Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Graph Shows Fraud in Russian Elections

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the little-to-the-left dept.

Censorship 406

gaika writes "A graph in the best traditions of Edward Tufte shows how the voting was rigged in Russian parliament elections. Initially some regions were showing higher than 100% attendance, but later on everything was corrected, or way too much corrected, as the correlation between winning party's vote and attendance now stands at 90%. I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient."

cancel ×

406 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620141)

Putin's 7% cap on political parties pretty much annihilated most of the opposition. Why did they need to add votes? Out of habit?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620175)

Why go through the trouble? In America, all you need are some alleged loose chads to win.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620323)

Q: Why does greater than 100% turnout automatically mean election fraud, and not an error in the distribution of population between regions of the country?

A: Because that doesn't support my preconceptions. Fuck off, Troll!

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620437)

Still spouting the old lie, heh? Didn't you hear about the recounts? Look it up, doofus. This from PBS:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

Neither the Miami Herald nor USA Today could remotely be considered "Bush friendly". But you still believe and repeat the lie. Shameful!

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

ftsf (886792) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620523)

didn't you see the futurama movie!!?!

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Escogido (884359) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620329)

2/3 of the Russian Duma (parliament) has the authority to amend the Constitution, and of course they want to be able to do that by themselves. And they barely made it - they will have 310 +/- 5 seats out of 450.

I heard they forced people in hospitals to vote (3, Interesting)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620149)

I heard people in hospitals were denied medications unless they voted for him. Very mean and dishonist thing to do. 1st post by the way :)

Troll? (1, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620307)

I heard people in hospitals were denied medications unless they voted for him. Very mean and dishonist thing to do.
This is a well-published allegation. How is it a troll?

Re:Troll? (1)

bradkittenbrink (608877) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620353)

Guh! Because he misspelled dishonest!

Re:I heard they forced people in hospitals to vote (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620313)

1st post by the way :)

NO...and you are a dumbass.

Re:I heard they forced people in hospitals to vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620505)

I heard people in hospitals were denied medications unless they voted for him.
And they murdered dozens of kittens and tea-cup poodles.

Whoopsie! (4, Funny)

mctk (840035) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620159)

"I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient."

And apparently neither has the person who wrote the summary.

Re:Whoopsie! (2, Insightful)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620203)

Exactly. Correlation != Causation. But still...

Re:Whoopsie! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620325)

No, "the Cofficient", is nicht der Koeffizient [leo.org] , hoping that switching languages will help draw attention to the rather typical /. non-command of spelling.
I guess back in his KGB days, Vladimir spent enough time in Germany that he's fluent and doesn't even need subtitles on German TV.

Re:Whoopsie! (2, Interesting)

burni (930725) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620493)

Some years ago, he held a speech in front of the german parliament (the "Bundestag" ) in german
and you could clearly hear, how even then he tried to cover his accent, while his use of the german language was overall very good.

Re:Whoopsie! (1)

gaika (975356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620591)

Do you have a better explanation?

In soviet Russia (4, Funny)

GWLlosa (800011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620165)

Ballots stuff you?

Re:In soviet Russia (1, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620563)

In Soviet Russia, the ballots are shallots cast by car lots of harlots.

You don't need brains to be a dictator (5, Insightful)

crath (80215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620167)

I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient.

You don't need brains to run a dictatorship, just a rampant willingness to fuck people over. Reminds me of some of our own leaders here in The West!

Re:You don't need brains to be a dictator (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620227)

just a rampant willingness to fuck people over.
Depending on the context of that statement, it could describe both our current and former leader.

Re:You don't need brains to be a dictator (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620265)

Want irony... how about the people who keep enabling their own "fuck over" by not walking out of the polls and withdrawing their consent to be ruled?

Well what did you expect? (4, Interesting)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620177)

I mean really! Dissident journalists have been murdered. A rival was imprisoned for political reasons. Gee, and I thought this election had a shot to be a fair one! Anyone surprised by this doesn't follow Russian politics at all. Putin doesn't play around. He used one of the most devious Russian reversals of all time. He found that in Soviet Russia corruption empowers you absolutely!

