Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 05, 2012

Putin Did Win - The Fraud Allegations Make No Sense

The western media is again alleging election fraud by the leading party in Russia. It also did so in December after the elections for the Russian Duma, the parliament. But those allegations made no sense at all:

United Russia's share of the vote was less than all the independent polls predicted. If the party or the government it leads really manipulated the election why would that be the case? Did they really give themselves less votes than the pre-election polls have led anyone to expect?

Would someone manipulating an election in the U.S., local or nationwide, organize for less votes to their cause than independent pre-election polls would suggest? Why?

The same question has to be asked today. The independent Levada Center polled 1,600 Russians and on March 2 published the result (Google translation):

Forecast the results of voting in the presidential elections in 2012, filed with the CEC March 2, 2012 to participate in the contest forecasts prepared on the basis of a series of surveys conducted from February 24 to March 1, 2012 on representative samples of urban and rural population of the Russian Federation, 1600 at the age of 18 years and older in 130 localities 45 regions of the country. The statistical error of the survey data does not exceed 3.4%

These are translated to the number of intending to vote and decide on their choice. Projections free from systematic sampling error, defined according to the prediction of voting in elections to the Duma in 2011

They polling result is an expected turnout of 60.3% and a vote for Putin of 61.5%.

The turnout in yesterday's election was 64% and thereby slightly higher than expected. Putin won 63.7% of the vote, also slightly higher than expected but well within the 3.6% margin of error of the Levada poll.

One should notice that Putin got less than 50% of the votes in the big cities, Moscow and Leningrad, and as usual more than 70% in the more conservative countrysides. This might also explain the slightly higher turnout and Putin result than in the poll as such polls tend not to include smaller villages.

As I wrote back in December:

Russia is a big country. It is likely that there were some irregularities in this or that polling station. Such manipulations happen everywhere and that is why we have laws against them. But given the pre-election polls and the election result it is not plausible that the manipulations in Russia were organized by, or in favor of United Russia.

Stoking up rumors and creating serious unrest in Moscow is still a wet dream for "western" cold-war warriors, neocons and their "liberal" allies in Russia. They wish back the days of Yelzin when they robbed Russia blind. But as the election showed those times are over and Russians will no longer fall for their false promises.

We can now expect the usual claims of fraudulent elections and an attempt of color-revolution theater the west is always using when the public opinion and the politics of certain countries are not in its favor.

And sure, the U.S. financed GOLOS Center claims it has received over 5,000 calls with allegations of fraud. That sounds like a lot until you notice that there were over 96,000 polling places in Russia with webcams installed in 91,000 of them and over 300,000 election monitors watching for the various candidates.

There is therefore no reason to fall for the fraud accusations. Putin, with the advantage of being the best known public figure and the incumbent, has won fair and square. His people will see him as their fully legitimated leader.

Posted by b on March 5, 2012 at 15:21 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

sorry this is the link for the nobel piss prize

Posted by: denk | Mar 10 2012 4:48 utc | 101

denk @ 100

This was a good one: (I wish he'd live up to it)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, Boston Globe, December 20, 2007

Posted by: Alexander | Mar 10 2012 5:39 utc | 102

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.