Results of parliamentary elections. Elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The procedure for holding elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation

On September 23, the voting results for the 2016 elections to the State Duma of the 7th convocation were finally summed up. How were the votes distributed between the parties?, how many mandates did the parties receive? to obtain “chairs” in the State Duma and How are the 2016 election results assessed??

The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation summed up the results of the election campaign to the State Duma of the seventh convocation. The Commission recognized elections held on September 18, 2016, valid and valid and approved their results. Already on Friday, new deputies will be sent telegram notifications confirming their election.

Elections 2016 recognized as valid and legitimate

However, this complaint was not satisfied. “I dare to say that the elections, despite certain violations that exist and which we will deal with until the last complaint, were held legitimately,” emphasized the head of the Central Election Commission, Ella Pamfilova. She also expressed confidence that the Central Election Commission managed to hold open and competitive elections.

This leitmotif was supported by all members of the Central Election Commission, who unanimously signed the protocol and summary tables of the election results, and also approved the resolution on their overall results. “The elections are recognized as having taken place and are valid,” announced Deputy Chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation Nikolai Bulaev.

New State Duma of the VII convocation

The elections on September 18, for the first time after a long break, were held under a mixed system: 225 deputies out of 450 were elected from the federal list, 225 from single-mandate constituencies.

According to the results approved by the Central Election Commission, United Russia received 343 mandates in the State Duma of the seventh convocation - 140 on the federal list and 203 in single-mandate constituencies. This gives her confidence constitutional majority(guaranteed by 300 mandates), allowing the adoption of constitutional laws without cooperation with other factions.

In the State Duma of the sixth convocation, United Russia members had only 238 mandates. In second place with 42 seats was the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, in third place was the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia with 39 seats, then A Just Russia with 23. All of these parties lost significantly compared to their representation in the current State Duma, where the Communists had 92 seats, and the Just Russia Party had 92 seats. 64, and the Liberal Democrats - 56. This means that, for example, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation will no longer be able to independently send requests to the Constitutional Court, since for this it is necessary to collect at least 90 deputy “autographs”. Obviously, the parties will have to “make room” in the issue of leadership of the committees of the lower house of parliament, the number of which, however, has not yet been approved.

At the same time, it should be noted that, despite the obvious numerical losses of the Duma opposition, only the parliamentary “four” managed to regain representation in the State Duma. Two more candidates from the so-called small parties went there in single-mandate constituencies - the leader of Rodina, Alexey Zhuravlev (in the State Duma of the sixth convocation, a member of the United Russia faction) and the head of the federal political committee of the Civic Platform, Rifat Shaikhutdinov, but the lists of these parties are even close failed to approach the cherished five percent barrier, overcoming which is necessary to enter the State Duma.

In addition, in a single-mandate constituency (Republic of Adygea), self-nominated Vladislav Reznik, who was also a member of the United Russia faction in the outgoing convocation, was elected to the new Duma. He is the only self-nominated candidate to successfully run in the elections out of almost two dozen who ran in majoritarian districts.

Infographics of the distribution of seats among parties in the State Duma

Should I leave or stay?

People's representatives are obliged to do so within five days from the date of receipt of the notice, submit to the commission a copy of the order for release from duties incompatible with the status of a State Duma deputy, or a copy of a document certifying that they submitted an application for release from such duties within three days from the date of receipt of the notice.

Otherwise, the CEC will transfer the mandate to the next candidate in the corresponding regional group of the party list. It was previously reported that, for example, the heads of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, who headed a number of regional groups on the federal list of United Russia, would refuse their mandates.

In case of refusal of the mandatesingle-term deputy a by-election will be held in his constituency.
It is already known that one mandate in the State Duma of the new convocation will remain vacant for about a year. The speaker of the lower house of the sixth convocation, Sergei Naryshkin, who won the single-mandate constituency, will head the Foreign Intelligence Service. As CEC Secretary Maya Grishina previously told TASS, repeat elections in his district could be held on a single voting day in September 2017.

Table of election results (outcomes), distribution of votes

Turnout results on September 18

Speaking about the indicators of citizen activity in these elections, Pamfilova assessed them as normal back on September 19. “Turnout is turnout,” she said.

