An unprecedented 22 million votes added for Putin in the 2024 election

About 22 million votes were added for Putin - this is the largest-scale ballot box stuffing in the history of Russia. The main tool of falsification by the election commissions was a simple calculator. It is also clear that the commissions stole votes from Davankov's, which resulted in him ending up on third place instead of second. This is shown by analysing the results by the method of Sergei Shpilkin, writes Ivan Shukshin.

Spilkin's method analysis

We downloaded the data from the Central Election Commission (CEC) website, bypassing captchas, encryption and blocking, the data dump on the Telegram channel "Non-Elections" shows about 98 per cent of polling stations. Polling stations in the "new territories" are not represented, nor is the remote electronnic voting, this is an analysis of purely paper voting. How much was added in remote electronnic voting - leave it to other experts to find.

The number of anomalous votes for Putin in paper ballots is 22 million. And this is an estimate from below, because the Kisling-Spilkin method estimates the so-called "pure stuffing" without taking into account other methods of falsification.

On the distribution in the left part of the graph you can see a small bell - this is the voting in Moscow, on the right, in the area of 60% turnout, is the bell of the rest of Russia, and to the right of the second bell went up the frequency of falsifications. The shading shows anomalous votes for Putin, determined by the algorithm.

If not for the falsifications, we would have seen a two-humped Russia, and it would have been justified for the first time precisely by the two different types of organisation of voting at polling stations.

Graphics for all regions are posted in Google Drive in high resolution.

Putin's saw 

In addition to ballot box stuffing, there is also another method used: writing protocols with a calculator, when the commission simply makes up numbers out of its head. In May 2018, I presented a new method of data analysis on Habr, which allows us to visualise the scale of actions of commissions drawing protocols with a calculator. I call this method the "calculator spectrum." 

In 2018 the charts were relatively decent, the bells were still visible, and the peaks at whole numbers were almost always smaller than the main peak, except that 95% turnout stood out. The first graph shows Putin's results (total number of voters that voted for him, in polling stations with a certain turnout), the second shows the overall turnout.

In 2024 things became as unlike fair elections as possible. Putin's saw covered everything above 85%. The first graph shows Putin's results (total number of voters that voted for him, in polling stations with a certain turnout), the second shows the overall turnout.

Putin's highest peak is 85%. On drawing Putin 85% there is a project on "Peresmotr", you can see how 85% was drawn six years ago.

Stretching turnout by 70% and Putin's by 85%

The presence of anomalous zones on the two calculator spectra draws attention. In Putin's case, it is from 85% that the zone of peaks on integer percentages begins. And in turnout we can see a step at 70%, after which the zone of total drawing of integral percentages also begins.

Apparently, these were the targets of the organizer of the falsifications: 85% for Putin and 70% turnout.

Davankov was moved down below Kharitonov

The fact that falsifications not only drew Putin's result, but also pushed Davankov to third place, can be seen in some regions. For example, the Perm Territory. We look at Davankov's "cloud" of purple dots on the right graph: in the area of fair turnout of 50% he is above the others, and in the area of dishonest 80% he is already under the Communist's red dots.

Or the Bryansk region - in honestly counted PECs with a turnout of 55% his dots are present at the top of the "cloud" among the others, while in the falsified "cloud" around 82% turnout purple dots are shoved below the red cloud of the Communist with such persistence that Davankov was made fourth in the region. 

In other words, the principles of falsification that came down were simple: draw the turnout above 70%, Putin above 85%, and make Davankov the third.

So what were the true results?

In autumn, there was a broad discussion based on the belief of Maxim Katz's supporters that Shpilkin's method would make it possible to find out how votes were actually cast. Recently, an article was published in a publication banned in Russia, where it was proposed to analyse 12 regions with relatively fair voting in 2018, where the level of falsification was no higher than 2%.

At that time, Moscow, Vladimir Oblast, Kostroma Oblast, Murmansk Oblast, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, Sakhalin Oblast, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Tomsk Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai, Yaroslavl Oblast, and the city of St. Petersburg were counted relatively honestly.

This time in Moscow there was electronic voting right at the polling stations, I preferred not to take the result distorted by the presence of electronic, so I built the Shpilkin graph for 11 regions.

It can be seen that they have more anomalous votes over these 6 years, already more than 10%, and the level of falsification has increased so much that we can even see "bars" of identical results in the upper right part of the graph (it is St. Petersburg that has distinguished itself). Nevertheless, these regions are less affected than others and allow us to study the impact of falsifications.

To understand how people actually voted, I would pay attention to the course of the purple curve for Davankov on the left graph. Up to 75% turnout his curve is about twice as high as the others, that is his result, he got the votes of about 11% of Russians. Putin, on the other hand, received just over 80% in the main cluster - this is the estimate of his result in the ballot boxes before stuffing and rewriting.

But I cannot call this result honest. This result is distorted by the murder of some, the exclusion of others, problems with media freedom and other foundations of the rule of law, which the winning candidate deprived us of.

* * *

The above-mentioned article in the banned publication concludes that Putin is illegitimate on the basis of the fact that 30% of voters went to rigged polling stations, but even without counting the number of rigged polling stations, it is now clear that Putin, who gets power as a result of such an abominable act and goes for a third consecutive term, is absolutely illegitimate.

In 2011, Putin ordered the installation of webcams in all parts of the country:

“I propose and ask the CEC to install webcams at all polling stations in the country - we have more than 90,000 of them. Let them work around the clock, day and night, so that the country can see what is happening at the elections," Vladimir Putin emphasised at the time. - Let the country see what is going on at each particular box, so that any falsifications in this regard can be completely eliminated.”

This time the country did not see what was happening in the elections. This time the level of lawlessness Putin is afraid to show to the whole world. Even members of election commissions and regional branches of parties were denied access to video.

It was the most dirty falsified presidential election in the history of the country.