Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/06/three-near-identical-boris-vishnevskys-on-st-petersburg-election-ballot
176 comments
John F. Kennedy used this trick:
https://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/06/16-worst-political-...
Note the two "Joseph Russo" entries on the ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_John_F._K...
Note the two "Joseph Russo" entries on the ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_John_F._K...
Barack Obama won his first election using a different procedural trick — he looked up his three opponents' ballot petitions, and challenged enough of the signatures on the petitions that they were all delisted.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, because what you said is 100% true: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-04-04-070403...
The comment is upvoted now, but possibly the downvotes were for describing it as a "trick". One of the candidates they managed to interview admitted some signatures were forged for $5 each.
(The link opened fine for me.)
(The link opened fine for me.)
The interview says they paid someone for collecting signatures, not forging them. Of course at the price of $5 that might have been implicit at the time.
If you want more information on this from former president Obama himself, read The Promise Land. He discusses this issue and he narrates the book.
Non-paywall: https://archive.is/2Jyu2
Your link redirects me to chicagotribune.com/. Maybe only works for subscribers?
Interesting. I'm definitely not a subscriber, so that's not the issue.
I posted the obligatory archive.is link as a sibling comment.
Link worked for me, not a subscriber.
Same, maybe it's µblock Origin that fixes it? I'm using mostly stock LibreWolf with its preinstalled µBO on a MSW 10 library computer (though btw AdNauseum is a better µBO fork).
This is done by literally every single campaign/organization.
The signature process is usually outsourced to people making $.25 a signature. And there is a HUGE amount of fraud. Even when checking against the voter file. Which BTW is public info for most places, which makes it easy to fill in 'correct' data.
This happens even on legitimate large campaigns with controls who do NOT want to cheat lest they get thrown off ballot. But hire enough field organizers some are bound to cheat.
That's why usually submit sometimes 2X the required number.
The signature process is usually outsourced to people making $.25 a signature. And there is a HUGE amount of fraud. Even when checking against the voter file. Which BTW is public info for most places, which makes it easy to fill in 'correct' data.
This happens even on legitimate large campaigns with controls who do NOT want to cheat lest they get thrown off ballot. But hire enough field organizers some are bound to cheat.
That's why usually submit sometimes 2X the required number.
Honestly I feel like "unable to find field organizers who won't cheat" as a disqualifying characteristic... doesn't sound totally unreasonable.
[flagged]
In the Florida case it was/is a common surname, not a full name. In this Russian case, two humans changed their full name to match. Presumably paid to do so. Very different situations
Edit: in the Russian case, they also changed their appearance to match
According to a sibling comment, this strategy goes back to JohnF Kennedy at least. Except that the Russians take it to the next level
Edit: in the Russian case, they also changed their appearance to match
According to a sibling comment, this strategy goes back to JohnF Kennedy at least. Except that the Russians take it to the next level
In Florida a sham candidate with the same surname as the real candidate paid to run to siphon off votes from the real candidate. Completely different. Not at all similar. Nothing in common. Nothing to see in Florida, move along please.
OP said it happened In Florida but no name changes happened in Florida. My comment was meant to clarify, not argue in bad faith. I said “very” different not “completely different”. Nor did I argue that either should be ignored.
Don’t be daft. The intent and result are identical. It’s not “very” different at all. It’s nominally different at best, but almost equivalent in practice. It’s intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise.
Whether there is a name change involved, the result is the same, to siphon off votes. That's the main thrust of the story in Russia and FL. I'd say very similar not very different.
Can we agree that OP didn't read the article and so didn't really contrast the differences and move on?
[deleted]
Just like an App Store.
In the Russia case, not their full name -- notice that the patronymic is different for each of the real candidate and the two fake candidates.
It's actually good for them by the way. Since in case of the complete full match they would have needed to specify their original names before the change.
In the Russian case they also created fake parties for these fake candidates with very similar sounding names.
I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on the bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair enough to me, but then why go through the motions?
A majority of people there still support Putin.
And he knows that, but if he won the election with 60% of votes, it would show that there are other candidates or political parties with tremendous support. Yeah, they can exist and even win in different states across the country for different political roles.
Still, the idea that he wants to show to people is that he is supported by the majority and supported with overwhelming superiority in votes. He doesn't need fraud votes to win. He needs to fraud voting to show the dramatic differences in support.
It's all about image in people's heads.
