Analysis of Russian Election Results

The results of last week’s election to the lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, are now in. The big winners? The ruling United Russia party (UR) which won 50% of the vote. Second was the Communist Party of the Russian Federation at 19%; next at 7.5% was Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) as well as A Just Russia – For Truth; and last to win a batch a seats was a new formation, New People, which got just over 5%. Nine other parties collected 12% between them but failed to get over the 5% needed to get seats according to the party list system. 

I have analyzed the results in an article for RT (here) As I say, both UR, whose result was 5% down compared with the last election in 2016, and the Communists, whose vote was about 6% up, have reason to be happy. UR will win close to 320 seats out of the 450 available, a majority of over two-thirds. Meanwhile, the CPRF has enjoyed its best election for 20 years, consolidating its position as Russia’s main opposition. When Russians are dissatisfied with their rulers, the Communists are their first choice for an alternative. It’s a sobering thought for those in the West who imagine that a post-Putin Russia will be all love and cuddles. 

There’s only so much that one can put in a 1,000 word article, so I thought I should develop some points further here. 

1. Fraud. UR’s 50% is well above predictions. Pre-election polls had the party pegged at about 35% of decided, definite voters. In the past, undecideds have tended to gravitate towards UR or have just not voted at all, so it was to be expected that UR would get more than the 35% polled. 40% would not have been unreasonable. The state polling company VTsIOM was predicting 45%. But 50% is way beyond expectations. Unsurprisingly, some people consider the result more than a little fishy. 

Of course, some were going to shout fraud whatever happened. But UR’s showing certainly provides grounds for suspicion. The Central Electoral Commission cancelled results from several polling stations after cameras spotted ballot stuffing. Who knows how many others got away with it. 

The main target at this moment in time is the system of electronic voting. For the first time, Russians had the option of voting in person in the old fashion way with pen and paper, or online. Even before the election, critics were saying that the latter was a recipe for abuse, as it would be impossible for outsiders to verify the published results. 

What makes people doubly suspicious is that when the results were issued, it turned out that a higher percentage of online than in-person voters cast their ballots for UR. Moscow has become a particular focus of attention. The electronic results from Moscow were delayed for several hours. Until they were published, opposition (i.e. non-UR) candidates were leading in nearly all the Moscow constituencies. Once the electronic votes were declared, the balance tipped and UR won every single seat. Some people are calling foul, and suggesting that the delay was caused by the requirement to rig the result and calculate just how many extra votes were needed to give UR a win in each constituency.

The Moscow electoral commission stands by its results and says that the delay was due to the novelty of the system, the large number of electronic voters, and the fact that in Moscow electors had the option to change their vote, which supposedly caused some problems in the system. The commission says that it checked the results 4 times to ensure that they were accurate. You may believe it or not, as you wish.

An explanation for the Moscow anomaly could be that different categories of voters prefer different systems of voting. In last year’s US presidential election, for instance, postal voting was greatly preferred by Biden supporters. Trump appeared to be about to win several states until the results of the postal ballots were added, 80% of which went to Biden, swinging the states in favour of the latter. Perhaps a similar dynamic is at work in Russia. Maybe anti-UR voters didn’t trust electronic voting and so stayed clear of it, thus giving them a majority among paper voters but ensuring a majority the other way around among electronic voters.

Or maybe it was fraud, pure and simple. The very nature of electronic voting means that we don’t the evidence at our disposable to say definitively one way or the other. At any rate, the Moscow electronic results will provide those wanting to denounce the elections as fraudulent with a plausible means of doing so. Defeated Communist candidates are calling for protests in Moscow. It will be interesting to see if anyone turns up.

2. Liberal defeat and New People. If the Communists did well, Russia’s main liberal parties – Yabloko, Civic Platform, and the Party of Growth – did dismally, polling just 1.5% between the three of them, although it looks like they all might get one Duma deputy due to victories in single member constituencies. Yabloko did the best of the three, but at just over 1% this was its worst result ever. At this point it’s hard to see what purpose the party serves by continuing to exist. It’s a mere shell of its former self and I see no way that it can recover. It’s well past time for the banner of liberalism to pass on to somebody else.

