- It seems to me that the election result is constantly falsified. Is it worth going to the polls at all? How many people must not come to the polls so that they do not take place?

The reform of the Russian electoral legislation carried out in the 2000s was aimed at ensuring that elections were recognized as valid if possible, despite either a downward trend in “turnout” of voters, or an increase in “protest voting” (i.e., the number of voters voting "against all"). There is currently 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 will be one of the candidates, and this voter votes for himself as a candidate, then the elections will take place and he will win with 100% result.
It's worth going to the polls. And there are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the greater the turnout, the fewer opportunities for falsification: it is not so difficult to attribute three or four percent of the vote when only a hundred people voted; it is much more difficult to make such frauds if thousands of voters voted.

And finally third, it is the presence of an active citizenship that distinguishes a modern civilized person from an asocial personality.

- Based on the election campaign, I see which party is spending more money to campaign and win the election for sure. 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?

The practice of participating in elections in recent years shows that there is nothing obvious in Russian elections. Professionals who have been working in elections for many years will give you more than one example of how, in one or another election campaign, a candidate or party that spent huge amounts of money on the conduct of the election campaign, according to the voting results, lost to candidates whose financial component of the campaigns left much to be desired.

I will not look for examples for a long time (the campaign for the election of the Mayor of the city of Pushchino, Moscow Region in 2010; do not be lazy, go to the Internet, there is all the data, analyze it yourself, and you will understand everything and see 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 fabulous money on campaigning is far from being the most obvious favorite in the election race.
It is worth going to your polling station on voting day and voting the way you see fit!

I don't like any party (not a single candidate), but there is no "against all" column. How can I express my civic position? Should I ruin 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 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 CEC of the Russian Federation A.A. Veshnyakov noted that the column "against all" gives voters more options for expressing their attitude to the elections and "it can be useful for the authorities to take appropriate steps." He argued: “A high percentage of voting “against all” indicates some kind of anomaly in a particular region. If this column is removed, then the voters will have less opportunity to express their attitude towards the candidates.”

True, already in April 2005, A.A. Veshnyakov changed his point of view and spoke already “for” the abolition of the column “against everyone”: “There is no choice - it's easier to live. Therefore, when there are 10-15 parties on the ballot, some do not want to strain their thoughts about who and why to vote for. It is easier to put a tick in the column “against all”, the presence of which to some extent provokes such an approach,” he said.

Soon the column "against all" was excluded from the Russian electoral legislation.
At the present stage of the development of election legislation, the column “against all” is still missing on the ballots (a specific exception is situations in municipal elections, when during the campaign before the voting day there is only one candidate left - in this case, the columns “for” and "against"; the 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 one's civic position is to find arguments for oneself in favor of voting for any candidate.
The fact that the 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, when there is a preliminary count of votes, one figure is first reported, and then they change. Can these results be trusted?

The fact is that different territories vote differently. City and large lots often differ from rural or small lots. And data on preliminary results first come from small polling stations, where votes are simply counted faster, but the data from the largest polling stations comes last, and the difference in votes there can be significant in absolute values. Therefore, the data of the final count may differ from the first results. In addition, even preliminary results must be verified on the information resources of the election commission.

According to the results of the elections, many losing parties and candidates talk about falsifications, but they never start real criminal cases. Who to believe?

Criminal liability for falsification exists and is applied. Whom in this case believes is up to you, but if the candidate has reason to believe illegal formation results, then, having collected evidence with the help of observers, he goes to court to cancel the election results. Or, quite often, just a losing candidate justifies his loss in this way, shifting all the blame on the commission, regardless of the opinions of voters. Of course, there are cases of falsification, most of which are considered law enforcement and the courts.

- Is there a record of my visit to the elections somewhere? Will my future be affected if I don't vote?

Participation in elections in Russia is free and voluntary (unlike in a number of foreign countries, where voting is the duty of a citizen, 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, as well as to control your participation in them. Accounting for your participation in elections is carried out 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, except, of course, the election of the relevant state authorities and local self-government without your participation.