And he knows that, but if he won the election with 60% of votes, it would show that there are other candidates or political parties with tremendous support. Yeah, they can exist and even win in different states across the country for different political roles.
Still, the idea that he wants to show to people is that he is supported by the majority and supported with overwhelming superiority in votes. He doesn't need fraud votes to win. He needs to fraud voting to show the dramatic differences in support.
It's all about image in people's heads.
> A majority of people there still support Putin.
Majority of people are afraid to say otherwise. I've watched some deadpan comedian from Lithuania do some interviews in Moscow. People face change and they immediately walk away after mentioning Putin. Of course the best question was:
"What do you think Russia would look like if Putin was homosexual?"
Majority of people are afraid to say otherwise. I've watched some deadpan comedian from Lithuania do some interviews in Moscow. People face change and they immediately walk away after mentioning Putin. Of course the best question was:
"What do you think Russia would look like if Putin was homosexual?"
> I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on the bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair enough to me, but then why go through the motions?
Why did Stalinist Russia bother with show trials? The appearance of legitimacy is enough to give cover to people who approve of the government without wanting to own up to its dirty tricks, and to mute the voices of those who disapprove.
Why did Stalinist Russia bother with show trials? The appearance of legitimacy is enough to give cover to people who approve of the government without wanting to own up to its dirty tricks, and to mute the voices of those who disapprove.
spectacle is important here. it’s important for Putin to claim that people chose him, he is a leader of population by choice, not force.
look at Belarus, when stuff became too obvious, people started to display dissatisfaction. That is Putin’s fear IMO.
look at Belarus, when stuff became too obvious, people started to display dissatisfaction. That is Putin’s fear IMO.
plausible deniability? no matter how weak.
The third of those links is the most important: in the Florida case the spoiler candidate and the man paying him to run were charged with a crime. This doesn't reverse the election, whose outcome was almost certainly changed by the scheme, but it might deter others from following this playbook.
In Russian they have the term 'political technology' [1], which means the manipulation of elections by legal means, such as creating momentum for a candidate by means of opionion polls with biased/framed questions. Now according to wikipedia, the second trick in the list are doppelganger candidates. I didn't find a proper translation of the Russian term 'political technology', how do you say that in English?
Correction: 'political consulting' is probably the correct translation, however it doesn't convey the same cynicism expressed by 'political technology'.
[1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consulting
Correction: 'political consulting' is probably the correct translation, however it doesn't convey the same cynicism expressed by 'political technology'.
[1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consulting
I really, really, really hope this becomes illegal.
In one of the FL cases, reporters went to the house of the "other" one and he literally couldn't say why he was on the ballot. That is my recollection of the story I read at the time.
In one of the FL cases, reporters went to the house of the "other" one and he literally couldn't say why he was on the ballot. That is my recollection of the story I read at the time.
Of course it did.
sam_lowry_(2)
A friend of mine (and my successor as chairman of the Chicago Republican Party) filed a case in the U.S. Supreme Court this week over the same tactic right here in Chicago.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-michael-madigan-c...
If we win this thing, then filing sham candidates will become illegal in the U.S. It's an utterly corrupt practice.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-michael-madigan-c...
If we win this thing, then filing sham candidates will become illegal in the U.S. It's an utterly corrupt practice.
Not this particular case but just to give context on why padding the primary with sham candidates of the same ethnic group is an issue, but also in Chicago it has happened that people change their names to imply certain ethnic/heritage/characteristics like Phillip Spiwak (R) became Shannon P. O’Malley (D) to win an elected judge position in 2018 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illinois-judge-candidat...
There was a movie about a person searching their Irish ancestors. Ended with the protagonist confronting their father, who admitted they made it up to win votes. The movie must be decades old now.
John Kerry comes to mind here, although at least the official story states that his grandfather chose an Irish name essentially through dumb luck.
Warren "Bill de Blasio" Wilhelm.
"Bobby" Jindal, "Ted" Cruz, etc.
Sorry, not from the US so I might be missing something, but the link you posted was about someone from the Democrats. Did your friend switch parties after that election (I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of thing had happened)?
It's a marriage of convenience. Until Madigan is indicted by the FBI (probably happening in the next 12mos, his underlings are helping the FBI now), if you are a (D) on his bad side, your choices are to exit Chicago politics or switch parties.
Right, that makes sense. Also, that sucks. Capital "P" politics really is a grubby business.
