Electoral Graphics
× Search
Saturday, April 13, 2024


All articles of Electoral.Graphics

Articles on the website

You have selected:

A triumphant victory over myself

A triumphant victory over myself

A triumphant victory over myself

The Kremlin considers the results of the vote on constitutional amendments a triumph: 

«Unequivocally, [the Kremlin] considers [the results of the vote on constitutional amendments] a triumph. In fact, a de facto triumphant referendum of confidence in President [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has taken place», — Dmitry Peskov, the head of state's press secretary, told reporters on Thursday, TASS reported.

«World press about the election: this is Putin's triumph», wrote «Vesti».

So, two triumphs. The «Yes» option garnered 57,747,288 votes in the 2020 constitutional vote, Vladimir Putin in the 2018 election — 56,430,712 votes — virtually the same amount. In some ways, that's not surprising, since the goal in both cases was the same — more than half the popular vote.

On the other hand, it means that in about half the precincts in the country, more voters voted for the amendments than for Vladimir Putin in 2018, and in half the precincts, — fewer.

At the other end of the spectrum, it means that more voters cast ballots for the amendments than for Vladimir Putin in 2018.

That is, in half of the polling stations Putin 2020 defeated himself 2018, and in half — lost to himself.

  1. Let's compare 2018 and 2020 polling stations by region and number. Of the 96766 precincts, 2020 has 94391 precincts similar in number (105.7 million voters out of 108 million «paper» voters). We'll limit ourselves to that subset.
  2. Let's divide the 2020 precincts into two groups: precincts in which more voters voted for Putin in 2018 than for the amendments in 2020 (44975 precincts, 51.8 million voters in 2020), and vice versa (49416 precincts, 53.9 million voters).
  3. Let us plot the distributions of votes for the two groups of precincts. They turn out to be radically different.

Plots where the amendments received more votes than Putin — by and large lie in the «tail» of the comet.

Plots where fewer — are divided between the nucleus and the tail, and most — in the nucleus.

Surprising, isn't it?

Or is it unsurprising? It's just that the amendments defeated Putin where there was some really badass cheating in 2020.

And lost — where they counted honestly, or where they cheated more in 2018 than in 2020.



For you, researchers:

The electoral data of all the elections from this article has been uploaded into the Lab . Now, you can see the elections with your own eyes™.
Electoral data of all the elections in this article is available in the Navigator for Elections and Datasets for download and independent analysis.
Previous Article A bell, a saw, an axe
Next Article Mathematical tools for delegitimizing elections. Report
Please login or register to post comments.

Elections in the article

Official name:

Russian national vote to approve amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation


Option "YES"

Wikipedia article:

All-Russian voting on amendments to the Russian Constitution

For you, researchers:

The data has been uploaded into the Lab .
You can see the elections with your own eyes™.
Electoral data is available for download and independent analysis.

Data report

Original data source:The CEC of Russia
URL of the source:www.vybory.izbirkom.ru/region/region/izbirkom?action=show&root=1&tvd=100100163596969&vrn=100100163596966®ion=0&global=1&sub_region=0&prver=0&pronetvd=null&vibid=100100163596969&type=232
Data validation fileRussia_Constitution_Voting_2020.pdf
Date of verification7/5/2020
Verification of the dataset with the source:

Discrepancies: polling stations with 1.2 million registered voters (online voting in Moscow and N.Novgorod, 7 regions in total). For the first time GAS-Vybory was incorrect: the official total data did not match the sum of data for PECs, i.e. for individual regions, the data from parsing was more correct than the official CEC data.

Digital PECs were not included in Shpilkin's parsings in 2020.

The CEC, by introducing a captcha mechanism on its website, deliberately created obstacles to citizens reading and analysing election results. This, in turn, reduced the reliability of capturing published data using the Wayback Machine and similar servers.

in the Lab

Russia, President 2018

Official name:

Election of the President of the Russian Federation


Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich

Wikipedia entry:

Presidential elections in Russia (2018)

For you, researchers:

The data has been uploaded into the Lab .
You can see the elections with your own eyes™.

Data report

On the same topic

DIY Kiesling-Shpilkin diagram

Good news for electoral observers, journalists and election investigators. You have a new and long-awaited tool - the interactive Kiesling-Shpilkin diagram. This detailed video lesson will help you understand how to work with this kit, what the advantages of an integrated approach are, how the tools help each other to detect an anomaly, or how the findings of one tool confirm the findings of...

New parameters to explore

But new, non-transparent types of voting in Russia we introduce new parameters for studying elections in the Lab. The "ntransparent vote opens new horizons for your research.

A bell, a saw, an axe

Journalists "Важных историй" Alesya Marokhovskaya and Alexei Smagin made a curious "explainer" in their article. Recommended."Analysts believe that the last vote on amendments to the Constitution was a record-breaking vote on the scale of falsifications. They cite many complex graphs to prove it. «Important Stories» made a simple visual...

Moscow and the Motherland are united

Not really, the slight bend of the Moscow tail downwards shows that Moscow was rather topping up than overshooting - and you can only hit the point (100%, 100%) by overshooting.

UPD: Mistake in the legend. Where it says "norm votes", it should read simply "votes" - including anomalous

Back To Top