Results of parliamentary elections. History of elections to the State Duma in modern Russia
The Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology (Sulakshin Center) carried out a mathematical reconstruction of the true, scientifically based voting results.
Mathematics provides a way to prove not only the fact of falsification, but also its scale, nature and organization of the management of the process of falsification, and, in addition, allows us to reconstruct the true voting results; the results both in terms of turnout and the number of votes actually received by parties and candidates, how the traces of mass violations were “covered up.”
I.Analysis methodology
The initial data for the analysis are data officially published on the website of the Russian Central Election Commission for all more than 95,000 polling stations.
The methodology for identifying the truth of elections is based on the following principles.
If the distribution deviates from the Gaussoid, it means that there was interference in the elections (Fig. 2).
State Duma elections 2016 (party list)
Fig. 2 The deviation from the Gaussoid in favor of the candidates (parties) from power - “United Russia” is shaded in black. The ratio of the black area under the curve and the white area under the Gaussian gives the falsification coefficient
Citizens' preferences for different parties or candidates in “fair” elections do not depend on turnout. If a Gaussian “honest” cloud of votes is visible, but with increasing turnouts, an increase in votes in favor of the candidate and party in power and a drop in votes for the opposition, this means that this is clearly falsification, which is clearly seen in the example of the 2016 elections Penza region(Fig. 3).
Fig.3 The honest “cloud” of the opposition is higher than the “cloud” of the United Russia party. The rest was thrown in and attributed to the benefit of the United Russia party and to the loss of the opposition
If in many polling stations in the region the result of the party in power is the same to within hundredths of a percent, then this means that the command was given to “get” just such a result. This is especially clearly visible in the Saratov region for the United Russia party in 100 polling stations - the result is 62.15%.
If the falsification coefficients for the regions of Russia coincide with statistical accuracy both for the falsification of results for the party list and for majoritarian districts, then this proves centralized x the nature of falsification management.
II. The scale of fraud in the 2016 State Duma elections
The official results of the September 18, 2016 elections to the State Duma, published by the Russian Central Election Commission, are as follows.
The turnout according to the Russian Central Election Commission was 47.88%.
Based on the mathematical reconstruction methodology outlined above, we will analyze the voting results in the elections of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on September 18, 2016 and identify their real results.
As can be seen from the above data, the Gaussian “cloud” for both voting on party lists and in majoritarian constituencies indicates that the “fair” turnout of real voting is 35%, but not 47.88% recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission.
Thus, based on the scientific methodology of mathematical reconstruction of the analysis of voting results in the elections of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on September 18, 2016 first conclusion is this: in the organic Gaussian vote cloud, the average turnout was 35% for both types of voting. Increase in official turnout to 47.88%, recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission, is unreliable and is the result of falsifications, which is clearly visible on the right wing of the Gaussian distribution, which goes beyond the boundaries of the pure Gaussian curve.
Second . From Fig. 4 - the results of voting by party lists and Fig. 5 - the results of voting by majoritarian districts, it is clear that in an organic Gaussian cloud, that is, in a truly fair election, the United Russia party received fewer votes than the opposition.
Third . On the right wing of the voting results for party lists and majoritarian districts (see Figures 4 and 5), clear unambiguous signs of falsification are visible - “spikes” in turnout multiples of 5% and 10%. A particularly outstanding “spike” - 95% turnout is recorded for the United Russia party.
Fourth . The left wing of the organic Gaussoid is clearly visible at small turnouts, and this makes it possible to reproduce the right wing symmetrically. From here it becomes possible to calculate the true number of “honest” votes cast in the elections, and the number of votes attributed or falsified.
Let's evaluate the election results for the United Russia party by simply comparing the areas under the bell curves and the falsified long right wing. The assessment results are shown in Table 1.
Assessing the true outcome for the United Russia party
The coincidence of falsification coefficients for party lists and majoritarian elections for the United Russia party is not accidental. This indicates that the falsification campaign was under unified control and with a single goal. The same tasks were set - “bars” for the result.
Instead of 343 seats in the State Duma, according to the official total, the real total for the United Russia party is 134 seats.
The falsified 209 mandates transferred to the United Russia party are actually in a state of “seizure of power and appropriation of power,” which is prohibited by the Constitution Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Russia.
In Fig. Figure 6 clearly shows how much the United Russia party lost to the opposition in both types of voting in a more or less adequate area of turnout.