“The turnout at the last State Duma elections was quite normal. Yes, average is enough, but not low,” says Dmitry Badovsky, head of the Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Research (ISEPS). In his opinion, “this level of turnout was absolutely consistent with the nature of the campaign with a strong favorite, played by the ruling United Russia party, and an absent motive for radical emotional mobilization at the end of the campaign.” Other experts also point out that turnout in the Duma elections reflects pan-European trends.

Final protocol on the results of voting in the elections on September 18

Date and time of signing the protocol 09.23.2016 01:24:00

Debriefing will continue

The head of the Central Election Commission also announced a “debriefing” for regional election commissions. “We will conduct a debriefing with the commissions. The analysis ahead is very, very serious,” she said.

For his part, Bulaev, recalling that 55 regional election commissions will be reorganized this fall, expressed confidence that they will be able to find people “who are ready to share with us (the Central Election Commission) not only responsibility, but also know how to do it professionally, without infringing rights of a participant in the process." When summing up the election results, the question inevitably arose about how the CEC members assessed their own work there. On the eve of the elections, Pamfilova announced her readiness to resign if she “fails these elections.” At today's meeting, where the complaints received by the commission were examined, she clarified that she would not leave the CEC until she sorted out all the complaints.

After summing up the election results, the head of the Central Election Commission admitted to journalists that she does not yet see any reason to resign. “In any case, until our CEC composition deals with all the abuses and violations that occurred in order to clear the field for the next election campaign and increase the level of trust, there is no such point,” Pamfilova explained.
On Friday, the Chairman of the Central Election Commission will have a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A meeting of the head of state with the leaders of the parties that passed the elections to the State Duma is also scheduled for the same day.

The most anticipated political event of 2016, the elections to the State Duma of the seventh convocation, brought no surprises and fully met the expectations of specialists.

The most anticipated political event of 2016, the elections to the State Duma of the seventh convocation, brought no surprises and fully met the expectations of specialists. The United Russia Party once again won “by a clear advantage,” and the election results demonstrated the absence of any desire among ordinary people to change the existing political order. And yet, the election campaign of September 18, 2016 allows us to draw some conclusions. For example, despite the election results, the relatively low overall turnout indicates a loss of interest in elections as an event that determines certain vectors of the country’s development.

State Duma election results: turnout by region

Experts' opinions on the number of Russian citizens who came to the polls vary somewhat. Some experts agree with the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation D. Peskov, who stated that 47.81% throughout the country is an indicator that looks quite decent against the background of similar European campaigns. Others are haunted by the trend showing that ordinary people are less and less willing to spend time expressing their civic position and declaring their political views.

On September 18, 2016, less than half of the registered voters visited the polling stations, but this did not prevent the Central Election Commission from recognizing the elections as valid (corresponding amendments to the legislation were made in advance) and the election results as final. The only thing of interest is the significant difference in turnout rates by region. Despite the fact that representatives of United Russia won in almost every region, the largest number of votes for them, as well as almost twice as many voters, were recorded in 13 subjects: the Kabardino-Balkarian and Karachay-Cherkess Republics, Mordovia, the Chechen Republic , Kemerovo and Tyumen regions, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Tatarstan and the Republic of Tyva. In these regions, the average turnout was 81.4%, while in the remaining 72 it was only 42.9%. What election results were obtained in these two radically different groups can be seen in the following table.

As for Moscow and St. Petersburg, these cities topped the lists of settlements with the lowest turnout: 35.18% and 32.47%, respectively. At the same time, here too the election results showed serious support for the party in power.

Results of the 2016 State Duma elections: how the votes were distributed

The 2016 elections to the State Duma again showed the strength of the party in power: United Russia not only won, but received a constitutional majority, which will allow it to pass laws containing amendments to articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - the highest normative legal act of the state. Official data says that United Russia gained 54.19%, which in the number of deputy mandates is equal to 343 (the total number of seats in the State Duma is 450). The final election figures are as follows:

• “United Russia” – 54.19%;
• Communist Party of the Russian Federation - 13.34%;
• LDPR – 13.15%;
• “A Just Russia” – 6.22%;
• “Communists of Russia” – 2.27%;
• “Motherland” – 2.3%;
• Russian Party of Pensioners “For Justice” – 2.0%;
• “Apple” – 1.9%;
• “Growth Party” – 1.8%;
• "Parnas" - 1.2%;
• “Greens” – 0.8%;
• “Civic Platform” – 0.3%;
• “Civil force” – 0.2%.