That somebody could perhaps be the party New People, which garnered 5% and so is entitled to about a dozen seats in parliament. New People was only created last year, so it’s hard to say much about it or what it stands for. But as far as I’ve been able to find out (and I’m willing to be corrected if I have this wrong), it’s a moderately economically liberal party that stresses getting practical results in Russia’s localities rather than fighting with the authorities in Moscow. If you know your 19th century Russian liberal history, it strikes me as a little bit like the ‘small deeds’ liberalism of the late imperial zemstvo movement.

There’s a long-standing streak in Russian liberalism that regards fighting the state as pretty much the definition of what it means to be liberal. Gosudarstvennost’ (statehood) and obshchestvennost, (roughly speaking, hand-shakeable, liberally correct public opinion) are assumed to be irreconcilable enemies. Consequently, New People’s attitude to the central authorities makes many members of contemporary obshchestvennost’ consider the party to be little more than a bunch of Kremlin stooges. However, given that the alternatives have failed so utterly dismally, New People’s non-confrontational approach may be about the only hope that Russian liberalism has for a revival.

Will New People amount to anything? Only time will tell, but for now it can legitimately claim to have more appeal among liberally-minded urban professional types than do the likes of Yabloko. Likewise it has some good reasons for claiming that its approach offers greater prospects than the street liberalism of radicals like Alexei Navalny.

Which provides a suitable link for a discussion of ‘smart voting.’

3. Smart Voting. This is the scheme dreamt up by imprisoned activist Alexei Navalny and his team. It encourages electors to vote for whatever candidate in a given constituency has the best chance of defeating the candidate of United Russia. It doesn’t matter which party that first candidate is from – smart voting says that you should vote for him or her in order to stop UR from winning.

Navalny and his boosters claim that smart voting is the bees knees and has the powers that be trembling in their beds. The reality is that it is a dud.

Navalny’s top aide, Leonid Volkov, claims that smart voting won in nearly all the constituencies in Moscow and St Petersburg, at least until the authorities fiddled the vote with the online results. There’s a few things wrong with this.

In the first place, fraud or no fraud, at the end of the day, the candidates recommended by smart voting lost. In the second place, most of them were Communists. If they did well, it was because of the general upsurge in Communist support, not because of smart voting, which in any case didn’t identify the preferred candidates until the day before the election and so can’t have made that much of a difference. Calling Communists ‘Navalny-backed candidates’ and claiming credit for their success is a fraud that nobody should fall for.

And third, in some cases where non-UR candidates won, they did so despite smart voting recommending somebody else. For instance, the Communists beat UR into second place in the far eastern province of Yakutia, but smart voting told people in Yakutia to vote for A Just Russia. Anybody who followed smart voting’s advice would have helped UR not hindered it. Similarly, a Yabloko candidate managed to win a seat in a by-election for the Moscow City Council. But smart voting told electors to cast their ballot for the Communist candidate. This latter case, I think, proves the point that even in Moscow, the most liberal city in Russia, voters don’t do what smart voting tells them to.

To tell if smart voting had any effect, one would have to do a detailed study comparing local single-member constituency results with the votes cast for party lists in the same constituencies, taking into account issues which might distort the sample, such as the popularity or non-popularity of individual candidates. Obviously, this is beyond my means. But even if one did manage to find some minor impact in a few places, at the macro-level UR won nearly 200 of the 225 constituency seats. At the level which matters, in other words, smart voting failed totally.

This confirms what I’ve been saying for a long time, namely that Navalny and his team are over-hyped deadenders. It’s time to stop pretending otherwise.

63 thoughts on “Analysis of Russian Election Results”

  1. “Trump appeared to be about to win several states until the results of the postal ballots were added, 80% of which went to Biden, swinging the states in favour of the latter. Perhaps a similar dynamic is at work in Russia…” haha, if it was a similar dynamic, then may UR learned a trick or two from the cheating Biden campaign. Namely the fine art of “how many extra ballots do we need in this district?” Although the methodology is more piquant in the American case, since they have to do more complicated math with the electoral college, and such-like.


      1. Working class people voted Democratic. Working class white people lean more Democratic than middle class white people. Most of the Capitol insurrectionists were middle class not working class, not the down and out.