Rice. 6. In reality, United Russia lost to the opposition
As can be seen from the figures shown. 6 data, in the area of unfalsified results, the United Russia party lost to the opposition by about a third of parliamentary seats. A complete falsified bacchanalia for the United Russia party to the detriment of the opposition parties is observed in the right wing of the chart.
The next pattern that helps to reveal falsification is the law of independence of the electorate’s preference for a particular candidate from turnout (Fig. 7).
Rice. 7. It is theoretically clear that voter preferences should not depend on turnout
If the distribution has a positive angle deviation from the horizontal (from left to right up) - then this indicates falsification in the form of attribution of votes. If there is a deviation from the horizontal to the minus (from left to right down) - then this is falsification on the contrary in the form of theft of votes.
This methodological approach allows us to identify the amount of falsification in voting for parties and their candidates in all subjects of the Federation.
A quantitative measure of the degree of falsification is determined by the slope of the distribution curve - the falsification coefficient. If it is positive, then this is falsification in favor of the corresponding party or candidate, votes are attributed to him. If it is negative, then, on the contrary, it is falsification at a loss; in this case, votes are stolen.
In Fig. 8 (Voronezh region) shows a typical and almost standard form of curves, which is reproduced in almost all subjects of the Federation. Each point on these diagrams is the number of votes for a particular party or candidate at a particular precinct. In all subjects of the Federation, with rare exceptions, the winner (the United Russia party) has a deviation of “+”, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, both the main oppositionist, and the rest of the opposition parties have a deviation of “-”. Dense organic clouds with a small scatter are observed (Fig. 8), i.e., a low level of dispersion. And the second, elongated cloud, which has a very high level variances. It will soon be seen that one of the “clouds” corresponds to true results, and the second - falsified ones.
Fig.8. A typical picture of fraud in favor of the United Russia party and the taking of votes from other parties. Deviation angles from the horizontal – falsification coefficient
This example for the Voronezh region shows a typical picture. The right “tails” of the distributions for United Russia, being falsified, are always directed to the right and upward. For the opposition, the direction is always the opposite “right-down”.
The Report contains data on falsification in favor of the United Russia party and the taking away of votes from other parties in all subjects of the Russian Federation.
The distribution of the falsification coefficient across the subjects of the Federation (comparative data) for voting on the party list and in majoritarian districts is shown in Fig. 9.
Fig.9. Fraud rate for the United Russia party for all subjects of the federation for majoritarian elections and for the party list
From the nature of the curves it is clear that the falsifications were synchronized both on the United Russia party list and on its candidates in majoritarian districts. The correlation coefficient of the curves is very high - it was 0.86!
We especially emphasize that the average coefficient of falsifications in favor of candidates and parties in power in 2016 was 1.9 times higher than in 2011.
III. Mechanism of election fraud
The voting results during the 2016 elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation were falsified in several ways: the stuffing of false ballots; drawing up false protocols; fraud with the absentee mechanism; fraud with fake voters (the so-called carousel); fraud committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group, combined with bribery, coercion, the use of violence or the threat of its use; threats to teachers and other poor souls in precinct election commissions with dismissal in the event of a low result in the elections of the government's favorites.
The facts of falsification are evidenced by numerous video evidence, personal testimony of eyewitnesses, photos and videos of ballot stuffing at many polling stations by members and even chairmen of election commissions.
In fair elections, citizens' preferences do not depend on turnout: that is, the ratio of the number of votes for one party to the number of votes for another, votes for one candidate to votes for another does not depend on turnout. In the direct exit pool conducted by VTsIOM, which cannot be suspected of being in opposition to the authorities and the Russian Central Election Commission, there is no dependence on turnout at the exit from polling stations!
The figures above show that up to a turnout of 47%, the United Russia party is seriously losing to the opposition. But starting with a turnout of 47%, the opposite is true. And the higher the turnout, the more the United Russia party begins to “win” against the opposition. Moreover, the curves practically coincide for voting on the party list and in majoritarian districts. It is important that in the turnout range of 25-40%, which corresponds to the organic cloud of “honest” voting, the attitude really does not depend on turnout. This means that the data here can be relatively trusted. In this range, the United Russia party lost to the opposition by 1.42 times. The average turnout in this range is 32.5%.
