Military pensioners stand for Russia and its armed forces. The government is trying to increase voter turnout in elections

Last week, the State Duma adopted in the second reading another package of amendments to the electoral legislation. Like many other legislative initiatives over the past five years, the new document complicates election rules for opponents of the current government and simplifies them for the Kremlin.

In addition to opposition-minded voters, the victims of these amendments will be opposition candidates and parties, for which United Russia has come up with a number of new grounds for refusing registration. Although the official motive for these innovations was to strengthen the fight against extremism, the definition of “extremists” will most easily include candidates who are not sufficiently loyal to the current government.
Thus, registration will be denied to politicians who “during the term of office of a state authority or local government” (that is, for example, in the case of the State Duma - within four years before the next elections) made “calls for the commission of acts defined as extremist activity ". The list of such acts was significantly expanded last summer (see “Vlast” No. 29 of July 24), and if you wish, you can write down as extremists, say, communists blocking the regional administration building in protest against the monetization of benefits (“obstructing the activities of government bodies and their officials"), or democrats accusing Vladimir Putin of being responsible for the deaths of hostages in Beslan and the theater center on Dubrovka ("public slander against a person holding a public office, combined with accusing this person of committing acts of an extremist nature") . Moreover, the right to be elected will be denied even to those potential candidates who received administrative rather than criminal penalties for their “extremist acts.”
By the way, among the amendments preliminarily approved by the relevant State Duma committee on state construction, there was an even stricter rule allowing for the refusal of registration to candidates who are in custody on charges of extremist crimes. This would allow the authorities to quickly exclude disloyal politicians from elections by bringing the necessary charges against them and choosing the appropriate preventive measure. But after representatives of the Central Election Commission at a meeting of the relevant committee of the State Duma stated that this clause contradicts the Constitution (it prohibits running for any government bodies only by persons in prison due to a court verdict that has entered into force), this norm migrated from the table of recommended acceptance of amendments to the rejected table.
At the request of the CEC, another provision of the bill was also changed, which allowed candidates to be denied registration for incomplete information about themselves. Firstly, the law prescribed an exhaustive list of information that a candidate must submit to the election commission when nominated, while the draft amendment allowed election commissions to interpret the term “incomplete information” at their own discretion. And secondly, the Duma obliged election commissions to notify candidates about shortcomings found in their documents at least three days before the expected registration date, so that they have time to make the necessary changes. True, representatives of the opposition immediately pointed out that two days (clarifications must be made no later than a day before possible registration) are clearly not enough if we are talking about, say, elections to the State Duma, in which deputies are elected from Kaliningrad to Primorye.

However, opposition candidates will have a chance to “get laid off” even after registration, if they violate the updated rules of election campaigning. The main one of these rules will be the ban on “denigrating” competitors during campaigning on television. The new law includes prohibited actions, in particular, “disseminating calls to vote against a candidate,” “describing possible negative consequences if a candidate is elected,” “disseminating information that clearly predominates information about a candidate combined with negative comments,” or "information that contributes to the creation of a negative attitude of voters towards the candidate."
In other words, after these amendments come into force, candidates and parties will be allowed to talk about their opponents as dead - either good or nothing. After all, any mention of a competitor’s shortcomings may be considered a violation of the above-mentioned prohibition, which may be punishable by deprivation of registration. Consequently, the entire pre-election competition between candidates and parties (including during their debates on live television, for which the Central Election Commission especially advocates) will ultimately come down to an exchange of pleasantries, and the one who praises himself better than others will win. But in this case, future candidates are unlikely to count on the sincere interest of ordinary Russian television viewers, to whom state television channels will offer such “debates” instead of their favorite concerts and TV series.
Dmitry Kamyshev

The reform of Russian electoral legislation carried out in the 2000s was aimed at ensuring that elections, whenever possible, were recognized as valid, despite either a downward trend in voter “turnout” or an increasing “protest vote” (i.e. the number of voters voting “against all”). Currently, there is no “turnout threshold” for elections in Russia. Theoretically, this means that even if only one voter comes to the polling station on voting day, and it is one of the candidates, and this voter votes for himself as a candidate, then the elections will take place and he will win with a 100% result.
It's worth going to the polls. And there are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the greater the turnout, the less opportunity there is for falsification: it is not so difficult to attribute three or four percent of the votes when only a hundred people voted; it is much more difficult to do such fraud if thousands of voters have voted.

And finally Thirdly, it is the presence of an active civic position that distinguishes a modern civilized person from an asocial personality.

- From the election campaign, I see which party spends more money on campaigning and will definitely win the elections. I wanted to vote for another party, but I don’t see the point. Should I go to the polls if my vote doesn't matter?

The practice of participating in elections in recent years shows that there is nothing obvious in Russian elections. Professionals who have been working in elections for many years will give you more than one example of how, in a particular election campaign, a candidate or party that spent enormous amounts of money on the election campaign, based on the voting results, lost to candidates whose financial component of the campaigns left much to be desired.

I won’t spend a long time looking for examples (the campaign for the election of the Head of the city of Pushchino, Moscow region in 2010; don’t be lazy, go to the Internet, all the data is there, analyze it yourself, and you will understand and see everything for yourself). Finance is a very important part of any election campaign. But, believe me, it is far from the most important. And most importantly, you need to be able to use finances wisely. So in your example, the party that spends enormous amounts of money on campaigning is far from the most obvious favorite in the election race.
It’s worth going to your polling station on election day and voting as you see fit!

I don’t like any party (not a single candidate), and there is no “against all” column. How can I express my civic position? Should I spoil the ballot or do something else?

