In December 2011, the State Duma elections were held in Russia. After this discussion on the falsification of voting results, they cannot do without mentioning the number 146. We checked whether the total result of the parties, according to the CEC, is really exceeded There are 100%in several regions.
For almost ten years, the number of 146 in Russian culture has been called only the number of Churov. In 2007, the State Duma deputy from the LDPR Vladimir Churov became chairman of the Central Election Commission (CEC) and for two terms in this post Noted a number of very dubious statements, as well as "Churov's saw". But still, on a special place in his track record there are parliamentary elections in 2011, the results of which were the reason for mass protests and thousands of rallies that led to the “swamp business”. The most striking mark in folk memory was left by the story that in the Sverdlovsk region participating in the party elections They scored in total 115%, in Voronezh - 129%, and in the Rostov - and completely 146%. Over time in the minds of people Regions could change, and all the voices Recorded On “United Russia”, but phrases like “I am sure of 146%” reliably fixed in the Russian language.
On the night of December 4 to 5, 2011, the news program was a news program dedicated to the preliminary results of the elections. On the screen installed in the studio, each other was replaced by tables with the distribution of votes in the parties, which were read by the leading Ivan Kudryavtsev and Anna Schneider. Although the table did not include the amount of percent, somewhere in the middle of each list the presenters were noticeably embarrassed:
The calculation problem was quickly noticed Social networks users And Journalists. A few days later, the head of the Rostov election commission Sergey Yusov declaredthat the table shown on the air has nothing to do with the real voting results: “Firstly, the scoreboard was built differently in the Central Election Commission, on which the numbers fled, and secondly, all political parties were strictly located in the order in which they were located in the electoral ballot.” The official also referred to the fact that GAS “Elections” is a closed system and data from it cannot get into open access without the knowledge of the CEC.
Although the last argument of Yusov seems excessively simplified, experts also agree with him. For example, professor of St. Petersburg Polytechnic University Yuri Karpov Explains Incredible interest features of software. The GAS “Elections” uses a parallel calculation program, which in the moment can issue incorrect results, and only very careful and professional preliminary testing can reduce the probability of error to zero. According to Karpov, if at some point the amount of interest in the voting in the Rostov region and exceeded 100%, then the unskilled actions of programmers who worked in the CEC are to blame.
The possibility of imperfection of the automatic system was recognized by Vladimir Churov. After the resignation from the post of the head of the CEC, he answered To the question of the journalist Andrei Kolesnikov about 146%: “You understand perfectly that this is not our history, it has nothing to do with the electoral system at all ... There were no such numbers in the electoral system. There were other figures: in St. Petersburg, in the elections of local self -government, many candidates received more than 100%. There was a systemic failure when calculating votes in multi -member districts, and we had to take quite harsh measures, several chairmen of territorial election commissions were forced to change their place of work. <...> I had to introduce a special filter of GAS "Elections", now the car itself will cut off such fantastic results. " Two years before Churov He called it The incident with a provocation and entrusted him with one of the employees of the VGTRK, "who then received a very good place behind the ocean." Also an official promised to sue On those who, three years after the elections, continued to "joke about 146%."
We were not able to find in open sources comments by Anna Schneider, who declared preliminary voting results in the Rostov region. Her husband, journalist Alexei Pivovarov recently toldthat the curiosity was associated with the mistake of the editor: “It was not a picture from the Central Election Commission, it was a graph that they themselves drove their hands.” The operator Leonid Krivenkov worked on that air Described The situation is more: “Of course, there was no employee who received for this, according to the chairman of the Central Election Commission of Churov, a“ warm place behind the ocean ”. Everything was much simpler: a order came from the Kremlin to Russia-24-what interest on United Russia to show in the news. The chief editor asked: “But what about other parties?”, To which she received the answer: “And show other parties the percentage that they really gained.” The chief editor did not argue, because the Kremlin knows better, and did everything the way she was ordered. And so it turned out 146%. ” If everything was so, then the “real” result of “United Russia” in the Rostov region was 12.5%. It is difficult to believe in it - the worst result in that campaign party showed In the Yaroslavl region, gaining 29% of the vote.
IN final protocol The numbers came together with the results of the elections in the Rostov region, and all the parties in total received 100%. Apparently, the numbers shown on the air were not related to reality and were either the result of a temporary technical error in GAS “Elections”, or a deliberate or random error of the television editor. In any case, it is hardly worth using this case in discussions about the problems of the electoral system (unlike, for example, from works electoral statistics expert Sergey Shpilkin and his colleagues).
Most of the truth
Read on the topic:
If you find a spelling or grammatical error, please inform us of this, highlighting the text with an error and by pressing Ctrl+Enter.
