof of the 1996 election’s “honesty.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf
    The results of surveys and exit polls can probably be used to assess the extent of falsifications. It is possible to use the revealed cases of violations on elections.
    But it is impossible to apply the method Spilkin, it's totally fake.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov - Shpilkin's method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. melanf says:
    @melanf
    This is a really shameful article.

    Shpilkin's method is fake, it can't be used. According to Shpilkin the distribution of votes must be Gaussian, any deviation - falsification.Here are the "falsified" voting results in the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia, and the most honest election results in a democratic Israel.

    https://c.radikal.ru/c24/1803/d7/ce580023d726.jpg

    https://a.radikal.ru/a27/1803/22/5861caea9841.jpg

    And what's the difference? The Gaussian is missing, the distribution of votes the same

    And here are the results of the elections in Poland.
    https://d.radikal.ru/d40/1803/c0/7b0188865985.gif

    https://c.radikal.ru/c40/1803/12/438c4f16fba8.gif


    According to Shpilkin's method, these results are completely falsified. Poland is a dictatorship?

    One of the previous threads raised the question of fraud in the second tour of the 1996 elections, so I might as well address that now that we’re on this topic.
    The reality is that Yeltsin won, regardless of the falsifications......

    Even the most falsified Russian elections ever, the Duma elections of 2011 [see the two maps above], only bumped up United Russia by no more than 11% (probably 8-9%).
     
    Exit poll in the 2011 elections showed from 48% to 43% of the EP. The official results of the elections are 49% . You either have to admit that Shpilkin is a crook, and his method is fake, or admit that exit polls are being falsified , and that exit polls are not proof of the 1996 election's "honesty."

    The results of surveys and exit polls can probably be used to assess the extent of falsifications. It is possible to use the revealed cases of violations on elections.
    But it is impossible to apply the method Spilkin, it’s totally fake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @melanf
    This is a really shameful article.

    Shpilkin's method is fake, it can't be used. According to Shpilkin the distribution of votes must be Gaussian, any deviation - falsification.Here are the "falsified" voting results in the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia, and the most honest election results in a democratic Israel.

    https://c.radikal.ru/c24/1803/d7/ce580023d726.jpg

    https://a.radikal.ru/a27/1803/22/5861caea9841.jpg

    And what's the difference? The Gaussian is missing, the distribution of votes the same

    And here are the results of the elections in Poland.
    https://d.radikal.ru/d40/1803/c0/7b0188865985.gif

    https://c.radikal.ru/c40/1803/12/438c4f16fba8.gif


    According to Shpilkin's method, these results are completely falsified. Poland is a dictatorship?

    One of the previous threads raised the question of fraud in the second tour of the 1996 elections, so I might as well address that now that we’re on this topic.
    The reality is that Yeltsin won, regardless of the falsifications......

    Even the most falsified Russian elections ever, the Duma elections of 2011 [see the two maps above], only bumped up United Russia by no more than 11% (probably 8-9%).
     
    Exit poll in the 2011 elections showed from 48% to 43% of the EP. The official results of the elections are 49% . You either have to admit that Shpilkin is a crook, and his method is fake, or admit that exit polls are being falsified , and that exit polls are not proof of the 1996 election's "honesty."

    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov – Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant – otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov – Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant
     
    Shpilkin in all his articles refers to the normal distribution. But let it be "as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant ".
    The results of the elections to the Parliament of great Britain 2010 (graph of the dependence of the relative share of turnout for conservatives (red) )

    http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/7/3/5/uk2010con4_1339902_29718735.png

    (and labour (blue)

    http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/9/4/8/uk2010lab4_2707753_29718948.png

    It turns out that according to Shpilkin Britain is less democratic than Chechnya.

    I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false
     

    Of course. Shpilkin detect fraud when and where the fraud (real or imaginary - doesn't matter) is necessary for Shpilkins employers.

    For example here are the elections according to Shpilkin fully honest because they were held in the United States. After all, "the unbreakable laws of mathematics of elections" it's only for Russia.

    http://reverent.org/ru/99_procentov_za_obamu/2008_elections_new_york.gif


    Generally Pshenichnikov/Shpilkin / Kireev is especially disgusting subspecies of "scientific" whores. And all their whorescience is a total fake

    , @Swedish Family

    Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant – otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).
     