Why are Republicans suing over a Democratic primary? I'm doubting good faith.
Also this seems to be civil case, not a criminal one, so I'm not sure how it'd make anything illegal?
Also this seems to be civil case, not a criminal one, so I'm not sure how it'd make anything illegal?
"Illegal" means contrary to the law. Plenty of things that are illegal but carry no criminal penalties.
As a practical matter, the court would rule that sham candidates are impermissible, and then their opponents would have an opportunity to remove them from the ballot via a civil lawsuit, or seek sanctions again whoever put them up, or collect civil damages, or in an extreme case overturn an election altogether.
As a practical matter, the court would rule that sham candidates are impermissible, and then their opponents would have an opportunity to remove them from the ballot via a civil lawsuit, or seek sanctions again whoever put them up, or collect civil damages, or in an extreme case overturn an election altogether.
This more seems like the Republicans are trying to tar a democratic candidate who will definitely win with some very slight of hand statements about "hispanics." Most likely it seems like there were two other people with historically-hispanic last names who also entered the election. Chicago is pretty damn hispanic if you haven't been there before and Chicago Democratic politics are especially contentious and nasty. This feels like a rat-f** job
Maybe because having a political affiliation you disagree with by no means incriminates you of having no morals or ethics.
Sure, in a perfect world. In the world of politics you let your opponents eat themselves.
[deleted]
This reminds me of the 2019 Canadian federal election. There was a new party in that election led by a man named Maxime Bernier called the People's Party. They're a far-right populist party and generally awful. Bernier himself was running in Beauce, Quebec, which he had represented through the Conservative party since 2006 before he had created the People's Party.
But then the Rhinoceros Party, a satirical political party, announced a new candidate for Beauce named... Maxime Bernier. When asked about the confusion, the Rhinoceros Party's Maxime Bernier said, "If you're not sure, then vote for both!".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maxime-bernier-rhino...
The Conservative candidate won with 22817 votes, the People's Party candidate came second with 16772, and the Rhinoceros Party candidate came last with 1072 votes and another 1147 were rejected. This left the People's Party with no seats in parliament.
But then the Rhinoceros Party, a satirical political party, announced a new candidate for Beauce named... Maxime Bernier. When asked about the confusion, the Rhinoceros Party's Maxime Bernier said, "If you're not sure, then vote for both!".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maxime-bernier-rhino...
The Conservative candidate won with 22817 votes, the People's Party candidate came second with 16772, and the Rhinoceros Party candidate came last with 1072 votes and another 1147 were rejected. This left the People's Party with no seats in parliament.
Well, in Canada (and I'd assume elsewhere, but I've not checked) our ballots include party affiliation, so it's pretty easy to tell the candidates apart if you're paying any attention at all.
The US's does as well. That's why I don't understand why people are up and arms. People aren't getting names confused, they're seriously don't care.
In WA the ballots have a statement from the person saying “X prefers the Republican party” or similar but there are no endorsements allowed.
Partly this is because of the way primaries work here (they are open and there is no “official” party-backed candidate).
Anyway, there is nothing stopping a candidate from claiming they prefer a party that they don’t actually hope to represent.
Partly this is because of the way primaries work here (they are open and there is no “official” party-backed candidate).
Anyway, there is nothing stopping a candidate from claiming they prefer a party that they don’t actually hope to represent.
> This left the People's Party with no seats in parliament.
Note that even if the Rhinoceros votes went for the peoples party the same thing would have happened...
Note that even if the Rhinoceros votes went for the peoples party the same thing would have happened...
> Note that even if the Rhinoceros votes went for the peoples party the same thing would have happened...
Which is probably for the best. If this type of trickery had made a meaningful difference, the people fooled by the trick would have had some legitimate complaints. Moreover it would have really undermined the credibility of the winner, even if it wasn't their doing.
Which is probably for the best. If this type of trickery had made a meaningful difference, the people fooled by the trick would have had some legitimate complaints. Moreover it would have really undermined the credibility of the winner, even if it wasn't their doing.
Maybe it's a shame that nothing of consequence hinged on it. If someone was aggrieved, we're more likely to get a court case out of it and the law changed.
True, this probably didn't actually change the results, but it likely narrowed the margin in an already narrow vote.
You and I have very different understandings of the word narrow.