The current electoral legislation does not provide for a mechanism that would allow a candidate to "cast" the votes received by him as a result of voting. It follows from your question that you most likely encountered a fairly common "technology" when, on the eve of voting day, one of the candidates with the help of campaign printed materials (leaflets, newspapers, etc.) or through mass media, and sometimes just at meetings with voters, spreads information that he "casts all the votes" in favor of another candidate. In fact, this is just one of the ways in which one candidate - the one who "casts" votes - is campaigning for 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 even if you have already voted for one or another candidate, you will not be able to “take back” your vote: if you have already exercised your constitutional right to vote, and the elections are recognized as valid, and the election results are not declared invalid, then it will no longer be possible to change your expression of will in a legal way.

Our elections are held in two stages. If I voted in the first round, but did not go to the second, will my vote decide something?

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Federal Law of June 12, 2002 No. 67-FZ “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens Russian Federation» 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 did not appear at the elections, will be fined and deprived of the right to get a position in the civil service for 3 years; and in Greece, Turkey and even Austria, for non-participation in elections some time ago, imprisonment was provided, albeit for a short period).

In Russia, however, the legislation does not provide for measures of state coercion in relation to elections, so you can, at your own discretion, decide whether to participate in the second round (in the repeat voting, to be more precise in the wording) or not.
But at the same time, unfortunately, you must be aware that the answer to your question will be negative.
The fact is that according to the results of the repeated voting, the candidate who received during the voting a larger number of votes of voters in relation to the number of votes received by another candidate is considered elected.
In other words, the very fact that you do not show up for the second round of voting 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 work.

The candidate was a member of one party for many years, and now he is running for another. It is legal? Can I demand that he be kept out of the election?

Indeed, the Federal Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ “On Political Parties” contains a provision (paragraph 3.1 of Article 36), according to which a political party is not entitled to nominate candidates for deputies, including as part of lists of candidates, and to other elective positions in government bodies and local self-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 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 when he was a member of a party, then he stopped his membership in it, and now, being a non-partisan, 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 (day) of nomination from one party was registered as a member of another political party, then in this case we are talking about a significant violation of the law: such a candidate must be registration is denied, or he must be excluded from the list of candidates (in case he is running on the list).
In such a situation, you have the right to apply to the election commission, which registers this candidate, with a request to verify the facts indicated by you and take appropriate immediate response measures. (Although in practice it will be much more effective to contact the headquarters of the opponents of this candidate - the lawyers of the headquarters will check the information as soon as possible and bring the case, if the information is confirmed, to the end).

- In our city there is a street voting for parties with real ballots and ballot boxes. Are these real elections?

No. These are not real elections. If such an action was held on voting day and, as you say, “real” ballots and ballot boxes were used, then you faced a gross violation of the current election legislation and an attempt to falsify election documents and voting results.

However, taking into account just the fact that the situation you described too clearly contains signs of the corresponding corpus delicti under Articles 142 and 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then most likely it is a little different. Most likely, the action you described was not held on voting day, but at least a few days before, that is, during the official campaign period. At the same time, most likely, not real ballots and ballot boxes were used, but some “requisites” for carrying out the corresponding action.

The question of the legality of holding such an event lies in the plane of compliance with the law on meetings, rallies and other public events. However, it is also impossible to exclude situations that an event held in this way fully complies with the law: if the organizers notified the local authorities of the event within the established time limits, if the ballots and ballot boxes are only “requisites” of the corresponding event and are not a “fake” of real ballots and ballot boxes for voting. In any case, the final conclusions about the legality of the event you described can only be made on the basis of a thorough check of all available information.

Whose money is spent on organizing elections? Do the parties invest or do we, the taxpayers, do it?

Expenses associated with the preparation and holding of elections of deputies of the State Duma shall be carried out at the expense of funds allocated for these purposes from the federal budget, for regional and local elections - from the relevant budgets. Thus, the organization of elections is the cost of taxpayers.

- Who finances the elections? Is it money of parties and candidates or voters?

It depends on what is meant by the organization of elections. If the activities of election commissions, then it is fully financed from the state budget. In other words, the elections are held at our expense - with the money 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 elections.

Electoral funds may be spent only on the organization of an election campaign, respectively, of an electoral association or 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 ballot papers or are they considered only once by the precinct election commission?

Ballots may be recounted by the precinct election commission itself if the results of the initial count do not agree with the number of issued ballots, invalid ballots and ballots dropped into the ballot boxes. Manual recount is also possible when using ballot processing complexes (BPS) installed on ballot boxes, in case of such a discrepancy.