    Shpilkin may well be right about voting patterns in Russia, but the very strong tendency in Western Europe is for conservative-leaning districts (nearly always the most affluent ones) to have far higher turnout than socialist-leaning districts (nearly always the poorest ones).
    , @reiner Tor
    What about the 1993 referendum? It’s the only voting where fraud possibly affected the results.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov - Shpilkin's method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov – Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant

    Shpilkin in all his articles refers to the normal distribution. But let it be “as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant “.
    The results of the elections to the Parliament of great Britain 2010 (graph of the dependence of the relative share of turnout for conservatives (red) )

    (and labour (blue)

    It turns out that according to Shpilkin Britain is less democratic than Chechnya.

    I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false

    Of course. Shpilkin detect fraud when and where the fraud (real or imaginary – doesn’t matter) is necessary for Shpilkins employers.

    For example here are the elections according to Shpilkin fully honest because they were held in the United States. After all, “the unbreakable laws of mathematics of elections” it’s only for Russia.

    Generally Pshenichnikov/Shpilkin / Kireev is especially disgusting subspecies of “scientific” whores. And all their whorescience is a total fake

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, I know, it's not a perfect method. But there are points at which it gets too blatant and absurd to explain by something other than fraud.

    Or could you explain this?

    http://akarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/moscow-elections-2011-2012.jpg

    Left: 2011 Duma elections; Right: 2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Anatoly Karlin
    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov - Shpilkin's method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant – otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Shpilkin may well be right about voting patterns in Russia, but the very strong tendency in Western Europe is for conservative-leaning districts (nearly always the most affluent ones) to have far higher turnout than socialist-leaning districts (nearly always the poorest ones).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In Russia that would be liberal leaning districts.
    , @melanf

    Shpilkin may well be right about voting patterns in Russia, but the very strong tendency in Western Europe is for conservative-leaning districts to have far higher turnout than socialist-leaning districts
     
    What Shpilkin write about voting patterns in Russia is complete crap. in Russia, too strong tendency for conservative-leaning districts to have far higher turnout than liberal-leaning districts
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Swedish Family

    Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant – otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).
     
    Shpilkin may well be right about voting patterns in Russia, but the very strong tendency in Western Europe is for conservative-leaning districts (nearly always the most affluent ones) to have far higher turnout than socialist-leaning districts (nearly always the poorest ones).

    In Russia that would be liberal leaning districts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Anatoly Karlin
    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov - Shpilkin's method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    What about the 1993 referendum? It’s the only voting where fraud possibly affected the results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @melanf

    Gaussian guy is Maxim Pshenichnikov – Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant
     
    Shpilkin in all his articles refers to the normal distribution. But let it be "as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant ".
    The results of the elections to the Parliament of great Britain 2010 (graph of the dependence of the relative share of turnout for conservatives (red) )

    http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/7/3/5/uk2010con4_1339902_29718735.png

    (and labour (blue)

    http://i12.pixs.ru/storage/9/4/8/uk2010lab4_2707753_29718948.png

    It turns out that according to Shpilkin Britain is less democratic than Chechnya.

    I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false
     

    Of course. Shpilkin detect fraud when and where the fraud (real or imaginary - doesn't matter) is necessary for Shpilkins employers.

    For example here are the elections according to Shpilkin fully honest because they were held in the United States. After all, "the unbreakable laws of mathematics of elections" it's only for Russia.

    http://reverent.org/ru/99_procentov_za_obamu/2008_elections_new_york.gif


    Generally Pshenichnikov/Shpilkin / Kireev is especially disgusting subspecies of "scientific" whores. And all their whorescience is a total fake

    Yes, I know, it’s not a perfect method. But there are points at which it gets too blatant and absurd to explain by something other than fraud.

    Or could you explain this?

    Left: 2011 Duma elections; Right: 2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    What do the colorful dots and lines represent? Which one shows the results by precincts?
    , @melanf
    2011 Duma elections Moscow
    the turnout of 61%, the share of votes for United Russia 46%

    2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow.
    turnout 58.8 % share of votes for the Putin 46.95 %

    In the case of the 2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow falsifications are completely excluded (elections were held under very strict control of the opposition, in the polling stations were web cameras, etc.).

    If we assume that Putin's = ER, it turns out that the 2011 Duma elections in Moscow was without fraud (since the results are the same)

    If we assume that Putin =/= EP, what's the point of these pictures? Different elections, different results.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, I know, it's not a perfect method. But there are points at which it gets too blatant and absurd to explain by something other than fraud.

    Or could you explain this?

    http://akarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/moscow-elections-2011-2012.jpg

    Left: 2011 Duma elections; Right: 2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow.

