The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Maps of Russian Electoral Fraud
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
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. 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…

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @A.A.

    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.

    Replies: @A.A.

  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.

  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...

    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.

    • Replies: @A.A.
    @Anatoly Karlin

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

  4. @Anatoly Karlin
    @A.A.

    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.

    Replies: @A.A.

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

  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.

  6. 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.”

    • Replies: @melanf
    @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
    @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 - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Replies: @melanf, @Swedish Family, @reiner Tor

  7. @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."

    Replies: @melanf, @Anatoly Karlin

    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.

  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."

    Replies: @melanf, @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).

    • Replies: @melanf
    @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
     
    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

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    , @Swedish Family
    @Anatoly Karlin


    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).

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @melanf

    , @reiner Tor
    @Anatoly Karlin

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

  9. @Anatoly Karlin
    @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 - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Replies: @melanf, @Swedish Family, @reiner Tor

    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

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @melanf

    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.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @melanf

  10. @Anatoly Karlin
    @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 - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Replies: @melanf, @Swedish Family, @reiner Tor

    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).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Swedish Family

    In Russia that would be liberal leaning districts.

    , @melanf
    @Swedish Family


    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
  11. @Swedish Family
    @Anatoly Karlin


    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).

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @melanf

    In Russia that would be liberal leaning districts.

  12. @Anatoly Karlin
    @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 - otherwise they would have to be considered suspicious. (I do not believe that Shpilkin anywhere says they would necessarily have to be all false).

    Replies: @melanf, @Swedish Family, @reiner Tor

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

  13. @melanf
    @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
     
    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

    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?

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

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anatoly Karlin

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

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    , @melanf
    @Anatoly Karlin

    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.

  14. @Anatoly Karlin
    @melanf

    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.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @melanf

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

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @reiner Tor

    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.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  15. @Anatoly Karlin
    @melanf

    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.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @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.

  16. @Swedish Family
    @Anatoly Karlin


    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).

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @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

  17. @reiner Tor
    @Anatoly Karlin

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

    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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anatoly Karlin


    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?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  18. @Anatoly Karlin
    @reiner Tor

    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.

    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?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @reiner Tor

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

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  19. @reiner Tor
    @Anatoly Karlin


    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?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

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

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anatoly Karlin

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

  20. @Anatoly Karlin
    @reiner Tor

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

    Replies: @reiner Tor

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

  21. Anonymous [AKA "daftar agen poker terpercaya"] says: • Website

    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!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS