They became the product of active debate between the United Russia deputies who proposed them and the Central Election Commission. On the last day of the spring session of the State Duma, deputies in the first reading considered a bill amending the Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens Russian Federation" and the Civil Procedure Code. The document assumed full recovery early voting in elections and the introduction of new grounds for refusing to register candidates and deregistering them.
Thanks to the efforts of the Central Election Commission, the initiative of deputies for the second reading, which took place only in the fall, has seriously changed. As a result, early voting in the elections was finally abolished, but most importantly, the concept of a minimum turnout threshold disappeared from the electoral legislation at all levels.
With the entry into force of the amendments, any elections in the Russian Federation will be recognized as valid regardless of the percentage of citizens who voted. Even if only one person comes to the polling station on voting day. So far Russian laws elections were considered valid if 20 percent participated in them in regional elections, at least 25 percent in federal parliamentary elections and at least 50 percent in presidential elections.
Supporters of the abolition of the threshold explained their position simply. In most countries, including democracies, there is no minimum turnout at all. As for Russia, CEC Chairman Alexander Veshnyakov emphasizes that we do not have any particular problem with turnout.
At least in federal elections. The election of a president has never taken place with a turnout below 60 percent. And the population’s interest in the Duma elections has always allowed us to overcome the 50 percent bar.
As for regional elections, citizens will be attracted by other methods. In particular, elections are based only on party lists, followed by the nomination of a governor by the winning party. In addition, the Central Election Commission is confident that with the abolition of turnout at regional elections, the sword of Damocles will also disappear, declaring them invalid due to an insufficient number of voters. As you know, in recent years the population’s interest in regional elections has become less and less. This often led to citizens being forced by entire enterprises to go to the polls or centrally vote using absentee ballots. Now such administrative coercion should also become a thing of the past.
At the same time, the responsibility of candidates and electoral associations for violating the legislation on countering extremist activities is increasing. Thus, already in the spring, a party may be denied registration of a list of candidates if, before the start or during the election campaign, one of its representatives included in the list allowed public speaking calls and statements inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred. Display of Nazi SS symbols will also be a reason for refusal of registration.
A citizen with an unexpunged or outstanding conviction on election day for crimes of an extremist nature, as well as those who have committed serious and especially serious crimes, will not be able to become a candidate in federal and regional elections.
They will be deregistered both for using an administrative resource and if it is discovered that voters have been bribed by an electoral association or its authorized representative.
Certain prohibitions also apply during the election campaign. They relate to counter-propaganda against opponents. Registered candidates and parties are prohibited from using airtime on radio and television for the purpose of campaigning against other candidates and parties, describing possible negative consequences in the event that citizens elect a political rival and, in general, disseminate information that creates a negative image of the competitor among voters.
“Propaganda” bans do not apply to this type of television and radio broadcasting, such as election debates. That is, in a face-to-face verbal confrontation with opponents, it is possible to challenge their positions. Even if a candidate or party refuses to participate in a debate, this does not mean that others should remain silent about the competitor in this debate.
The reform of Russian electoral legislation carried out in the 2000s was aimed at ensuring that elections, whenever possible, were recognized as valid, despite either a downward trend in voter “turnout” or an increasing “protest vote” (i.e. the number of voters voting “against all”). Currently, there is no “turnout threshold” for elections in Russia. Theoretically, this means that even if only one voter comes to the polling station on voting day, and it is one of the candidates, and this voter votes for himself as a candidate, then the elections will take place and he will win with a 100% result.
It's worth going to the polls.
And there are several reasons for this.
Firstly, the greater the turnout, the less opportunity for falsification: it is not so difficult to attribute three or four percent of the votes when only a hundred people voted; it is much more difficult to do such fraud if thousands of voters have voted.
And finally thirdly, it is the presence of an active civic position that distinguishes a modern civilized person from an asocial personality.
- From the election campaign, I see which party is spending more money for campaigning and will definitely win the elections. I wanted to vote for another party, but I don’t see the point. Should I go to the polls if my vote doesn't matter?
