The turnout exceeded the previous presidential elections. “Minimum threshold” of voter turnout in elections as a guarantee of their legitimacy

Russian political scientists, assessing the ongoing elections, note that they are competitive, open, with a high turnout - but for parties this is not the main thing, the main goal of all political forces is for the election results to be legitimate.

“As electoral activity approaches central Russia, the western regions, I think that, especially in the south, turnout will increase. And will reach more than 50 percent,” the head of the Center for Political Information previously stated Alexey Mukhin. “The campaign is proceeding calmly, it is clear that violations and abuses by some groups in the regions are inevitable,” he added, explaining, “As far as I know, the Central Election Commission is in very close contact with law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor’s office, and on this score we can be calm.”

“Apparently this is due to the fact that the postponement of the elections from December to September, the good weather, which is in many Siberian and Far Eastern regions, made active voting in the morning comfortable,” the expert said, “It is too early to discuss turnout in Central Russia, as for Siberia and the Far East, we saw high activity."

“The turnout is quite decent, but the pursuit of turnout is not an end in itself. The main thing is that voters who went and did not go to the elections believe that the result of the vote count reflects the opinion of the population,” explained the head of the political expert group Konstantin Kalachev

“Of course, we can say that the elections lived up to their expectations in terms of competitiveness and transparency. The number of parties participating in the election campaign has increased significantly, while the electoral list also includes parties that sharply disagree with the president and the government on fundamental issues. Sociologists are already recording a growing Russians’ trust in elections, since it is openness that increases the legitimacy of parliament in the eyes of citizens,” the director of the Institute of Political Studies, a member of the Public Chamber, told Vzglyad Sergey Markov.

“The 2016 elections did not become some kind of “bright show,” but our citizens go to the polls and express their support, first of all, for a broad patriotic coalition, and these are all parliamentary parties and the majority of non-parliamentary ones. I am sure that this broad coalition will receive 90-98% votes in parliament. Voters have already made their choice in favor of Putin, and they come to the elections in order to support the political system in general,” the expert concluded.

“It is also important to pay attention to the reaction of Western partners to these elections. As you know, elections are being held for the first time in Crimea. It is clear that the West does not recognize the results of single-mandate elections. But, in the case of a party list, our Western partners will have to not recognize the entire Russian parliament. But if they recognize it, then this will be the first step towards recognizing that Crimea is part of Russia. Otherwise, relations between the West and Russia will only sharply worsen and the opportunity to lift counter-sanctions will be lost," he added.

“As a rule, an increase in turnout is typical for regions where elections of the head of the subject are held in parallel or where there is some combination with regional election campaigns,” the vice-president of the Center for Strategic Communications assessed voter turnout in the elections Dmitry Abzalov.

"The turnout so far is quite typical, which is due to several factors. On the one hand, there are single-mandate voters, which increases interest in the election campaign, on the other hand, we do not have any internal breakdown in the political campaign, such internal protest activity, so there is interest there not so high,” the political scientist is sure.

“The federal center did not set the task of increasing turnout with all possible efforts; this also affected the fact that the regions decided to conduct calm campaigns, without administrative extra charges,” he concluded.

“Voter turnout in the elections to the State Duma of the seventh convocation refuted the pessimistic forecasts of some analysts who predicted extremely low activity among Russians. Turnout is not yet a record high, but not catastrophically low either,” the head of the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation shared his opinion with the media. Mikhail Vinogradov.

“In different regions, elections are held with varying degrees of competition, so situations that require special attention cannot be ruled out. For example, in the Altai Territory, where suspicions of “cruise voting” arose. But in general, the elections are proceeding calmly,” the expert concluded.

Another single voting day suddenly - literally at the last moment - turned into a real holiday for the democratic opposition. The main reason was the municipal elections in Moscow, which, like 5 years ago, were attended by many activists from the capital. Out of 1.5 thousand mandates, representatives of Yabloko and the Solidarity movement managed to get about 200 (the official results have not yet been summed up everywhere). The opposition managed to gain a majority in a dozen municipal councils.