For this turnout, the number of voters who voted in the elections is 35,690 thousand people. The true ratio of votes for the United Russia party and the entire aggregate opposition revealed above (1.42 times) allows us to obtain the true absolute number of votes for the United Russia party and the corresponding result (percentage). It turns out that the United Russia party actually received 14,750 thousand votes. Officially, the Russian Central Election Commission announced 28,525 thousand votes for the United Russia party. And this corresponds to 54.28%. And the true result is 27.9%.
Results of reconstruction of the true election results
As a result, we come to the conclusion that the United Russia party was supported by just over 13% of all registered voters and less than 10% of the country’s population. The counterfeiters illegally increased its result by more than 1.5 times! More than 200 people came to the State Duma of the Russian Federation to “work” on the basis of illegally assigned powers of power! In other words, there was an illegal seizure of power!
Meanwhile, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 3.Part 4. it is stated that “no one has the right to appropriate power in the Russian Federation. Seizure of power or appropriation of power is prosecuted under federal law - the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In particular, Article 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power - states that “actions aimed at the forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power in violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation ... are punishable by imprisonment for a term of twelve to twenty years.. ."
Federal election fraud state power State Duma of the Russian Federation is also part of a criminal offense. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 142. Falsification of election documents, referendum documents.
"1. Falsification of election documents ... if this act is committed by a member of the election commission ... is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to four years, or imprisonment for the same period….
2. Forgery of voter signatures, ... or certification of knowingly forged signatures (signature sheets), committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group, or combined with bribery, coercion, the use of violence or the threat of its use, ... is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand...or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term...
3. Illegal production of... ballots..., absentee certificates is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles... or imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years.”
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 142.1. Falsification of voting results. “The inclusion of uncounted ballots among the ballots used in voting, or the deliberate submission of incorrect information about voters, or the deliberately incorrect compilation of voter lists, ... or falsification of voter signatures, ... or the replacement of valid ballots with voter marks, leading to the inability to determine the will of voters, ... or deliberately incorrect counting of votes, ... or signing by members of the election commission ... of a protocol on voting results before counting votes or establishing voting results, or deliberately incorrect (not corresponding to the actual voting results) drawing up a protocol on voting results, or illegal entry into the protocol on voting results changes after its completion, or knowingly incorrect determination of voting results, determination of election results... - is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles... or forced labor for a term of up to four years, or imprisonment for the same term.”
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 141. Obstruction of the exercise of electoral rights or the work of election commissions.
« 1. Obstructing a citizen’s free exercise of his electoral rights, violating the secrecy of voting, ... obstructing the work of election commissions, ... the activities of a member of an election commission, ... - is punishable by a fine of up to eighty thousand rubles ... or ... correctional labor for up to one year.
2. The same acts:
a) connected with bribery, deception, coercion, use of violence or the threat of its use;
b) committed by a person using his official position;
c) committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy or by an organized group - is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand... or imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
3. Interference, through the use of official or official position, in the exercise by an election commission ... of its powers, ... with the aim of influencing its decisions, namely a demand or instruction official on issues of registration of candidates, lists of candidates, counting votes...is punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand...or imprisonment for a term of up to four years.”
IY. conclusions
1.The official turnout of 48%, recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission, is unreliable and does not exceed 35% for both party list voting and majoritarian constituencies, or The turnout recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission was falsified and inflated by 1.45 times.
2. During the voting, the United Russia party actually received not 54% of the party list, as recorded by the Russian Central Election Commission, but 27.9% of the number of voters, or 13.2% of the number of registered voters and less than 10% of the country’s population . Counterfeiters illegally increased its result by more than 1.5 times.
3. Instead of 343 seats in the State Duma of the Russian Federation, according to the official total, the real total for the United Russia party is 134 seats.
The falsified 209 mandates transferred to the United Russia party are actually in a state of “seizure of power and appropriation of power,” which is prohibited by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Russia.
General conclusion : a scientifically based analysis of the election process on September 18, 2016 indicates that the elections to the State Duma were held with gross violations, massive falsifications and are subject to cancellation, and State Duma 2016 isillegal.
The saddest thing about this problem is that only certain individuals are actively fighting against gross violations, falsification, scandalous elections, such as T. Yurasova in Mytishchi, S. Posokhov in Krasnogorsk, R. Zinatullin in Tatarstan and a number of others, but not the opposition parties LDPR, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, A Just Russia, which were “robbed” during the election process and the only media outlet – Novaya Gazeta.