Practice of participation in elections recent years shows that there is nothing obvious about Russian elections. Professionals who have been working in elections for many years will give you more than one example of how, in a particular election campaign, a candidate or party that spent enormous amounts of money on the election campaign lost, based on the voting results, to candidates whose financial component of the campaigns left much to be desired.
I won’t spend a long time looking for examples (the campaign for the election of the Head of the city of Pushchino, Moscow region in 2010; don’t be lazy, go to the Internet, all the data is there, analyze it yourself, and you will understand and see everything for yourself). Finance is a very important part of any election campaign. But, believe me, it is far from the most important. And most importantly, you need to be able to use finances wisely. So in your example, the party that spends enormous amounts of money on campaigning is far from the most obvious favorite in the election race.
It’s worth going to your polling station on election day and voting as you see fit!
I don’t like any party (not a single candidate), and there is no “against all” column. How can I express my civic position? Should I spoil the ballot or do something else?
Unfortunately, when amendments to the electoral legislation were being prepared in the mid-2000s to abolish the “against all” column, the developers of this innovation, and then the deputies who voted “for” the abolition of this column, “did not hear” reasonable arguments regarding the that at the moment our society is not yet ready for such radical changes.
It is interesting that in 2004, the former Chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation A.A. Veshnyakov noted that the “against all” column gives voters more options for expressing their attitude towards the elections and “can be useful for the authorities to take appropriate steps.” He stated: " high percentage voting “against all” indicates some kind of anomaly in a particular region. If this column is removed, then voters will have a narrower opportunity to express their attitude towards the candidates.”
True, already in April 2005 A.A. Veshnyakov changed his point of view and came out “for” the abolition of the “against everyone” column: “There is no choice - life is simpler. Therefore, when there are 10-15 parties on the ballot, some people don’t want to think hard about who to vote for and why. It’s easier to check the box “against everyone,” the presence of which to some extent provokes such an approach,” he said.
Soon the column “against all” was excluded from Russian election legislation.
At the current stage of development of election legislation, the column “against all” is still absent from the ballot papers (a specific exception is situations in municipal elections, when during the campaign before voting day there is only one candidate left - in this case, the columns “for” and “against”; a candidate wins only if more than 50% of those who took part in the voting voted “for” his candidacy).
In this situation, the only way to express your civic position is to find reasons for yourself in favor of voting for a candidate.
The fact that a ballot is damaged will not lead to anything - the ballot will be declared invalid, and this will not affect the voting results as a whole.
Why is it that when there is a preliminary count of votes, they first report some numbers, and then they change. Can such results be trusted?
The fact is that different territories vote differently. City and large sites are often different from rural or small sites. And data on preliminary results first comes from small polling stations, where it’s easier to count votes, but data comes last from the largest polling stations and the difference in votes there is significant in absolute values. Therefore, the final count data may differ from the first results. In addition, even preliminary results must be clarified on the information resources of the election commission.
Based on the election results, many losing parties and candidates talk about fraud, but never bring real criminal cases. Who to believe?
Criminal liability for falsification exists and is applied. Whom he believes in this case is up to you, but if a candidate has reason to believe that the results were formed illegally, then he, having collected evidence with the help of observers, goes to court to cancel the election results. Or quite often, the simply losing candidate justifies his loss in this way, blaming all the blame on commission, regardless of the opinions of voters. Of course, there are cases of falsification, most of which are considered by law enforcement agencies and the courts.
- Is there a record of my attendance at the elections somewhere? Will it affect my future if I don't vote?
Participation in elections in Russia is free and voluntary (unlike a number of foreign countries, where voting is a citizen’s responsibility, failure to comply with which entails a fine or restriction of rights). This, in particular, means that no one has the right to force you to participate or not to participate in elections, or to control your participation in them. Your participation in elections is recorded only in the list of voters for specific elections, which, at the end of voting, is sealed and stored in a sealed form under conditions that exclude access to it, as a rule, for one year, after which it is destroyed. There is no “common database” of persons participating or not participating in elections in Russia. Thus, your non-participation in the elections will not entail any consequences for you, with the exception, of course, of the election of the relevant bodies state power and local government without your participation.