This is not the only success of the Democrats. In the Pskov region, where, thanks to Lev Shlosberg, Yabloko has a traditionally strong position, the party entered the city Duma, gaining about 9%, and also won the election for the head of the Plyussky district. In this region, United Russia failed to overcome the 50 percent vote barrier, nevertheless, thanks to single-mandate seats, it will receive a majority in the City Duma - it can be considered unusual that only in 10 out of 15 districts were the candidates of the party in power able to win, so now they threaten lawsuits and recounts of ballots and complain about voter bribery.

In the Kaliningrad and Novgorod regions, as well as in Karelia, where governors were elected, no surprises happened: he received 81% of the votes, Andrei Nikitin - 68%, - 61%. In general, in no region did the candidate from the ruling party encounter serious resistance - the maximum that the candidates who took second place were able to show was a result in the region of 18-20%. In some places, the winners can even boast off-the-scale numbers, like Alexey Tsydenov in Buryatia with 87% or Vladimir Volkov in Mordovia with 89%.

Where regional parliaments were elected on September 10, the picture is also familiar - the overwhelming majority of United Russia members plus small factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia.

From the point of view of the result, voting day did not bring any special surprises. Yes, the oppositionists managed to enter individual municipalities in different regions - on Sakhalin, even in the Krasnodar Territory. But this success does not go beyond the fluctuations that the system allowed before: when, for example, Evgeniy Roizman became the mayor of Yekaterinburg, and Yabloko activist Galina Shirshina became the mayor of Petrozavodsk. It is, in principle, possible to slip into the gap created by the conflict of regional groupings, where it exists. This does not necessarily lead to success - Roizman’s powers were cut off, Shirshina was sent into retirement, and in general, an opposition mayor, even if he wins somewhere, soon often has to choose between resignation and joining the ranks of the party in power.

The campaign did not stand out in terms of violations either. Observers continued to record abnormal early voting, problems with voting at home, actual bribery of voters by organizing win-win lotteries and holidays, and the removal of strong candidates from the race. In Saratov, the head of the city, Valery Saraev, resigned due to numerous violations. But the results of the gubernatorial elections, where the current head of the Saratov region Valery Radaev received 74%, as well as the regional Duma, where 67% went to United Russia, have been summed up, and reports of violations for the most part, as always, have not been officially confirmed.

The main parameter of the elections in the last 2 years is not the numbers, but the conditional fairness of the elections. That is, legitimacy. The presidential administration was obsessed with “fair elections” during the period, and now the department is trying to continue this line. All these statements did not lead to a reduction in fraud, but the idea was to eliminate not the reasons for complaints, but the complainants, that is, in the competent selection of candidates and distribution of roles.

And this time, Moscow democrats were preparing for the usual scenario. Before the elections, social networks were full of statements about artificially low turnout in Moscow and violations with remote voting. Everything was ready to attack the authorities with accusations of violations and forgery after summing up the results. And suddenly - victory.

Turnout remained low. In general, in few places it exceeded 40%, and in the municipal elections in Moscow it was just under 15% - catastrophically low. Such a low turnout in municipal elections is actually a good reason to think about the legitimacy of the municipal filter, but this issue has been elegantly removed from the agenda, and there is no one to raise it.

The violations did not seem to disappear anywhere, but the reason for complaints disappeared. This would cast doubt on one’s own victory, and although it is small, it makes one’s head spin and inspires hope. The Duma minority parties were not capable of serious protest before, and after the “Crimean consensus” they were completely paralyzed (no one in power takes the routine protests of the communists seriously anymore). The non-parliamentary opposition is happy that it got at least a small role - even in the polling station where Yabloko voted, Yabloko candidates won.