That's 58% vs 42% just counting the votes that went to the PPC/Conservatives. 39% vs 28% looking at all the votes in the riding. The rhino candidate got less than 2% of the votes in the riding.
It definitely didn't actually change the results.
That's 58% vs 42% just counting the votes that went to the PPC/Conservatives. 39% vs 28% looking at all the votes in the riding. The rhino candidate got less than 2% of the votes in the riding.
It definitely didn't actually change the results.
Is it possible that such a move may dissuade voters from even showing up to the polls to participate in an election that they view as a sham, or as being made a circus? It certainly doesn’t build trust in democracy.
In general I'm sure that's a possibility, and it probably occurs in the Russian case. In Canada we are quite confident in our electoral system, and this sort of shenanigans doesn't change that (or result in substantial confusion, since we clearly spell out candidates political parties - indeed I suspect most people vote based on party more than based on candidate name). I don't believe for an instant that this had a substantial effect on the PPCs voter turnout.
> This left the People's Party with no seats in parliament.
"This" implies that the Rhinoceros Party prank KEPT Bernier from having a seat. Simple math shows that's not the case.
"This" implies that the Rhinoceros Party prank KEPT Bernier from having a seat. Simple math shows that's not the case.
It appears that Maxim Bernier from the Rhinoceros party hasn't registered to run in this year's election. I wonder if they've been blocked from doing so?
> There was a new party in that election led by a man named Maxime Bernier called the People's Party. They're a far-right populist party and generally awful.
Describing the PPC as "far-right" is a good way to out yourself as far-left.
Describing the PPC as "far-right" is a good way to out yourself as far-left.
It’s not much of an “outing” to reveal that I believe the Canada they want is antithetical to my belief system, and that I find the party thoroughly disgusting and worthy of mockery.
Again, to describe the PPC as "far-right" is to make a mockery of reality and out yourself as far-left. It doesn't matter if you think they're "antithetical to your belief system".
Or are you one of those childish people who throw around "far-right" as a synonym for "anything I don't like"?
Or are you one of those childish people who throw around "far-right" as a synonym for "anything I don't like"?
If PPC is "far right", can you imagine how far left Canadian liberals must be.
They're the only party to oppose vaccine passports in Canada. So can't be all bad. Polling around 5-8% now and gaining, high enough might make a big difference who next leader of Canada will be. On the conspiracy side, some are speculating he's a plant to help Trudeau.
Cbc's polling average has them at 4.8%, which isn't inside your 5-8% interval... but it's true that they have been slowly trending upwards... though whether you should prefer a momentum model or a reversion to the mean model for polling variation is unclear.
Separately, giving airtime to ridiculous conspiracies that even you don't believe is simply not helpful.
Separately, giving airtime to ridiculous conspiracies that even you don't believe is simply not helpful.
Why do they even go through this much trouble when they can just count votes such that Единая Россия comes out as a winner, like they did on every election I remember. They stuff ballots into boxes. They invalidate ballots with "wrong" votes. They just simply change the numbers in the protocols without anyone rechecking or recounting. Worst of all, the people who do it are usually school teachers, because polling stations are often in schools.
Yes, I'll go and vote anyway. No, this won't change the outcome, but at least I'll be able to tell myself that I did my part.
Yes, I'll go and vote anyway. No, this won't change the outcome, but at least I'll be able to tell myself that I did my part.
It's terribly hard to actually falsify the vote counts across thousands of polling places. In theory, someone observing the process, as should be legal everywhere, will notice the irregularities.
It's not impossible, obviously–especially if you have full control of at least anyone important. But plausible deniability suffers rather fast, and that's a valuable assets at the Putin-level of dic(tator|k)ishness.
It's not impossible, obviously–especially if you have full control of at least anyone important. But plausible deniability suffers rather fast, and that's a valuable assets at the Putin-level of dic(tator|k)ishness.
Oh they interfere with observers a lot. It's a battle, really.
Sometimes, in some far-flung region, an election will end up being fair. Then they still find a way to ultimately "fix" the outcome — see what happened in Khabarovsk with everyone's favorite mayor Sergey Furgal. They found a court case on him from very long ago, arrested him, flew him to Moscow, then Putin dismissed him from mayorship "for loss of trust". Yeah sure, people elected him and had no problems with him, but it's lack of Putin's trust that caused him to lose his office against his and people's will.