The current election legislation does not provide for a mechanism that would allow a candidate to “give away” the votes he received as a result of the vote. It follows from your question that you are most likely faced with a fairly common “technology” when, on the eve of voting day, one of the candidates uses printed campaign materials (leaflets, newspapers, etc.) or through the media, and sometimes he simply spreads the information at meetings with voters that he is “giving all the votes” in favor of another candidate. In fact, this is just one way of pre-election campaigning for one candidate - the one who “casts” votes - in support of the election of another candidate. It is impossible to challenge such a “procedure” in court due to the fact that in fact no one transfers any votes to anyone. But you won’t be able to “take back” your vote if you have already voted for one candidate or another: if you have already exercised your constitutional right to vote, and the elections are recognized as valid, and the election results are not invalidated, then it will no longer be possible to change your will in a legal way.
Our elections take place in two stages. If I voted in the first round but didn’t go to the second, will my vote decide anything?
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Federal Law of June 12, 2002 No. 67-FZ “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation,” the participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in elections and referendums is free and voluntary.
In Russia, the law does not provide for any sanctions for non-participation in elections, as is done in a number of countries (for example, in Italy, such a sanction as public censure is applied to persons who do not participate in elections; in Argentina, a voter who does not show up for elections is punished will be fined and deprived of the right to obtain a position in the civil service for 3 years; and in Greece, Turkey and even in Austria, imprisonment was provided for non-participation in elections some time ago, albeit for a short period).
In Russia, the legislation does not provide for measures of state coercion in relation to elections, so you can, at your own discretion, make a decision: to participate in the second round (in a repeat vote, to be more precise in the wording) or not.
But at the same time, unfortunately, you must realize that the answer to your question will be negative.
The fact is that based on the results of a repeat vote, the candidate who received the vote in the voting is considered elected. larger number votes in relation to the number of votes received by the other candidate.
In other words, the very fact that you do not appear for a second vote will not affect anything at all - since the elections will still be recognized as valid, and your vote given to one or another candidate in the “first round” will have no effect on counting the vote “in the second round” will not help.
The candidate has been a member of one party for many years, and is now running for another. Is this legal? Can I demand that he not be allowed to participate in the elections?
Indeed, in Federal law dated July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ “On Political Parties” contains a norm (clause 3.1 of Article 36), according to which a political party has no right to nominate candidates for deputies, including as part of lists of candidates, and for other elective positions in government bodies and local government bodies of citizens of the Russian Federation who are members of other political parties.
Please note that your question does not contain enough information to make a legal decision. In practice, it is quite likely that a person long time was a member of one party, then ceased his membership in that party and joined another party. Or there may be a situation where he was a member of the party, then ceased his membership in it, and now, being a non-party member, he is running for another party. All this is in accordance with the law.
However, if you have evidence that this particular candidate at the time (on the day) of nomination from one party was registered as a member of another political party, then in this case This is a significant violation of the law: such a candidate should be denied registration, or he should be excluded from the list of candidates (if he is running as part of the list).
In such a situation, you have the right to contact the election commission, which registers this candidate, with a request to verify the facts you have indicated and take appropriate immediate response measures. (Although in practice it would be much more effective to contact the headquarters of this candidate’s opponents - the lawyers of the headquarters in as soon as possible will check the information and bring the matter, if the information is confirmed, to completion).
- In our city, street voting is held for parties with real ballots and ballot boxes. Is this a real election?
No. This is not a real election. If such an action was carried out on voting day and, as you say, “real” ballots and ballot boxes were used, then you are faced with a gross violation of the current election legislation and an attempt to falsify election documents and voting results.