At the same time, when oppositionists write about the bright prospects now opening before them, they, in general, are not lying. Indeed, the mandate of a municipal deputy is better than nothing and provides more opportunities for struggle and agitation. Even if this is still not enough to overcome the municipal filter in the next gubernatorial elections, during this campaign there were practically no traditional splits and showdowns in the ranks of the opposition. Perhaps in 5 years, if they don’t ruin their own prospects with some internal squabbles, they will take another step forward.

But the capital's mayor's office and the presidential administration can consider the local task completed. At the cost of a small concession (it’s strange that this simple idea took so long to mature), it received a generally positive image of the elections, increased legitimacy and the absence of protest rallies.

Almost no one noticed that, simultaneously with the success of Yabloko, their representation in the local councils of Moscow of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party was reduced by 5 times, and A Just Russia by 12 times, but it seems that no one is interested in them anymore, even in the Kremlin.

Select the fragment with the error text and press Ctrl+Enter

The article identifies the connection between the type of electoral system and voter turnout. The issues of using electoral engineering in the design of electoral systems are considered. The practical part is based on consideration of this issue using the example of world experience in elections to parliaments of various states at the beginning of the 21st century. The prerequisites for the question of the prospect of returning the minimum threshold for elections in Russia are considered, the pros and cons of the existence of a turnout threshold for elections at the federal and regional levels are considered. It is indicated that in Russia the prospects for returning the minimum threshold in regional elections are quite real. This measure is necessary to strengthen the authority and legitimacy of the government, as well as to increase the consciousness of voters. In addition, a minimum turnout threshold is necessary to ensure that elections are perceived as more fair. Otherwise, the institution of elections itself will gradually degrade into a “mass opinion poll”, which does not guarantee stability to the system.

selective engineering

electoral system

election results

turnout threshold

1. Century. Threshold for legitimacy dated November 14, 2012 URL: http://wek.ru/politika/ 83592-porog-dlya-legitimnosti.html (date accessed December 7, 2013).

2. Gazeta.ru. URL: http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2012/11/13_a_4851517.shtml (accessed December 7, 2013).

3. Newspaper Pulse. In Moldova, they proposed to abolish the turnout threshold for elections URL: http://www.puls.md/ru/content/ % European news on euroline html (date of access 12/7/2013).

4. Grishin N.V. The electoral system as an institution for articulating the political interests of society. // Caspian region: politics, economics, culture. – 2013. – No. 2. – P. 42–49.

5. “Club of Regions” - Internet - representation of the heads of regions of the Russian Federation from January 14, 2013 URL: http://club-rf.ru/ index.php (accessed December 7, 2013)

6. RIA Novosti. MOSCOW, January 16, 2013. The return of the turnout threshold for regional elections is real - experts from RIA Novosti.html.

7. Center for Monitoring Democratic Processes “Quorum” France: analysis of electoral legislation in the context of compliance with general democratic standards and human rights URL: http://www. cmdp-kvorum.org/democratic-process/62 (accessed December 7, 2013).

8. ACE Electoral Knowledge. – Network Aceprojekt.org P. 320.

9. Naviny.by Parliamentary elections in Lithuania are recognized as valid URL: http://n1.by/news/2012/10/14/445443.html (accessed 7.12.2013).

Research on electoral systems and processes is quite significant for Russian political science. In most cases, they affect the most noticeable and attention-grabbing phenomena and technologies, such as “black PR”, manipulation of voter behavior, etc., or what is directly related to the legal regulation of election campaigns: the procedure for nominating and registering candidates, the formation electoral fund, etc. In the domestic literature, there are still not enough relevant scientific works devoted to the study of electoral systems in the entirety of their constituent elements.

Speaking about the electoral system, electoral engineering is often mentioned as a means that allows one to modify the political system of society and directly influence the functioning of government institutions. The use of electoral engineering in itself may indicate both processes of modernization of the electoral system and attempts by the political elite to arbitrarily influence the course of development of socio-political institutions without taking into account the real patterns of their development, etc.