    What do the colorful dots and lines represent? Which one shows the results by precincts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Bottom axis = Turnout, Left axis = Votes for United Russia (2011) and Putin (2012), respectively.

    Most obvious explanation: In 2011, the tight cluster around turnout = 50% and UR = 30% are genuine votes, while the "comet tail" to the upper right are falsified votes.

    Incidentally, I recall at the time a regional exit poll from FOM indicating UR got 24%, but soon removed that from their site a couple of hours later.

    Anyhow, massive protests ensue.

    The Presidential elections three months later actually become fair.

    Unless someone has another explanation for all this, but I have yet to see a convincing one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. melanf says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, I know, it's not a perfect method. But there are points at which it gets too blatant and absurd to explain by something other than fraud.

    Or could you explain this?

    http://akarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/moscow-elections-2011-2012.jpg

    Left: 2011 Duma elections; Right: 2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow.

    2011 Duma elections Moscow
    the turnout of 61%, the share of votes for United Russia 46%

    2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow.
    turnout 58.8 % share of votes for the Putin 46.95 %

    In the case of the 2012 Presidential elections, in Moscow falsifications are completely excluded (elections were held under very strict control of the opposition, in the polling stations were web cameras, etc.).

    If we assume that Putin’s = ER, it turns out that the 2011 Duma elections in Moscow was without fraud (since the results are the same)

    If we assume that Putin =/= EP, what’s the point of these pictures? Different elections, different results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. melanf says:
    @Swedish Family

    Shpilkin’s method is different, namely, he argues that as turnout increases, the relative share of the vote for the candidates should remain constant – otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).
     
    Shpilkin may well be right about voting patterns in Russia, but the very strong tendency in Western Europe is for conservative-leaning districts (nearly always the most affluent ones) to have far higher turnout than socialist-leaning districts (nearly always the poorest ones).

    Shpilkin may well be right about voting patterns in Russia, but the very strong tendency in Western Europe is for conservative-leaning districts to have far higher turnout than socialist-leaning districts

    What Shpilkin write about voting patterns in Russia is complete crap. in Russia, too strong tendency for conservative-leaning districts to have far higher turnout than liberal-leaning districts

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @reiner Tor
    What do the colorful dots and lines represent? Which one shows the results by precincts?

    Bottom axis = Turnout, Left axis = Votes for United Russia (2011) and Putin (2012), respectively.

    Most obvious explanation: In 2011, the tight cluster around turnout = 50% and UR = 30% are genuine votes, while the “comet tail” to the upper right are falsified votes.

    Incidentally, I recall at the time a regional exit poll from FOM indicating UR got 24%, but soon removed that from their site a couple of hours later.

    Anyhow, massive protests ensue.

    The Presidential elections three months later actually become fair.

    Unless someone has another explanation for all this, but I have yet to see a convincing one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Bottom axis = Turnout, Left axis = Votes for United Russia (2011) and Putin (2012), respectively.
     
    That much I understand. I guess the colorful dots are the precincts. But what is the red line?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Anatoly Karlin
    Bottom axis = Turnout, Left axis = Votes for United Russia (2011) and Putin (2012), respectively.

    Most obvious explanation: In 2011, the tight cluster around turnout = 50% and UR = 30% are genuine votes, while the "comet tail" to the upper right are falsified votes.

    Incidentally, I recall at the time a regional exit poll from FOM indicating UR got 24%, but soon removed that from their site a couple of hours later.

    Anyhow, massive protests ensue.

    The Presidential elections three months later actually become fair.

    Unless someone has another explanation for all this, but I have yet to see a convincing one.

    Bottom axis = Turnout, Left axis = Votes for United Russia (2011) and Putin (2012), respectively.

    That much I understand. I guess the colorful dots are the precincts. But what is the red line?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The average vote for Putin at each bin of turnout, I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @reiner Tor

    Bottom axis = Turnout, Left axis = Votes for United Russia (2011) and Putin (2012), respectively.
     
    That much I understand. I guess the colorful dots are the precincts. But what is the red line?

    The average vote for Putin at each bin of turnout, I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Do you have anything on that other great milestone of the young Russian democracy, the 1993 plebiscite on the new constitution?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Anatoly Karlin
    The average vote for Putin at each bin of turnout, I think.

    Do you have anything on that other great milestone of the young Russian democracy, the 1993 plebiscite on the new constitution?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. You ought to take part in a contest for one of the most useful websites on the web.
    I am going to highly recommend this blog!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS