The main conclusion from the history of the past parliamentary elections may be much deeper than it seems at first glance. The very process of counting votes and the oddities when taking into account the results of remote electronic voting may have the goal of not only distributing mandates in a certain way, but also creating a qualitatively new psychological atmosphere in society.
Of course, many questions arise. For example, why, the more the protocols from the polling stations were processed, the results of the opposition parties fell and fell, and the “United Russia” only grew. There are even more questions about remote electronic voting (DEG), especially in Moscow. In the capital, in seven districts for a long time, representatives of the Communist Party and the so-called “Smart Voting” were in the lead, but at the very last moment the favorites lost as much as 10-15% to candidates from the “list Sobyanin“.
For example, the head of the Moscow City Committee of the Communist Party Valery Rashkin and Anastasia Udaltsova in their constituencies were ahead of the candidates from the United Russia after the processing of 99.5% of the protocols. But processing another 0.5% brought United Russia an immediate victory. They say that it was added by the votes cast remotely. By the way, in the capital they could be announced only in the middle of the next day. The “arithmetic” of the elections looks clearly strange.
But the main thing is that a completely natural question arises. Maybe they deliberately decided to show all the dissatisfied that their opinion does not mean anything anymore?
If earlier it was necessary to use “carousels”, throw-in and non-admission of observers to “correct” the election results, now there is no need to worry at all. As it is necessary – they will calculate, what results they want – they will draw such?
But the reality is even more complicated. The authorities have done everything possible to involve people in this electronic voting as much as possible. Who was forced at work, and who was lured by the “million prizes”. So that people themselves participate in the procedure en masse.
And now they should feel guilty for the deception.
What is the opposition to do now? The Communist Party of the Russian Federation has already stated that it does not recognize the results of electronic voting, and the EDG tool is opaque and dishonest. But what next? Summon people to the polls when everyone knows how they are going? Like, no one will let you win, but let’s take part in the show together?
Then it turns out that a complex of learned helplessness is purposefully brought up in society. Already many do not go to any elections, because “nothing depends on us.”
Doctor of Political Science, Professor of the Moscow Institute of National and Regional Relations Igor Skurlatov believes that in the future, the experience of using electronic voting applied in the Duma elections will be expanded:
– Prospects for the use of electronic systems are the most extensive. The president Vladimir Putin met with the chairman of the CEC Ella Pamfilova, where he expressed satisfaction with the experiment. At the same time, it can be concluded that there will be no revisions of the elections, and the results will remain unchanged.
Recently the head of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko, and she is not the last person in the hierarchy of the Russian government, said that remote voting should be expanded. In general, everyone accepted this idea with delight.
So the flaws of electronic voting will remain. Recently, with the help of electronic voting, even in the United States, they actually stole a victory from Donald Trump…
How will the system work in Russia, where democratic mechanisms are rather weak? How will the system work if they don’t give keys and source code to observers and candidates?
I think that the experience of remote voting will spread to the whole of Russia and to the elections of deputies of lower levels.
“SP”: – Is there an attempt to deprive people of their will? People are lured into elections, and their mechanisms are opaque.
– E-voting itself is a good and convenient tool. Of course, we are all for the introduction of technological innovations. Another thing is how this or that tool is used. And here we are talking about morality in politics.
Any fact of falsification must be proven. And it is no secret that state employees were forced to vote electronically, and they tend to express their loyalty to the authorities.
But such actions followed, which raise a lot of doubts about the integrity of the elections. If in the regions the results of the EDG became known an hour or two after the closure of the sections, in Moscow they were announced only the next day, after some four rechecks. At the same time, it turned out that people could vote again. It’s like a person would come to the polling station, put a ballot in the ballot box, and five minutes later came back and suggested to the commission: “I changed my mind, let’s open the box and replace my piece of paper with a check mark.”
And it turned out that all those who voted electronically were all supporters of United Russia.
Not only is the source code not shared with observers. The CEC even refuses to create an independent parliamentary commission to study voting in Moscow, which the Communist Party insists on. Therefore, the representatives of the party were forced to declare that they would appeal to the ECHR in Strasbourg. This indirectly shows how the authorities behaved in the elections. And that e-voting has gone from being a progressive tool to being repressive.
“SP”: – Maybe the authorities are now behaving in a demonstrative manner?
– In my opinion, this is really a spit at people. Moreover, the largest is in Moscow, where opposition sentiments are strong. What are the only changes in the results of counting according to Valery Rashkin and Anastasia Udaltsova?
The authorities had to specifically show the ineffectiveness of Smart Voting and other tools that could somehow resist the administrative resource and affect the result.
“SP”: – But it doesn’t work out that it is practically pointless to participate in the opposition elections? If the result is known in advance?
– It’s not about the result. The opposition is formally defeated, but in practice it achieves a lot. Worst of all is inaction. It is precisely the rallying of ranks that the opposition needs. And the experience of all the years shows that during the election campaign, different parties and movements manage to find new supporters, mobilize and inspire an active. From the point of view of not victory or defeat, not the election of candidates, but the political process itself, the elections are extremely important.