The essence of electoral engineering lies in its ability to construct both individual elements and the entire electoral system and the relationships associated with it, not only relying on previous practices, but also modeling them in accordance with the expectations of certain results.

Practice shows that the introduction of a different electoral system, a significant change in the rules relating to voting and vote counting procedures, the formation of other electoral districts, a change in the date and time of elections and other options for adjusting the electoral legislation often have an important impact on the final result of the elections.

As a result, the development of electoral systems is considered an important aspect, including political governance. Familiarity with examples of electoral systems in other states helps to see how elements of the electoral system function in different configurations. Undoubtedly, each country is unique, but the uniqueness of any nation, as a rule, lies in the diverse interweaving of basic, largely socio-political factors. Based on this, when modeling a specific electoral system, it is necessary to start by identifying selection criteria and priority issues for the country. However, the nature of institution building is such that compromises often have to be made between various competing desires and goals. Individual criteria may coincide or, conversely, be incompatible with each other. Therefore, when creating or reforming an electoral system, it is important to determine priority criteria, and only then analyze which electoral system or combination of systems best meets the objectives. Such criteria include: the creation of a truly representative parliament, the accessibility and significance of elections, the ability to resolve public conflicts, the creation of a stable and effective government, the accountability of the government and deputies, stimulating the development of political parties, support for the parliamentary opposition, etc.

Then an analysis of the options already available and the consequences of their choice is necessary. Thus, the problem of modeling an optimal electoral system is to correctly evaluate the choice options based on certain criteria (always taking into account historical development, time and political realities), which will help, through systematic selection, to discover exactly the option that will meet the needs of a particular country.

Separately, it should be noted that although electoral engineering does not directly deal with the organizational aspects of elections (location of polling stations, nomination of candidates, registration of voters, procedure for preparing and conducting elections), nevertheless these issues are extremely important, and the possible advantages of a certain electoral system will be reduced to not if these issues are not given due attention.

Having analyzed modern European and national experience in holding elections, we can identify the following main methods of electoral engineering:

• introduction of new electoral procedures;
• changing the boundaries of electoral districts;
• selection of election commissions loyal to the authorities;
• choosing the right time for elections;
• changes in the funding of political parties;
• introduction or abolition of an electoral barrier;
• use of voter turnout thresholds;
• stimulation and movement of voters across districts, etc.

Thus, researchers have identified a certain connection between the type of electoral system and voter turnout. With proportional systems, voter turnout is higher. In majoritarian systems, voters are more likely to turn out if there is not expected to be too much difference between the candidates' results, or if turnout is higher in districts where competition is expected to be intense.

Using ACE Electoral Knowledge Network data on parliamentary elections in European countries, summarized for the period 2001-2006, it became possible, systematizing and presenting them in tabular form, to assess how truly the voting results reflect the will of the entire population of voters (table).

As can be seen from the table, absolutely democratically elected, legitimate deputies who received more than 50% of the votes and can safely be called winners were elected only in Germany, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta. Close to them are semi-legitimate deputies, i.e. those for whom from 40 to 50% of voters voted. These are parliamentarians from countries such as Italy, Estonia, Sweden, Latvia, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Illegitimate deputies - winners received from 25 to 40% of the votes, however, there are examples of absolutely illegitimate (received a mandate of trust from only 11 to 25% of voters) deputies of parliaments of such countries as the Czech Republic, Poland, France, Great Britain and Lithuania. All this points to the delegitimization of the election process in European countries that seem to have great democratic traditions in these matters.

If there is no decent turnout at the elections, then, accordingly, there can be no talk of any real representation of the interests of citizens. And this key thesis is the main prerequisite for the emergence and active discussion of the issue of the prospect of returning the minimum turnout threshold for elections in those countries that either did not have it initially or at some point refused to use it.