Unfortunately, when amendments to the electoral legislation were being prepared in the mid-2000s to abolish the “against all” column, the developers of this innovation, and then the deputies who voted “for” the abolition of this column, “did not hear” reasonable arguments regarding the that at the moment our society is not yet ready for such radical changes.

It is interesting that in 2004, the former Chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation A.A. Veshnyakov noted that the “against all” column gives voters more options for expressing their attitude towards the elections and “can be useful for the authorities to take appropriate steps.” He argued: “a high percentage of voting “against all” indicates some kind of anomaly in a particular region. If this column is removed, then voters will have a narrower opportunity to express their attitude towards the candidates.”

True, already in April 2005 A.A. Veshnyakov changed his point of view and came out “for” the abolition of the “against everyone” column: “There is no choice - life is simpler. Therefore, when there are 10-15 parties on the ballot, some people don’t want to think hard about who to vote for and why. It’s easier to check the box “against everyone,” the presence of which to some extent provokes such an approach,” he said.

Soon the column “against all” was excluded from Russian election legislation.
At the current stage of development of election legislation, the column “against all” is still absent from the ballot papers (a specific exception is situations in municipal elections, when during the campaign before voting day there is only one candidate left - in this case the columns “for” and “against”; a candidate wins only if more than 50% of those who took part in the voting voted “for” his candidacy).

In this situation, the only way to express your civic position is to find reasons for yourself in favor of voting for a candidate.
The fact that a ballot is damaged will not lead to anything - the ballot will be declared invalid, and this will not affect the voting results as a whole.

Why is it that when there is a preliminary count of votes, they first report some numbers, and then they change. Can such results be trusted?

The fact is that different territories vote differently. City and large sites are often different from rural or small sites. And data on preliminary results first comes from small polling stations, where it’s easier to count votes, but data comes last from the largest polling stations and the difference in votes there is significant in absolute values. Therefore, the final count data may differ from the first results. In addition, even preliminary results must be clarified on the information resources of the election commission.

Based on the election results, many losing parties and candidates talk about fraud, but never bring real criminal cases. Who to believe?

Criminal liability for falsification exists and is applied. Whom he believes in this case is up to you, but if a candidate has reason to believe that the results were formed illegally, then he, having collected evidence with the help of observers, goes to court to cancel the election results. Or quite often, the simply losing candidate justifies his loss in this way, blaming all the blame on commission, regardless of the opinions of voters. Of course, there are cases of falsification, most of which are considered by law enforcement agencies and the courts.

- Is there a record of my attendance at the elections somewhere? Will it affect my future if I don't vote?

Participation in elections in Russia is free and voluntary (unlike a number of foreign countries, where voting is a citizen’s responsibility, failure to comply with which entails a fine or restriction of rights). This, in particular, means that no one has the right to force you to participate or not to participate in elections, or to control your participation in them. Your participation in elections is recorded only in the list of voters for specific elections, which, at the end of voting, is sealed and stored in a sealed form under conditions that exclude access to it, as a rule, for one year, after which it is destroyed. There is no “common database” of persons participating or not participating in elections in Russia. Thus, your non-participation in the elections will not entail any consequences for you, with the exception, of course, of the election of the relevant state authorities and local governments without your participation.

The current election legislation does not provide for a mechanism that would allow a candidate to “give away” the votes he received as a result of the vote. It follows from your question that you are most likely faced with a fairly common “technology” when, on the eve of voting day, one of the candidates uses printed campaign materials (leaflets, newspapers, etc.) or through the media, and sometimes he simply spreads the information at meetings with voters that he is “giving all the votes” in favor of another candidate. In fact, this is just one way of pre-election campaigning for one candidate - the one who “casts” votes - in support of the election of another candidate. It is impossible to challenge such a “procedure” in court due to the fact that in fact no one transfers any votes to anyone. But you won’t be able to “take back” your vote if you have already voted for one candidate or another: if you have already exercised your constitutional right to vote, and the elections are recognized as valid, and the election results are not invalidated, then it will no longer be possible to change your will in a legal way.

Our elections take place in two stages. If I voted in the first round but didn’t go to the second, will my vote decide anything?

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Federal Law of June 12, 2002 No. 67-FZ “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation,” the participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in elections and referendums is free and voluntary.
In Russia, the law does not provide for any sanctions for non-participation in elections, as is done in a number of countries (for example, in Italy, such a sanction as public censure is applied to persons who do not participate in elections; in Argentina, a voter who does not show up for elections is punished will be fined and deprived of the right to obtain a position in the civil service for 3 years; and in Greece, Turkey and even in Austria, imprisonment was provided for non-participation in elections some time ago, albeit for a short period).

In Russia, the legislation does not provide for measures of state coercion in relation to elections, so you can, at your own discretion, make a decision: to participate in the second round (in a repeat vote, to be more precise in the wording) or not.
But at the same time, unfortunately, you must realize that the answer to your question will be negative.
The fact is that, based on the results of a repeat vote, the candidate who received a greater number of votes in relation to the number of votes received by another candidate is considered elected.
In other words, the very fact that you do not appear for a second vote will not affect anything at all - since the elections will still be recognized as valid, and your vote given to one or another candidate in the “first round” will have no effect on counting the vote “in the second round” will not help.

The candidate has been a member of one party for many years, and is now running for another. It is legal? Can I demand that he not be allowed to participate in the elections?

Indeed, the Federal Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ “On Political Parties” contains a rule (clause 3.1 of Article 36), according to which a political party has no right to nominate candidates for deputies, including as part of lists of candidates, and for other elective positions in government bodies and local self-government bodies of citizens of the Russian Federation who are members of other political parties.

Please note that your question does not contain enough information to make a legal decision. In practice, it is quite likely that a person was a member of one party for a long time, then ceased his membership in this party and joined another party. Or there may be a situation where he was a member of the party, then ceased his membership in it, and now, being a non-party member, he is running for another party. All this is in accordance with the law.

However, if you have evidence that this particular candidate at the time (on the day) of nomination from one party was registered as a member of another political party, then in this case we are talking about a significant violation of the law: such a candidate must be registration is denied, or he must be excluded from the list of candidates (if he is running as part of the list).
In such a situation, you have the right to contact the election commission, which registers this candidate, with a request to verify the facts you have indicated and take appropriate immediate response measures. (Although in practice it will be much more effective to contact the headquarters of this candidate’s opponents - the headquarters’ lawyers will check the information as soon as possible and bring the case, if the information is confirmed, to the end).

- In our city, street voting is held for parties with real ballots and ballot boxes. Is this a real election?

No. This is not a real election. If such an action was carried out on voting day and, as you say, “real” ballots and ballot boxes were used, then you are faced with a gross violation of the current election legislation and an attempt to falsify election documents and voting results.

However, taking into account precisely the fact that the situation you described too clearly contains signs of the corresponding corpus delicti provided for in Articles 142 and 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then, most likely, we are talking about something slightly different. Most likely, the action you described was not carried out on voting day, but at least several days before, that is, during the official campaign period. In this case, most likely, it was not real ballots and ballot boxes that were used, but some “details” for carrying out the corresponding action.

The question of the legality of holding such an event lies in the area of ​​compliance with the legislation on meetings, rallies and other public events. However, it is also impossible to exclude the situation that an event held in such a way fully complies with the law: if the organizers notified local authorities about the event within the established time frame, if the ballots and ballot boxes are only “details” of the corresponding event and are not a “fake” of real ballots and ballot boxes for voting. In any case, final conclusions about the legality of the event you described can only be made based on the results of a thorough check of all available information.

Whose money is spent on organizing elections? Do parties invest or is it us taxpayers?

Expenses associated with the preparation and conduct of elections of deputies of the State Duma are carried out from funds allocated for these purposes from the federal budget, for regional and local elections - from the corresponding budgets. Thus, organizing elections is a taxpayer expense.

- Who finances the elections? Is it the money of parties and candidates or voters?

It depends on what you mean by organizing elections. If the activities of election commissions are carried out, then they are fully financed from the state budget. In other words, elections are held at our expense - at the expense of taxpayers. As for the funds of political parties (electoral associations) and individual candidates, they are accumulated in special accounts of election funds at the expense of their own funds and donations from individuals and legal entities. In part, this is also our money, since parliamentary parties annually receive funds from the budget - a certain amount for each vote they receive in the elections.

Election funds can only be spent on organizing an election campaign, respectively, an electoral association or a candidate.

Subparagraph “a” of paragraph 5 of Article 58 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Clause 2 of Article 59 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Is it possible to recount the ballots or are they counted only once by the precinct election commission?

Ballots can be recounted by the precinct election commission itself if the results of the initial count do not agree with the number of ballots issued, invalid ballots and ballots placed in ballot boxes. A manual recount is also possible using ballot processing complexes (POIB) installed on voting boxes in the event of such a discrepancy.

In addition, the decision to recount votes can be made by a higher commission if, as a result of checking the protocol on the voting results of the precinct commission, inconsistencies and errors are identified. A recount of votes in this case can be carried out either by the precinct commission itself or directly by a higher one.

A recount is also possible at the initiative of a precinct commission, a higher commission and a court if significant violations of electoral legislation are detected during elections. In practice, only a few times it was possible to initiate the issue of recounting ballots in the courts. And every time, when delivering ballots to the court, I had to deal with their absolutely unfair storage. There were also cases when ballots were destroyed.

Advice:Since the main falsifications occur precisely during the counting of votes, drawing up and signing of the protocol at polling stations, it is always easier and more effective to insist on a recount of ballots in the precinct commission than to postpone this procedure for the indefinite future, which greatly reduces the likelihood of a recount.

- Who can be present during the counting of votes, except for commission members and observers?

In addition to commission members and observers, only the following may be present during the counting of votes:

1) members of higher commissions and employees of their apparatus;

2) candidates (registered by this or a higher commission) or their proxies;

3) authorized representatives or proxies of an electoral association (the list of candidates of which is registered by this or a higher commission) or a candidate from the list of this association;

4) representatives of the media (but, as a rule, they try to get rid of them by any means).

Advice: Strict compliance with election laws will be more likely to be ensured if a larger number of active citizens control the vote count. Therefore, you need not to be lazy and become observers, having received the appropriate powers from the participants in the election process.

Clause 1 of Article 30 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Paragraph 22 of Article 68 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Subparagraph “e” of paragraph 24 of Article 68 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Clause 9 of Article 69 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Clauses 1 and 1.2 of Article 77 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Increasingly, calls are heard to ignore the future elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on December 4, 2011, or to spoil the ballot, thereby expressing their distrust of the procedure and the election organizers. Will this affect the voting results?

It will affect, but not at all in the way you expect. The voter turnout threshold for all elections was abolished back in 2006; elections will be recognized as valid even if only one person takes part in them. No one will notice your absence - moreover, they will even be glad to see you, because the ballot intended for you will remain blank, it can be filled out for you. As a result, your vote, against your will, will go to the party that has greater influence on the election commission, which will become your contribution, including, indirectly, to the falsification of elections.