GG Russians (1)

Screamest (1089677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620183)

Figures.

Uh huh. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620193)

So, where's the graphs showing the election fraud going on in the U.S.? Did Homeland Security censor them, perhaps? Doubtful, the neo-nazi's can't even secure Los Alamos.

Welcome to Amerikkka, the land of the ignorant and the home of the slave.

Re:Uh huh. (4, Informative)

doom (14564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620531)

So, where's the graphs showing the election fraud going on in the U.S.?

You might look at some of Steven F. Freeman's papers [appliedresearch.us] , like this one: Polling Bias or Corrupted Count? [appliedresearch.us] (pdf file).

Did Homeland Security censor them, perhaps?

Nope. Just the good old US corporate media. "Nothing to see here, just a bunch of conspiracy nuts on the internet"

Not surprising (2, Interesting)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620199)

This doesn't surprise me at all, I guess anybody that follows what happens in Russia suspected this. Still, it will be interesting to see how much evidence is left behind or in other words, how good a job they did at rigging the election ;-)

For a sec, I thought I saw... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620207)

"Graft Shows Fraud in Russian Elections"...

But, nyet, nyet...

(Spasibo, & dasvidanya, Comrade...)

"rigged Elections" (4, Funny)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620233)

American Democracy is truly spreading across the globe.

Re:"rigged Elections" (1)

Depili (749436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620375)

What americans do first russians copy and make bigger and more rugged, eg. Ohio vs. Typhoon, american accurate small nukes vs. Tsar Bomba.. American elections vs. this :)

Re:"rigged Elections" (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620389)

So has anyone performed a similar analysis of the 2000 or 2004 US Presidential elections. At the national level I can believe any skulduggery would be buried in the noise, but how about in select spots??? (Forida, Ohio, etc.)

Re:"rigged Elections" (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620431)

As I recall, there were no accusations of ballot box stuffing in Florida. Which is not to say that there was no vote rigging. There were many claims that people from pro-Gore demographic groups finding it hard to cast their ballots.

Re:"rigged Elections" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620515)

I don't have a pretty graph, but:

"The courts have no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Buchanan's view that Hitler was not all that bad."

From Mark Levine [mediasense.com] .

Re:"rigged Elections" (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620589)

There's no need to rig the election in the US in an illegal way. The legal options, from gerrymandering to the election system itself, are plenty if you want to tweak the system in your favor.

Provided you already are in power.

Re:"rigged Elections" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620395)

Except that in ten years, Bush will be gone and Putin will most likely still be "president". Some people are actually suffering - you just thought you were.

Re:"rigged Elections" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620579)

I think a few million Iraqis are..

Re:"rigged Elections" (2, Funny)

nephridium (928664) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620687)

Except that in ten years, Bush will be gone and Putin will most likely still be "president". Some people are actually suffering - you just thought you were.

I don't know about the future, but judging by the past - twenty years ago we had Bush, now we have Bush (and not the good kind..) - I don't see how anything would change.

Re:"rigged Elections" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620409)

Are you out of your mind? No, this isn't American democracy. This is sickness in its true form, also known as revolutionary leftism. You should try and live, work and stand against the government in countries where this is becoming the rule (such as Russia, Brazil, Venezuela) so you'll learn how bloody different this is from American democracy.

Re:"rigged Elections" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620459)

Are you out of your mind? No, this isn't American democracy. This is sickness in its true form, also known as revolutionary leftism.

No, Russia is going towards fascist dictatorship via right-wing populism. And the US is heading in the same direction (although it's not as far along) because morons like you think that right-wing populism is just fine and dandy.

Re:"rigged Elections" (1)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620601)

Not even remotely insightful. PROVE one American presidential election was rigged in such a fashion as this, and I will eat my hat.

Re:"rigged Elections" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620701)

Yea. And Putain and Bu$h are laughing all thy way to world domination.