      2. And to clarify most of the ‘non-college educated whites’ handing Trump his votes were either retirees, or well established in their professions and careers and share many more economic attributes of middle class people than a very well educated college student still renting a nasty one bedroom flat and hoping to pull in $40k a year in their late 20s.


      3. Hi, dewitt. The issue was with certain swing states such as Florida, which the Dems had to win, in order to win the electoral college; and Trump was leading in certain of these states all the way through the evening and up to midnight, and then suddenly they were flooded with mail-in ballots which were mostly pro-Dem!
        One can debate this endlessly, and I honestly don’t care who is right, but the Trump supporters were absolutely convinced that the election had been stolen from them via these mail-in ballots (I tend to believe them, but I can’t prove it, obviously); which was the main cause behind the January 6 so-called “Capitol insurrection”.


      4. No, the working class (the ‘deplorables’) didn’t vote for liberals, who represent global finance. Neither for Clinton nor Biden. Why would they? They voted for Trump in 2016, he delivered, and so they voted for Trump again in 2020, in higher numbers.

        Even the establishment media have to admit it:

        … if only occasionally, and with bullshit reference to “cultural values”, instead of economics. What happened to ‘it’s the economy, stupid’?


      5. Delivered what exactly? Tax cuts which flowed to the top 1%? An economy that changed not one bit from Obama’s economy – and in fact was a continuation of it? And again how are people who are well entrenched in their careers or retirees who own their own homes working class but people actually working, on low wages, and do not own their own home are not working class?


      6. Sorry, dewitt, you’re absolutely right. Trump won Florida. I was thinking of certain other swing states, but I would have to go back and refresh my recollections how the electoral college results came out in the end.


      7. Yeah mail in ballots favoured Biden – but mostly because Democratic leaning voters preferred to stay away from polling places during the pandemic and even then in each of the major swing states counting took DAYS. So the situation in Russia is not analogous to what happened in the USA as the counting was completed within 4-5 days whereas it took almost two weeks to complete in the USA.


    1. The 2017 tax bill raised taxes on super-rich like never before (~$85 billion/year): the SALT cap provision. It’ll probably be repealed by the current regime.

      Well, he delivered the best economy (for the working class) in 50 years (at least). Lowest unemployment in 50 years, highest median family income ever (iirc), etc. NAFTA renegotiated, TPP killed, protectionist tariffs all over the place. All that, and more.


    2. ” haha, if it was a similar dynamic, then may UR learned a trick or two from the cheating Biden campaign.

      I followed that hype, vaguely. There was quite a bit of ‘expertise’ involved, I recall. Not least by an expert on matters that had lost his election earlier. As well as a multitude of lawsuits. I read quite a lot of files on those cases. Case, made, ‘experts, witnesses. …

      At what point can we expect the definitive proof, as unearthed, that the naive female journalist you felt actually told everyone how the Biden campaign manipulated the election. Without really intending to put the pro-Trump camp onto the right trail?


  2. Yet, the BBC kept positively chiming about Navalny and his smart voting, adding the claim that all of the leading opponents were banned from running.

    If the vote counting was so corrupt, why have government approved/installed video cameras showing that instance mentioned in the above piece?


    1. Please do not ask silly irrelevant questions.

      I was thinking about this type of thing this morning and came to the conclusion that a friend of mine could knock together a Russian ballot box in about an hour. A visit to a stationary store and a few minutes with my computer and printer and I am ready to film “Russian voting fraud”. Well I might need some obviously “Russian pictures or posters on the wall.


      1. No such thing as a stupid question says some. There’s also the type of question which is rhetorically presented.

        Saw one report saying that a caught ballot stuffer was from Yabloko.


  3. I say that indeed UR’s showing is suspiciously impressive. As you say 40% would have been very respectable 45% even plausible, 50%? Pull the other one.

    In any case though I think you are right to point Communist success has little to do with Navalny and much to do with the Communists own strength as a Party – having the only national machine besides UR – the fact that when they get into government they don’t make a hash of it and the continuing affection Russians have by and large for the USSR. Plus at elections the Communists are the only major party to ever put forward something like a coherent programme.