Following United Russia, representatives of five parties and one self-nominated candidate received seats in the State Duma:

• “United Russia” – 343,
• Communist Party of the Russian Federation - 42,
• LDPR – 39,
• “A Just Russia” – 23,
• “Civic Platform” – 1,
• "Motherland" - 1,
• self-nominated candidates – 1.

Elections to the Duma on September 18, 2016: falsification?

Chairman of the Central Election Committee E.A. Pamfilova described the 2016 elections as open and legitimate. At the same time, she made it clear that any facts of falsification will be considered immediately, and appropriate measures will be taken against violators. Official data that came from the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs the day after the elections states that there were two cases of ballot stuffing in the Rostov region. In addition, 8 complaints were registered that were received by the CEC from observers. Experts' opinions regarding the falsification of the 2016 elections are traditionally divided: some believe that seats in the State Duma were distributed in advance, others believe that the will of the common people is truly reflected in the final figures.

Results of the 2016 Duma elections: what do observers say about the victory of United Russia?

The fact that United Russia will win again in 2016 was already mentioned in preliminary polls that were regularly published by VTsIOM on the eve of the elections. At the same time, satellite parties were also named, which for many years had kept United Russia company in the lower house of parliament: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and A Just Russia. Among the opinions of experts and observers, one can hear a variety of explanations for the current situation on the political field of the country: the huge administrative resource of the party in power, the lack of a worthy alternative, the loss of interest in the elections of the majority of the population, etc. Dry numbers indicate that what kind of party has received constitutional the majority, 27.2 million citizens voted in 2016. In the last elections, where United Russia also won an unconditional victory, the number of its supporters was 32.4 million people.

Moscow, 09/18/2016

Russian President V. Putin and Russian Prime Minister, Chairman of the United Russia party D. Medvedev at the headquarters of the party that won the elections on the night after the vote

Press service of the Russian government/TASS

Constitutional majority

"United Russia" will receive 343 mandates (76.22% of seats) in the State Duma of the seventh convocation, in accordance with the preliminary election results, TASS reports with reference to the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation receives 42 mandates (9.34% of seats), the Liberal Democratic Party - 39 mandates (8.67% of seats), A Just Russia - 23 mandates (5.11% of seats). Representatives of Rodina and the Civic Platform, as well as self-nominated Vladislav Reznik, elected in single-mandate constituencies, each receive one mandate. In most residential districts, United Russia or representatives of other parliamentary parties won.

After the four parliamentary parties of the new Duma, in fifth place according to the election results, TASS previously reported, are the Communists of Russia with 2.40% of the votes. Further votes between the parties were distributed as follows: Yabloko - 1.77%, Russian Party of Pensioners for Justice - 1.75%, Rodina - 1.42%, Growth Party - 1.11%, Greens - 0, 72%, "Parnas" - 0.68%, "Patriots of Russia" - 0.57%, "Civil Platform" - 0.22% of the votes, "Civil Force" - 0.13% of the votes.

By the end of the count, United Russia had greatly strengthened its position compared to midnight. Then, according to Exit-poll data provided by VTsIOM, United Russia gained 44.5%, the LDPR was in second place (15.3%), the Communist Party of the Russian Federation lagged behind (14.9%), A Just Russia had more than later (8. 1%). The turnout was about 40%, but then increased significantly: after processing 91.8% of the protocols, the turnout was 47.9%. Zyuganov’s words, said shortly after the vote count began, that “two thirds of the country did not come,” were not confirmed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev arrived at the United Russia election headquarters at night.

“The result for United Russia is good,” said the Russian President. “We can say with confidence that the party achieved a good result - it won,” Putin said.

According to estimates by the head of VTsIOM Valery Fedorov, United Russia, taking into account single-mandate constituencies, can receive 300 mandates. "United Russia will have about 300 mandates, maybe even more. This is a constitutional majority. Some want 66%, some 75%, everyone has their own criteria for problems. I think that everything above 44% (according to party lists - ed.), this is definitely a very big success for United Russia. Let's see whether our forecasts are confirmed or not,” Fedorov said on Life.