There is no use in damaging ballots. Your distrust of the elections and their organizers will remain only yours. Deputy portfolios will be distributed only among parties that received 7 or more percent of the votes of voters participating in the voting. The remaining votes and invalid ballots will, in fact, be distributed among the winning parties, in proportion to their results. If there is one favorite among the parties, you can be almost sure that your vote will still be cast for it, again against your will.

Therefore, if you do not want the fate of your vote to be determined for you - to do exactly what is why you already do not trust future elections - come to the polling station and vote for the party closest to your beliefs.

- Is taking an absentee ballot the same as going to the polling station on voting day?

Taking an absentee certificate entails exclusion of the voter from the list of voters at the polling station at his place of residence, and if he does not use it, exclusion from the list of voters for this election altogether. While coming to the polling station on voting day involves receiving a ballot and voting.

- Will spoiled ballots be redistributed in favor of the party that receives the majority of votes?

- Spoiled, or, in legal terms, invalid ballots, are not redistributed by themselves. They are not taken into account when distributing mandates to the State Duma. Thus, we can say that the votes of voters who spoiled the ballot are distributed among the parties entering the Duma in proportion to the number of votes received.

- There are rumors that the Russian Central Election Commission is falsifying the election results in favor of the ruling party. Tell me, is there a set of tools for public monitoring of the election process sufficient for everyone who has access to the Internet, if desired, to make sure that:
at all polling stations elections are held in accordance with the regulations of the Central Election Commission,
all polling stations are real objects,
all voters are real individuals and vote with their own hands,
the results for each site are published in the media,
and finally, do the observed results correspond to the published results?

Currently, by decision of the Central Election Commission of Russia, a program is being implemented for online broadcasting from the voting premises of some polling stations. Their list and links to the broadcast can be found on the website of the election commission of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. I think that over time the number of areas equipped with cameras will increase.

In addition, you also have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the data entered into the protocol of each precinct election commission on the website of the election commission of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Data from each polling station is entered by system administrators of the State Automated System “Elections” and is made available online on the Internet for public access.
Observers from each of the political parties participating in the elections can currently check the reality of all voters and the correctness of drawing up the PEC protocols (entering into it data corresponding to the actual results).

In the coming 2018, an event is expected in Russia that will determine the fate of the country in the next six years - the election of the President of the Russian Federation. The official election date is set for March 18, 2018. However, political scientists and experts are already trying to predict the election results, which will affect the economy and political situation in the country. Independent research will help predict not only the outcome of the vote, but also the turnout in the 2018 elections in the regions of Russia.

Over the past ten years, the turnout rate has been on a downward trend. Therefore, it is not difficult for experts to predict the situation. Such indicators allow us to anticipate dynamics that are expected to move in the same direction. The presence of citizens at polling stations on single voting day can be influenced by many factors. Some of these factors are already well known. However, the government is trying to do everything possible to increase turnout.

Overall percentage of voter turnout in Russia

Today, socio-political stability in the Russian Federation is heterogeneous, therefore the average turnout of Russian citizens at polling stations does not reflect the actual activity of the people in different regions of the state. But these parameters directly affect the outcome of the election of the head of the Russian Federation.

The turnout threshold was abolished back in 2006. Low voter turnout increases the likelihood of speculation and various kinds of provocations.

According to preliminary forecasts regarding the turnout of the electorate on the day of the single vote, compiled by such large and well-known analytical companies as Levada-Center and St. Petersburg Politics, it was possible to compile average voter turnout indicators for the upcoming presidential elections in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of surveys conducted among the population in different regions of the country, it turned out that on voting day 58% of the population plan to come to the polling station. In accordance with the indicators that analysts were able to obtain, citizens’ intentions regarding the upcoming elections were distributed as follows:

30% – perhaps they will come to the polling station on voting day,

20% – while they doubt that they will vote,

19% – they don’t plan to go to the polling station at all on voting day.

It was those citizens who would definitely come to vote and those citizens who might vote that made up that part of the voters who had already decided on their civic position. These are the first two categories of citizens in the list above. The other two categories can be influenced through various mechanisms that may influence their final decision.

From the practice of previous years, analysts have concluded that actual voter turnout is usually lower than predicted voter turnout. This happens because at the last moment people who planned to vote, for one reason or another, change their decision, renounce their right to vote and their expression of will.

At the same time, the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research gave more optimistic indicators. As a result of their research, it turned out that approximately 70% of the population with the right to vote would vote for the chosen candidate.

Percentage of voter turnout by regions of Russia

Based on the results of surveys and studies by the same analytical companies, voter turnout in 2018 in the regions of the country became known:

Tyumen and Tuva - almost 100% of the population,

Republic of Dagestan – 99.20% of the population,

Kemerovo region – 99.18% of the population,

Chechen Republic – 95.9% of the population.

Thus, it turned out that the maximum number of voters is expected in Tyumen and Tuva. There is also high activity in the Yamalo-Nenets District, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Ingushetia, North Ossetia and Tatarstan.

The turnout will be low in Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Tomsk, Novgorodsk, Kostroma region, Trans-Baikal Territory, where a very small percentage of voters will vote in the presidential elections in 2018.

Also among the regions with a low percentage of turnout are the Astrakhan region, where only 37.3% of citizens will go to the polling station and St. Petersburg, where 37% of citizens will go to vote. The capital of Russia occupies the very last position in this ranking. In Moscow, only 33.15% of the population will vote, which is the lowest turnout in the 2018 Russian presidential elections among all regions of the country.