Results of elections to parliaments of European countries in 2001 - 2006.

Thus, in the UK, Canada, Spain, as well as in the USA, there is currently no minimum threshold for voter turnout, and issues of compulsory voting are regularly raised in political circles, especially after summing up the results of the next not entirely successful, from the point of view of legitimacy, elections.

In the legislation of Latin American countries and former socialist countries of Eastern Europe - for example, Hungary, Poland, the republics of the former Yugoslavia, there is a rule that sets the minimum turnout in elections. For example, in accordance with the legislation of Lithuania, elections under the proportional system are considered valid if more than a quarter of registered voters come to the polling stations. To recognize the results of the referendum, at least 50% of voters included in the voting lists must take part in it.

An illustrative example is Moldova, where the turnout threshold was initially 33%, but the country’s government proposed abolishing the turnout threshold for elections at all levels. The impetus for this initiative was the failure due to low turnout of the referendum on the form of electing the president. About 31% of voters took part in it, as a result of which the plebiscite was declared invalid. Ukraine, for example, abolished mandatory voter turnout levels in 1998 after repeated by-elections in 1994 failed to raise turnout to the required levels. The minimum turnout threshold in Russia was abolished in 2006; until then, elections were recognized as valid only if at least 20% of voters came to the polling stations in regional elections, 25% in Duma elections and 50% in presidential elections.

This initiative is an example of how the government, faced with the problem of low voter turnout, decides to abolish the turnout threshold altogether, without resorting to measures to increase it.

At the same time, in the legislation of a fairly large number of states, such as Turkey, Luxembourg, Greece, Argentina, Belgium, Australia, etc., attendance at elections is mandatory, and even provides for certain sanctions for voters who do not participate in elections, which, of course, affects the percentage of voters who come to the polls.

There are countries whose legislation indirectly affects the turnout threshold. Thus, in France, in elections to the National Assembly, no one can be elected in the first round unless he receives more than a quarter of the votes on the voter lists.

In Russia, the prospects for returning the minimum threshold for elections, primarily regional ones, are quite real, according to a number of political scientists. In their opinion, this measure is necessary to strengthen the authority and legitimacy of the government, as well as to increase the consciousness of voters. In addition, a minimum turnout threshold is necessary to ensure that elections are perceived as more fair. “The turnout threshold is necessary for this to show that there is a certain psychological barrier that the population needs to overcome... In a situation of global instability, for the leadership of the country, personally for the head of state, returning the turnout threshold would be a progressive step, otherwise the institution of elections itself will gradually degrade into “ “mass opinion poll,” which does not guarantee stability for the system,” political experts believe. The famous political scientist I. Yarulin also believes that “the percentage of turnout in elections is the best filter.”

The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation takes the opposite position. “I don’t really support this project,” said N. Konkin, Secretary of the Russian Central Election Commission. Political scientist A. Kynev, when discussing the feasibility of introducing a turnout threshold in Russia, recalled that in Vladivostok, from 1994 to 2001, in the conditions of the existence of a turnout threshold, elections to the city duma were disrupted 25 times.

In general, with all the diversity of regulatory legal acts related to the field of elections, Russian legislation on these issues has been revised several times. The political landscape is also changing. A serious step was the entry into force of amendments to the Federal Law “On Political Parties”, which significantly simplify the procedure for registering a political party, thereby creating conditions for introducing new actors into the political arena. The changes carried out directly affected political reality. Based on the results of the elections on September 8, 2013, we can talk about significant changes in the field of party building and the nomination of candidates and party lists.

In this regard, the debate about the advisability of introducing a minimum threshold for voter turnout in elections in Russia remains relevant and deserves the closest attention of both representatives of science and practitioners.

Reviewers:

Popova O.D., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Sociology, Ryazan State University named after S.A. Yesenina, Ryazan;

Geraskin Yu.V., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Ryazan State University named after S.A. Yesenin, Ryazan.

