October 27, 2017 at the Law Institute of SSU named after. Pitirim Sorokin, as part of the Science Festival - 2017, a panel discussion was held on the topic: “The “minimum threshold” of voter turnout in elections as a guarantee of their legitimacy: for or against?”
Experts in the field of electoral law and process took part in the discussion as members of the professional jury: Natalia Evgenievna Makarova, Head of the Office of the Election Commission of the Komi Republic, Head of the Department for Legal Education of Voters, Interaction with Political Parties and the Media; Kristina Vladimirovna Popova, consultant of the Legal Department of the Office of the Election Commission of the Komi Republic; Tatyana Valentinovna Timofeeva, member of the Election Commission of the Komi Republic. The event was moderated by Irina Sergeevna Chalykh, Ph.D. in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of SSU named after. Pitirim Sorokin. The organization and conduct of the event was ensured by fourth-year students of academic groups 641 and 642 of the Law Institute, who made up two opposing and expert groups; Second and third year students of the SSU Law Institute also took part in the discussion as listeners. Pitirim Sorokin.
The format of the event determined the preliminary preparation of basic reports and blocks of additional argumentative information by each opposing group representing one of the scientific and practical “panels” - on the need to return to electoral legal practice the institution of a “minimum threshold” of voter turnout at elections or maintaining a free (unrestricted “ threshold") of the electorate's participation in the electoral process at the voting stage. The rationale and defense of the first “panel” was presented by students of group 641, the second “panel” - by students of group 642. Within each group, a clear functional organization was provided - main speakers - speakers, a subgroup of auxiliary argumentation, a subgroup of counterargumentation. Direct evaluation of the speeches and debates regarding each panel position was carried out by an expert group of students of the Law Institute - E. Vysotsky, G. Zhurakhovsky, A. Semyashkina, D. Utkina, as well as invited professional specialists - jury members - N.E. Makarova, K.V. Popova and T.V. Timofeeva.
The decisive role in the discussion was played by the speeches of the main speakers - Oleg Egorov, Danil Plotnikov, Victoria Nizovtseva, Evgenia Tikhonova. The nature of the event fully justified its name: the discussion and counter-argumentation of the main reports, as well as related issues of the stated issues, had a clearly debatable orientation; each opposing group defended its position, supplementing or criticizing the speakers’ speeches, citing various statistical and historical data, and its own conclusions. Noteworthy activity in the process of discussion and debate was shown by: Daria Gayazova, Alina Ievleva, Anna Kalinina, Vyacheslav Mostunenko, Alesya Obukhova, Natalya Stroganova. In the debate on the row controversial issues Members of the jury and expert group also took part.
During the discussion, the opposing participants tried to convince the jury and the expert group of the validity of their position, relying on the historical and theoretical foundations of electoral law and the process in Russia, analysis of domestic and foreign legislation and law enforcement practice, statistical data, as well as scientific and practical comments. The speakers focused on such topical issues as: the absence of requirements for voter turnout in relation to the dominant position of one political party as a basis for “boycotting” elections; the need to increase the authority and ensure the legitimacy of elected (representative) government bodies and officials; the controversial nature of the dependence of turnout at elections with the establishment/cancellation of a “minimum threshold” for voter turnout; the economic feasibility of holding repeat elections due to low voter turnout in the context of an alternative solution to social problems facing the state; correlation between the constitutional significance of political and social foundations Russian statehood; multi-aspect approaches to increasing conscious electoral activity in the context of justifying / leveling the significance of the institution of a “minimum threshold” of voter turnout in elections; the validity of considering this institution as a “legacy of the Soviet past” associated with the non-alternative nature of the elections and its “potentially coercive” content.
In turn, the jury members not only acted as experts assessing the level of preparation of each opposing group, but also took an active part in discussing problematic issues related to both the organization of the electoral process and modern electoral culture in Russia. Summing up, the guests of the event noted high level reports and speeches of speakers, the nature of their form and content, as well as the “living” interest of students in the problem of the legitimacy of elections in modern Russia– in the context of the institution of a “minimum threshold” of voter turnout. Meanwhile, the jury members noted the lack of expression own position participants when arguing the supported point of view and wished to build capacity in this direction.