Meanwhile, it is the factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party, A Just Russia in the State Duma of the Russian Federation that could bring to the meeting of the State Duma of the Russian Federation the issue of gross violations and massive fraud in the elections of September 18, 2016 with the aim of making a political decision - self-dissolution illegal State Duma of the Russian Federation and an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation as the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to call new elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
Massive violations and falsification during the 2016 State Duma elections affect a significant number of citizens and have acquired special socio-political significance. In this regard, within the framework of its powers, the Central Election Commission of Russia has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the protection of the electoral rights of the majority of citizens, as well as to the General Prosecutor's Office and the Investigative Committee of Russia to take prosecutorial response measures and initiate criminal proceedings for the commission of crimes provided for in Articles 141, 142, 142.1, 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, identifying those responsible for violating current legislation.
With sincere respect (Yu. Voronin)
Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor,
Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic -
Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the TASSR (1988-1990);
First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme
Council of the Russian Federation (1991-1993); State Duma deputy
(second convocation); auditor of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation.
The next elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation will be held September 18, 2016. Previously, elections were scheduled for December of the same year, but in mid-2015 they decided to carry them out for various reasons.
The proportional system, according to which elections were held in previous convocations, has sunk into oblivion. It is being replaced by a majoritarian-proportional system. As a result, half of the people's representatives will enter the Duma on the lists of their parties, and the second half will fight for the right to receive the honorary title of “deputy” in their single-mandate constituencies.
The current elected representatives of the people, who want to continue their legislative activities in the hall of the State Duma, have already begun preparatory stage to the start of the election campaign. Consultative negotiations with the Kremlin are in full swing, and after the nationwide celebration of the 70th anniversary Great Victory many of the current deputies will begin to choose a single-mandate constituency for their “hilling”. Experienced parliamentarians know that “the sooner you sow, the more you reap.”
Young political forces have not yet been noticed in particular election activity. Perhaps they think it’s too early, or maybe they don’t want to irritate their more eminent competitors in advance.
As of mid-September 2014, 14 parties vying for participation in the 2016 election race exempt from the need to collect signatures. In addition to the current representatives of the State Duma, this list includes:
List of parties elected to the State Duma in 2016
- "Just Cause";
- "Civic Platform";
- Russian Party of Pensioners “For Justice”;
- RPR-PARNASUS;
- "Civil Power";
- "Apple";
- "Patriots of Russia";
- "Communists of Russia";
- "Motherland";
- "Green Party".
According to political analysts, from the current composition of the deputy corps from the United Russia party, no more than fifty people have a chance to be elected in single-mandate constituencies. Therefore, the party leadership and curators in the Kremlin have already given instructions to their representatives in the regions, as well as activists "Popular Front", after local elections in September, intensify the search for worthy candidates for the seventh convocation of the State Duma of Russia.
This task was sent to the localities for a reason; the whole point is that most of the United Russia members of the current parliamentary corps do not have practical skills in working with voters in the regions.
It is planned that a specially created analytical department of United Russia will monitor active applicants on the ground and ultimately select the best from them. After this procedure, the active phase of “promotion” of the selected activists will begin. At the beginning of 2015, they will begin to “shine” at various significant events and events in the territories entrusted to them and speak on behalf of their native party. But this does not mean that they will become “untouchable”. Each of these activists may have a backup, and if the main contender fails or his rating is low among local voters, an “updated version” of the candidate from the “party in power” will appear on the “stage.”
After the adoption of the new Law on Elections in Society great importance will play personal qualities future politicians. Since half of the parliamentary corps will consist of single-mandate voters, the candidates will be those who have charisma, have good oratorical skills and know how to answer questions from voters. In addition, the number of candidates will include “people of action” - successful industrialists and entrepreneurs who have proven their ability to achieve success beyond words.
And some interesting facts from the history of elections in Russia:
— Only three political forces took part in all six election campaigns to the State Duma - LDPR, Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Yabloko;
— The parties that managed to obtain deputy mandates in all six convocations were only the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation;
— Three representatives political forces Russia managed to recruit greatest number votes during elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation: in 1993 - LDPR; in 1995 and 1999 - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation; in 2003, 2007 and 2011 - United Russia.
