The turnout exceeded that of the previous presidential elections. Return "Against All" and the minimum turnout threshold: is it necessary to reform the electoral system in Russia

1. Count against all

What was before
Officially, the column "against all" appeared on the ballots in
1993 in the elections to the State Duma
A year later, it was legalized in elections at all levels. In 1997, the State Duma approved a provision under which elections were considered invalid if the number of votes against all exceeded the number of votes cast for the favorite of the presidential race. In 2005, more than 14% of voters in 11 constituent entities voted "against all" in the regional elections. At the same time, the authorities of the regions were allowed to independently choose whether to include the column on the ballot in regional and local elections.
In 2005, the head of the Central Election Commission, Alexander Veshnyakov, said that the column "against all" should be removed from the ballots. According to him, citizens used this column because they were too lazy to choose from a large list of candidates. Supporters of the exclusion of the form emphasized that it forces the authorities to spend additional money on repeat elections. In 2006, the State Duma voted to exclude the column. A poll by the Levada Center showed that 18% of voters considered the existence of the "against all" column justified - citizens were thus deprived of the opportunity to express their protest at the elections.

What now
In 2013, a VTsIOM poll showed that 43% of citizens supported the return of the “against all” column, including 34% of supporters of “ United Russia". In the same year, a draft law on the return of the form was submitted to the State Duma (http://www.interfax.ru/russia/352263). The initiative of the deputies was approved in 2014, the reform on the return of the column came into force in 2015. According to the final version, the regional authorities can add a column "against all" on municipal elections. So far, only six subjects have taken advantage of this opportunity (http://cikrf.ru/news/relevant/2015/09/11/01.html): the Republics of Karelia and Sakha, Belgorod, Vologda, Kaluga and Tver regions.
// The EdRo Party (“Party of Crooks and Thieves”) understood, of course, that with such a crafty wording of the “Against All” column, it would not appear in the 2018 elections - after all, all power in the regions is in the hands of PZhiV. In Irkutsk, for example, the red governor Levchenko could not even "break through" the mayoral elections. While Putin is in power, the degradation of Russia will continue until it breaks up into separate principalities.

2. Minimum turnout threshold
The minimum turnout threshold was abolished by Putin in 2006 (http://www.kprf.org/showthread.php?t=63), when people began to vote with their feet. The abolition of the threshold gave Putin, in practice, a guarantee that he would remain in the kingdom for life - officials would always come to the polls and always vote the way they should.

In 2013, a draft law was prepared, according to which elections or a referendum will be recognized as valid if at least 50% of voters come to vote (http://m.ppt.ru/news/118335). The minimum turnout threshold is planned to be set for presidential elections, State Duma deputies and for referendums. Now the bill is in the archive //Four years have passed, and the prospects for the adoption of the bill are vague. Thanks to Putin. Let me remind the voters of his "regalia": The main corrupt official of the world in 2014,
Enemy of the Russian people, Enemy of the free press, etc., etc.
Published: 30.01.2018

When are elections considered invalid? This issue has traditionally received little attention, while the media focuses their attention on the election race and the cases of electoral fraud and violations that have become increasingly popular in recent years. Meanwhile, if the elections are declared invalid, repeated elections are held, the organization of which again uses taxpayers' funds - money from the voters' pockets. In the light of the creation of a new draft law on elections in 2013, this topic is becoming more relevant than ever.

The need for a procedure for declaring elections invalid arose due to the likelihood of situations in which some candidates have a formal technical advantage over others. The legislative base of the issue has undergone repeated changes in order to objectively correspond to the changing conditions of Russian reality. The last major amendments in 2006 were the abolition of the minimum turnout threshold at polling stations (20% for regional elections, 25% for State Duma elections, 50% for presidential elections). Russian Federation) and the columns "Against all" in the ballots. The latter caused a great public outcry, until now many citizens and politicians continue to insist on the return of this column. The abolition of the minimum threshold, on the one hand, is objectively due to the voluntary participation of citizens in elections, on the other hand, it creates favorable conditions for various kinds of violations and falsifications.

Currently, the grounds for declaring elections invalid are the following reasons:

• Only one list of candidates must be admitted to the distribution of deputy mandates. Here we are talking about the passing barrier, which in this moment is 5%. The bias and inconsistency of the state legislative (representative) body formed in this way is obvious.
• The lists of candidates who in total received less than 51% of the votes of the voters who visited the polling stations must be admitted to the distribution of deputy mandates.
• In the second ballot, all candidates dropped out.
• Neither of the two candidates received a sufficient number of votes to be elected in the case where the law provides for a second ballot.

The decision to declare the election invalid is made by the election commission.

Repeat elections are also scheduled if the results of the first elections are declared invalid - these concepts are not equivalent, they should not be confused with failed elections. In reality, such a situation is less likely due to the lack of strict unambiguous criteria for the invalidity of the results. The law refers to violations that do not allow to reliably determine the results of the will of citizens, however, the exact list of violations (these include violations during the election campaign and campaigning, illegal manipulation of ballots and directly deliberate violations in the work election commission) and the severity is defined in each specific case in fact. Election results can also be declared invalid by a court decision. In this case, the concept of "failed elections" contains to a large extent more certainty than the definition of "invalid results".