However, taking into account precisely the fact that the situation you described too clearly contains signs of the corresponding corpus delicti provided for in Articles 142 and 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then, most likely, we are talking about something slightly different. Most likely, the action you described was not carried out on voting day, but at least several days before, that is, during the official campaign period. In this case, most likely, it was not real ballots and ballot boxes that were used, but some “details” for carrying out the corresponding action.
The question of the legality of holding such an event lies in the area of compliance with the legislation on meetings, rallies and other public events. However, it is also impossible to exclude the situation that an event held in such a way fully complies with the law: if the organizers notified local authorities about the event within the established time frame, if the ballots and ballot boxes are only “details” of the corresponding event and are not a “fake” of real ballots and ballot boxes for voting. In any case, final conclusions about the legality of the event you described can only be made based on the results of a thorough check of all available information.
Whose money is spent on organizing elections? Do parties invest or is it us taxpayers?
Expenses associated with the preparation and conduct of elections of deputies of the State Duma are carried out from funds allocated for these purposes from the federal budget, for regional and local elections - from the corresponding budgets. Thus, organizing elections is a taxpayer expense.
- Who finances the elections? Is it the money of parties and candidates or voters?
It depends on what you mean by organizing elections. If the activities of election commissions are carried out, then they are fully financed from the state budget. In other words, elections are held at our expense - at the expense of taxpayers. As for the funds of political parties (electoral associations) and individual candidates, they are accumulated in special accounts of election funds at the expense of their own funds and donations from individuals and legal entities. In part, this is also our money, since parliamentary parties annually receive funds from the budget - a certain amount for each vote they receive in the elections.
Election funds can only be spent on organizing an election campaign, respectively, an electoral association or a candidate.
Subparagraph “a” of paragraph 5 of Article 58 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Clause 2 of Article 59 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Is it possible to recount the ballots or are they counted only once by the precinct election commission?
Ballots can be recounted by the precinct election commission itself if the results of the initial count do not agree with the number of ballots issued, invalid ballots and ballots placed in ballot boxes. A manual recount is also possible using ballot processing complexes (POIB) installed on voting boxes in the event of such a discrepancy.
In addition, the decision to recount votes can be made by a higher commission if, as a result of checking the protocol on the voting results of the precinct commission, inconsistencies and errors are identified. A recount of votes in this case can be carried out either by the precinct commission itself or directly by a higher one.
A recount is also possible at the initiative of a precinct commission, a higher commission and a court if significant violations of electoral legislation are detected during elections. In practice, only a few times it was possible to initiate the issue of recounting ballots in the courts. And every time, when delivering ballots to the court, I had to deal with their absolutely unfair storage. There were also cases when ballots were destroyed.
Advice:Since the main falsifications occur precisely during the counting of votes, drawing up and signing of the protocol at polling stations, it is always easier and more effective to insist on a recount of ballots in the precinct commission than to postpone this procedure for the indefinite future, which greatly reduces the likelihood of a recount.
- Who can be present during the counting of votes, except for commission members and observers?
In addition to commission members and observers, only the following may be present during the counting of votes:
1) members of higher commissions and employees of their apparatus;
2) candidates (registered by this or a higher commission) or their proxies;
3) authorized representatives or proxies of an electoral association (the list of candidates of which is registered by this or a higher commission) or a candidate from the list of this association;
4) representatives of the media (but, as a rule, they try to get rid of them by any means).
Advice: Strict compliance with election laws will be more likely to be ensured if a larger number of active citizens control the vote count. Therefore, you need not to be lazy and become an observer, having received from the participants electoral process relevant powers.
Clause 1 of Article 30 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Paragraph 22 of Article 68 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Subparagraph “e” of paragraph 24 of Article 68 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Clause 9 of Article 69 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Clauses 1 and 1.2 of Article 77 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.
Increasingly, calls are heard to ignore the future elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on December 4, 2011, or to spoil the ballot, thereby expressing their distrust of the procedure and the election organizers. Will this affect the voting results?