The State Duma is the lower house of parliament, together with the Federal Assembly it represents the legislative power in our country. The status and powers of the State Duma are defined in the Constitution.
As a result of the Constitutional reform of 1993, this political institution exercising supreme legislative power was again established in our country after a long break (since 1917). Elections to the State Duma took place in December 1993. The powers of the Duma of the 1st convocation were exercised for a transition period of 2 years. The last time the Duma was elected for 5 years.
The constitutional powers of the State Duma are not limited only to the adoption federal laws, including also giving consent to the appointment of heads of the most important government bodies, declaring amnesties, and even the initiative to remove the president from power.
Elections to the Duma are regulated not only by the norms of the Constitution, but also by the law “On the elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.” The next elections to the State Duma were to be held in December next year, but On July 3, 2015, deputies decided to postpone the elections from December to September. Such a decision was first discussed in 2015, when representatives of the most influential parliamentary factions proposed changing the legislation.
Postponement of elections - pros and cons
Changes to the law on elections of State Duma deputies mean a change not only for 2016, this order will continue in the future. The draft law was initiated by the leaders of United Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia in May 2015. The reasons for the postponement were primarily the idea of adding voting for State Duma deputies to a single voting day, which traditionally takes place in the regions in September since 2013.
Already in June, the bill was submitted to the State Duma, receiving a positive opinion from the Russian government. On July 1, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation allowed the postponement of election day, recognizing this proposal as constitutional. It is interesting that representatives of the presidential administration, speaking about postponing the election date, distanced themselves from the initiative, leaving its adoption (or non-acceptance) to the discretion of legislators.
According to a number of political scientists, politicians and journalists, the initiative to postpone the elections to the State Duma is caused by the desire of pro-government deputies to prevent opposition parties and movements that are not controlled by the current government from entering the State Duma (for example, Parnas).
An analysis of the results of unified voting days held in Russia since 2013 shows that many voters do not take part in voting during this period. The reasons for this may be either the unfinished dacha season or insufficient interest in the elections at the local and regional level in general. As for the part of the electorate that is guaranteed to participate in the vote, it traditionally stands for United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and the Liberal Democratic Party.
The arguments of supporters of the initiative to change the election legislation also look reasonable. Thus, Sergei Neverov, Chairman of the General Council of United Russia, explains the idea of postponing the election date by so that the new composition of the State Duma is determined before the budget for next year is adopted.
The most vulnerable is the expectation of saving budget funds from the early termination of powers of the old State Duma, since the payment of compensation to deputies of the current convocation will cover the possible positive effect of savings. And the chairman of the Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov, does not share, according to him, hopes for an economic effect from postponing the elections.
Mixed system - what are the features
The Law on the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation establishes amended rules for the election of deputies: for the first time in 2016, they will be held according to the updated system. Voters will now need to vote both on party lists and in single-mandate constituencies (225 State Duma members each).
Half of the parliamentarians will be elected from party lists. There are a number of requirements for inclusion in the party list:
- support of voters in the region (at least 3% of the vote in the previous elections;
- current representation of parties in the regions (in local parliaments);
- 200 thousand signatures of voters (if the party is young and does not yet have its representatives in the regions).
In general, innovations should have a positive effect on political competition - after all, parties operating in a certain region will have to compete for the necessary voter support. It is also interesting that according to the changes in
Law on Political Parties, registration threshold for “newborns” political parties reduced to 500 thousand people, and the number of registered increased 10 times. The remaining 225 deputies will be determined as a result of elections in single-mandate constituencies. The election system for them is simple: one district - one deputy. The country is divided into districts according to several principles:
- on the territory of each region - at least one district;
- maximum equality of parliamentary representation for voters in each region;
- deviations in the creation of districts in different regions can be quite large (due to differences in population size in different parts countries).
As for the last point, it exists for the possibility of creating a single-mandate district in a subject of the Russian Federation where the population density is low, for example, Evenkia, Buryatia, although in densely populated areas there will, of course, be more districts.
Russians' opinions on the State Duma elections
Public opinion polls, in particular from the Foundation Public opinion”, show that the country’s residents are generally calm about changing the election date. As justification for the transfer, most respondents cite cost savings (no need to spend money on a single vote and elections to the State Duma), the speedy adoption of decisions by the new Duma, and the preservation of political stability in the country.
At the same time, the majority of Russians are ready to take part in the vote (about 79%). As always, the most active part of the electorate is the older generation of voters.