In addition, a decision on the recount of 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 revealed. In this case, the recount of votes can be carried out both by the precinct commission itself and by the directly superior one.

A recount is also possible at the initiative of the precinct commission, a higher commission and the court in case of revealing significant violations of the electoral legislation during the elections. In practice, only a few times it was possible to initiate in the courts the issue of recounting ballots. And each time the ballots were delivered to the court, they had to deal with their absolutely dishonest 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 the protocol at polling stations, it is always easier and more effective to insist on the recount of ballots in the precinct commission than to postpone this procedure for an indefinite future, which greatly reduces the likelihood of a recount.

- Who can be present during the counting of votes, except for members of the commission and observers?

In addition to members of the commission and observers, only the following may be present during the counting of votes:

1) members of higher commissions and employees of their offices;

2) candidates (registered by this or higher commission) or their proxies;

3) authorized representatives or proxies of an electoral association (whose list of candidates 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 enforcement of electoral law will be more likely if more active citizens control the vote count. Therefore, one should not be lazy and become observers, having received appropriate powers from the participants in the electoral process.

Clause 1 of Article 30 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees…”.

Clause 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, there are calls 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 organizers of the elections. Will it affect the voting results?

It will, but not 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 for it, because the ballot intended for you will remain blank, it can be filled out for you. As a result, your vote, against your will, will go to a party that has greater influence to the election commission, which will become a contribution, including, indirectly, to yours in the falsification of elections.

There is no sense in spoiling the ballots. Your distrust of the elections and their organizers will remain only yours. Deputy portfolios will be distributed only among the parties that received 7 or more percent of the votes of the voters who participated 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 practically sure that you will in fact still vote for her, again against your will.

Therefore, if you do not want the fate of your vote to be determined for you - you have done exactly what is why you already now do not trust future elections - come to the polling station and vote for the party closest to you in terms of convictions.

- Is taking an absentee ballot equivalent to coming to a polling station on voting day?

The taking of an absentee certificate entails the 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, the exclusion from the list of voters in these elections in general. While coming to the polling station on election day involves receiving a ballot and voting.

- Will the spoiled ballots be redistributed in favor of the party that received the majority of votes?

- Spoiled, and legally speaking invalid ballot papers 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 forging the election results in favor of the ruling party. Please tell me if there is a set of tools for public monitoring of the course of the elections, sufficient for anyone with Internet access, if desired, to make sure that:
in all polling stations, elections are held in accordance with the regulations of the CEC,
all polling stations are real objects,
all voters are real persons and vote with their own hands,
the results for each section are published in the media,
and finally, do the results of counting in the presence of observers correspond to the published results?

Currently, by decision of the CEC 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 subject of the Russian Federation. I think that over time the number of sites 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 subject of the Russian Federation. Data from each polling station is entered by the system administrators of the GAS "Vybory" and on-line gets into the Internet, into the public domain.
Check the reality of all voters, the correctness of the preparation of PEC protocols (entering into it data corresponding to real results) observers from each of the political parties running in the elections can currently

They became the product of active debate between the United Russia deputies who proposed them, and the Central Election Commission. On the last day spring session The deputies of the State Duma 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 of the Russian Federation" and the Civil procedural code. The document provided for the full restoration of early voting in elections and the introduction of new grounds for refusing to register candidates and deregistering them.

Through the efforts of the Central Election Commission, the deputies' initiative for the second reading, which took place only in autumn, 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 for them. Even if only one person comes to the polling station on voting day. Until now, according to Russian laws, elections were considered valid if 20 percent of the voters took part 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 democratic ones, there is no minimum turnout at all. As far as Russia is concerned, CEC Chairman Alexander Veshnyakov emphasizes that we have no particular problem with turnout.

At least in federal elections. A presidential election has never been held with a turnout below 60 percent. And the interest of the population in the Duma elections has always made it possible to overcome the bar of 50 percent.

As for regional elections, here citizens will be attracted by other methods. In particular, elections only on party lists, followed by the nomination of the governor by the winning party. In addition, the CEC is sure that with the abolition of turnout in regional elections, the Damocles sword of recognizing them as invalid due to the insufficient number of voters will also disappear. As is known, in last years the interest of the population in regional elections became less and less. This often led to the fact that entire enterprises forced citizens to go to the polls or vote centrally by 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 law on countering extremist activity is being increased. Thus, as early as 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 made public statements and appeals that incited social, racial, national or religious hatred. Demonstration of Nazi SS symbols will also be a reason for denial of registration.

