By comparing the results of different Russian polling stations and using a statistical method, analysts estimate that the number of stolen votes would be at least 22 million out of a total of 76 million voters.
6 mins
The Russian presidential election of March 2024 left little room for suspense. If the re-election of Vladimir Poutine at the head of the country for a fifth term, the third in a row, there was never the slightest doubt, the only unknown that remained was knowing with what score the strong man of the Kremlin would be reappointed.
On this point, the election did not disappoint, leading to a result never seen since the end of the USSR, effectively re-electing Vladimir Putin with 87.3% of the votea “Soviet score” that even the Belarusian president considered the last dictator in Europe, Alexander Lukashenko, did not dare to achieve in 2020 with “only” 80.1% of the vote.
“ The biggest fraud in the history of Russian elections »
Faced with such a score, the election observation organization Golosconsidered a “foreign agent” by Moscow, quickly asserted that this election was “ the biggest fraud in the history of Russian elections “. According to her calculations, she estimates that nearly 22 million ballots would have been unduly attributed to Vladimir Putin out of a total of 76 million. Other Russian media in exile, such as the site Meduza where the newspaper Novaya Gazetta arrive at the same result using the same calculation method.
Read alsoRe-election of Vladimir Putin in Russia: international reactions also without surprise
To assess the extent of the fraud, analysts base themselves on the “Shpilkine method”, a statistical model designed by a Russian mathematician of the same name and which has proven itself over several elections. Based on the results of the 94,000 polling stations made public by the Russian Central Electoral Commission, the method developed by Serguey Shpilkin, declared a “foreign agent” in February 2024 by the Kremlin, consists of identifying the polls of votes with results considered “normal” and to compare them to those of other offices whose participation rate is abnormally high, which most of the time goes hand in hand with results in favor of Putin which reach peaks by bringing together in these offices 80 to 90% of the votes, or even more. By calculating the difference between offices with normal results and those with more than suspicious results, analysts are able to estimate the number of stolen votes.
“ Each result must be better than the previous one »
In 2018, during the previous presidential election, fraud was estimated at 10 million votes, so this time it reached levels never seen before, which does not surprise electoral expert and former co-president of Golos, Roman Udot interviewed by the Russian editorial staff of RFI. “ This falsification is unprecedented for a presidential election. The system is built in such a way that each result must be better than the previous one “, he believes.
According to the analyst, the election of Andrei Medvedev in 2008 was “ the most faked so far “. But after the opposition demonstrations in 2012, Vladimir Putin had to be satisfied with 63.6% of the votes to regain his post as president. “ In 2018, after the invasion of Crimea, and based on the systemic principle that everything must grow, there was no going back. He was re-elected with 76.7% of the vote. This time, this figure had to be even higher and it reached 87.3%. », explains Roman Udot.
If Putin was able to achieve such a score and such a level of fraud, it is also because remote voting was massively used and the opacity surrounding the way in which it is managed may suggest very significant manipulation of his results. Shpilkine’s statistical method only takes into account physical ballots, so it is very difficult to precisely assess the level of fraud reached, but it is very probably higher than the 22 million stolen votes announced.
Manipulation of results
Furthermore, fraud was facilitated by the reduction in the number of observers in polling stations. Access to surveillance cameras was also restricted. However, it was Putin himself who requested the installation of webcams in all polling stations in the country in 2011. Unlike the last legislative election in 2021, relatively few videos reporting ballot stuffing have therefore emerged, even if a few images appeared here and there on Telegram. For Roman Udot, the fact that access to polling station cameras is no longer possible “ totally freed the hands of falsifiers who previously were somehow bound by the fact that someone could watch them “.
But the manipulations can go even further. Ivan Shuskin, who carried out the statistical analysis of the results for Golos, claims that the liberal candidate Vladislav Davankov was demoted to come third in the vote behind the communist candidate when he should have come second. In some polling stations, piles of ballots in favor of Davankov would have, for example, been directly attributed to Putin. A way of putting the liberal candidate, although loyal to the Kremlin, in his place and preventing any figure other than that of Putin from emerging in public opinion.
459 complaints received by the CEC
For Roman Udot, quantifying the number of stolen votes is in any case not enough to fully grasp the real extent of the fraud which is only the visible face of an entire system. “ Statistical methods do not take into account other very serious circumstances which affect elections as much as the falsifications themselves: ineligibility of candidates, censorship, media control, obligation to vote… Is it possible to establish electoral preferences real, at least approximately, under such conditions? », questions the former co-president of Golos.
The Kremlin, for its part, obviously does not see the shadow of the start of a problem and denies any form of fraud. This Thursday, March 21, the president of the Russian Central Electoral Commission formalized the overwhelming victory of Vladimir Putin. “ These are historic elections “, affirmed Ella Pamfilova who praised an electoral campaign “ very clean ” And “ very responsible », ensuring that the CEC had only received “ 459 total complaints regarding violations “. “ It’s nothing at all “, she estimated.