    I also think people ignore that there were compelling reasons to vote UR. UR put its strongest team forward and made Shoigu and Lavrov – popular and competent ministers – their banner leaders. The economy has also been improving and UR turned on some light personal spending taps before the election. UR also is a classic ‘catch all’ Party and it attempts to appeal to everyone not by watered down party ‘middle of the road’ policies but through a ‘median policy’ course of action. If you like public ownership you have gazprom, Rosneft, much of the defence industry and the major television networks. Like the Orthodox Church? United Russia will cozy up to it.


      1. davidt, not that it matters. This was reported early over here, also reported were consequences drawn by election authorities. There are of course a lot of other rumors, who may or may not be just that, not least, that there are a lot of election premises without video surveillance??? …

        The place of my district’s election changed to another nearby school. With a comment on this comment section in mind here: Neither here nor there, I ever encountered anyone polling me post vote.

        My more special part of the larger district queues was pretty short. And up to the last minute I wasn’t really sure, whom to give my party vote to. Approaching the old location, I met another potential voter, as me driven by custom. On our ways to the chanced destination, I asked her if she was already decided. … She gave me her reasons, tiny party but, her argument was, present all over Europe. I would assume she lined up in the much longer queue. At least I didn’t see her after I was guided away.


  4. The main feature of electronic voting (as well as postal voting) has to be that it requires less effort. You don’t have to lift your ass off the couch. And so at this point, and until electronic voting becomes customary, perhaps pre-election polling becomes highly error-prone.

    I mean, you ask me if I’m going to vote next week, and I’ll say ‘meh’. But then, when it’s time to vote, I realize that all it takes is fiddling with the phone for a few minutes, and I’ll vote after all.

    Just a thought.


    1. And so at this point, and until electronic voting becomes customary, perhaps pre-election polling becomes highly error-prone.

      Electronic voting showed up here in Cologne at one point, and disappeared very, very rapidly again. I am not sure to what extent I was already aware of the controversies surrounding its usage in the US at that point. The Diebold machines were the first that drew my attention. 2000/2004?

      Over here it feels, Chaos Computer Club successfully campaigned against its usage over here.

      With it, without any doubt a lot less volunteers for the counting would be needed, other than the ones already busy at the polling stations. … But … And I am someone that strictly trusts a machine more than me to not miscount. …


      1. I don’t know. Generally, any voting by secret ballot is insecure; there’s no way to verify the result. Paper ballots can be removed, replaced, added. And it’s even easier with electronic voting machines.

        What they did in in the RF this time – voting via mobile phones – I don’t know any technical details, but it seems to me that it should be more reliable, because it’s not really secret. Your vote is linked to your phone number, and your phone number is linked to you. So, there should be a way, theoretically, for a third party to verify every vote. Or, as a practical matter, to verify some randomly selected votes.


      2. Well, proper authentication is always a tricky business, and it’s never 100% reliable, but it can be made highly reliable.
        When I was in computer school, we learned that one suggested type is 2-step authentication, the kind that banks use to verify your identity when you do online banking, namely: (1) Something you have, e.g., a token, a password, etc., and (2) something you know, like those “security” questions they ask you, like “Who was your favorite movie star growing up?”

        The answer to the last question, by the way, always has to be Inna Churikova. Don’t ask….


    2. Hi, Mao, It just amuses me that online anything is so sophisticated now, for anything but voting. You can buy anything online, book tickets to events, etc., and you always have a receipt that you can print out. if there is a dispute you can have an online “chat” with a customer service representative, and they straighten everything out. This all works pretty well.

      And yet the voting systems can’t come up with a similar “shopping cart” method of authenticated online voting? hahaha
      It’s not that they can’t, they just don’t want to, because the politicians like to do things the old-fashioned way!


      1. Not just tickets and merchandise. You can buy millions of dollars worth of digital currency. Buy stocks and bonds, RE, transfer millions of dollars from one bank account to another while simultaneously FX-ing it into another currency. Incidentally, I read somewhere that this new RF online voting app uses blockchain. Blockchain randomizer? I don’t know, this is well beyond my understanding.


    3. The main feature of electronic voting (as well as postal voting) has to be that it requires less effort. You don’t have to lift your ass off the couch. And so at this point, and until electronic voting becomes customary, perhaps pre-election polling becomes highly error-prone.