Re:"rigged Elections" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620797)

For it to be complete, this has to break out as a scandal and all those with a vested interest in retaining the previous result have to start screaming that the people ought move on, that they (the people) are tired of the infighting, and that the "nation has to come together to heal."

Anything more than a cursory examination into this matter would be unAmerican.

Where did the data come from? (1)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620243)

The altz_gamer blog entry [livejournal.com] gives a link to this Excel file [altzgamer.ru] with the raw results. Where did this data come from?

Re:Where did the data come from? (5, Insightful)

Escogido (884359) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620467)

Most likely from the GAS "Vybory" (short for State Automatized System "Elections") that is used to calculate preliminary voting results.

I worked for 9 years in the Central Election Commission of Russia, and during my time a lot of technical people had access to the database, and it's not really hard to grab a copy of the DB or a report. I quit that job some years ago, but somehow I doubt a lot of things changed.

This is not a security hole; the data is entered into the system straight from the signed protocol as soon as a lower level election commission does, and protocols are being made public right after they are signed. It also has no official status, at the data is only used for preliminary figures; the official results have to be delivered in paper form.

While we're at it, the site of the Central Election Commission is http://www.cikrf.ru/ [cikrf.ru] and the present election results will be eventually posted at http://www.cikrf.ru/elect_duma/npa/index.jsp [cikrf.ru] . This is in Russian however, so I don't know how useful that would be..

Compare 2004 Ohio and 2000 Florida returns (3, Interesting)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620257)

For comparisons' sake I would like to see the same graph of percentage vs turnout in the presidential race for Florida counties in 2000 and Ohio counties in 2004.

Rigged or not, Putin's party would still win. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620273)

What a lot of people don't understand here in the US is that Putin is really effing popular in Russia. We hear a lot of talk about how Putin silences critics, wants to set up an ex-KGB dictatorship, etc. And it's probably all true. But again. Putinism is popular and Russians will keep voting for it. This is no surprise if you talk to more than a handful of Russians. They don't need to commit electoral fraud because they've already got the populace on their side.

I didn't realize the extent of this until I started dating a Russian, who introduced me to many Russian viewpoints, friends and relatives.

Putin lifted millions from poverty (2, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620363)

I read a front-page Wall Street Journal article a while back that said that Putin is wildly popular with Russian citizens because he's been successful at revitalizing the Russian economy. Before Putin - including after the fall of communism - the vast majority of Russians lived in very grim conditions.

Putin has been successful in changing all that; I would imagine the giving people enough to eat and decent housing can excuse a lot of police-state abuses.

For example, that WSJ article covered a Soviet-era glass factory that was originally a very outmoded, inefficient industrial plant, but with the result of millions of dollars of foreign investment, is now earning lots of export rubles by manufacturing automobile windshields.

You know what they said about Mussolini: "At least he made the trains run on time".

so did Hitler (1, Insightful)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620499)

Why do you think Hitler became popular in Germany? The country was in economic shambles after WW I, and the squabbling nascent democracy just didn't manage to put things together again. Hitler was a law-and-order, family values candidate who managed to put people to work and had simple, straightforward answers; this was just a few years before he then turned into a genocidal maniac who killed millions of people.

And make no mistake about it: every nation is always at risk for those kinds of people.

Re:so did Hitler (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620665)

Not always, but under certain circumstances. If you have a nation that was great, maybe even a world power, where people lived more or less well, who had jobs that didn't get them rich but put food on the table, then suddenly everything turns for the worse, people starving, unemployment going rampart, the former world power turning into the poor house of the world and being dependent on international aid... and then someone steps forwards, promising work, wealth and return to power, people will follow him.

Thinking about it, I'm kinda worried about the US now.

