The peer-reviewed paper again raises the question about the incorrectness of the statistical analysis. But it is based on a misunderstanding: the authors rightly point out and confirm with numerous examples that the histograms of elections may well be very different from the «Gaussian» even in the absence of falsifications. Probably, they have not seen the works mentioned above and assume that so far the conclusions about falsifications are based on the deviation from «Gaussianity».

Governor Nikitin's result directly even resembles the cluster of the city of Tambov. One could rejoice, but this result is a draw.

The result is a draw.

Kanevskaya, where I spent my childhood, drew the biggest turnout, 97%. And Pavlovskaya - the biggest percentage to Kondratiev, 94%. Crooks.

Yes, something must be done with our society, which «still has some flaws». It is very gullible and therefore prefers Shpilkin to Borisov. But it is necessary to implement a number of measures to remove distrust in the procedures for establishing the results of voting». It is possible, for example, to establish not only a captcha for obtaining these results, but to declare them a state secret for disclosure of which one can get 10 years. And for the use of the Gauss function, we should deprive them of the right to correspond.

It is time to fight back against the mathematicians who are invading our social processes!

3 сентября 2020 года на сайте Российского общественного института избирательного права (РОИИП) был опубликован доклад "Математические инструменты делегитимации выборов". In it, the authors criticized one of the methods of analysis: unimodality. 
They concluded that "with existing methods of mathematical analysis it is impossible to describe and make an assessment of electoral behavior and voting outcomes" and reduced everything to a "political struggle". We suggest to read how convincingly and reasonably they did it.