The forecast of more than 300 mandates is fully confirmed. Data on single-mandate constituencies at 9.30 am Moscow time were still incomplete, but already quite eloquent. United Russia continued to lead in 203 of the 206 single-mandate constituencies in which it nominated candidates, TASS reported.

The party, obviously, again has a constitutional majority, which United Russia did not have in the previous Duma. Let us remember that she was elected only from party lists (according to the 2004 legislation). “Candidates from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and A Just Russia win in seven districts each, five are retained by the LDPR. Leaders of Rodina Alexey Zhuravlev and Civic Platform Rifat Shaikhutdinov win in their districts.

A number of violations were recorded during the elections. The incident in the Rostov region was considered the most significant.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs confirms the facts of ballot stuffing at polling stations in the Rostov region, TASS reports.

As stated by First Deputy Head of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Alexander Gorovoy, facts of ballot stuffing at polling stations No. 1958 and No. 1749 have been documented.

Victory of strong statehood

But, according to political scientist Dmitry Orlov, administrative mobilization is becoming a thing of the past. United Russia was helped by the primary mobilization - the primary elections in the spring, and the thesis “together with the president.” A very significant factor in favor of United Russia was Putin’s meeting with its activists shortly before the elections and his statement that he created this party.

Although the company is described as boring, according to the political scientist, this is not the case thanks to the meaningful struggle in single-mandate constituencies, where many new faces with specific programs were nominated.

The LDPR responded to the social request better than the Right Russia, also drawing back the votes of the nationalists. Traditionally, in times of crisis and uncertainty, this party improves its results, noted Dmitry Orlov.

It is interesting to look at some of the estimates that analysts made for Expert Online shortly before the elections. Tatyana Mineeva, vice-president of Business Russia and a member of the federal political council of the Party of Growth, noted the “strong position of the LDPR”: “The majority of the population does not believe in reforms, and the liberal democrats do not propose them,” she stated. “A Just Russia,” the public figure noted, is falling because it has failed to present a coherent political program.

The forecast of the expert of the Public Duma center Alexei Onishchenko was that the votes in the elections will mostly remain with United Russia, since their voters are those people who are united by the idea of ​​​​a stable and strong state. “They are not for virtual democratic slogans, but for state guarantees. It is no coincidence that 8.5 million people voted for United Russia in the primary elections. This is a high figure,” he noted.

Advisor to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Association of Young Entrepreneurs of Russia Denis Rassomakhin expressed the opinion that the real things happening in the country are associated with the party in power against the backdrop of growing trust in state institutions, primarily in connection with the annexation of Crimea and anti-sanctions policies.

Indeed, it can be stated that the victory of United Russia, while maintaining the presence of noticeable socio-economic problems, ideologically represents the dominance of the idea of ​​a strong, robust, guaranteeing state. The party “does not succeed in everything,” as Putin noted, but it is strongly associated with this idea. The specter of the weakening and half-life of the state does not “warm” the Russian people at all, although for some of the intellectual elites it is alluring.

Gigabytes will arrive from orbit

SpaceX's manned program successes should not be misleading. Elon Musk's main goal is satellite Internet. His Starlink project is designed to change the entire communications system on Earth and build a new economy. But the economic effect of this is not obvious now. That is why the EU and Russia began implementing more modest competing programs

The country was laid out in a new way

In addition to the eight federal districts, Russia will now have twelve macro-regions. Agglomerations are recognized as the most progressive form of settlement. And each subject of the federation is assigned a promising specialization. The “expert” tried to find grains of common sense in the recently approved Spatial Development Strategy

The Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology (Sulakshin Center) carried out a mathematical reconstruction of the true, scientifically based voting results.

Mathematics provides a way to prove not only the fact of falsification, but also its scale, nature and organization of the management of the process of falsification, and, in addition, allows us to reconstruct the true voting results; the results both in terms of turnout and the number of votes actually received by parties and candidates, how the traces of mass violations were “covered up.”

I.Analysis methodology

The initial data for the analysis are data officially published on the website of the Russian Central Election Commission for all more than 95,000 polling stations.