A citizen with an unexpunged or outstanding conviction for extremist crimes, as well as those who have committed grave and especially grave crimes, will not be able to become a candidate for federal and regional elections.

They will be removed from registration both for the use of administrative resources and upon discovery of the fact of bribing voters by an electoral association or its authorized representative.

Certain prohibitions also apply for the period of the election campaign. They concern the conduct of countergitation 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 if citizens elect a political rival, and generally disseminating information that creates a negative image of a competitor among voters.

At the same time, "campaign" bans do not apply to such a type of television and radio broadcast as pre-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 a party refuses to participate in the debate, this does not mean that the rest should be silent about the competitor in these debates.

The election campaign of candidates for the presidency of Russia is in full swing. According to sociologists, this year the turnout at the polling stations will be very high. However, few citizens know what the minimum turnout should be in order for the elections to be considered valid.

In the electoral process, not only the victory of one or another candidate in the elections is important, but also the turnout of voters. The number of people who came to the polling stations indicates the interest of citizens in the elections and the exercise of their constitutional right.

Why the voter turnout threshold was canceled in 2018

The high turnout of voters in presidential elections indicates that citizens are ready to exercise their rights and choose the candidate they consider better than others.

In order for the elections to be considered valid, a certain percentage of voter turnout was previously set. Until 2006, at least 50% of voters throughout the Russian Federation had to come to the polls. Only in this case the elections were considered valid.

The law was later changed. Experts believe that this happened due to the fact that turnout in Russia began to fall with each subsequent election. The reason for this is a drop in interest in the electoral process.

Be that as it may, but in 2006 Vladimir Putin signed a law that removes the minimum turnout in elections at any level, including presidential ones. To date, there is no certain number of participants in the elections in order for them to be considered invalid.

In 2018, those citizens of the country who are not at the place of their registration at the time of voting will be able to vote in the presidential elections in Russia. Experts assure that such an amendment to the law will increase the turnout of citizens to the polls.

According to available data, in the last presidential election, many people wanted to vote, but could not, because they were far from the place of permanent registration. This year such a vote will be possible.

2018 presidential election turnout to be high

This year, sociologists predict a very high interest in the elections. Thus, according to the data published by VTsIOM, in mid-February more than 80% of the polled citizens are ready to go to the polls. In January, the percentage of active Russians was much lower.

According to the Petersburg Politics Foundation, turnout will approach 100% in some regions of Russia. Such a high percentage may be possible in Tuva and Tyumen regions.

Next comes Dagestan. They predict turnout - 99.18%. The same percentage of turnout is predicted in the Kemerovo region. Chechnya is next with 95.87%.

With regard to the participation of voters in elections in northern capital, there, according to experts, turnout will not exceed 37%. In Moscow, even fewer people will come to the polls - 33%.

Elections at all levels in Russia will be legal, regardless of how many voters choose to participate. A corresponding amendment to the electoral legislation was approved yesterday by a working group of the State Duma Committee on State Construction. According to experts, the main purpose of this amendment is to artificially reduce the turnout for the next presidential election, which should guarantee the Kremlin a painless solution to the "2008 problem."

The Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on State Construction became the author of the new legislative initiativeAlexander Moskalets("United Russia"), which 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." Recall that a package of amendments to this law, significantly changing the rules for elections at all levels, was adopted by the State Duma in the first reading in June this year, and now the preparation of the bill for the second reading is being completed.
In particular, MP Moskalets proposed to remove from the law an article that establishes a 20% threshold for the minimum voter turnout for elections. different levels. Wherein current law allows either to raise this threshold in federal elections (for example, in elections to the State Duma it is 25%, and in presidential elections it is 50%), or to reduce it (up to a complete abolition) for municipal elections. If the amendment is approved, the deputies will have the right to adopt appropriate amendments to the laws on the elections of the State Duma and the President and establish that federal elections are recognized as valid regardless of the number of voters who voted.

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 adopted in the interests of the Kremlin and the two current parties in power represented by " United Russia"and the Just Russia: Motherland / Pensioners / Life" party. As Mr. Oreshkin emphasized, based on many years of experience in regional elections, with a low turnout, mostly pensioners come to vote. In the 90s, they, as a rule, chose either the party in power, or the Communist Party. But the last elections to the regional parliaments, which were 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 "actual left" from the newborn " Fair Russia".

