Graph Shows Fraud in Russian Elections 406
gaika writes "A graph in the best traditions of Edward Tufte shows how the voting was rigged in Russian parliament elections. Initially some regions were showing higher than 100% attendance, but later on everything was corrected, or way too much corrected, as the correlation between winning party's vote and attendance now stands at 90%. I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient."
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need brains to be a dictator (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the people who have rigged the vote have never heard about Correlation Cofficient.
You don't need brains to run a dictatorship, just a rampant willingness to fuck people over. Reminds me of some of our own leaders here in The West!
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whoopsie! (Score:3, Insightful)
The most interesting question: WHY? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real approval rates of other opposition parties (communists excepted) were in single percents, anyway. And the real approval rate of United Russia was high enough - all manipulations possibly resulted in several extra seats in parliament for them. So it's not that Putin seriously risked losing his power.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
A: Because that doesn't support my preconceptions. Fuck off, Troll!
Re:"rigged Elections" (Score:1, Insightful)
The nice thing (Score:2, Insightful)
About reputable news sources is that they have, well, a reputation for doing at least a decent job of statistics. Livejournal... doesn't.
On the other hand, the nice thing about statistics is that without much work you can show what numbers you started with, what games you played with them, and what numbers you ended up with. And you can fairly easy say why you think those games were legitimate, and others can fairly easily say why they think they are or aren't, or can otherwise review your methodology.
So, if we're going to link to Livejournal as our source of statistics, can we at least link to pages that showed their work, just like they were taught in math class?
I know enough statistics to at least form a rough opinion on whether what they're stating is meaningful -- which is completely useless given the total lack of any data or discussion of methods. Yes, that stuff from math class did actually have a point.
Those who count the votes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"rigged Elections" (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Russia is going towards fascist dictatorship via right-wing populism. And the US is heading in the same direction (although it's not as far along) because morons like you think that right-wing populism is just fine and dandy.
Re:Where did the data come from? (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked for 9 years in the Central Election Commission of Russia, and during my time a lot of technical people had access to the database, and it's not really hard to grab a copy of the DB or a report. I quit that job some years ago, but somehow I doubt a lot of things changed.
This is not a security hole; the data is entered into the system straight from the signed protocol as soon as a lower level election commission does, and protocols are being made public right after they are signed. It also has no official status, at the data is only used for preliminary figures; the official results have to be delivered in paper form.
While we're at it, the site of the Central Election Commission is http://www.cikrf.ru/ [cikrf.ru] and the present election results will be eventually posted at http://www.cikrf.ru/elect_duma/npa/index.jsp [cikrf.ru]. This is in Russian however, so I don't know how useful that would be..
so did Hitler (Score:2, Insightful)
And make no mistake about it: every nation is always at risk for those kinds of people.
Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (Score:2, Insightful)
He wanted to be 100% sure that Putins party and his favoured
others (Schirinowski) parties get
1.) a clear +66 percent in the Duma (russian parliament)
2.) Putin can show this result like a trophy that the russians fully trust him
( they entiteled him to be a leader )
if you recall his announcement for his past presidential time, he don't want to become
a Prime Minister, but he wants to stay as an influential adviser for the future devellopment
of russia, would he install a third position additional to the president or the prime minister,
this will be interisting how this turns out.
Well a pupet master who pulls the strings ?
Re:"rigged Elections" (Score:3, Insightful)
Provided you already are in power.
Re:The most interesting question: WHY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So the worst case scenario for Russia is that . (Score:2, Insightful)
Putin does not need to rig any election. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't need brains to be a dictator (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll take "fucks interns" over "fucks the constitution" any day.
Re:Putin lifted millions from poverty (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not a coincidence that countries rich in natural resources tend to have the least democratic governments.
Re:So the worst case scenario for Russia is that . (Score:2, Insightful)
This sort of statement really undermines your credibility. It's untrue; not just false, but so false as to make it clear that anyone believing it cannot be trusted with any statement.
Bush clearly won in 2004; nobody credible doubts that. In 2000, the unfortunate fact is that the election was within the tolerance of error, and when that happens the 'true' winner is, and always will be, unknowable. In that case, we rely on laws put in place to handle that contingency. Those laws weren't terribly well thought-out, and weren't completely obeyed.
Your second paragraph, about popularity, is irrelevant. I think Bush is doing a lousy job, but would still vote for him over Gore in an instant.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesse - last I heard, they were still fighting the Chechen rebels, nyet?
Re:Debate over (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we should formulate a corollary to Godwin's law that in any history discussing that appropriately talks about Hitler and WWII, some adolescent nitwit will try to quell the debate by invoking Godwin's law.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on. This as good as "the iraq war is over"
Re:Whoopsie! (Score:2, Insightful)
What the LJ article also fails to dwell on, is that you can compare percentages to percentages -- they make no sense taken out of context. 10% of 1 million is a lot more than 100% of 1 thousand, yet on the graph they are made to mean the same. Y axis should have been "% of total votes" not "% of votes for a territory".
As it stands, this "graph" only confirms that there are lies, damn lies and statistics -- you can make numbers tell *any* story you like.
Re:Deadly Power Games in the Kremlin (Score:1, Insightful)
Learning to speak Farsi, I suppose.
Re:"rigged Elections" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
That the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory.
Re:"rigged Elections" (Score:3, Insightful)
It only makes "a pretty convincing case" if you're a member of the reality based community.
-