The methodology for identifying the truth of elections is based on the following principles.

If the distribution deviates from the Gaussoid, it means that there was interference in the elections (Fig. 2).

State Duma elections 2016 (party list)

Fig. 2 The deviation from the Gaussoid in favor of the candidates (parties) from power - “United Russia” is shaded in black. The ratio of the black area under the curve and the white area under the Gaussian gives the falsification coefficient

Citizens' preferences for different parties or candidates in “fair” elections do not depend on turnout. If a Gaussian “honest” cloud of votes is visible, but with increasing turnouts, an increase in votes in favor of the candidate and party in power and a drop in votes for the opposition, then this is clearly falsification, which is clearly seen in the example of the 2016 elections in the Penza region (Fig. 3).

Fig.3 The honest “cloud” of the opposition is higher than the “cloud” of the United Russia party. The rest was thrown in and attributed to the benefit of the United Russia party and to the loss of the opposition

If in many polling stations in the region the result of the party in power is the same to within hundredths of a percent, then this means that the command was given to “get” just such a result. This is especially clearly visible in the Saratov region for the United Russia party in 100 polling stations - the result is 62.15%.

If the falsification coefficients for the regions of Russia coincide with statistical accuracy both for the falsification of results for the party list and for majoritarian districts, then this proves centralized x the nature of falsification management.

II. The scale of fraud in the 2016 State Duma elections

The official results of the September 18, 2016 elections to the State Duma, published by the Russian Central Election Commission, are as follows.

The turnout according to the Russian Central Election Commission was 47.88%.

Based on the mathematical reconstruction methodology outlined above, we will analyze the voting results in the elections of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on September 18, 2016 and identify their real results.

As can be seen from the above data, the Gaussian “cloud” for both voting on party lists and in majoritarian constituencies indicates that the “fair” turnout of real voting is 35%, but not 47.88% recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission.

Thus, based on the scientific methodology of mathematical reconstruction of the analysis of voting results in the elections of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on September 18, 2016 first conclusion is this: in the organic Gaussian vote cloud, the average turnout was 35% for both types of voting. Increase in official turnout to 47.88%, recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission, is unreliable and is the result of falsifications, which is clearly visible on the right wing of the Gaussian distribution, which goes beyond the boundaries of the pure Gaussian curve.

Second . From Fig. 4 - the results of voting by party lists and Fig. 5 - the results of voting by majoritarian districts, it is clear that in an organic Gaussian cloud, that is, in a truly fair election, the United Russia party received fewer votes than the opposition.

Third . On the right wing of the voting results for party lists and majoritarian districts (see Figures 4 and 5), clear unambiguous signs of falsification are visible - “spikes” in turnout multiples of 5% and 10%. A particularly outstanding “spike” - 95% turnout is recorded for the United Russia party.

Fourth . The left wing of the organic Gaussoid is clearly visible at small turnouts, and this makes it possible to reproduce the right wing symmetrically. From here it becomes possible to calculate the true number of “honest” votes cast in the elections, and the number of votes attributed or falsified.

Let's evaluate the election results for the United Russia party by simply comparing the areas under the bell curves and the falsified long right wing. The assessment results are shown in Table 1.

Assessing the true outcome for the United Russia party

The coincidence of falsification coefficients for party lists and majoritarian elections for the United Russia party is not accidental. This indicates that the falsification campaign was under unified control and with a single goal. The same tasks were set - “bars” for the result.

Instead of 343 seats in the State Duma, according to the official total, the real total for the United Russia party is 134 seats.

The falsified 209 mandates transferred to the United Russia party are actually in a state of “seizure of power and appropriation of power,” which is prohibited by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Russia.

In Fig. Figure 6 clearly shows how much the United Russia party lost to the opposition in both types of voting in a more or less adequate area of ​​turnout.

Rice. 6. In reality, United Russia lost to the opposition

As can be seen from the figures shown. 6 data, in the area of ​​unfalsified results, the United Russia party lost to the opposition by about a third of parliamentary seats. A complete falsified bacchanalia for the United Russia party to the detriment of the opposition parties is observed in the right wing of the chart.