So he did (2, Informative)

Burz (138833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620695)

...but it's Bush who is warmongering while impoverishing his people. I'd say that Putin was above the both of them, though he will soon be ending his career with that horrific assault against the... arctic circle on his record. Oh the humanity.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll wash my hands after partaking in one of Slashdot's redmeat xenophobe stories. Call me when you all have something positive to post about Russians or Chinese for a change: Until then, the usual Anglosphere "coverage" of the other major powers is best taken with a large grain of salt. [atimes.com]

Re:So he did (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620781)

Uh, Slashdot publishes many more negative stories about the US. That doesn't make it anti-American, just like negative stories about Russia and China don't make it xenophobic.

Any news agency will tell you negative news sells better.

Debate over (1)

smorken (990019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620705)

Godwinated

Re:Rigged or not, Putin's party would still win. (4, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620457)

As I understand it, Putin has been reasonably effective at crushing the Oligarchies that were running rampant throughout Russia, this has made him a bit unpopular with the current US government because a lot of those Oligarchs were business partners. Unfortunately, his method of stamping them out has been largely to just take over the businesses directly. This has been a boon for the government's bottom line, but in the long run it stifles growth, however the people love it because they're finally seeing some of their country's wealth and frankly I can't blame them. I have no doubt in a few years Putin (or his successor) will finally toss away the pretense of being a Democracy and really start putting the screws to the people, but in the short term they are way better than the previous owners.

Re:Rigged or not, Putin's party would still win. (0)

alienw (585907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620809)

Yeah. Fucking. Right. A good bit of Europe's economy are state-controlled enterprises (ever hear of Airbus?). It's a system that works very well, and Russia is moving in that direction. The only people missing out are American investors who were hoping to get something for nothing, like they did in the Yeltsin years.

What happened to the great Russian Mathematicians? (2, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620287)

A.N. Kolmogorov must be weeping.

Re:What happened to the great Russian Mathematicia (5, Funny)

eli pabst (948845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620659)

A.N. Kolmogorov must be weeping.
Too much Smirnov [wikipedia.org] apparently.

God, I can't tell you how long I've been waiting to use that :-]

Detailed tests? (5, Interesting)

Iwanowitch (993961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620291)

It certainly seems like the distribution of the red dots is different from the others from a graphical impression.. But can someone remind me on what the correct statistical procedure is to 'determine fraud' here? Nonparametric ANOVA, comparing the groups? I mean, noting that the correlation coefficient is 0.9 doesn't really prove anything, does it...
I've had some statistics but I was never really good at it... I developed a radar for lousy statistics, though. Hard numbers please.

Re:Detailed tests? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620769)

I think basically its just that as Turnout increases, the percentage who voted for Putin increased almost exactly with a .9 correlation coefficient. This would indicate that the votes were fixed because its highly unlikely that Putin would have almost the exact same percentage of supporters out of the local population everywhere in Russia. Contrast with the United States (red and blue states).

Re:Detailed tests? (5, Informative)

Gorobei (127755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620803)

There is no statistic to determine fraud, almost by definition. The various statistical tests look for improbable departures from expectations, and the fraudster tries to modify the data in a way that doesn't look improbable.

Given we have few datasets of fraudulent vs non-fraudulent numbers, it is hard to generate hard numbers. Instead, we look at tests the fraudsters didn't consider or understand, and these tests usually show such extreme numbers that any statistician would assume the data was manipulated. For example:

1. Faked biology data (several known examples) - means look good, but higher order stats are way outside a normal distribution. Luckily, you can repeat the experiments, and see the repeats don't show the reported results.

2. Faked accounting data (tons of examples.) Most fakers make really basic mistakes. E.g. around 27%? of financial numbers should begin with 1, faked data usually has the wrong leading number distribution. Again, forensic accountants dig here and usualy hit paydirt.

3. Image manipulation. Again, the manipulator gets the first order stats right, but leaves a mess in terms of higher order stats (local vs global noise.)

The most interesting question: WHY? (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620295)

The most interesting question: why have they done that? I live in Russia and nobody here really doubts that the ruling party ("United Russia" - "Edinaja Rossija") influenced elections.

The real approval rates of other opposition parties (communists excepted) were in single percents, anyway. And the real approval rate of United Russia was high enough - all manipulations possibly resulted in several extra seats in parliament for them. So it's not that Putin seriously risked losing his power.

Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (1)

bradkittenbrink (608877) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620337)

Why poison with polonium? So everyone knows you did it and won't be afraid to do it again.

Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620485)

I still don't think that Russian special services killed Litvinenko. And it's not like anyone believed that the United Russia will not abuse his power...

Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (2, Insightful)

burni (930725) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620587)

From my point of view, he is clearly up to something, some coup we cannot clearly think about.

He wanted to be 100% sure that Putins party and his favoured
others (Schirinowski) parties get

1.) a clear +66 percent in the Duma (russian parliament)
2.) Putin can show this result like a trophy that the russians fully trust him

( they entiteled him to be a leader )

if you recall his announcement for his past presidential time, he don't want to become
a Prime Minister, but he wants to stay as an influential adviser for the future devellopment
of russia, would he install a third position additional to the president or the prime minister,
this will be interisting how this turns out.

Well a pupet master who pulls the strings ?

Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620609)

The tongue-in-cheek reply would be "old habits die hard". But it's something else. Blatant election fraud (and, pardon if I say it directly, I doubt they're so stupid to rig it so badly) serves only one goal: It's a statement. The statement says pretty much "Look. We can manipulate the election any way we want. And? Nobody cared. See? We will win. No matter what. So you better stop trying."

Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (4, Informative)

gaika (975356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620645)

They need 2/3rds in the parliament to amend constitution.

Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620735)

Someone else gave the answer: with a 2/3 majority, they can change the constitution, and it looks like they made it.

As if American elections are any different (-1, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620385)

The article is written in bad taste, I hate to say. Our [American] elections are no different. It's just the flavor that was not the same as compared to Russian elections. Anyone remember the missing chads, disenfranchised [black] voters, who were thought to be strong Democratic supporters?

In the end, elections here were rigged. Ohh wiat...what about the rumored "oil money" that had lots of influence in the elections. Guys I need a break. To be fair, we need to look at our selves before we self congratulate ourselves. Thank you.

I have a strong urge to... (2, Funny)

3on3 (1007539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620391)

play rush'n attack.

So the worst case scenario for Russia is that ... (0, Troll)

intnsred (199771) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620397)

... their elections are about as fair and honest as the last two US presidential elections [gregpalast.com] .

Given the obvious propaganda value of the US bashing Russian elections, I think we in the US ought to shut our mouths until we get our own act cleaned up. By any polling measure, Putin enjoys 60-70% approval by Russians; here in the US Bush is not even at a 30% approval rating while publicly admitting to torture and with a majority of Americans thinking he has committed impeachable offenses.

Re:So the worst case scenario for Russia is that . (1, Insightful)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620629)

If you want to impeach Bush for having a 30% approval rating, you'll need to impeach the democratic legislature as well. And cite a serious poll from a legitimate source indicating that the majority of Americans think that Bush has committed impeachable offenses.

Re:So the worst case scenario for Russia is that . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620811)

Bullshit. Just because you repeat a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

the mighty graph (3, Funny)

Takichi (1053302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620403)

And we all know the power of, The Graph! [phdcomics.com]

The nice thing (2, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620411)

About reputable news sources is that they have, well, a reputation for doing at least a decent job of statistics. Livejournal... doesn't.

On the other hand, the nice thing about statistics is that without much work you can show what numbers you started with, what games you played with them, and what numbers you ended up with. And you can fairly easy say why you think those games were legitimate, and others can fairly easily say why they think they are or aren't, or can otherwise review your methodology.

So, if we're going to link to Livejournal as our source of statistics, can we at least link to pages that showed their work, just like they were taught in math class?

I know enough statistics to at least form a rough opinion on whether what they're stating is meaningful -- which is completely useless given the total lack of any data or discussion of methods. Yes, that stuff from math class did actually have a point.