Assessing the innovations in legislation related to the elections to the State Duma, we can say that they are convenient for the ordinary voter - he will know who exactly represents his region in parliament, and for the first time in the elections one can expect not only political competition between parties, but also personalities, politicians vying for the mandate of a State Duma deputy (including those who are not adherents of any party), and changing the election date will not have a catastrophic effect on voter turnout at the ballot boxes.
Much more important, what changes actually await the country after the convening of the Duma in 2016? Let's hope only positive ones...
Who will you vote for in the State Duma elections?
- Vote
Experts predict that after the presidential elections in 2018, reform of the political system will begin
Photo: Vladimir Afanasyev / “Parliamentary newspaper”
Leveling the competitiveness of parties will become one of the main directions of reform of the political system in Russia. And one of her vectors will be the consolidation of parties. This was stated by participants in the meeting of the Expert Club of the Parliamentary Newspaper, which took place on October 12.
"Multi-subject" instead of manual control
The moderator of the Expert Club of the Parliamentary Newspaper, a political scientist, said that the reform of the political system is overdue, since the existing mechanism for forming the Russian parliament has successfully fulfilled its task of cutting off populist groups from the legislative power. And, according to him, the drop in turnout at the elections, which was noted by political scientists on the single voting day on September 10, is “reasonable voter behavior.” The expert believes that the substantive difference of the future reform is that the regime of personal power under one, albeit an excellent leader, will be replaced by “multi-subjectivity.”
“The mechanism for making collegial decisions will be stronger than manual control“- Markov said about one of the reform options.
Mikhail Emelyanov. Photo: Igor Samokhvalov / Parliamentary Newspaper
Also, according to him, a very real scenario is when political parties in Russia will become a platform for the integration of government and big business. For example, he explained, if in some city there is businessman No. 1, then there is also businessman No. 2, who will always be in conflict with the first. Each of them needs its own political support, its own party - such a system works in dozens of countries around the world. In Russia, for now, business places more emphasis on supporting governors or mayors than deputies. The political scientist believes that the situation should change in favor of the parties.
The voter does not go to the polls because he is sure that all parties in Russia are the same, and voting is needed “for show,” said the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on State Building and Legislation, a deputy from the A Just Russia faction. The parliamentarian is convinced that reform of the political system in Russia is impossible without proposals from the parties themselves. According to him, individual people in the systemic opposition have been talking about this for a long time and there are more and more such people.
Ivan Abramov. Photo: Igor Samokhvalov / Parliamentary Newspaper
“No one will break the parties over their knees - such a reform will not restore the trust of voters. I think the authorities will mark the path to reform so that the parties can move forward along it themselves,” the legislator noted.
And now, according to Mikhail Yemelyanov, it is necessary to create a coordination council for opposition parliamentary parties - this will make it easier to promote initiatives. Moreover, for example, the introduction of a progressive tax scale in Russia is supported by all three opposition factions in the Duma. Therefore, the deputy believes that the unification of A Just Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, “is not such a fantastic idea.”
Towards bipartisanship
Reform of the political system will begin immediately after the presidential elections in Russia in March 2018, experts are convinced. And we will hear proposals on how to implement changes already during the election statements of presidential candidates - the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Regional Policy and Problems of the North is sure of this. Far East, deputy from the LDPR faction.
“The demand for a strong opposition has already been formed in society. And the candidate who formulates it will have a great chance of winning,” he believes.
Konstantin Babkin. Photo: Igor Samokhvalov / Parliamentary Newspaper
And the parliamentarian sees the essence of the reform in the consolidation of political parties. At the same time, the parliamentarian noted: if the current electoral legislation worked one hundred percent, then the question of the majority party would always be open.
Experts agree that the emergence of a “second major party” along with United Russia will make it possible to get away from the situation where the interests of a huge number of Russians are not expressed in any way during the elections. A political strategist Andrey Kolyadin noted: the authorities will not give a signal for reform if there is no specific project for changing the political system. As they say, no project - no solutions.
Andrey Kolyadin. Photo: Igor Samokhvalov / Parliamentary Newspaper
Meanwhile, not everyone is sure that the reform of the political system will begin in 2018. But in 2021, the State Duma will be formed according to a different principle - few people have doubts about this. In particular, this opinion was expressed to the Parliamentary Newspaper by the head of the Party of Causes. Konstantin Babkin.