The next pattern that helps to reveal falsification is the law of independence of the electorate’s preference for a particular candidate from turnout (Fig. 7).

Rice. 7. It is theoretically clear that voter preferences should not depend on turnout

If the distribution has a positive angle deviation from the horizontal (from left to right up), then this indicates falsification in the form of votes being added. If there is a deviation from the horizontal to the minus (from left to right down) - then this is falsification on the contrary in the form of theft of votes.

This methodological approach allows us to identify the amount of falsification in voting for parties and their candidates in all subjects of the Federation.

A quantitative measure of the degree of falsification is determined by the slope of the distribution curve - the falsification coefficient. If it is positive, then this is falsification in favor of the corresponding party or candidate, votes are attributed to him. If it is negative, then, on the contrary, it is falsification at a loss; in this case, votes are stolen.

In Fig. 8 (Voronezh region) shows a typical and almost standard form of curves, which is reproduced in almost all subjects of the Federation. Each point on these diagrams is the number of votes for a particular party or candidate at a particular precinct. In all subjects of the Federation, with rare exceptions, the winner (the United Russia party) has a deviation of “+”, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, both the main oppositionist, and the rest of the opposition parties have a deviation of “-”. Dense organic clouds with a small scatter are observed (Fig. 8), i.e., a low level of dispersion. And the second, elongated cloud, which has a very high level of dispersion. It will soon be seen that one of the “clouds” corresponds to true results, and the second - falsified ones.

Fig.8. A typical picture of fraud in favor of the United Russia party and the taking of votes from other parties. Deviation angles from the horizontal – falsification coefficient

This example for the Voronezh region shows a typical picture. The right “tails” of the distributions for United Russia, being falsified, are always directed to the right and upward. For the opposition, the direction is always the opposite “right-down”.

The Report contains data on falsification in favor of the United Russia party and the taking away of votes from other parties in all subjects of the Russian Federation.

The distribution of the falsification coefficient across the subjects of the Federation (comparative data) for voting on the party list and in majoritarian districts is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig.9. Fraud rate for the United Russia party for all subjects of the federation for majoritarian elections and for the party list

From the nature of the curves it is clear that the falsifications were synchronized both on the United Russia party list and on its candidates in majoritarian districts. The correlation coefficient of the curves is very high - it was 0.86!

We especially emphasize that the average coefficient of falsifications in favor of candidates and parties in power in 2016 was 1.9 times higher than in 2011.

III. Mechanism of election fraud

The voting results during the 2016 elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation were falsified in several ways: the stuffing of false ballots; drawing up false protocols; fraud with the absentee mechanism; fraud with fake voters (the so-called carousel); fraud committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group, combined with bribery, coercion, the use of violence or the threat of its use; threats to teachers and other poor souls in precinct election commissions with dismissal in the event of a low result in the elections of the government's favorites.

The facts of falsification are evidenced by numerous video evidence, personal testimony of eyewitnesses, photos and videos of ballot stuffing at many polling stations by members and even chairmen of election commissions.

In fair elections, citizens' preferences do not depend on turnout: that is, the ratio of the number of votes for one party to the number of votes for another, votes for one candidate to votes for another does not depend on turnout. In the direct exit pool conducted by VTsIOM, which cannot be suspected of being in opposition to the authorities and the Russian Central Election Commission, there is no dependence on turnout at the exit from polling stations!

The figures above show that up to a turnout of 47%, the United Russia party is seriously losing to the opposition. But starting with a turnout of 47%, the opposite is true. And the higher the turnout, the more the United Russia party begins to “win” against the opposition. Moreover, the curves practically coincide for voting on the party list and in majoritarian districts. It is important that in the turnout range of 25-40%, which corresponds to the organic cloud of “honest” voting, the attitude really does not depend on turnout. This means that the data here can be relatively trusted. In this range, the United Russia party lost to the opposition by 1.42 times. The average turnout in this range is 32.5%.

For this turnout, the number of voters who voted in the elections is 35,690 thousand people. The true ratio of votes for the United Russia party and the entire aggregate opposition revealed above (1.42 times) allows us to obtain the true absolute number of votes for the United Russia party and the corresponding result (percentage). It turns out that the United Russia party actually received 14,750 thousand votes. Officially, the Russian Central Election Commission announced 28,525 thousand votes for the United Russia party. And this corresponds to 54.28%. And the true result is 27.9%.

