How United Russia stole victory

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. That sounds like a fair calculation, though perhaps a bit too pessimistic. I doubt the Caucasus will correlate to the average. They are conservative Muslims (so Commies won’t do well), and they’re certainly not going to be voting LDPR.

    I think that United Russia would have dominated there, and the authorities gave them even more of a rise – in Chechnya’s case, egregiously so.

  2. Andy says:

    True, although I suspect that given a choice, fewer Chechens would bother to vote than the national average, bringing down total number of UR votes in another way.

  3. peter says:

    There are another easy few tenths much closer to home. The official 46+ figure for Moscow is totally bogus, and every percent there translates into about 0.06% nationwide.

  4. Andy says:

    Frustratingly, Livejournal is down again. What does the article say?

  5. It basically says that Moscow’s results are suspect because they don’t follow a Gaussian distribution.

    I have a few quibbles with that. On the graph, neither does the liberal Yabloko party (having two spikes near 2% and then 10%).

    That said, what I do find convincing is the discrepancy between FOM’s exit polls (28%) and the real result (44% or 46%, forget which one). Unless there are mitigating explanations, the conclusion has to be that there were systematic falsifications in Moscow.

    Still, it seems to have worked out more or less fairly at the federal level.

    One more thing about the Caucasus. I discovered this graph of exit polls by federal districts, the UR figure given for the Caucasus district being 61% – whereas no other federal district is above 50%. Considering that the sole Russia-majority oblast, Stavropol, voted the Russian way (UR – 49%), it appears my guess about Caucasus voting was correct. UR must have gotten about 65-70% in the Muslim Caucasus republics (to cancel out Stavropol’s result). Which was then inflated by 20-25% percentage points.

    I’m not sure that the assumption that the turnout is lower than the national average is valid. Mostly, there is a positive correlation between turnout and votes for UR.

  6. peter says:

    What does the article say?

    Here’s the graph from that article, it pretty much speaks for itself.

  7. Andy says:

    Weren’t there similar criticisms of previous elections?

  8. peter says:

    Yes, there’s even a popular semi-scientific article about that (6.1MB pdf file).

  9. Alexej says:

    Yabloko anomality (probably) explained – votes was stolen from them, thus distorting gausiian distribution.