The panel discussion ended with decisive speeches from an expert group of students, members of the professional jury and the moderator. The results of the discussion were determined on the basis of the general position of the jury: the most reasoned, systematic in form and active in defense was the speech of group 642, which defended the “panel” position against the introduction of a “minimum threshold” for voter turnout in elections.
It seems that in the future, events of this kind will contribute not only to the development of the research potential of students, but also to involvement in real problems of formation and legitimation state power, but also to their deeper understanding for the purpose of effective resolution, incl. when implementing professional activity in future.
Discussion moderator
Chalykh I.S.
The high level of turnout at the CEC was explained by several reasons. As Nikolai Bulaev, deputy chairman of the commission, told RBC, the turnout, in particular, increased due to the fact that young people actively voted in these elections, whom the Central Election Commission managed to attract to the polling stations. Bulaev did not specify how many representatives of the “youth” voted. In addition, Bulaev noted, the turnout turned out to be high due to the fact that “both the executive and legislature showed maximum respect for the voter and tried to convince that his vote is important,” besides, now, according to the deputy chairman of the commission, “people have begun to think more about their future”; Bulaev did not name the reasons for this.
The highest turnout was recorded in the first presidential elections on June 12, 1991. Then 79,498,240 people took part in the voting - 74.66% of total number citizens who have the right to vote. The least activity was observed in the 2004 presidential elections, when the turnout was 69,572,177 people (64.38%).
In 2018, the number of voters in Russia amounted to 107.2 million people, including 1.5 million Russians who are abroad. The most voters - 109.8 million - were included in the lists in the 2012 elections, the least - 106.4 million - in 1991.
In these elections, residents of Crimea, which became part of Russia in March 2014, voted for the first time. Turnout in Crimea by 18:00 was 63.86%, in Sevastopol - 65.69%. Previously, Crimeans voted only in the elections of State Duma deputies in 2016: then by 18:00 the turnout on the peninsula was 42.37%. In the 2010 Ukrainian presidential elections, turnout in Crimea was 63.3%.
Judging by the Central Election Commission turnout data at 18:00 Moscow time, the most active voters were in Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug(84.86%), Tyva (83.36%) and Chechnya (78.11%).
In the presidential elections in 2012, as of 18:00, the highest turnout was recorded in Chechnya - 94.89% of voters. Then a turnout of more than 80% was recorded in two more regions - in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (85.29%) and in Karachay-Cherkessia (80.85%). In another eight regions, more than 70% of residents had voted by 18:00 - in Tyva, Mordovia, Chukotka, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Tyumen region, Tatarstan and Kemerovo region. The most low turnout in 2012 was recorded in the Astrakhan region (47.14%), in Stavropol region(47.47%) and in Vladimir region (47,79%).
Turnout in capitals
Cities with a population of over a million have traditionally shown turnout below the national average. Chairman of the Moscow City Election Commission Valentin Gorbunov said that the turnout in the capital throughout the day exceeded the previous results by 4-6%. presidential elections for similar periods of time: as of 18:00, the turnout in the capital was 52.91%.
In the 2012 presidential elections, the final turnout in the elections in Moscow was 58.34%. The capital ranked 75th among regions in terms of voter turnout. 3.75% of Moscow voters voted at home, 3.97% using absentee ballots. As of 18:00 on March 4, 2012, turnout in the capital was 49.12%, the smallest was in three districts: Presnensky (44.3%), Beskudnikovsky (44.44%) and Vnukovo (45.01% ).
In St. Petersburg, by 18:00 the turnout reached 55.47% (62.27% of voters there voted in the last presidential elections), according to this indicator the city took 49th place in the country. There were 6.02% “homeworkers”, 2.45% at the place of stay.