“Elections will become more competitive, there will be more competition. In any case, our party feels the desire to suppress our political activity, and it really hopes for this,” he noted.
The seventh composition of the modern State Duma of Russia was elected in September 2016 and officially began working in October of the same year. The term of office of the Duma is five years, provided that it is not dissolved by the president of the country (which can only be done in individual cases and which has never happened in the history of modern Russia). Thus, the seventh train as such will operate until the fall of 2021. However, this year there will be by-elections to the Duma in several regions of Russia, which for various reasons do not yet have their own deputy in the lower house of the Russian parliament. Elections to the State Duma in September 2018 in Russia - the date of voting, in which regions by-elections of deputies will take place.
Date of elections to the State Duma in 2018
By-elections of deputies will be held on September 9, 2018 - on a single voting day, which traditionally falls at the beginning of September.On the same day, the country will hold all other elections scheduled for this year, with the exception of the presidential elections, which take place in March.
These are elections of governors of several regions (including Moscow), elections of deputies of several regional parliaments and elections of deputies of city parliaments in a number of cities across the country.
By-elections of State Duma deputies will take place in six regions of Russia:
- Amur region,
- Kaliningrad region,
- Nizhny Novgorod Region,
- Samara Region,
- Saratov region,
- Tver region.
Elections of a State Duma deputy in September 2018 in the Amur region
The Duma deputy from the 71st Amur single-mandate electoral district was Ivan Abramov from the LDPR party. On June 13 of this year, the Duma released him from his mandate - Abramov is one of the contenders for the post of senator from the Amur region.If former MP will become a senator of the Federation Council, formally this means a promotion - from the lower house of parliament Abramov will get to the highest.
In order to fill the vacant deputy seat, by-elections will be held in 71 constituencies in September.
Elections of a State Duma deputy in September 2018 in the Kaliningrad region
In the 98th Central single-mandate electoral district of the Kaliningrad region, there has been formally no Duma deputy since May 10 of this year. In fact, Alexey Silanov stopped performing the functions of a deputy even earlier - in April.Silanov became the head of Kaliningrad after the former head of the city, Alexander Yaroshuk, resigned early.
Since there are no direct elections for the mayor in Kaliningrad, the new head was elected by local deputies. To ensure that the seat of the deputy from the 98th district does not remain empty, and that residents of the region have their own representative in the federal parliament, by-elections to the Duma will be held here on September 9, 2018.
Elections of a State Duma deputy in September 2018 in the Nizhny Novgorod region
The deputy from the 129th Nizhny Novgorod single-mandate electoral district has not been in the Duma since January 19 of this year. IN Nizhny Novgorod a story similar to what happened a little later in Kaliningrad occurred. Two days earlier, on January 17, the former deputy from the 129th district, Vladimir Panov, became the mayor of Nizhny Novgorod.Panov was also elected by the local Nizhny Novgorod Duma, since there are no direct elections for the head of the city in Nizhny Novgorod.
According to rumors, Panov asked to be released from his mandate as a Duma deputy even before he was formally appointed head of Nizhny.
Elections of a State Duma deputy in September 2018 in the Samara region
On the same day when the Duma released the deputy from the Amur region from his mandate, Nadezhda Kolesnikova, a deputy from the 158th Samara single-mandate electoral district, was also released from her mandate.On June 13 of this year, Kolesnikova ceased to be a Duma deputy. According to rumors, she was offered a place in Russian ministry enlightenment.
Elections of a State Duma deputy in September 2018 in the Saratov region
The Saratov region is missing two State Duma deputies at once.Firstly, a year ago, on June 17, 2017, a deputy from the 163rd Saratov single-mandate electoral district, Oleg Grishchenko, died. Since it was too late to call by-elections in September at that time, the constituency was left without a deputy until September 2018.
Secondly, in October 2017, a deputy from the 165th Balashov single-mandate electoral district, Mikhail Isaev, became acting and then elected mayor of Saratov.
Elections of a State Duma deputy in September 2018 in the Tver region
In October 2017, on the same day that Mikhail Isaev was released from his deputy mandate, Vladimir Vasiliev, sent by the Russian President to lead the Republic of Dagestan as acting head of the region, also ceased to be a deputy.Vasiliev was a deputy from the 180th Zavolzhsky single-mandate electoral district of the Tver region.