Re:The nice thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620717)

About reputable news sources is that they have, well, a reputation for doing at least a decent job of statistics.
They do? I can't remember the last time I saw a news article involving statistics that didn't screw them up. So-called "reputable" news sources constantly confuse correlation with causation, neglect to mention error bars, avoid discussing controls, simplify the results to the point of meaninglessness, and in general twist real statistics until they become meaningless.

In Non-Soviet Russia... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620415)

I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient.
The so-called "correlation coefficient" is just part of the vast CIA conspiracy to discredit Russia!

A cartoonist's take on it. (1)

Lunzo (1065904) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620419)

The truth of the Russian elections [moir.com.au]

Note: I think the comic on the front page changes every so often, so if it isn't Putin, then you were too slow. At the time of posting it was relevant to this discussion.

I think you can find it here too [smh.com.au] if the original link isn't working.

Those who count the votes... (5, Insightful)

xs650 (741277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620423)

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Josef Stalin

Explanation (2, Interesting)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620435)

Can someone give a better explanation? I'm taking actuarial mathematics and multiple regression courses, and even I have no clue what the guy is talking about.

Re:Explanation (3, Informative)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620557)

His argument boils down to this:

There shouldn't be a correlation at all between voter turnout percentage and the percentage that voted for Putin's party.

It's like saying "all of candidate A's supporters voted, only half of candidate B's supporters voted (or were allowed, enabled, not intimidated into not voting, etc.).

Re:Explanation (1)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620725)

An alternative explanation is that Putin has an extreme majority in certain districts, and these supporters also happen to be very enthusiastic and turn out to vote. I'm not saying it's true or likely, but it's still an explanation. In my opinion, there probably was ballot stuffing, but this data doesn't convince me.

What I would like to see is a comparison of actual voting results by district vs. anonymous non-biased polling numbers from before the election. Unfortunately, I doubt such numbers exist.

Complete Bullshit (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620449)

Putin has higher percentage support than any western world leader, just look at Bush approval rate, in low 30s. Not degrees, but percents.

How do you fraud elections in 200 mil. people country to get 2/3 majority and 2/3 voters turnout?

I want to see just one poll that shows Putin support less is than 60%. Who's the opposition? Maybe nuts chess champion? USA has such one as well, Bobby Fischer, who is taking him seriously?Truth is majority Russians know nobody can do better job than Putin in these circumstances.

This is a story of democracy(TM) meaning "leader approved by USA "

Ask Garry Kasparov (1)

rockandrolldoctor (978909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620451)

Kasparov [kasparov.com] has been involved actively in Russian politics, granted from the vocal minority since 2005. He brought together an opposition coalition [npr.org] in early 2007. Some of Russians opposition views can be read here [theotherrussia.org] .

There is much more than fraud in Russian politics.

In the best traditions of Edward Tufte? Hardly. (4, Funny)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620461)

That graph was produced in Excel. I don't think Edward Tufte would like it.

Re:In the best traditions of Edward Tufte? Hardly. (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620489)

Yeah, I was about to say that Tufte wouldn't be caught dead making graphs in Excel — it's the antithesis of his visual explanations.

Coverage in the Economist (2, Informative)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620463)

A sad state of affairs. The Economist had interesting coverage of the event from both the run-up to the "election" and its result.

NOTHING was left to chance in Russia's parliamentary election. As polling stations closed on December 2nd, large lorries with military and riot police surrounded Moscow's main squares. There was no need for them: the city was quiet and nobody was protesting. Nor was there any need for the "tourist" buses ferrying voters from far-flung regions to cast multiple ballots in one polling station after another. "We have been going around polling stations since lunch time," grumbled one man, "and they have not paid us yet."
http://economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10268185 [economist.com]
http://economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10217312 [economist.com]

The Russians should be commended (4, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620477)

It's impressive to have better than a 100% turn out when so few vote in this country. With the help of our current administration and Diebold maybe we can do as well in the next election. Hell this is America we should shoot for 200% voting!

Re:The Russians should be commended (2, Informative)

lelitsch (31136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620739)

Standards are slipping. We did have better than 100% turnout in Chicago during the entire first Daley administration.