Analysts were unable to predict data for Crimea because there was too little information. There was only one federal election campaign in this region - the Duma, which took place in the fall of 2016. This region also did not show any records then. In Crimea, turnout was only 49%.

Of course, there is no doubt that these statistics may change. The closer we get to the election date, the more changes are expected in these indicators. The opinion of the population will undoubtedly be influenced by the candidates' election campaign, which has only recently started. Candidates will use different political technologies. Accordingly, citizens who previously did not want to vote in the presidential elections in Russia, closer to the elections, will most likely change their decision and increase the number of voters.

The highest voter turnout rates were recorded in Russia in 1991. Then the turnout in the elections was 77% of Russian citizens with the right to vote. The lowest figures were in 2004 - 64.4% of citizens took part in the elections. In 2008, the turnout was 70%, in 2012 – 65.3%.

Projected voter turnout rates for 2018 are lower than presidential elections in other countries. For example, during the elections in France (voting in 2 stages), the turnout was 77.8 and 74.5%. In Iran, turnout was 73%. In South Korea – 77%. However, there are also lower indicators, for example, during the presidential elections in Serbia the turnout was 54.5%, in Chile - 46.7%, in Slovenia - 44%.

According to expert Dmitry Oreshkin, according to the results of surveys, out of 110 million citizens, only 64 million will come to vote, a quarter of them are people who have already given a positive answer regarding voting, but they do not want to go to the polls. Accordingly, they need to be subtracted from 64 million, but added to this number 12 million people who will be among those who voted, as “drawn”. Thus, according to the expert’s calculations, 60 million Russians (55-60%) will attend the elections and the expert sees no reason to exceed this threshold. After all, the main reason for such low parameters is the lack of intrigue, as many political strategists believe: “The Crimean syndrome is already ending, the feeling of uncertainty is increasing, the material level is decreasing. All this reduces the willingness of citizens to go to the polls.”

According to expert Dmitry Badovsky, more realistic indicators can be measured no earlier than February, because by this time the category of citizens who will definitely vote will exceed 40%: “The overall projected turnout will rise to 57-60%, but you need to understand that before There is still time left for the end of the campaign.”

The Kremlin is today concerned about such low indicators in a number of regions identified as a result of surveys conducted by analytical companies. Therefore, the authorities seriously thought about what technologies to choose and what approach to the population should be in order to increase the number of people willing to take part in the future fate of the country.

Opinions of politicians and experts on low turnout

Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov commented on the results of surveys by analytical companies. He said that the Kremlin does not intend to evaluate the work of regional heads by the level of turnout in the presidential elections: “That would be unlawful and incorrect. The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation is responsible for informing citizens in the regions about the importance of each vote.”

Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko, who oversees domestic policy issues, gave the heads of regions a strict instruction - to avoid “cheating” votes and related quarrels and scandals.

Increasing turnout should occur without using administrative resources. At the end of autumn 2017, all vice-governors responsible for internal policy in the regions were gathered at a seminar in Moscow. There they were given a task - on March 18, 2018, they must create the most festive mood possible. People should be attracted through various types of events: sports, cultural, and so on. During the events, surveys of residents about the fate of their regions must be conducted.

According to the head of the expert group, Konstantin Kalachev, the turnout should be maximum. This can be achieved in different ways. There are regions where all events are held as a holiday and folk festival, where elections are a form of leisure for the people, and participation in cultural events is a mandatory tradition.

Some regional heads took these guidelines literally. Thus, in the Komi Republic they wanted to hold a local referendum on March 18 on moving the capital from Syktyvkar to Ukhta. In Sevastopol, they planned to hold a referendum on the choice of the flag and coat of arms of the city. However, during the process of collecting signatures, these options were rejected. Only one referendum was approved in the Volgograd region, where residents will decide on moving local time forward 1 hour (Volgograd region is located in the same time zone as Moscow).

As for the intrigue, today the CEC was notified of the desire to take part by 33 candidates, of which 15 are self-nominated. Of these, 11 people were rejected for one reason or another. In the meantime, only Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who managed to submit documents to the CEC first, was registered. He handed in the documents on December 22. The party has already transferred 200 million rubles to his fund. The maximum amount is 400 million rubles, of which only 10% can be transferred by the candidate independently. The party that nominated the candidate can contribute a maximum of 50% of the limit. Voluntary transfers by Russians can reach a maximum of only 1.5%, and voluntary donations from legal entities – 7%.

How the authorities will increase voter turnout rates

It is possible that the authorities of regions where low rates have been identified today will take appropriate measures to ensure high voter turnout. For example, various technologies may be introduced. This includes conducting explanatory activities, the purpose of which is to convey to citizens the importance of the upcoming event and the social activity of each citizen. A friendly, festive atmosphere must be ensured at polling stations. Preparatory measures will be carried out to increase the number of citizens' turnout. For example, some of the people who did not vote will be technically eliminated by a detailed study of the lists at polling stations. That is, those who went abroad, those who recently changed their citizenship, those who died and other citizens not registered at these addresses will be excluded. In other words, the lists of “dead souls” will be cleared. In some regions of the country their number reaches 10% of voters.

Extending the duration of the work of the precinct commission by twenty days may also contribute to more active voting. In 2018, precinct commissions will work for 30 days, which will allow for the full targeted distribution of invitations, as well as including all clarifications in the preliminary lists.

Calls for protest and boycott created by opposition members can also affect voter turnout rates. Due to strong pressure and the imposition of someone else's political will, Russian citizens may listen and refuse to express their will on voting day. These calls may lead to some of the citizens giving up their own right to vote, and without realizing it, entrusting their future to people who lack the trust of the electorate.