      Nice thought indeed. We just implemented massive mail ballots. in both cases it will be interesting to see any changes in voting patterns


  5. A certain erudite celebrity beat the communist in my okrug. Oh well. He declares himself Marxist too, totaling almost 60% Marxist vote (to liberal 7%) XD


    1. “A certain erudite celebrity beat the communist in my okrug.”

      Anatoly Vasserman? I forsee he will soon become disappointed in his choice of career.


      1. More importantly, people who elected him shouldn’t be disappointed in his choice of career, let alone results of that choice. His ideas are important to many of us, yet it remains to see if he’s competent in their implementing.


    2. Wasserman WON?! (I wasn’t following the news much, so this is news to me.) That’s awesome. I like Wasserman. Just saw him in a skit on youtube toting a machine gun. Jews with guns, aaahhh!


      1. “Jews with guns, aaahhh!”

        How little is required to amaze you, yalensis. Tzakhal must be your particular favorites – they actually shoot their guns.


  6. Did anyone really think united Russia were going to loose their super majority

    I read a number of bloggers from Russia and even the communists ones were predicting no radical change.
    And over all that is the case.

    The communist did well and good luck to them . Proving they can be trusted with power is a hard task.

    The government will plow on.


  7. What is totally ignored by all “reviewers” of Russia’s recent elections, when it comes to losers:

    I) Defeat of the LDPR. Back in 2016 Zhirinovsky sagely “predicted”, that soon Russia will have two party system, with his own party being “The Other” to EdRo. He kept on dreaming about it all those years. He still insisted that his party was “for the future”, while the communists are “doomed”.

    Ha. Ha-ha.

    What we have seen last week are the results of the LDPR

    a) Screwing up this whole Furghal (remember him?) mess in Khabarovsk. Look at the election results in that region – EdRo is in the lead. Because it was a very loud mess, the business (Russia is a bourgeois democracy, like all the others) saw the LDPR as a potential “bad investment”.

    b) Failing performance-wise in the “political theatre”. Performative populists (e.g. Navalny and his combat hamsters) are like drugs. Sooner or later the organism gonna develop craving for higher dose. Zhirik chose for his party to go “cold turkey”, navalnites chose to OD.

    c) Having a political program too “poachable” by EdRo. No, really – what did they suggest, that might have been both doable and make them distinct from the United Russia?

    Thus LDPR end results makes them on par with the much trash-talked (deservingly so) Zakhar Prilepin’s and Sergey Mironov frankensteinian monster of “The Just Russia – For Truth”. That’s… not pretty.

    II) Liberast civil war. In Russia’s one most ancient chronicle, “First Novgorodian annals”, death of the Grand Prince Mstislav in 1132 was accompanied by this comment: “И раздрашася вся Русская земля”, which could be translated as either “All Russian land fell to infighting” or “Russia became torn apart”.

    Present day “Russian” liberasts are having the former, soon to be followed by the latter.

    Its no big secret that Navalny and his clique have nearly animalistic hatred of the proper party of the shy and conscientious liberals – Yavlinsky’s “Yabloco”. In part it’s because of Navalny’s expulsion from it “due to the nationalist sentiments” back in late 2000s, in part because of Max Katz (former Navalny electoral HQ managers during his bid in Moscow’s mayoral elections) “betrayed” his former patron and, finally, joined “Yabloco”. In part because “glum-boring” “Yabloco” is still more politically successful and “acceptable” by the REGIME ™.

    [“The New People”, “Civic Platform” and “Party of the Growth” are, for all intents and purposes, “canceled” by the proper handshakable liberal, ah, public. Cuz “Kremlin’s project” and all that. They are spared the effort and bile, because proper liberals pretend they do not exist at all.]