An increase in turnout was also recorded at polling stations abroad. In total, the CEC registered over 1.5 million voters, of which 35 thousand voted early. Voting was organized at 394 polling stations in 144 countries.
In the Russian presidential elections held in 2012, 1.79 million people abroad had the right to vote, and 25.24% took part in them then (442 thousand, TASS data with reference to the Central Election Commission).
“In some polling stations, voter activity has doubled. But the most typical figure for the increase in turnout is 12-15%,” said CEC member Vasily Likhachev on March 18 (quoted by Interfax).
An increase in turnout was recorded in many countries. Thus, over 5.5 thousand people voted in Uzbekistan, Sputnik Uzbekistan reported. The turnout doubled compared to the results in the 2012 elections and five times compared to the figure recorded in the 2016 State Duma elections, the embassy told the agency.
In the USA and Great Britain, countries with which Russia’s relations are in crisis, voting also took place. In the middle of the day there was a queue to enter the polling station at the embassy in London, Interfax reported. There were up to 300 people in it. Opposite the embassy, a demonstration took place throughout the day, organized by businessman Yevgeny Chichvarkin, who called for a boycott of the elections (he reported on the progress of the action on Instagram).
In Ukraine, Russian citizens were unable to take part in the Russian presidential elections. On Friday, March 16, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine announced that it would not allow citizens to enter voting stations organized at the embassy in Kyiv, as well as at the consulates in Lviv, Kharkov and Odessa.
As the Kremlin wanted
RBC sources close to the Kremlin, RBC, say that the presidential administration will consider a good turnout following the election results to be 65% - no lower than in 2012. Judging by how turnout grew throughout voting day, the final results should satisfy the Kremlin, said political consultant Dmitry Fetisov.
The high turnout is due to the politicization of society, he is sure. Active information about the elections, together with international scandals, convinced Russians of the importance of the elections. Particularly striking in this sense were the scandals with the International Olympic Committee, which banned the Russian team from participating in the Olympics, and the attempted murder of former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in the UK; British authorities believe that Moscow may be behind the murder. “At the same time, each of the population groups found its own motive: supporters of Vladimir Putin heard the thesis about the importance of turnout as a criterion for the legitimacy of elections, while opponents of the current president had the opportunity to protest him by voting for Pavel Grudinin [candidate from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation] and Ksenia Sobchak [candidate from party “Civil Initiative”],” said Fetisov.
The main reason for the high turnout is the very active work of the authorities to inform citizens, says political scientist Abbas Gallyamov. “If it weren’t for the organizational work, the turnout would not have exceeded 50%. Still, the elections were uninteresting from the point of view of content,” he told RBC. IN election campaign There was no intrigue in the elections themselves, says the political scientist: the candidates did not offer anything significantly new or non-standard, and the winner of the elections was known in advance. “Usually such things have a big impact on turnout,” Gallyamov noted.
According to Fetisov, Russians were also motivated to go to the polls by the “image of an external enemy” that the government has created in recent months, declaring interference in Russian state sovereignty. Political scientist Evgeny Minchenko agrees with this: however, he considered the image of oppositionist Alexei Navalny, who called for a boycott of the elections, to be an external enemy necessary for the presidential campaign. His activity and the fueled conflict with the West led to an increase in turnout, Minchenko is convinced.
The level of voter turnout in federal, regional and municipal elections cannot serve as a mechanism for assessing the legitimacy and democracy of procedures. And the participation of citizens in voting does not indicate confidence in the electoral system as a whole. This conclusion was reached in Russian Institute electoral law (ROIIP), having analyzed electoral practice in Russia and the West (the report is available to Izvestia). Experts believe that turnout is influenced by many factors, in particular the characteristics of the territories: for example, in national republics it is traditionally high, but low in large cities, such as Moscow, St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg.
Drawing conclusions about the legality of electoral procedures, their democracy and competitiveness is possible only on the basis of many factors, including: trust in candidates (parties), number of registered participants, election infrastructure, number of members from different parties in election commissions, candidate activity and campaigning, opportunity early voting and the number of video cameras, KEGs and KOIBs. Turnout levels alone cannot be an indicator of an effective electoral process. This conclusion is contained in the report of the ROIPP “Voter turnout in elections as a tool for manipulating legitimacy.”