But be that as it may, the greater the turnout and the percentage of voters on the day of the single vote, the greater the number of citizens will show their social activity. Therefore, preliminary data are very eloquent in terms of public consciousness and political interest of citizens in the future of their country.

Measures to increase voter turnout

In 2017, the government took some measures aimed at increasing the turnout of citizens at polling stations on voting day, March 18, 2018.

This includes an amendment to the law “On the elections of the President of the Russian Federation”. The main change is the absence of absentee ballots. This means that a person can vote in any polling station, regardless of whether he is registered at this address or simply lives. The “mobile voter” system is aimed at increasing turnout due to convenience for citizens. Now, in order to vote at the nearest polling station, a citizen must simply submit an application through State Services.

To increase the percentage of citizen turnout, measures have also been taken regarding people vacationing or living abroad. Today, millions of Russian citizens live outside the Russian Federation and also have the right to vote. The Central Election Commission of Russia will increase the turnout of citizens abroad due to the arrival of the election commission to places of increased activity of Russians. For example, the CEC will send representatives of participating candidates for the post of head of state to polling stations in other countries. But there are some nuances here too. Many Russians living outside Russia are in small towns and not everyone has the opportunity to come to a large city to vote. To solve this problem, the CEC will send employees to areas populated by Russian citizens so that they can vote. In this way, more votes can be collected, which will significantly affect the voting result.

In 2018, the Central Election Commission plans to attract several million Russians permanently or temporarily staying outside Russia to participate in the presidential elections. In total, it is planned to open 360 polling stations abroad. In this case, voting is also possible without absentee ballots.

Experts believe that due to the abolition of absentee ballots, voter turnout will increase by five million. In the last presidential elections in 2012, 1,600,046 Russians voted using absentee ballots. This is a small indicator, however, many Russians would like to vote, but were not at their place of permanent registration that day. Many citizens do not want to deal with absentee ballots at all, because in order to receive them, you need to spend a lot of time. Simplification of “paper” issues will directly affect the increase in voter turnout in 2018.

Measures have also been taken to ensure fair elections. Polling stations will be equipped with video cameras, and the processes taking place at polling stations can be monitored online.

About the upcoming elections.

To be honest, I thought after 25 years of playing “democracy”, citizens should have already understood what bourgeois parliamentarism is. But no. And ’93, and ’96, and even the very recent 2011 taught few people anything. Unfortunately, there are still a large number of people who sincerely believe that elections can influence something. Well, or at least, if not influenced, then avoid the terrible Maidan. And this weekend the next flock of sheep will go “to choose the lesser of two evils.”

The very posing of the question of “the lesser evil” suggests that there is nothing to choose from. Today there is not a single party that would represent the interests of the majority of the population, that is, the proletariat. Communist Party of the Russian Federation? Do not make me laugh. Their program says “support for small and medium-sized businesses” - it’s clear whose interests they will protect. True, it is not customary for us to read programs. Most of those who will go to the polls have not read any programs. Since the time of Yeltsin, we have been voting with our hearts.

First of all, I would like to remind such citizens that after the dispersal of the Supreme Council by tanks in 1993, our republic became a presidential one. Note that this was done without any voting. On the contrary, they dispersed the legally elected body of power. Under current legislation, the State Duma is a purely decorative organization created to imitate “democracy”. She has no real powers. The president can dissolve it altogether.

But let’s assume that in some unknown way the Duma can influence something. What is the mechanism of functioning of the bourgeois parliament today? To begin with, the sheep who go to choose something there are asked to vote... not even for specific people, but for parties, which will then decide for themselves who will get into the Duma according to the party lists. Rams not only cannot influence the formation of these lists, but also do not have any leverage over those who are included in these lists. Let’s say the party “For All Good” promised a lot of all sorts of goodies. The sheep went to vote for her and... this is where the role of the sheep ended. Next, the party sells places on the list to some shady individuals with criminal records, businessmen, mistresses of businessmen, friends of friends, after which this whole cesspool simply puts money on all the election promises and begins to stupidly profit from the deputy status. Is it possible for the ram to influence this? Well, recall, for example, the mistress of a businessman who has never even appeared at meetings? There is no possibility. For 5 years, the ram gave carte blanche to such gentlemen to do whatever they wanted without any control from the ram.

But in 5 years they won’t vote for them if they behave badly!- the rams will object. I would immediately like to ask the question: how many state deputies? Can such gentlemen at least name the Duma by last name? Will there be 20 people? No? And there are actually 450 of them there! It’s just that each party has “locomotives” that sell shit on posters. All sorts of Zyuganovs, Zhirinovskys, Mironovs, Gryzlovs and other trash. All the rest go through the lists and no one knows them, unless they themselves are specifically highlighted. So in 5 years the sheep will go and vote in the same way. The system is working. Even their faces don’t change for 20 years, but the citizens still walk around.

And the Maidan! There will be a Maidan if you don’t go to the polls!- Well, this is schizophrenia in its purest form. In Ukraine, the Maidan happened because of low turnout or what? Or did Yanukovych not win the elections? It turns out that the sheep went and elected Yanukovych, but the Maidan still happened?! What meanness!