It can be said with certainty that the legislative framework and criteria in evaluation this issue will change repeatedly this moment the law of 2013 fully complies with the changes in Russian political reality recent years and prepares the ground for the next elections to the State Duma in 2016.

What to expect from the upcoming elections? Discussion on our forum.

The head of the CEC of Russia, Alexander Veshnyakov, called the amendment to the electoral legislation recently adopted by the State Duma, which abolishes the turnout threshold in elections, premature. He admitted that in many countries of the world there is no turnout threshold. "But we in Russia have our own peculiarity, our own specifics and the specific conditions in which the elections are held," Veshnyakov said in an interview published on Thursday in " Russian newspaper"Moreover, from the numerous meetings that we have with political parties, candidates, voters in the regions, one gets the impression that many of our citizens perceive the abolition of turnout as a step beneficial only to the authorities. People think it kind of makes her life easier," he said.

The head of the CEC is convinced that "proposing a change that is not perceived by society is a rather risky business." He confirmed that he did not see "any definite sense" in this amendment. Veshnyakov recalled that "there has never been a big problem with voter turnout in federal elections." "Presidential elections in Russia have never been held with a turnout of less than 60%. And I am sure that the upcoming presidential elections in 2008 will also arouse great interest among citizens. In my opinion, the same 60% of voters will take part in them," the head of the CEC said.

He confirmed that there was no turnout below 50% in the parliamentary elections either. And in accordance with the law, since 1993, this threshold is set at 25%. "There is no threat to 'slide' below this threshold," Veshnyakov believes. The head of the CEC also recalled that at the elections held on October 8 to regional legislatures the average turnout in the country was about 36%.

Recall, on November 17, the State Duma adopted in the third, final reading amendments to the electoral legislation, which provide for the abolition of the minimum voter turnout threshold for elections at all levels, the rejection of early voting, and also toughen responsibility for extremist manifestations during election campaigns. Appropriate changes were made to the federal law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation" and to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The leaders of the Union of Right Forces, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Yabloko, and the RNDS stated that the abolition of the norm on the voter turnout threshold, at which the elections are considered valid, emasculates the very idea of ​​people's participation in state building, allowing the ruling power to remain at the helm for as long as desired.

Criticizes the abolition of the minimum threshold for turnout in elections and the chairman of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation to promote the development of institutions civil society and human rights Ella Pamfilova. Removing the minimum voter turnout threshold in Russia's elections, along with the removal of the "against all" column, will reduce interest in the elections, she says.

They became the product of active debate between the United Russia deputies who proposed them, and the Central Election Commission. On the last day of the spring session of the State Duma, deputies in the first reading considered a bill amending the Law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation" and the Code of Civil Procedure. 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. So far by Russian laws elections were considered valid if 20 percent participated in them in regional elections, at least 25 percent in federal parliamentary elections, and at least 50 percent in presidential elections.

Supporters of the abolition of the threshold explained their position simply. In most countries, including 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 public's interest in Duma elections always allowed 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 at regional elections, the Damocles sword of recognizing them as invalid due to the insufficient number of voters will also disappear. As you know, in recent years, the interest of the population in regional elections has become 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 allowed public speaking appeals and statements inciting 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, to describe possible Negative consequences in the event that citizens elect a political rival and, in general, disseminate 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.

- 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 the trend towards a decrease in “turnout” of voters, nor 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.

First of all, 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 this or that election campaign, a candidate or party that has spent enormous cash to conduct the election campaign, according to the results of the voting, they lost to candidates whose financial component of the campaigns left much to be desired.

I will not look for examples for a long time (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.

Interestingly, in 2004 former Chairman 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 "may be useful to the authorities in order to take appropriate steps." He claimed: " high percent 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 a 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 plots often different from rural or small plots. 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 need to be refined on information resources 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. It is up to you to decide who in this case believes, but if the candidate has reason to believe that the results were formed illegally, then, having collected evidence with the help of observers, he goes to court to cancel the election results. 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 elections will not entail any consequences for you, except, of course, for the election of the relevant bodies state power and local 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 the media, and sometimes he simply disseminates information at meetings with voters 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 away” 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 of the Russian Federation", the participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in elections and a referendum 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 get a job at public service within 3 years; and in Greece, Turkey, and even in Austria, non-participation in elections some time ago was punishable by imprisonment, albeit for a short period).

In Russia, however, the legislation does not provide for measures of state coercion in relation to elections, therefore, 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 more votes of voters in relation to the number of votes of voters received by another candidate.
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, in federal law dated 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 in the lists of candidates, and for other elective positions in bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government 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 (on the 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 this candidate’s opponents - the lawyers of the headquarters in as soon as possible check the information 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 the day of voting and at the same time, 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?

Ballot papers may be recounted by the precinct election commission itself if the results of the primary count do not match the number of issued ballot papers, invalid ballot papers and ballot papers 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, the preparation and signing of 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 a 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, the 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 the 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 allocating mandates. State Duma. Thus, we can say that the votes of the 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.
At present, observers from each of the political parties participating in the elections can check the reality of all voters, the correctness of the PEC protocols (entering data corresponding to real results)