MORE ON THE TOPIC
For example, in the gubernatorial elections in the Irkutsk region in 2015, the turnout was not very high, but this campaign, according to experts, became “a model of alternative elections”, where the candidate from the opposition party won in the second round.
Experts note that in Russia turnout in federal elections is always higher than in regional and municipal elections, but this does not mean that the legitimacy of one government body is higher than another. In addition, in Russia the national republics are traditionally active and passive big cities- Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, which “is determined by both historical and cultural traditions and the current social and economic situation,” the report says.
Voting indicators throughout recent years, experts emphasize, are unstable. The ROIPP recalls that there was a record turnout in the 1996 presidential elections. 69.8% of voters took part in them. The smallest turnout was recorded on parliamentary elections 2016 - 47.88%.
Turnout in elections and foreign countries“is within the same limits and is also not stable either chronologically or territorially, but the media pays less attention to its quantitative indicator than in Russia, and it is not used as a tool for manipulating the legitimation of elections abroad,” Izvestia said. head of ROIIP Igor Borisov.
He noted that international electoral standards, including recommendations international organizations(Council of Europe, Venice Commission, UN) do not contain any provisions related to voter turnout “as a legally significant indicator.”
President of the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation Mikhail Vinogradov believes that in Russian realities the key indicator is the naturalness of turnout for a particular territory.
It is determined by three factors - the electoral tradition and history of the region, the quality of the election campaign and the attitude in the region towards the elections. If we take gubernatorial elections, then in some cases this is a familiar event, in others it is a long-awaited one, which has been awaited for 15 years or more. There is a third case when an event seems to be long-awaited, but due to the lack of new faces, it causes disappointment rather than interest,” the political scientist explained.
Vice-President of the Center for Political Technologies Rostislav Turovsky noted that turnout is one of the most unstable indicators and can vary greatly in elections at different levels.
There is always a part of voters who, for one reason or another, do not see any interest in participating in elections: some are satisfied with everything, and they do not see the point in voting, while others, on the contrary, are categorically not satisfied with the list of participants, and they also do not want to go to the polls. elections. Therefore, if you do not make voting compulsory, you can expect large and unpredictable fluctuations in turnout, noted Rostislav Turovsky.
The predictability of the result in the presidential elections on March 18, 2018 is forcing regions to come up with referendums for voter turnout
“With the ratings of the current president at 80%, we can only talk about a referendum-type campaign. There are not and cannot be persons in it who can pose a real threat to Vladimir Putin. And this understanding in itself is the main threat to the campaign. Because the statement “he will win anyway” is a seriously reducing turnout factor. Therefore, there are essentially two problems in the campaign - turnout as the basis of legitimacy and the purity and fairness of the elections. Solving problems will be the essence of the campaign. And the weight of future victory depends on it. No one doubts that victory will happen.” - says a member of the board Russian Association political consultants Andrey Kolyadin.
The regions have already started planning referendums scheduled for March 18, 2018. In the Sverdlovsk region it is proposed to hold a referendum on renaming the region on this day. Social activists in the Tyumen region propose holding a referendum for direct elections of heads of municipalities.
In the Volgograd region they want to hold a referendum on moving the clocks forward an hour. And in Komi they are going to ask the population for their opinion on moving the regional capital from Syktyvkar to Ukhta.
They talk about the total support of Russian citizens for Vladimir Putin as the future president of the country sociological research. As previously reported IA REGNUM, according to a survey by the Center for Student Sociology, 75% of Russian youth believe Vladimir Putin ideal president. Almost half of the students Russian universities they trust the current president of the Russian Federation with their future. And 32% of student respondents do not see anyone they could rely on other than the current head of state.
A Levada Center poll in October-November 2017 showed that 67% of respondents would vote for Vladimir Putin. All other possible candidates together receive no more than 15% of the votes.