The work was received by the editor on January 27, 2014.

Bibliographic link

In Lithuania, elections are held according to a mixed system, and if the situation in proportional constituencies is clear - the bulk of the seats in the Seimas will be almost equally divided between two opposition parties: the conservative Christian Democrats of Lithuania and the agrarian Lithuanian Union of Peasants and Greens, then in the majority constituencies the fight is still ahead. Of the 71 seats in single-mandate constituencies, only 3 seats were distributed according to the results of the first round. The second round will take place on October 23 and more than 120 people will compete for the remaining seats, who need to get over 50 percent of the votes to win. The overall turnout at polling stations was only 49.9 percent. Most likely, in the second round the turnout will be one and a half to two times lower.

In Georgia, according to preliminary estimates, the ruling Georgian Dream won. Over 48 percent of voters voted for it, while Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement had just over 27 percent. The rest barely came close to the 5 percent passing barrier. It’s also not so simple with the majority part of parliament - the winners have not been determined in more than half of the single-mandate constituencies. The second rounds will take place in Tbilisi, Batumi and eight other regions of the country. In Georgia, turnout was slightly higher - 51.6 percent, and experts expect, as in Lithuania, a decrease in this figure in the second round.

As we see, in both Lithuania and Georgia the turnout is only about 50 percent, which is very close to the result of the Russian parliamentary elections (47.8 percent). Even in Lithuania, which has a voting incentive system, although voters were active during the four days of preliminary voting, they were very passive on the main election day. The former President of Lithuania Rolandas Paksas, and now the leader of the Order and Justice party, even called these elections the most undemocratic in the history of the country. However, the progressive public - both European and domestic - does not consider it necessary to make loud statements about this.

Belarus is a different matter, where the final turnout in the parliamentary elections in September 2016 was 74.8 percent, and, according to the Central Election Commission, 31.3 percent of voters voted early. This immediately caused a wave of indignation: the US State Department and the OSCE recognized the elections as undemocratic and scolded Lukashenko. The opposition public also reacted violently in fraternal Russia. It is curious that another set of accusations was prepared for the elections to the Russian State Duma - they, according to the “progressive public”, are undemocratic because the turnout was low, that is, the same as in “democratic” Lithuania and Georgia.

Thus, there are two reasons for accusing elections of being undemocratic and illegitimate - high turnout and low turnout. No matter how many voters come to the polling stations, the elections will still be undemocratic. Such selectivity of the “opposition” and alternative electoral experts, however, is only another confirmation of their bias, or, at least, of real self-censorship. “We play here, we don’t play here, we wrap fish here.”

Today, turnout in significant elections is around 40-50 percent - the absolute norm in developed democracies. It is extremely difficult to achieve more. People are becoming less and less interested in politics. Here are some examples: parliamentary elections in Spain in 2016 - turnout was just over 51 percent, in Switzerland in 2015 - 48.5 percent, in France in 2012 - 48.31 percent, in Portugal in 2011 - 41, 9 percent. Even in the most democratic United States, only 36.4 percent of voters turned out to vote in the House of Representatives in 2014.

Representative democracy represents fewer and fewer voters. Suffrage for all, for which the ancestors of today's Europeans fought so fiercely, no longer seems so vitally important today.

Russia is quite in line with the trend of modern democracies, and, unlike others, it does not make special efforts to increase turnout, to follow the spirit of democratic constitutions: participation in politics is the right, not the duty of a citizen, and he should not be forced to do so in one way or another.

What to do with low turnout, which some consider a problem, while others consider it an actual variant of the norm? Firstly, you can leave it alone and consider that such a criterion for the legitimacy of elections as turnout simply does not exist: “if you don’t want to participate in politics, don’t participate.” Secondly, it is possible to legally oblige citizens to go to the polls and thereby administratively ensure turnout, regardless of their desire. This is how Australia, Argentina, Brazil, dwarf Liechtenstein and Luxembourg and several other countries solve the problem.

