Subscribe Via Email

  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

Search this Blog

Contact us


Become a Fan


December 08, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Eugene Ivanov


Great stuff, as usual. With regards to the election fraud, I have the same trouble to reconcile the claims of fraud with the results of the published public polls/exit-polls. And yet, take a look at this link (and links within):

What do you think? I'm troubled with these "curves" too. And notice, the raw numbers are taken from the official site of the Central Election Commission.


Patrick Armstrong

We have a problem – one the one hand lots of opinion polls which say one thing and graphs like this that say another. How to resolve?
If we look at this graph there are two obvious problems with UR’s curve – the spikes and the long thick rising tail to the right. Neither of which is standard bell graph. And what’s with the down spike at 49%? Looks suspicious.
But what’s happening on the left of the other parties’ curves? Yabloko’s curve is not a bell curve (I assume we are not to believe that Yab got about 5% at all 3000+ stations which is what the graph seems to be telling us). What’s that? I’m no mathematical whiz but I like to know the explanation for that. So I am puzzled by this graph. The other parties’ graphs look strange to me on the left.
Secondly I want to know how do you fake it. Most fake elections simply print the total results and burn the ballots so there are no sets of hundreds of numbers that have to add up. If I want to add 323 votes for my guys I have to account for those 323 ballots and I have to show that an extra 323 people are crossed off. And all the numbers have to add up (I’ve been an observer at vote counts in Duma 95 and Pres 1&2 in 1996 and watched). Meanwhile you have to do this under the eyes of scrutineers from the various parties. It’s not just a matter of stuffing a wodge of ballots into the box. Chain voting is always a possibility because there are real people casting the votes. Absentee ballots are another possible swindle – as I recall you have to give in your certificate that allows you to vote away from home, but certificates are easily printed. Maybe the adding machines can take a few votes from other parties and add them to yours but that would be contradicted by the paper trail. So just how is this supposed to have been done?
So there’s a lot of things I would like explained and I would also like to see a graph like this one for elections in other countries.
But elections can be very strange and I commend the example of Quebec’s voting pattern in federal elections over the past century or so. Almost always managed to vote for the winner; doing so required some sudden landslides away from the former party. In the most recent election the New Democratic Party went from 1 of 75 seats to 58 of 75! (They failed this time – the expected coalition did not happen because the Conservatives got a majority. Bell curve that!
But I’m sticking with the opinion polls (as you are) but quite ready to believe that UR (and maybe some others) by some mechanism that I don’t understand helped their total along to a degree that is not a gamechanger.
North Cauc, again sui generis but I have no difficulty in believing high UR votes there. (Quebec example of making sure you’re well represented at the place where the money comes from plus fooling Moscow into thinking you’re super-loyal). Plus 10% or so.

Patrick Armstrong

Check this out

Google translation here

He claims to be a serious mathematician. Basically what he is saying is all the stuff about Gaussian distribution and the higher the turnout the more UR is bad mathematics. And he illustrates his point by graphs on latest UK election showing very un-Gaussian distributions of votes and the higher the turnout the more Cons and fewer Labour.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Welcome to "Other Points of View" on Russia. We believe there is need in the public forum for a venue which offers opinions and facts that at times may differ from the prevailing view in western media.

    Our point of view is not political, is not theoretical, and is not academic. It comes from decades of working at the grassroots of Soviet and post-Soviet society and being avid watchers of Russian politics, economics, history, societal conditioning and current mindsets. Please review our history in order to better understand our perspective on Russia today.

    This blog has a companion program, the Russia Media Watch (RMW), which analyzes select pieces of western media for accuracy or inaccuracy of content based on 17 objective criteria. Analyses are then sent to the journalist, the publication and to a wide list of American Congress members, think tanks, business and civic leaders throughout the country.

Russia Media Watch (RMW)