It will affect, but not at all in the way you expect. The voter turnout threshold for all elections was abolished back in 2006; elections will be recognized as valid even if only one person takes part in them. No one will notice your absence - moreover, they will even be glad to see you, because the ballot intended for you will remain unfilled; it can be filled out for you. As a result, your vote, against your will, will go to the party that has greater influence on the election commission, which will become your contribution, including, indirectly, to the falsification of elections.
There is no point in damaging ballots either. Your distrust of the elections and their organizers will remain only yours. Deputy portfolios will be distributed only among parties that received 7 or more percent of the votes of voters participating in the voting. The remaining votes and invalid ballots will, in fact, be distributed among the winning parties, in proportion to their results. If there is one favorite among the parties, you can be almost sure that your vote will still be cast for it, again against your will.
Therefore, if you do not want the fate of your vote to be determined for you - to do exactly what is why you already do not trust future elections - come to the polling station and vote for the party closest to your beliefs.
- Is taking an absentee ballot the same as going to the polling station on voting day?
Taking an absentee certificate entails exclusion of the voter from the list of voters at the polling station at his place of residence, and if he does not use it, exclusion from the list of voters for this election altogether. While coming to the polling station on voting day involves receiving a ballot and voting.
- Will spoiled ballots be redistributed in favor of the party that receives the majority of votes?
- Spoiled, and in legal terms, invalid ballots, are not redistributed by themselves. They are not taken into account when distributing mandates to the State Duma. Thus, we can say that the votes of voters who spoiled the ballot are distributed among the parties entering the Duma in proportion to the number of votes received.
- There are rumors that the Russian Central Election Commission is falsifying the election results in favor of the ruling party. Tell me, is there a set of tools for public monitoring of the election process sufficient for everyone who has access to the Internet, if desired, to make sure that:
at all polling stations elections are held in accordance with the regulations of the Central Election Commission,
all polling stations are real objects,
all voters are real personalities and vote with their own hands,
the results for each site are published in the media,
and finally, do the observed results correspond to the published results?
Currently, by decision of the Central Election Commission of Russia, a program is being implemented for online broadcasting from the voting premises of some polling stations. Their list and links to the broadcast can be found on the website of the election commission of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. I think that over time the number of areas equipped with cameras will increase.
In addition, you also have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the data entered into the protocol of each precinct election commission on the website of the election commission of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Data from each polling station is entered by system administrators of the State Automated System “Elections” and is transferred online to the Internet, general access.
Observers from each of the political parties participating in the elections can currently check the reality of all voters and the correctness of the preparation of PEC protocols (entering into it data corresponding to the actual results).
Until 2006, elections in the Russian Federation were considered valid only if 20% of voters included in the lists participated in them at the regional level; in elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation - at least 25%; in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation - at least 50% of voters. To date, the minimum turnout threshold for all elections in the Russian Federation has been abolished.
On March 6, 1994, elections to the Lipetsk City Assembly of Representatives were held. But not a single deputy was elected to the municipal parliament. Due to low voter turnout, the elections were declared invalid in all 15 urban districts. Then the chairman of the regional election commission, Ivan Zhilyakov, blamed the parliamentary candidates themselves for the failure of the elections. In the Lipetskaya Gazeta he stated that “the people are confused in a huge number candidates for power without knowing anything specific about them. And the candidates themselves did nothing to make themselves known to voters.”
In 2001, elections to the Moscow Regional Duma took place. In the cities of Vidnoye and Elektrostal, elections were canceled due to the presence of only one candidate each for a deputy mandate. In addition, due to low voter turnout, the elections were declared invalid in the Krasnogorsk (23.56%) and Lyubertsy (24.7%) districts. The number of voters in these constituencies did not reach the required 25%.