Sometimes, in some far-flung region, an election will end up being fair. Then they still find a way to ultimately "fix" the outcome — see what happened in Khabarovsk with everyone's favorite mayor Sergey Furgal. They found a court case on him from very long ago, arrested him, flew him to Moscow, then Putin dismissed him from mayorship "for loss of trust". Yeah sure, people elected him and had no problems with him, but it's lack of Putin's trust that caused him to lose his office against his and people's will.
Usually only a few polling places actually determine an election. Based on historical vote data, you'd only flip votes in the few locations where it actually matters; for example, a few counties in a few swing states, or anywhere where the votes can be cured or recounted without being observed.
It's strange that people really don't realize how easy it is to cheat; just a little bit of leverage in the right place can tip an election.
It's strange that people really don't realize how easy it is to cheat; just a little bit of leverage in the right place can tip an election.
Lots of discussions whether it will work or not. Same as 10k rubles payout for seniors. Likely people are not so much stupid and such things won't work per se. But in Russia there is the second step: falsify the elections and explain that people voted for a fake or for the party they hate because of the payout. A casual observer will have less questions, or there will be an "explanation".
Dirty tricks can also give actual vote rigging plausibility cover, and increase the inevitability factor.
This is endemic in eastern European politics.
It is especially prevalent among parties oriented towards Russian speaking populace in the Baltics.
I've never seen it work, but maybe there is a bit of Ross Perot(not that Clinton/Bush looked like Perot) effect.
PS it is hilarious that when I made a comment I didn't realize this could be taken as a what-aboutism comment.
So on a meta level I should be more lenient when posters do similar things in other threads. Maybe not every poster is actively engaging in organized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism but there is an urge to draw parallels on some psychological level.
It is especially prevalent among parties oriented towards Russian speaking populace in the Baltics.
I've never seen it work, but maybe there is a bit of Ross Perot(not that Clinton/Bush looked like Perot) effect.
PS it is hilarious that when I made a comment I didn't realize this could be taken as a what-aboutism comment.
So on a meta level I should be more lenient when posters do similar things in other threads. Maybe not every poster is actively engaging in organized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism but there is an urge to draw parallels on some psychological level.
Do you have any sources?
I'm from the Baltics and I've never ever heard of anything similar going on in any of the three countries.
I'm from the Baltics and I've never ever heard of anything similar going on in any of the three countries.
Every election in Latvia if you check the Russian oriented ballots you will find some familiar last names in unexpected fringe parties.
Unused ballots are good for bathroom reading :)
When I say fringe these parties get less than 1% and are rarely in the news. So the tactic is not working.
Here is just one example from 2010 elections. https://www.cvk.lv/cgi-bin/wdbcgiw/base/komisijas2010.CVKAND...
Obviously that guy is not the Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Galkin
It would be an interesting analysis to see if notable names appear more often as candidates and do they draw more plus(FOR) signs than regular candidates.
Unused ballots are good for bathroom reading :)
When I say fringe these parties get less than 1% and are rarely in the news. So the tactic is not working.
Here is just one example from 2010 elections. https://www.cvk.lv/cgi-bin/wdbcgiw/base/komisijas2010.CVKAND...
Obviously that guy is not the Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Galkin
It would be an interesting analysis to see if notable names appear more often as candidates and do they draw more plus(FOR) signs than regular candidates.
Is there any indication that 'Maksims Galkins' has changed his name?
Unlikely it is not as bad as St Peterburg but again it is still a misleading practice.
These names are put in a middle of the list (meaning they have low priority for actual parliament seats).
If you are an uneducated and undecided voter, you see someone popular and you see, wow this person is in this party, let's take a flyer on this party.
These names are put in a middle of the list (meaning they have low priority for actual parliament seats).
If you are an uneducated and undecided voter, you see someone popular and you see, wow this person is in this party, let's take a flyer on this party.
That's not the same thing at all. That is just someone with the same name as some celeb. The celeb is not running in the elections.
What is discussed in the article are fake candidates with the same (changed) name (and appearance) as an actual candidate, in order to confuse voters and leech votes away from the actual candidate.
Agreed the practice is not as despicable as the St. Petersburg case. (amazing city btw)
Still the question is would this person be running in the election were their name not a match or similar to someone publicly known.
These names usually appear in the middle of the list - so are unlikely to be major players themselves.
I looked through our local candidate lists and found more suspicious cases.