In other words, the Kremlin, which expects to retain control over the Duma even after the 2007 parliamentary elections, will benefit from a low turnout. According to Mr. Oreshkin, "so far sleeping 65% of voters" are not interested in any of the parties in power, so he has no doubt that the Kremlin's political technologists will try to use "low turnout technology" in the Duma elections. It can 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 a 50% turnout is maintained in these elections, betting on a decrease in voter turnout could lead to a disruption of the vote. "And in order not to risk anything, it was decided to completely remove all turnout limits," Dmitry Oreshkin believes. In this case, the "active electorate" will regularly vote for the presidential successor, and the "problem-2008" will be successfully resolved.True, the initiatives of the deputy Moskalets are not limited to questions of turnout ... GMr. Moskalets actually proposed, following the already legalized renunciation of agitation "against everyone," that candidates be banned from criticizing their competitors in the elections. In his opinion, contenders 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 of a negative attitude towards the candidate." That is, the entire election campaign, according to the plan of the deputy Moskalets, should be reduced to the praise of candidates self-worth, and any critical statement about a competitor will be a reason for removal from the elections.

Opposition representatives considered United Russia's new legislative initiatives another blow to the very institution of elections. "It would have been easier to cancel the elections altogether," Boris Nadezhdin, secretary of the Union of Right Forces political council, told Kommersant. With the updated rules, in his opinion, it 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 the amendments that are clearly contrary to the Constitution (such as banning criticism of opponents or refusing to register persons under arrest) were introduced by United Russia deliberately in order to "dial the attention of the opposition and the outraged public to them." Ultimately, the political scientist believes, the Kremlin will refuse them, but will be able to "legitimize those that it really needs, in particular, the abolition of the turnout threshold."Approximately the same "masking" role can be played by the amendment on the restoration of the institution of early voting in elections at all levels, to which the Central Election Commission strongly objected. It is no coincidence that Vladimir Pligin, head of the Duma State Construction Committee, 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 rule out, as required by the head of the CEC Alexander Veshnyakov) the rule on the removal of candidates from the elections for incomplete information about themselves. Now all election commissions, before removing a candidate for similar violations, are obliged to inform him of the inaccuracies found in his documents and provide time for the elimination of deficiencies. 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.

Counts "Against all" began to speak immediately after the cancellation. Few people know, but in Russia there is a political party “Against All”, officially registered by the Ministry of Justice, which appeared in 2012, but it did not achieve success in federal and regional elections. Moreover, another candidate for the post of President of the Russian Federation, Ksenia Sobchak, at the start of her election campaign, positioned herself precisely as a candidate “against all”, which was reflected in her campaign materials. Therefore, it is worth remembering why such a graph appeared and what semantic load she carried.

ALTERNATIVE TO ALL CANDIDATES

The column "Against all" can be considered a certain feature of the post-Soviet understanding of democracy, since such a column does not exist in the ballots of most countries of the world where elections are held. Perhaps this is due to the peculiarities of the formation of democratic procedures in the perestroika years, when the population for the first time freely and openly could elect deputies to the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. At that time, it was possible to simply cross out all candidates from the ballot, which was a kind of voting against all the submitted candidates. As for Russia, for the first time in our country it became possible to vote against all candidates in the elections in State Duma in 1993. Then 4.22% of voters took advantage of this opportunity, two years later - only 2.91%. If you look at the statistics of presidential and State Duma elections in the period from 1993 to 2004, you can see that the “Against All” column never collected more than 5% of the votes, or even collected a negligible percentage. For example, in the presidential elections in Russia in 2000, only 1.80% of those who voted ticked the box. It would be worth noting that at the beginning of the 2000s, Boris Nemtsov, Valeria Novodvorskaya and Lev Ponomarev campaigned for the “Against All” column, but this did not affect her popularity in any way.

At the same time, the situation was radically different in the regional elections. In 2004, in the elections for the head of the Kurganinsky district of the Krasnodar Territory, this column was chosen by more than 65% of voters, which is a kind of record; in 2005, in elections in 11 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, an average of 14.46% of voters voted against everyone. Adopted in the same year the federal law, which allowed the regions to exclude the “Against All” column in their elections, but only Moscow used this right in the elections to the City Duma in December 2005. Six months later, on July 12, 2006, it was canceled everywhere.