In 2002, elections for the President of the Republic were held in Serbia. Only 2.99 of 6.5 million voters went to the polls. This represents 45.5% of the republic's citizens with voting rights. According to Serbian law, if less than 50% of voters turn out to vote, it is declared invalid. Thus, the results of the presidential elections were annulled.
Presidential elections in Montenegro took place on February 9, 2003. Filip Vujanovic received an absolute majority of votes, but the elections were declared invalid because According to the electoral law, participation had to be at least 50%, and the turnout in the last elections was only 46.64%. The low turnout was attributed to bad weather, an opposition boycott, and general voter disillusionment with the fact that the presidency was seen as purely ceremonial.
On March 27, 2005, elections of deputies to the city council were held in the capital of Transnistria, Tiraspol. At polling stations No. 4 and No. 26, the elections were declared invalid. Voter turnout then did not reach the required 50%. The Tiraspol Territorial Election Commission decided to re-execution elections, which took place on June 26 and, unlike previous ones, brought results.
The results of the popular referendum held on June 21 and 22, 2009 in Italy do not have legislative force. The reason for this was insufficient voter turnout. The referendum was dedicated to the reform of the current electoral law. To recognize the referendum as valid, it is necessary that the majority of eligible voters take part in the voting - that is, 50% + 1 voter. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which performs the functions of the election commission, only 16% of voters turned out for the elections.
The referendum on early presidential elections in Abkhazia, held on July 10, 2016, was declared invalid due to catastrophically low turnout. It amounted to 1.23% of total number voters. In total, 1,628 people out of almost 133 thousand took part in the voting. According to local law, a referendum is considered valid only if at least 50% of voters take part in the voting.
The referendum on renaming Macedonia to North Macedonia, held on September 30, 2018, was declared invalid due to low turnout. Voter turnout was less than the 50% required to recognize the voting results. Only a third of citizens expressed their agreement or disagreement with changing the country's name. In total, 592 thousand people out of 1.8 million voters took part in the referendum. The Election Commission declared the vote invalid. However, more than 90% of those who voted were in favor of changing the name of the state.
Measures have been developed aimed at increasing the legitimacy of elections in Russia. The corresponding bill prepared by the deputy Margarita Svergunova, submitted to the State Duma.
It is proposed to legislatively establish a minimum threshold for voter turnout - at least 50% of voters included in the voter lists for the elections of the President of the Russian Federation, State Duma deputies, as well as for elections to government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This indicator is planned to be taken into account when the elections are declared invalid. An exception is provided for elections to local government bodies.
Let us recall that previously elections were declared invalid if less than 20% of the number of voters included in the voter lists took part in them. At the same time, the specified minimum percentage could be increased for elections to federal bodies of state power, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and reduced for elections of deputies to representative bodies of municipalities. The law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation allowed to provide that a minimum percentage of the number of voters for recognizing the elections of deputies of representative bodies of a municipal formation as valid is not established. Also, a minimum turnout threshold was in effect for the elections of the President of the Russian Federation, which were declared invalid if less than half of the voters included in the voter lists at the end of voting took part in them. For elections of State Duma Deputies, the voter turnout threshold was 25%. However, the corresponding norms were then excluded.
According to the author of the initiative, today the absence of a threshold for voter turnout during elections to government bodies calls into question the legitimacy of elected bodies elected in elections with the participation of less than half of the voters included in the voter lists.
Svergunova believes that the introduction of the proposed norms will make it possible to form government bodies taking into account the opinions of the majority of voters, which will give greater legitimacy to elected bodies, helping to strengthen power throughout the country as a whole. Also, the implementation of the bill will increase the responsibility of election commissions, in particular, in informing voters about elections, active suffrage, active citizenship, etc.
Elections at all levels in Russia will be legal regardless of how many voters want to participate in them. The corresponding amendment to the electoral legislation was approved yesterday working group State Duma Committee on State Construction. According to experts, the main purpose of this amendment is to artificially reduce turnout for the next presidential elections, which should guarantee the Kremlin a painless solution to the “2008 problem.”