    Navalnites gained a lot of unexpected allies in the form of Evgenia Markovna Albatz (Alexei’s “fairy godmother” and dear “auntie”, who tirelessly jewawashed him in eng-lang articles aimed to make sense of deal Lyosha’s nationalist past), Sergey Buntman (from the “Echo of Moscow”) and the indomitable “journalist” Sergey Parkhomenko with his so-called “Parkhom-bureau”. These “power trio”, having access to considerable means of propaganda, waged a tireless assault on the “lapdog of the Regime” – Grigory Yavlinsky. When the later dared to say, that Navalnites are pursuing self-defeating tactics (maestro Robinson had a blogpost on these remarks), Liberast Ministry of truth tried to make Yavlinsky “unhandshakable”. You know – “cancel” him. Among other things, they began the circulation of the rumour, that the Kremlin bribed Yavlinsky with a luxurious palace costing “$30 mlns”. Clear biblical parallels with the accursed 30 pieces of silver and the cult-like veneration of Navalny by his sect got this info a lot of traction among the liberal faithfuls.

    And that was even before “Smart Voting” commanded members of the Navalnite sect to vote communist. After that… oh-ho-ho! Let’s just say – brainwashing is no substitute to the proper and rigid party discipline. Battle-hamsters began having second-thoughts (for some, they very their very first thoughts ever). Emboldedned pro-Yabloco liberasts shot back, accusing pro-Navalny liberasts of being “sovoks”, what with their urge for the strong leader and intolerance of the divergent thoughts. You know – things currently in vogue in the West among the adorables. They are accusing pro-Navalny crowd of basically enabling “jackbooted police state” to stamp out “remaining voices of freedom”, so that they can’t even “squeak” about their Beautiful Russia of the Future ™.

    Both sides are accusing each other of being agents of the Kremlin and anti-Semitism. Because of course they are.

    In the end of the day, despite maestro Robinson changey-hopey spiel about the future of the liberalism in Russia – nah-ah. Russian capital sees no use in sponsoring it. Why would they, really? That the collective West seems to sponsor liberal movements in Russia, well… That’s simply a Cain’s mark for the entire ideology, which, in its very premise, is all about serving interests of the capital – world capital.


  8. The entire e-vote system, with blockchains and what not was devised and built by Kaspersky labs, from what I’ve read.

    Have they commented anywhere on the talks of irregularities/fuddling?


    1. Check it. Once in a while I check either Eugene’s or the Kaspersky blog. Or, for that matter, Kaspersky’s SecureList. Lately much more rarely though.

      But basically, I would expect them to keep out of this hot issue. They better do.


      1. It’s not a “hot issue”, merely Russian liberals making a storm over nothing, again. E-voting worked fine this time and it will work fine for the next one.


      2. It’s not a “hot issue

        It is by now one issue among others, you may want to discuss the larger issue with Yalensis. As was to be expected, it surfaced in the recent ‘stolen US’ election too. To some extent. …

        As a longtime Kaspersky user, I argued as some type of uninvited and not needed PR advisor. If you understand what I mean?


    2. The electronic vote was a “black box”. Votes came in, the CEC announced a number at the end.

      We have no idea what happened in between or what blockchain had to do with it at all (probably nothing, beyond buzzwords).

      What actual blockchain based voting would look like is that you’d be given a unique cryptographic key with which which you sign your vote. You could then, if you wanted to, go to a blockchain viewer and confirm it was tallied correctly.


      1. Hat tip, Bernard, MOA, NYT

        “Honestly, you cannot call the overall result a ‘victory,’” Aleksei A. Navalny, the foremost opposition figure, wrote from prison in a statement posted on his social media accounts. He blamed fraud for subverting a voting strategy he said would have worked otherwise.


      2. sorry, once again I misspelled his name.
        Bernard Moon of Alabama, taking over from Billmon, blog wise, once upon a curiously long time ago.


  9. I’m ABSOLUTELY sure, that maestro Robinson, a man of integrity and unshakable principles, has nothing to do with my comment languishing in “requires approval” limbo, due to it having 2 outgoing links to Russian sites. No ulterior motive. Nnnnope!

    Meanwhile I’ve noticed, that no one in this particular comment section paid any attention to a development which, for Russia, is much more important than liberasts getting their well deserved bupkis. I’m talking about LDPR’s de-facto electoral defeat – about which my limbo-ed comment was in part about.

    Just think about it – how ye mighty have fallen! Zhirik during 2012 presidential election campaign:

    In this video, he claims that, traditionally, Russia’s symbol had always been the “troika/trio of horses”. But now it’s degenerated to a pathetic lil’ donkey. Vote LDPR for Russia to mutate back to troika!