Results of reconstruction of the true election results

As a result, we come to the conclusion that the United Russia party was supported by just over 13% of all registered voters and less than 10% of the country’s population. The counterfeiters illegally increased its result by more than 1.5 times! More than 200 people came to the State Duma of the Russian Federation to “work” on the basis of illegally assigned powers of power! In other words, there was an illegal seizure of power!

Meanwhile, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 3.Part 4. it is stated that “no one has the right to appropriate power in the Russian Federation. Seizure of power or appropriation of power is prosecuted under federal law - the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In particular, Article 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power - states that “actions aimed at the forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power in violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation ... are punishable by imprisonment for a term of twelve to twenty years.. ."

Falsification of elections of the federal government body of the State Duma of the Russian Federation is also part of a criminal offense. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 142. Falsification of election documents, referendum documents.

"1. Falsification of election documents ... if this act is committed by a member of the election commission ... is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to four years, or by deprivation freedom for the same period...

2. Forgery of voter signatures, ... or certification of knowingly forged signatures (signature sheets), committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group, or combined with bribery, coercion, the use of violence or the threat of its use, ... is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand...or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term...

3. Illegal production of... ballots..., absentee certificates is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles... or imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years.”

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 142.1. Falsification of voting results. “The inclusion of uncounted ballots among the ballots used in voting, or the deliberate submission of incorrect information about voters, or the deliberately incorrect compilation of voter lists, ... or falsification of voter signatures, ... or the replacement of valid ballots with voter marks, leading to the inability to determine the will of voters, ... or deliberately incorrect counting of votes, ... or signing by members of the election commission ... of a protocol on voting results before counting votes or establishing voting results, or deliberately incorrect (not corresponding to the actual voting results) drawing up a protocol on voting results, or illegal entry into the protocol on voting results changes after its completion, or knowingly incorrect determination of voting results, determination of election results... - is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles... or forced labor for a term of up to four years, or imprisonment for the same term.”

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 141. Obstruction of the exercise of electoral rights or the work of election commissions.

« 1. Obstructing a citizen’s free exercise of his electoral rights, violating the secrecy of voting, ... obstructing the work of election commissions, ... the activities of a member of an election commission, ... - is punishable by a fine of up to eighty thousand rubles ... or ... correctional labor for up to one year.

2. The same acts:

a) connected with bribery, deception, coercion, use of violence or the threat of its use;

b) committed by a person using his official position;

c) committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group - is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand... or imprisonment for a term of up to five years.

3. Interference, through the use of official or official position, in the exercise by an election commission ... of its powers, ... with the aim of influencing its decisions, namely, a demand or instruction of an official on the issues of registration of candidates, lists of candidates, counting votes ... is punishable by a fine of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand... or imprisonment for a term of up to four years.”

IY. conclusions

1.The official turnout of 48%, recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission, is unreliable and does not exceed 35% for both party list voting and majoritarian constituencies, or The turnout recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission was falsified and inflated by 1.45 times.

2. During the voting, the United Russia party actually received not 54% of the party list, as recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission, but 27.9% of the number of voters, or 13.2% of the number of registered voters and less than 10% of the country’s population . Counterfeiters illegally increased its result by more than 1.5 times.

3. Instead of 343 seats in the State Duma of the Russian Federation, according to the official total, the real total for the United Russia party is 134 seats.

The falsified 209 mandates transferred to the United Russia party are actually in a state of “seizure of power and appropriation of power,” which is prohibited by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Russia.

General conclusion : a scientifically based analysis of the election process on September 18, 2016 indicates that the elections to the State Duma were held with gross violations, massive falsifications and are subject to cancellation, and State Duma 2016 isillegal.

The saddest thing about this problem is that only certain individuals are actively fighting against gross violations, falsification, scandalous elections, such as T. Yurasova in Mytishchi, S. Posokhov in Krasnogorsk, R. Zinatullin in Tatarstan and a number of others, but not the opposition parties LDPR, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, A Just Russia, which were “robbed” during the election process and the only media outlet – Novaya Gazeta.