There are instances of not complete matches but things like a security guard from a populist party with the same uncommon last name as the prime minister at a time.
Could be pure coincidence but I doubt it.
Still the question is would this person be running in the election were their name not a match or similar to someone publicly known.
These names usually appear in the middle of the list - so are unlikely to be major players themselves.
I looked through our local candidate lists and found more suspicious cases.
There are instances of not complete matches but things like a security guard from a populist party with the same uncommon last name as the prime minister at a time.
Could be pure coincidence but I doubt it.
I think you can usually ignore people who complain about "whataboutism" - on HN at least it usually boils down to someone trying to dismiss a legitimate comparison with "Hey you can't say that, I said it first!"
"you're ruining my point by showing my hypocrisy"
Exact reason I think ;) Or maybe they feel so righteous that they do not even notice their hypocrisy.
Precisely. Also I think I'm being downvoted by people misinterpreting my use of "usually" as "in every single case without exception". But anecdotally, nearly every time I've seen the whataboutism response it has been in that context I described - someone trying to dismiss a legitimate criticism by deploying what they think is a sort of cheat code.
Eddie Murphy is a household name in Russia and someone must've been just helping themselves to some material from one of his movies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman
Talk about life imitating art and all that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman
Talk about life imitating art and all that.
In Spain not much years ago happened a slightly different but related trick. A party changed late their logo in the ballots to a circle. Casually their rivals from the opposite ideology had adopted before a thin circle as a logo in the voting sheets (shared by all parties). The second circle was more thick (and more visible) than the other and had different letters inside. Clearly different for people with a good sight, maybe not so much for elders.
I bet that this didn't helped at the hour of counting the ballots and I wouldn't be surprised to know that a few votes were assigned wrongly that night at the slighest opportunity.
I bet that this didn't helped at the hour of counting the ballots and I wouldn't be surprised to know that a few votes were assigned wrongly that night at the slighest opportunity.
A comment for outsiders: Russian elections are multi-layered. When dominance of Putin and his party is threatened, then the state will employ everything it's power. But within his own party, and on many local levels, there's also a lot of competition — and there, elections can be much less fraudulent. So, those local crooks can't rely on repressive apparatus of the whole state, and have to revert to political technologies and tricks which are usually used in developed democracies.
Boris Vishnevsky, as many other candidates (including my own father) are being elected not through centralised party lists, but through single-mandate districts. (I think it's similar to UK electorate system). And while United Russia (Putin's party) total numbers over the whole country will be very tightly controlled, results of those district-based elections are, in general, much more honest.
Boris Vishnevsky, as many other candidates (including my own father) are being elected not through centralised party lists, but through single-mandate districts. (I think it's similar to UK electorate system). And while United Russia (Putin's party) total numbers over the whole country will be very tightly controlled, results of those district-based elections are, in general, much more honest.
Imagine what they would do with a good AI.
Anyway, a recent anekdot from Russian democracy illustrating why the ruling power is so obstructing oppositional candidates. A mayor of small town to make elections legally democratic, ie to have at least 2 candidates while of course not allowing any real oppositional candidates, ran his office janitor woman against himself. The people voted for the janitor.
Anyway, a recent anekdot from Russian democracy illustrating why the ruling power is so obstructing oppositional candidates. A mayor of small town to make elections legally democratic, ie to have at least 2 candidates while of course not allowing any real oppositional candidates, ran his office janitor woman against himself. The people voted for the janitor.
Do Russian ballot papers not include the name of the candidate's political party? Ideally they would also include the parties' logos, which would be required to be distinct from previously-registered logos, so that people with literacy problems could still vote confidently.
In this year's elections, many of the pro-regime candidates are registered as having no party affiliation because of the very bad ratings of United Russia party.
Also, the authorities don't care about people voting confidently at all, quite the opposite.
It's mandated by law though to list candidates' previous names if changed, which is done in this case. But you have to be aware of this spoiler strategy to notice, which most people aren't.
Also, the authorities don't care about people voting confidently at all, quite the opposite.
It's mandated by law though to list candidates' previous names if changed, which is done in this case. But you have to be aware of this spoiler strategy to notice, which most people aren't.
> Also, the authorities don't care about people voting confidently at all, quite the opposite.
Can you explain this?
Can you explain this?
they want low turnout
If I were United Russia I’d make sure there were no party names or logos on the ballots. Also randomize the order of candidates between ballots so word couldn’t get out saying “it’s the middle Boris”.