But if I don’t go to the polls, my vote will be stolen and attributed to United Russia!!!- the rams will object again. It is not clear what, with this logic, prevents you from attributing a vote, even if the ram comes. Observers? There are not enough observers to double-check all voting results in all precincts. But even if it were enough, the data from the PECs goes to the TEC, and then to the CEC. And in electronic form. At each stage, you can assign any numbers and it will be impossible to verify this, simply because to verify it you will have to carry out parallel calculations. All parties taken together stupidly have fewer members than the number of people needed for a parallel count. Therefore, you have to trust the official system. So, if the official system cheats, then turnout/non-appearance at the elections will not affect this in any way. Just as it didn’t influence in ’96 and in 2011.

Finally, comrades, understand that the bourgeois will not simply give up his power to anyone (especially through elections). He will not give up his privileges. For this he has power, money, and, if necessary, force. Remember Spain, remember Chile, remember the aforementioned 1993. If capital feels a real threat to its power, it will stop at nothing to eliminate this threat. Even at the everyday level this is understandable. Try to take away the illegal connection to the oil pipeline from the bandits. They will immediately shoot you in the head without talking. But for our ruling class, our entire country is one continuous illegal insertion into the Soviet legacy. There is so much money floating around there that these gentlemen will start a civil war and will not hesitate to bring in interventionists just to stay at the trough. There is already such an example in our history. Do you think anything has fundamentally changed since then? Well, read the letter from 13. That's exactly what it's about.

In the end, what do we have? There is no one to choose from, it is impossible to control those chosen, and the elections themselves do not affect anything. In such a situation, the most reasonable option is to fail to show up at the elections, which will be tantamount to canceling the “against all” column.

Why do the authorities need to appear?

Here some comrades suggest that you still go to the polls, but not vote, but, for example, take away the ballot or somehow spoil it so that the ballot is declared invalid. A very common point of view, by the way.

What is the disadvantage of this method and why is it better not to just go to the polls? The disadvantage is very simple - it is an increase in turnout. In general, what the authorities need from you is not so much a vote for United Russia, but that you come to the polls at all. Yesterday our President issued a call to go and vote. Banners with similar calls are hung throughout the city. They strained all the security guards to write about the elections. For what? Why do they need to show up? After all, when the turnout is low, you need to do less stuffing in order to tilt the result in the right direction. Moreover, they themselves abolished the turnout threshold. It would seem that send state employees to the elections, and let the rest sit at home - they won’t spoil the results. But no. On the contrary, they are going to introduce administrative liability for failure to appear at elections. Why?

Well, firstly, the government needs legitimacy in the eyes of the population. Many comrades underestimate this concept. And they do it in vain. Legitimacy is generally the basis of any power. If citizens massively consider the government illegitimate, then the stability of such power is greatly reduced. Imagine that neither you, nor your neighbors, nor work colleagues, nor relatives went to the polls. And they did this not because they needed to grill kebabs at the dacha, but deliberately. How will you feel about the elected authorities? Negative to say the least. This is not your power, you did not choose it and you do not owe it anything. A bunch of thieves choose themselves. And this is the opinion in every kitchen.

Now imagine that not only ordinary citizens, but also law enforcement officers are starting to think this way. Will riot police disperse the crowd if they consider the authorities illegitimate? Will the intelligence services be particularly persistent in identifying and eliminating activists? Will the army side with such a government when not a single soldier voted for it? As practice shows, no. In 1991, no one stood up to defend the Soviet system, since its legitimacy was completely undermined during the years of perestroika. In the same way, no one stood up to defend the king in the 17th - citizens stopped considering him their king long before his abdication. And even in Ukraine after the coup of 14, a significant part of the population of Crimea and the South-East did not consider the new government legitimate. This is what allowed the Russian Federation to raise an uprising there and take Crimea. South-East was eventually abandoned, but that's another story.

Please note: the citizens who overthrew Yanukovych immediately became concerned about holding elections. The question is - why? They have already taken power. And for some reason, Yeltsin, after the shooting of the Supreme Council, instantly muddied the elections to the newly created Federal Assembly. Do they all have nothing to do? Yes, they just need legitimacy. So that citizens recognize them. Now for this it is enough to put ballots in ballot boxes. The ritual is like this. Allows people to feel some kind of involvement in what is happening. It’s like we didn’t decide everything for you, but rather together.

Thus, if you go to the polls, then you agree with the current system. Exactly with the system. You may not agree with a particular party. You may not agree with everyone at all and choose the “lesser of evils.” But nevertheless, you approve of the election system as a way to legitimize power. You are taking part in this. It doesn’t matter for what reasons, but you accept it. Increase the final turnout.

This was all “first of all.” Now secondly. The authorities need legitimacy in the eyes of the “world community.” Our “Western partners” will definitely take the opportunity to rock the boat from the outside if it suddenly turns out that Vladimir Vladimirovich was chosen by 12% of the population. Even if out of these 12%, 100% will be for Putin. The same thing applies to parliamentary elections. The party in power is the party of the president. An illegitimate parliament also casts a shadow on the legitimacy of the president. And we actually have a tough confrontation with the West. We need to demonstrate the unity of the Russian people against the adversaries! That's why it's all about the elections! Let's rally around the thieves and oligarchs to spite the State Department! - this is exactly what the Kremlin propagandists are calling us to do. This is the second reason why they need our presence.

Conscious communists, of course, should not bring such joy to the existing anti-people system. Let them choose themselves. They chase state employees, arrange carousels, stuffing, etc. The sooner citizens become disillusioned with bourgeois parliamentarism, the better. 25 years turned out to be not enough, but there is still hope for recovery. We'll see how the disease progresses in a couple of days.

