it Seems that the opponents of the popular vote, following the example of the ancients, revive the practice of deification of priests and the revival of the iconic symbols including the totem. This sacred symbol of unification, supports the tribe in difficult times, helped to cope with adversity and have inspired new battle. Each time, each tribe your totem. It seems that the leaders of “Voice” in these mournful days proclaimed totem curves Spilkin. And he is a mathematician publicly crowned in the electoral guru. The expert in the law.
a Recent article in “Novaya Gazeta” Alexander Kireev, positioning itself as the “electoral geography”, in fact, is already katehezis totem. It is obvious that the seeds sown generously guru Spilkin, fell on fertile ground: activists of “Voice” and their ilk, did not find fraud, perhaps, we can only simulate them in your mind according to the formulas of the last century, invented by the mathematician Gauss and is successfully used for accuracy of rifle bullets in the target. But do this method in the analysis of social objects?
In the famous anecdote about the statistics of the rich man ate the chicken, the beggar breathed air, on average, each out of polarity. The situation is sad, but it’s the way the average is calculated. This is the indicator that is displayed artificially. In homogeneous media the average is common in composite – is speculative. If there are two communities – one for, the other against – by looking at each separately, you will long walk and think – why is it so?
fall Into this trap now those who according to the results of nationwide voting is indignant: how so, Yes, all my friends voted “no” – then all rigged. Calm down. Hardly someone from you more than 15 761 978 friends. And you and your circle of friends fall into this number – put mark “no.”
But a simple explanation destroy the picture of the world, carefully built up in the head. Bruised ego craves scientific explanations of their illusions. The fact that Russia is a big country, the people in it are different, said many times. But the graphs are being built with unprecedented speed.
courtesy of Working pictures. “The X – axis is the final turnout of the plot, the Y – axis is the percentage in the appropriate column of the Protocol. Green dotted crosshairs – official importance of the turnout and result “Yes.”
According Spilkin, “the First thing seen – the overall result is literally the middle of nowhere”. Believe to be fundamentally wrong. Because of the graphics, in my opinion, show that every particular region or part (as separately) is located at the intersection of two lines. Next. As Spilkin says: “the Real sites, which would have given a result and a turnout close to the official little.” For me, each to��specific region more than enough. Can see the data published. Spilkin further notes that among the areas “with the turnout and the result “Yes” more is a lot. Less – too much. And around official values – failure.” I think this is secondary, the same conventional polarity. By the way, the spread of votes shows that a common top-down figures for turnout and percentage for the regions clearly had not.
S. Shpilkin once again discovered America – regions of Russia on-to a miscellaneous vote (by secret whisper – they live different). And once again explained all dishonest counting. In confirmation of on the website of “Voice” posted on 20 charts.
the Most interesting – even a set of graphs when applying gives a picture similar to the total. However, there is a hole where it was designed
S. Shpilkin. So, is he right? I think not. Because of the superimposed images is a very biased selection. The charts in eight districts of Moscow and Moscow city, the rest mostly Republic within the Russian Federation. Why Republic – also understandable. This to followers be more comfortable stepping in the footsteps of its formulas, find the electoral sultanates. Where is the edge? Where is the field? There is one – Ulyanovsk. But we see a point cloud and at least about georeferencing? Town/village/district?
the publishers of his research do not hesitate. I looked out of 130 districts of Moscow – only 8 “suitable” for the picture. In Moscow, the vote was very interesting – with the city average turnout at 53% and the ratio for/against 65,28% to 33,98% turnout in districts ranged from 73% in Lefortovo to 35% in Konkovo. 67 districts it was less than 50% (3.7 million voters, 1.6 million voters). For them, the formula Spilkin almost works – the turnout of an average of 44% for 62%. But that’s because there is still half of Moscow – 63 area (3 million voters, 1.7 million voters) where turnout is on average 57,27% for 69,56%. But that’s not all – Moscow 900 thousand voted remotely. So there is an artificial phantom secondary.
and the icing on the cake – what was analyzed Spilkin? In “Novaya Gazeta” kindly said: “Well, that’s all. “Russian vote” on the amendment ended. At the time of writing on the official CEC website posted the results of the vote for almost 80% of the polling stations, covering almost 90% of voters.” Now, when I have full results, the model will not move one iota? That is, after analyzing incomplete data received and the turnout, and the result and immediately found all the “anomalies”? What voters did not realize S. Shpilkin: Moscow, Kaliningrad, Chechnya or Nenets? How many of the remaining 10% came out and voted, where and how? Or the 20% not covered eye Spilkin plots is, for the moment, more than 18 thousand sites. Have Spilkin turnout 67,04% – officially 67,97 percent. “For” Spillikin – 78,15%, officially – 77,92%. Figures do not break. The author was in a hurry, not waiting for even the decency of completion of the counting of votes.
And summing accelerated computation statement – “…a round blur on a 42% turnout and a 65% “over” – are precisely those areas where it is considered fair” – and all looks very strange. I think with the same success it is possible to say – the great red spot on 80% turnout and 85% in are those areas where it is considered fair, and other enemies-the villains sketched against. They stain and they stain – choose on taste. By the way, in the Nenets AO, the only entity that voted against approval of the amendments, Spilkin, it turns out, he thought it was unfair – the turnout was 58,85% “against” 55,94%, “for” – 43,7%. Crooks, these Nenets, it turns out? Thank you caught the thief?…
a Separate issue is the attempt to declare all deviation frauds, ignoring the hundreds of other possible explanations. In my opinion, from the point of view of modern technological knowledge, it is still that medieval astrologers to explain all known regular processes in the female body changes of lunar phases. The duration of the cycles, indeed, is the same, but the communication between processes no, science has long denied. Will begin according to the lunar calendar to calculate the time – all wait for the embarrassment.
Alas, I believe that the results “suggested Spilikins at a considerable (probably the greater) part of the areas of the country, drawn (very nice), and the final ratio of “for” and “against” is 77,92% on of 21.27%, with actual turnout 67,97%.
A spot – suppose it’s a Rorschach test. There is such in clinical psychology.
Ryabinkin Herman, political scientist