The last time the issue of returning the “Against All” column at the state level was raised in 2011 at the suggestion of the leader of the Just Russia party, Sergei Mironov, but the bill was never considered. Nevertheless, in 2015, a law prepared by the State Duma of Russia came into force, which returned this column for municipal elections. So far, only the Kaluga, Tver, Belgorod and Vologda regions, as well as the Republic of Sakha and the Republic of Karelia, have used the right to add it. In the world, there are only two countries left, in the ballots of which there is a notorious column: Belarus and Kyrgyzstan. There is also in the state of Nevada (it appeared there in 1976), but this is rather a separate legal precedent in the United States.

As we can see, the return of the column "Against all" to the federal level remains controversial issue. Various opinion polls, including those conducted by VTsIOM, show that about 43% of citizens want it back on the ballot (2013 data). But experts sharply oppose this: in their opinion, this column prevents the voter from forming his choice, it hinders the development of democratic systems, pushing the voter onto the path of voting for some kind of “abstraction”. In fact, the column "Against all" is a vestige of the post-perestroika system, it was necessary for the formation of political literacy and pluralism among the population of the country after decades of uncontested Soviet elections.

UPHOLSTER "THRESHOLDS"

The minimum turnout threshold in the world is much more common than the “Against all” column, but each country has its own nuances. For example, in the UK, Canada, Spain and the United States there is no minimum turnout threshold, in France it is necessary to receive more than a quarter of the votes on the voter lists, and in Turkey, Luxembourg, Greece, Argentina, Belgium and Australia, turnout is mandatory and even penalties are applied to those who ignore the elections. To date, minimum voter turnout is present in Latin America, the Baltics and of Eastern Europe– Poland, Hungary, Croatia, etc.

In Russia, the minimum turnout threshold was abolished in 2006 along with the “Against all” column. Prior to this, elections were considered valid if more than 20% of voters came to the polling stations in regional elections, 25% in parliamentary elections and 50% in presidential elections. But if the count was remembered from time to time, then the turnout threshold attracted much less attention, since it was discussed only by a narrow circle of experts. There was no consensus. Some experts believe that the minimum turnout threshold is necessary because it is a kind of "filter" that keeps the very institution of elections from degrading. Others recall that the minimum turnout threshold often disrupted regional elections. For example, in Vladivostok, between 1994 and 2001, elections to the City Duma were disrupted 25 times, which not only led to legislative confusion, but also increased regional spending on repeated electoral procedures.

They tried to return the minimum turnout threshold at least twice - in 2013 and 2015. Remarkably, both times the initiative came from the deputies of the LDPR faction. It was proposed to set a turnout threshold of 50% for elections to the State Duma and presidential elections in Russia, but the bill was not adopted. At the same time, it should be said that the turnout in the federal elections after 2006 did not fall below 50%: in 2007, the turnout in the State Duma elections was 63.71%, in 2011 - 60.21%, and only in 2016 did it "sank" to 47.88%. The same trend is with the presidential elections: in 2008, the turnout was 69.81%, in 2012 - 65.34%. As predicted, this year the voter turnout will be at least 70%.

AIR SHAKE

Yavlinsky's statement about the return of the "Against all" column and the minimum turnout threshold should be considered nothing more than ordinary campaign promises for a public that does not know the essence of the issue under discussion. Grudinin's statement about the president's salary, Zhirinovsky's statement that he would have Ksenia Sobchak's passport for a trip to the USA, etc. can be attributed to the same type.

The return of the column "Against all" and the minimum turnout threshold at the federal level today is hardly possible and hardly necessary. For more than 10 years since the abolition of both clauses of the electoral legislation, a fairly stable political system has developed in Russia. Citizens have already learned to prioritize, voting for the political force they are confident in, and choosing the candidate with whom they have certain hopes for the future. Today, not without the help of the CEC, the Russians realize the importance of the election process itself, realizing that each vote cast can decide the fate of their candidate, and therefore they need to go to the polls. Even in the USA, whose foreign policy built on upholding democratic values ​​in the world, every presidential election is accompanied by campaign videos with the participation of media stars of the first echelon, reminding ordinary Americans how important it is to come to the polls and vote for one or another candidate. We believe that today Russia is moving in the right direction in this respect.