Recent Posts from This Journal

• 
  Painting by Vietnamese artist Tran Nguyen (18 works)

• 
  Helavisa (Mill) - Roads

• 
  "Under Stalin, people were sent to Gulag camps for being late for work"

  Under Stalin, people were sent to Gulag camps for the slightest delay to work. Let's figure out truth or lies. The subject of most conversations on this...

• How to change your attitude towards Nestor in 7 minutes? False history of the USSR

  We heard all sorts of things about the USSR on YouTube. But Dud, Varlamov, Kamikadzedead and other Itpedia with their anti-Soviet pseudo-historical hysteria seem...

• 
  Where was the real “Holodomor” and who organized it?

  Accusations of “Holodomor” are a favorite hobby of Ukrainian anti-Russian propaganda. Allegedly the Soviet Union, which is modern...

• 
  Egor Yakovlev about the pioneer movement and the Hitler Youth

• Top 10 resolutions of Nicholas II the Bloody

• 
  Boris Yulin - Proletariat

  Conversations about proletarians and their place in modern society with military historian Boris Yulin.

Illustration copyright Alexander Ryumin/TASS Image caption Ballot boxes remained half empty in most polling stations.

On September 10, residents of 16 regions elected governors - in some regions elections of heads are being held for the first time in the last 15 years. In other regions, deputies to regional and local parliaments were elected. In Moscow, deputies to municipal assemblies were elected. In total, campaigns of various levels took place in 82 regions of Russia.

In 15 of the 16 regions where gubernatorial elections were held, turnout was lower than in the previous similar elections. The exception is the Sverdlovsk region, but the difference is expressed in one and a half percent. In 2017, 33.47% voted in the gubernatorial elections, in 2003 - 32.07%.

Even in those regions and republics where governors have not been elected for 14-17 years, voters did not vote very actively.

Residents of Mordovia set a record for activity - 71% of voters voted. Mordovia is famous for its abnormally active voting; the percentage of those who came to the polls is always above the national average. But the number of voters in the elections for the head of the republic now turned out to be lower than in the Duma elections of 2016 and in the previous gubernatorial elections in 2003. In previous years, 83% of voters voted there.

The anti-record was set by voters in Karelia and the Tomsk region - there, according to preliminary data, 23.5% and 22.56% voted, respectively.

On average, the preliminary turnout in the gubernatorial elections in 16 regions on September 10 was 35.39%.

According to preliminary data, there is no chance of an opposition candidate winning in any region; a second round is also not expected anywhere.

“This day was very favorable for our party,” said the leader of United Russia, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. “But the most important thing is still ahead - both for the senior officials of the constituent entities of the federation, that is, the governors who were elected today, and for deputies at various levels."

No appearance required

In Moscow, about one and a half thousand deputies to municipal councils were elected. These elections were important for both the authorities and the opposition, since the nomination of candidates for the election of a candidate for mayor of Moscow in 2018 depends on the signatures of municipal deputies.

Opposition candidates nominated themselves for these elections. To counter them, the Moscow mayor's office decided to hide information about the elections from voters, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote. The Moscow authorities really hardly informed the townspeople about the upcoming elections, correspondents of the BBC Russian Service, the failure of the campaign to inform the townspeople about the elections was also recognized by the Central Election Commission.

As a result, voter turnout in municipal elections in Moscow as of 18:00 Moscow time was 12.1%. Local elections traditionally attract little attention, but even at the local level this is a fairly low result. For comparison, more than 21% of voters voted for deputies of the Moscow City Duma in 2014.

“No one fought for turnout this time,” Andrei Kolyadin, head of regional programs at the Expert Institute for Social Research (IESI), close to the Kremlin, explained to the BBC. “If previously one of the main principles was pumping up turnout to the maximum level, now At all meetings, conferences, meetings with the authorities, they said that the main thing is the most fair elections, without theft of votes and falsifications.”

In Moscow, the turnout turned out to be too dry, admits Kolyadin. “Probably, the Moscow authorities had plans for everything to go quietly and for their own people to pass, for whom they would calmly vote with the help of mobilization. I don’t know how much this worked out, it all depends on how those 12 percent who came voted,” says the political scientist.

Political scientist, expert of the Committee of Civil Initiatives Alexander Kynev says that an artificial decrease in turnout leads to discrediting the authorities and reduces its legitimacy: “In a normal election campaign, there is no other way to increase turnout other than agitation and intrigue.” The summer-autumn campaign of 2017 showed that “there can be no future with this system,” Kynev noted. According to him, the elections took place according to an inertial scenario; no one wanted to take risks. “The question of changing the rules of the game will inevitably arise,” the political scientist concluded.

This is the last major election before the 2018 presidential campaign. Russians were almost not interested in the previous federal elections for State Duma deputies, and the turnout did not reach 50%.

After this, the Kremlin became concerned about voter turnout in the upcoming presidential elections, and the current campaign was supposed to become a small rehearsal for the presidential elections: the authorities developed several ways to attract the electorate to the elections, including applications in the Mamba dating service, messages in Internet aggregators, and so on.

Putin himself has not yet announced his plans for 2018, but few doubt his intentions. Russian media write that the Kremlin would like to turn the elections into a referendum on confidence in Putin. The RBC publication reported that the deputy head of the Kremlin administration for domestic policy, Sergei Kiriyenko, sets the goal of getting 70% of the votes for Putin with a turnout of the same 70%.

“Presidential elections always take place with a higher turnout, and the head of state is treated as the most effective authority,” Kolyadin noted. “It is extremely important that in their desire to serve the territory they do not begin to drive various state employees to the polling stations under pain of execution and death.” In his opinion, the September 10 rehearsal can be considered normal from this point of view.