Another method is to introduce a turnout threshold: below a certain threshold, elections are declared invalid and re-elections are ordered. As a rule, it works - on the second try, people realize that their vote means something, and they come to the polls. But this is an unreliable method, fraught with a real political crisis.

And thirdly, you can manipulate the voter by providing him with more options for participating in elections. Various forms of early voting, used in many democracies, make it possible to extend the election process over a longer period and give everyone the opportunity to vote at a time convenient for them. The forms of such voting can take many different forms. In some countries, including the United States, voting by mail is widely used.

In Austria, 750,000 voters voted by mail in the May 2016 presidential election - approximately 12 percent of the total turnout. People vote by mail in Britain, Canada, Switzerland and many other places, and this can be done even while abroad. In Russia, people vote by mail only in a few subjects that have made appropriate changes to their legislation, and this does not apply to elections at the federal level.

In many countries, there are also various forms of advance voting, when voters cast their votes even before the official elections, as in Lithuania, where they vote in advance for four days before the election date.

Russia took the first path, that is, it left the voter alone. In our situation, there is an obvious risk of facing accusations of inflating turnout and falsifying election results. Nevertheless, today the question arises: is it necessary to follow the path of other democratic countries and by all available means - early voting, voting by mail and the Internet, ballot boxes, and so on - to attract voters to the elections, or to be content with the principle “less is more” "?

Related materials

Last week, a proposal was submitted to the State Duma to establish a minimum turnout threshold for all election campaigns, except for municipal ones.

Let us remember that the minimum turnout was prescribed in the legislation until December 2006. For elections of governor or regional parliament, the threshold was 20% of voters who came to the elections. For the State Duma elections to be recognized as valid, 25% of citizens eligible to vote had to vote. For presidential elections, the minimum turnout threshold was 50%. However, later the turnout threshold was canceled, explaining that it was undemocratic in nature. Say, why should the choice of the people who came to the polling stations be questioned by their irresponsible compatriots?

State Duma deputy from the LDPR Margarita Svergunova decided to return to the issue of the minimum turnout threshold. She introduced a bill to the Duma establishing a 50% turnout rate for all elections except municipal ones. “Today, the absence of a threshold for voter turnout during elections to government bodies calls into question the legitimacy of elected bodies elected with less than 50% of the voters included in the lists,” says Margarita Svergunova. The initiative is undoubtedly sound, but it would be nice to extend it to all local elections. Legitimacy is needed not only by the central government.

The introduction of a fixed turnout threshold, according to experts, is beneficial to the opposition, as it reduces the electoral capabilities of the party in power. It relatively easily mobilizes a dependent electorate, which comes to the polling stations and votes “correctly.” If these voters are not “diluted” by others who have a grudge against the government and its political strength, its results will not be nearly as good. It is no coincidence that after the abolition of mandatory turnout, government agencies and the ruling party almost completely stopped encouraging citizens to participate in elections - the lower the turnout, the better. Even if at least 10-15% of voters vote, even if only 1%, the elections will still be considered valid. This, of course, is not the case. Not elections, but some kind of profanation! The turnout threshold should obviously be returned. Another thing is that the 50% proposed by Deputy Svergunova is perhaps too much. According to a Levada Center survey, only 18% of Russians expressed confidence that they would definitely vote in the upcoming State Duma elections. Perhaps, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle - a turnout threshold of 30% of the number of citizens eligible to vote seems more realistic. Not half, but at least a third.

It would also be a good idea for deputies to return the “against all” column to the ballot papers. It has been used since 1991, but since 2006 it has been removed from the ballot. Today the ban applies only to federal elections - in May last year, the State Duma returned the “against all” column in local elections. It's not fair! Voters should also have the right to express no confidence in all candidates for State Duma deputies if they do not like these candidates for mandates.

Igor Minaev