What challenges does the election campaign pose for all its participants and what is the main intrigue of the upcoming presidential elections in Russia? Experts answered these and other questions on December 18 at the press center of the Parliamentary Newspaper.
The key factor is turnout
The main challenge and the main intrigue on upcoming elections President Russian Federation will certainly become a voter turnout. The challenge is that this indicator will become one of the main guarantors of the legitimacy of the elections. The intrigue lies in how the election organizers and the current government will be able to “mobilize the electorate,” it was noted during the round table.
Igor Borisov. Photo: PG / Yuri Inyakin
“We also need the turnout to demonstrate that the future president enjoys the support of the majority of the population,” noted the chairman of the council of the All-Russian public organization"Russian Public Institute of Electoral Law" Igor Borisov. At the same time, it is under no circumstances possible to put pressure on the population in this matter, so now the authorities are looking for “motivational moves” that will prove to Russians that elections in Russia are “a process that determines the future government based on the population,” the expert added.
Most candidates need a high turnout, especially the galaxy of political forces that have long been familiar to Russian voters. “I think this will be the last election in which all the usual representatives of political forces will participate, and they will fight for turnout,” the political scientist shared his opinion Armen Gasparyan. However, the “beneficiary of increased turnout” in this case will still be the main candidate from the current government, that is, says the director of the Center for Political Science Research of the Financial University under the Government of Russia Pavel Salin.
Pavel Salin. Photo: PG / Yuri Inyakin
But the struggle for local turnout may carry risks, because the methods that local administrations may try to use to increase the number of people who come to the elections may lead to a negative reaction from society, the expert warned.
The main thing is internal politics
There has been much discussion about what the candidates' programs will focus on. Experts agreed that central theme domestic policy will become, and according to the formula “economy with an emphasis on social services.”
“Most of the emphasis in these elections will be on the economy and social sphere. Including combating corruption,” suggested Armen Gasparyan. He emphasized that these are the questions that form the main demand of the population today.
Armen Gasparyan. Photo: PG / Yuri Inyakin
And in this regard, the authorities began to actively win over the population even before the start of the election race, the round table participants noted. This suggests that the election program of the “main candidate from power” will be adjusted according to this scheme.
Second aspect domestic policy What voters want to see resolved is the renewal of the state apparatus. According to experts, the demand for new personnel in the Government is increasing due to the remaining problems of the economic and social factors, as well as corruption. And although work in this direction has long been carried out by the current government, the population needs guarantees that it will not only continue, but also gain greater scale and efficiency.
Legitimacy is a priority
The legitimacy of elections is a challenge that both the international community and Russian citizens face.
Criticism from the West will mainly focus on the representativeness of the elections in Russia, the roundtable moderator said. CEO Center for Political Information. “We need to be prepared for this, we need to provide certain resources to neutralize this criticism. And the Central Election Commission is doing a lot of work to neutralize it in advance,” he noted.
Alexey Mukhin. Photo: PG / Yuri Inyakin
For the sake of the legitimacy of elections, the CEC allows a larger number of observers from among representatives of public councils and other organizations than is provided by law. Procedures for media access to polling stations are becoming more liberal. The principle of a “presumption of authenticity” when checking signature sheets is quite likely, said Igor Borisov.
Head of the Central Election Commission Ella Pamfilova previously reported that the system of election commissions is ready to conduct elections at the proper level. The CEC is actively introducing new technologies: for example, almost 13 thousand automatic complexes for processing ballot papers (KOIP) will be used in the elections of the head of state. According to Pamfilova, this technique is completely protected from external influences and guarantees “absolute reliability of the results.”In addition, for the first time, Internet users will be able to watch recorded broadcasts from polling stations, for which the Central Election Commission is preparing to adopt a resolution on the procedure for video surveillance at them.
In this regard, the head of the Central Election Commission emphasized that in order to ensure maximum transparency of the elections, the legal framework will be clarified in the near future.