    And Zhirik during LDPR’s rally/concerto prior to 2021 Duma elections:

    Yup – he got his own “troika”. Dem horsies do crap the floor. But the whole contraption with Zhirinovsky inside it? It ain’t moving.

    Quite symbolic.


  10. I agree that there was massive fraud as usual. UR’s real result was around 35%, 37% at most, which is in fact equivalent to VCIOM’s poll on “active voters” (people who say they will definitely come) 35.3% of whom said they intended to vote for UR. The VCIOM prediction obviously adjusts for fraud, though not by enough. It’s telling that they didn’t do an exit poll.

    Shpilkin’s method gets around 31% but it always overestimates fraud because the regions with higher fraud are also more pro-UR/Putin in general and because turnout is positively correlated with more voters for UR/Putin (fraud adjusted). So they should always be pumped up somewhat.

    In Russian regions that typically have fair counts – mainly, the ones in the north – United Russia was getting results like 32% (Arkhangelsk) and 30% (Yaroslavl). I think there was significant fraud in Moscow, zero way that United Russia got 37% there. Moscow is no longer ground zero for oppositionism like it was a decade ago, but it should be a good 10% points lower or so.

    Not that I actually care, I am now a United Russia supporter (Putin having embraced the nationalist program with Donbass freedom fighters like Boroday running from UR lists), and voted for them (electronically). I am not sure that either the Communists who terrorized Russians for 70% years or foreign-sponsored liberals deserve a free and fair vote.


    1. I assume you are on the ground so do you think the communists won a majority?

      That people want to go back to the ussr

      The Communists are out demonstrating- and it seems all the governments opposition have coalesced around the communists.


      1. No, I didn’t say that. UR won ~35% legitimately (so a parliamentary majority in any case). The KPRF something like 25%.

        The commies adopted populist takes on vaccines which helped their popularity amongst rightoids. The red scum remain hellbent on exterminating Russians at any opportunity.


      2. The commies adopted populist takes on vaccines which helped their popularity amongst rightoids.

        That’s an interesting coinage, Anatoly. Admittedly, as someone struggling with getting closer to what may or may not be at the core of what I observe online and whatever of it is real in discussions with friends. As political nitwit for most of my life.

        The right signaling freedom, while the left are the true late 20th/21 centuries authoritarians?

        That’s not at all what the coinage signals/signifies?


    2. We all BELIEVE you, Anatoly! Surely, you won’t lie on public in order to stress how you “saw the light”, so that Comrade Major ™, might even forget, that you were a naughty, naughty boychik. Like when you were high on a power-trip and wrote:

      “Тем временем, не могу сказать, что я уж очень резко против навальнистов.

      Скорее всего, ничего у них все равно не выйдет. А если власть почувствует реальную угрозу, то вполне реалистично, что прибежит за помощь к черносотенцам.

      И мы начнем кремлинам диктовать свои порядки.”

      BTW – it was just few months agot, when you resorted to this prejorative “kremlins” right here, in Irussionality comment section.

      Surely, surely you are a changed person now! Might even no longer self-described “NEET” fancying online casionos and heroin.

      Surely!.. Surely, your very public change of expressed opinions is not a case of, ah, “жим-жим”?


      1. Why would I oppose the kremlins when they have adopted the standard Russian nationalist program near to a tee since 2018?

        (This is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in a discourse with you).


      2. “…they have adopted the standard Russian nationalist program near to a tee since 2018”

        What mythical “Russian nationalists” are you blabbering about? Pig-fuehrer Prosvirnin? Gloomy loser Kholmogorov? Navalny? Mark Izrayelevich Galperin?!

        Where are your “black hundreds”? Who needs you, losers?

        If you failed to notice that, Anatoly, Russia is not “Building A Wall” ™. Neither is it letting go of its ethnic krays, republics and oblasts. Russia still “feeds” them.

        Oh, and one more thing – Surkov had been let go and he’s turning into a non-entity akin to Bannon.

        Your very public outpuring of the most humble vernopoddanitchestvo is entertaining to watch, yes. Its as genuine (and consequences consciuos) as MeTooin’, BLMin’ and PrideMonthin’ expressed by the international business giants.