Liberals help Putin do it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620483)

By crying wolf every time an election in the USA doesn't go their way (FRAUD!!!), liberals actually aide dictators like Putin, because Putin can simply point back to the liberals and say "See, there are unreasonable and disgruntled people after every election".

I applaud all the slashtards in this thread alone who will be saying "THIS IS JUST LIKE BUSH". You slashtards are truly a dictators best friend!

Re:Liberals help Putin do it (1)

jeramybsmith (608791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620799)

I was going to post something non-confrontational about how election conspiracy theories (which certain slashdot editors helped propagate with stories from disreputable sources) have probably jaundiced slashdot readers into either yawning when they see this or having their knee jerk and make wry remarks about how the US is probably just as bad. Thanks for beating me to the punch with a very confrontational version of what I wanted to say that draws party lines and political ideology into what is really a conspiracy theory/kooky thinking issue. The really sad part is, if you look, the conspiracy comments are getting good mod points.

Uploaded data to swivel - play with it if you want (1)

gaika (975356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620567)

US election data looks the same? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620577)

Can we get the same data for US elections. I bet they look the same for Republicans.

Many Elections are rigged in Favor of Two Parties (4, Interesting)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620581)

In the US, UK and other countries with a "first past the post" scheme, the whole system is perpetually rigged in favour of two parties. Small parties find it very difficult because their support is spread thinly. Even if a new party comes along with some amazing ideas, it will likely never get a single seat due to the nature of the electoral system.

If the way of voting was always rigged to favour one particular party, we would be up in arms, but having a system rigged in favour of two parties is not much better.

Re:Many Elections are rigged in Favor of Two Parti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620813)

The operating assumption here is that the more parties, the merrier. People seem to take this for granted. But a multi-party system means voters have less of an idea what they're going to get and a less accountable government.

Proportional elections mean that political coalitions will be formed out of necessity, but only AFTER you've elected your representative to office. So instead of voting for party A and getting party A, you're voting for party A and getting the muddled ideological compromise of parties A, B, C, D, and so on, which may not even remotely resemble what you initially thought you were supporting.

There's also less of a retrospective record to work from considering you don't know the policy agenda of party A as it will manifest itself in the context of 10 other parties, which is bad for a voter trying to collect and evaluate information. The result is that you get more political "cheap talk" and it's even less likely that politicians can follow through with campaign promises or deliver in any predictable way.

Yes?

Edit Wikipedia (4, Funny)

noz (253073) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620585)

I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient.
Oh they have. They just edited Wikipedia first to make it sound absurd.

Or Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21620615)

I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient

Or Maybe.... they just don't care.

An old soviet age joke comes back to life (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620681)

"Comrade commissar, someone broke into the party head quarters. But don't worry, nothing irreplacable or secret was stolen. Only the manifest and the next five election results."

Well, this is Russia we're talking a bout here (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620741)

It's like the perfect, straight up system that you have in the States. Nobody expects election fraud there. Even now. Bush won, fair and square ~

reinventing the wheel (1)

Gninnaf (1195591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620745)

The Bush administration has more than proven the most effective way to rig an election is through the judiciary.

Putin saw George do it... (1)

subl33t (739983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620753)

... so he figured he could get away with it too.

YA, ya mod me troll, whatever.

Putin does not need to rig any election. (2, Insightful)

dude153 (1200033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21620783)

Putin is so popular in Russia (really) that he doesn't need to rig anyting. He would have won anyways. In Russia, most of the population indeed respects Putin and this is a result of all his years as a president. You may say he gradually eliminated opposition and I will agree. But he and whoever helps him are truly amazing in their ability to build a personal cult. I don't live in Russia anymore but I have a lot of friends there - and I saw their opinion gradually warming up to Putin. Part of this is manipulation, part real result of stabilization he oversaw. At this moment, I am not sure he's a bad choice - two next popular parties are communists and Dgirinovsky - I would vote for Putin given that choice.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>