The author of the new legislative initiative was the deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on State ConstructionAlexander Moskalets("United Russia"), who proposed a number of amendments to the law "On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation." Let us recall that a package of amendments to this law, significantly changing the rules of elections at all levels, was adopted by the State Duma in the first reading in June of this year, and now the preparation of the bill for the second reading is being completed.The formal argument in favor of abolishing the turnout threshold was the argument that there is no such restriction in many developed democracies, in particular in the United States. In fact, as the head of the Mercator research group told Kommersant, Dmitry Oreshkin , the amendment is being adopted in the interests of the Kremlin and the two current parties in power represented by " United Russia" and the party "A Just Russia: Motherland/Pensioners/Life". As Mr. Oreshkin emphasized, based on many years of experience in regional elections, when turnout is low, it is mainly pensioners who come to vote. In the 90s, they, as a rule, chose either the party in power, or the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But the latest elections to regional parliaments, held in October with a very low turnout of 35-40%, showed that now the most disciplined voters most often prefer one of the two parties in power - United Russia or the "current left" from the newborn " A Just Russia."
In other words, the Kremlin, which expects to maintain control over the Duma even after the 2007 parliamentary elections, low turnout objectively beneficial. According to Mr. Oreshkin, “65% of voters are still asleep” and are not interested in any of the parties in power, so he has no doubt that in the Duma elections the Kremlin political strategists will try to use “low turnout technology.” She may play an even more important role in the 2008 presidential elections, where there will no longer be such a clear leader as Vladimir Putin in 2000 and 2004. But if turnout remains at 50 percent in these elections, betting on a decrease in voter turnout could lead to disruption of the vote. “And in order not to risk anything, it was decided to completely remove all turnout limits,” says Dmitry Oreshkin. In this case, the “active electorate” will regularly vote for a presidential successor, and the “2008 problem” will be successfully resolved.True, the initiatives of Deputy Moskalets are not limited to questions of attendance...Mr. Moskalets actually proposed, following the already legalized refusal to campaign “against everyone,” to prohibit candidates from criticizing their competitors in elections. In his opinion, candidates for elective positions in their campaign speeches should not call on voters to vote against other parties and candidates, describe the negative consequences of their election, or disseminate information “contributing to the creation negative attitude to the candidate." That is, all pre-election campaigning, according to Deputy Moskalets, should be reduced to candidates praising their own merits, and any critical statement about a competitor will become a reason for withdrawal from the elections.
Representatives of the opposition considered the new legislative initiatives of United Russia to be another blow to the very institution of elections. “It would have been easier to cancel the elections altogether,” Boris Nadezhdin, secretary of the SPS Political Council, told Kommersant. With the updated rules, in his opinion, this will still “be a completely different event, but not the elections in which the people, in accordance with the Constitution, become the source of power.”
At the same time, Dmitry Oreshkin suspects that amendments that clearly contradict the Constitution (such as banning criticism of opponents or refusing registration to persons under arrest) were deliberately introduced by United Russia in order to “divert the attention of the opposition and the indignant public to them.” Ultimately, the political scientist believes, the Kremlin will abandon them, but will be able to “legitimize those that it really needs, in particular the abolition of the turnout threshold.”The amendment on restoring the institution of early voting in elections at all levels, which the Central Election Commission resolutely opposed, could play approximately the same “masking” role. It is no coincidence that the head of the Duma Committee on State Construction, Vladimir Pligin, commenting yesterday on the results of the meeting of the working group, first of all announced its readiness to remove the clause on early voting from the bill. In addition, the working group corrected (but did not exclude, as required by the head of the Central Election Commission Alexander Veshnyakov) the rule on the removal of candidates from elections for incomplete information provided about themselves. Now all election commissions, before removing a candidate for such violations, are obliged to inform him about inaccuracies found in his documents and provide time to eliminate the shortcomings. True, the commissions are required to do this no later than two days before the final decision is made, so candidates may simply not have enough time to correct inaccuracies.