        In the end of the day, given one small misstep on their part, they’d still get… “burned”


      3. “Secondly, Russia has always been corrupt – both under the tsars and under the Soviets, and especially in the 1990s. This is an age-old cultural heritage, and according to some HBD theories , even to some extent, is embedded in the genetics of southern and eastern Europeans”

        To state such idiocies one has to be completely devoid of the knowledge history, not having noticed that any and all government structures from the time we as humans abandoned nomadic life in favour of settlements supported by and based on agricultural production. He apparently has not any clue of the corruption from Sparta to Greece to Rome to the Holy Roman Empire to the British Empire, the USA, the Kaiserreich to the third Reich – name any Empire, so called democracies, auticracies etc…corruption is what keeps those structures alive.

        What an utter moron. Another spokesman qualified to speak like Mr. Clapper on Russian genetics.


    3. So you are saying that UR got about 27% of the vote in Moscow, which implies that they could only motivate about 13% of the locals to vote for them. That seems to be a serious problem for the country. Afterall, Putin, Sobyanin, Shoigu, Lavrov, as well as Medvedev, are linked with the party. I visited Moscow in 2013 and it appeared to be a moderately wealthy city, however, since then it has been significantly gentrified and its infrastructure- metro, road, housing etc- has been greatly improved. (Perhaps, not as much as some Chinese cities, but better than almost any Western city.) Moreover, I have seen many interviews with Moscovites and I have never got the impression that any wanted to burn the place down. So what is going on? (Perhaps the Russian authorities should revalue Moscow property upwards by say 20% That works a treat here in Sydney.)


      1. Moscow is the absolute best megapolis I have ever been to, but I don’t think this has much to do with this. Sociologically, there’s little surprising about this. Putin’s approval rating is at 60-65% since the pensions reforms is about the same as it was in 2011. So are United Russia’s electoral results in the election that year. Post-Soviet authoritarians only seem to start getting in trouble once approval plummets to 35% (Luka – survived) to 25% (Yanyk – overthrown).

        Russian property prices have been soaring since 2020 (in line with most global assets classes).


      2. I notice that Patrick Armstrong points out that, in Moscow, there were nearly two million e-votes as against 1.7 million paper votes. Why would one assume that these electronic votes have a similar distribution to the paper votes? To my mind at least, this rather weakens the emotional arguments for fraud that people like Ben Aris at BNE Intellinews have been promulgating.


    Hello everyone, my name is Travis Lee Bailey, Esq. I am a lawyer from Washington DC. I grew up on a rural farm in conservative Idaho, in the Reagan area, at the height of the Cold War. We were taught to hate and fear Russians. In 1999, the day that President Putin took over for President Yeltsin, I arrived in the US Peace Corps Ukraine. For 2 years, everyday I walked across the Odessa Trade Center plaza in complete love of the country. In 2000 I was wading in the Black Sea as the son was setting, surrounded by Ukrainians, and I realized that this was my homeland, and that I was more at home in Ukraine then I ever was in America. I witnessed 9/11 in horror that evening, a couple of weeks later one of my best friends, a kind and loving Arab, said if America comes to his country, he would kill them. In Washington DC, in 2014, hundreds of Ukrainians burned to death on the Odessa Trade Center Plaza. I was distraught for days. How could my adopted countrymen do this to each other? In 2015 I defected to the Moscow Russia. I applied for political asylum in 2016. After a brief return to the United States, I have been here in my achingly beautiful newly adopted homeland and purgatory, Moscow, Russia since a couple of days after the 2018 World Cup ended.


  12. Behind CIA plot to kill Assange, and debunking ‘Havana Syndrome’ propaganda
    Behind CIA plot to kill Assange, and debunking ‘Havana Syndrome’ propaganda

    #ActiveMeasures #Psyops
    #chooseYourBigBrotherCarefully #ColdWar2


  13. ….in favour of settlements supported by and based on agricultural production all were corrupt, maybe to varying grades, but corruption it was…..

    Missing editing function is especially bad when one wants to respond to such utter drivel karlin produces and tries to get ones mind around that such shite gets posted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s