Meanwhile, it is the factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party, A Just Russia in the State Duma of the Russian Federation that could bring to the meeting of the State Duma of the Russian Federation the issue of gross violations and massive fraud in the elections of September 18, 2016 with the aim of making a political decision - self-dissolution illegal State Duma of the Russian Federation and an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation as the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to call new elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Massive violations and falsification during the 2016 State Duma elections affect a significant number of citizens and have acquired special socio-political significance. In this regard, within the framework of its powers, the Central Election Commission of Russia has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the protection of the electoral rights of the majority of citizens, as well as to the General Prosecutor's Office and the Investigative Committee of Russia to take prosecutorial response measures and initiate criminal proceedings for the commission of crimes provided for in Articles 141, 142, 142.1, 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, identifying those responsible for violating current legislation.

With sincere respect (Yu. Voronin)

Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor,

Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic -

Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the TASSR (1988-1990);

First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme

Council of the Russian Federation (1991-1993); State Duma deputy

(second convocation); auditor of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation.

The next elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation will be held September 18, 2016. Previously, elections were scheduled for December of the same year, but in mid-2015 they decided to carry them out for various reasons.

The proportional system, according to which elections were held in previous convocations, has sunk into oblivion. It is being replaced by a majoritarian-proportional system. As a result, half of the people's representatives will enter the Duma on the lists of their parties, and the second half will fight for the right to receive the honorary title of “deputy” in their single-mandate constituencies.

The current elected representatives of the people, who want to continue their legislative activities in the halls of the State Duma, have already begun the preparatory stage for the start of the election campaign. Consultative negotiations with the Kremlin are in full swing, and after the nationwide celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory, many of the current deputies will begin to choose a single-mandate constituency for their “hilling”. Experienced parliamentarians know that “the sooner you sow, the more you reap.”

Young political forces have not yet been noticed in particular election activity. Perhaps they think it’s too early, or maybe they don’t want to irritate their more eminent competitors in advance.

As of mid-September 2014, 14 parties vying for participation in the 2016 election race exempt from the need to collect signatures. In addition to the current representatives of the State Duma, this list includes:

List of parties elected to the State Duma in 2016

• "Just Cause";
• "Civic Platform";
• Russian Party of Pensioners “For Justice”;
• RPR-PARNASUS;
• "Civil Power";
• "Apple";
• "Patriots of Russia";
• "Communists of Russia";
• "Motherland";
• "Green Party".

According to political analysts, from the current composition of the deputy corps from the United Russia party, no more than fifty people have a chance to be elected in single-mandate constituencies. Therefore, the party leadership and curators in the Kremlin have already given instructions to their representatives in the regions, as well as activists "Popular Front", after local elections in September, intensify the search for worthy candidates for the seventh convocation of the State Duma of Russia.

This task was sent to the localities for a reason; the whole point is that most of the United Russia members of the current parliamentary corps do not have practical skills in working with voters in the regions.
It is planned that a specially created analytical department of United Russia will monitor active applicants on the ground and ultimately select the best from them. After this procedure, the active phase of “promotion” of the selected activists will begin. At the beginning of 2015, they will begin to “shine” at various significant events and events in the territories entrusted to them and speak on behalf of their native party. But this does not mean that they will become “untouchable”. Each of these activists may have a backup, and if the main contender fails or his rating is low among local voters, an “updated version” of the candidate from the “party in power” will appear on the “stage.”

After the adoption of the new Election Law, the personal qualities of future politicians will play a great role in society. Since half of the parliamentary corps will consist of single-mandate voters, the candidates will be those who have charisma, have good oratorical skills and know how to answer questions from voters. In addition, the number of candidates will include “people of action” - successful industrialists and entrepreneurs who have proven their ability to achieve success beyond words.

And some interesting facts from the history of elections in Russia:

— Only three political forces took part in all six election campaigns to the State Duma - LDPR, Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Yabloko;

— The parties that managed to obtain deputy mandates in all six convocations were only the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation;

— Three representatives of Russian political forces managed to gain the largest number of votes during the elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation: in 1993 – LDPR; in 1995 and 1999 - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation; in 2003, 2007 and 2011 - United Russia.