Of course we have, and not only party, but a short summary of candidate achievements, place of work etc. So the trick may work only for a very busy people, not looking closely what they’re voting for.
I'm taking this as a pretty good sign. My poorly informed outsider's opinion of Russian local elections prior to this was that organised fraud was so endemic that resorting to such obvious measures would be unnecessary.
Not really; this kind of stuff has been around since early 90s, and especially prominent in local elections (where many voters are often not familiar with the candidates on the ballot).
Organized fraud is still as endemic as always, but it still needs to be whitewashed, so every little bit helps. Same reason why they herd people at workplaces to vote - a 100% fraudulent system would just conjure turnout from thin air as needed.
Organized fraud is still as endemic as always, but it still needs to be whitewashed, so every little bit helps. Same reason why they herd people at workplaces to vote - a 100% fraudulent system would just conjure turnout from thin air as needed.
They are completely rigged at all levels. Here, however, every single small region votes for his own candidate, so it is not enough to "tweak" votes a bit at local level, then at aggregate, then statewide. E.g. only 1 level of rigging works, so effect is much smaller.
Despite a lot of propaganda, our elections are actually better organized with every year. Haters gonna hate, but not so many countries provide 24/7 recording webcams that allows to catch and put in jail fraudsters. A lot is made to prevent fraud, and specifically to mitigate the tactics with dopplegangers, our ballots have not only photos and names of candidates, ut a short summary of their career, place of work etc, so it’s pretty hard to vote for the wrong persone if you’re paying any attention.
No, they will falsify anyways. It's just them getting a complete reassurance that it's at least thrice rigged.
So, what is being falsified? Everything.
1. Public polls (including fake "independent" polling companies appearing out of nowhere just few months before the elections)
2. Exit polls
3. Debates (some times fake doppelganger opposition candidates are sent to debates instead of real ones!)
4. Media landscape (again, fake opposition floods the screen time)
5. Politics on the ground (fake protest leaders, informers, provocateurs, rabble rousers sent to party meetings, fake opposition canvassers)
6. Fake party politics (fake opposition parties, genuine opposition being infiltrated, and packed full of informers, saboteurs, and etc, recruitment of turncoats)
7. Fake voters (obvious cases of people hired to vote under others' IDs, but also faked voter registration, and tallies. That's how tiny villages near arctic circle suddenly get hundreds of thousands registered voters out of nowhere)
8. Fake ballots (no explanation needed, but this also includes 20000% turnouts in mail ballot, or voting in embassies abroad)
9. Fake census data (to gerrymander, to manipulate turnout numbers, and to avoid second rounds, or minimal turnout limits in regions)
10. Fake elections (some times they don't take place at all, and people come to face a closed door, or they take place, and then they claim that they didn't happen! And then, they throw away the ballots.)
11. Fake ballot counting (well, it's the most conventional faking, but even there, there is an "innovation" — fake electoral commissions. A real one given a boot under gunpoint, and fake one comes, and stages everything.)
12. Media coverage of elections (the famous 146% Putin victory in Rostov)
13. Court system (a court claims to issue a fake recount order, but actually not issuing any orders, or a fake opposition candidate claiming to sue the incumbent candidate, or electoral comission, while not really doing so, or just blatantly claiming, that the white is black, and the ballot count was fair.)
14. Fake post-election protests (to steer people away from real ones)
15. Fake statistics (when the dust settles, alleged math geniuses, and statistics PhDs are invited to draw digits, and explain how a 146% vote victory is statistically possible)
A few percents of Russia's population are employed every 4 years in this circus, just like during USSR's CPSU elections where election fakers were indoctrinated into "a deep sense of higher purpose" doing so. Small people are comforted by letting them feel themselves being "big men," and "doing stuff big boys do," if just for a few days, and at the expense of the rest of country's population.
So, what is being falsified? Everything.
1. Public polls (including fake "independent" polling companies appearing out of nowhere just few months before the elections)
2. Exit polls
3. Debates (some times fake doppelganger opposition candidates are sent to debates instead of real ones!)
4. Media landscape (again, fake opposition floods the screen time)
5. Politics on the ground (fake protest leaders, informers, provocateurs, rabble rousers sent to party meetings, fake opposition canvassers)
6. Fake party politics (fake opposition parties, genuine opposition being infiltrated, and packed full of informers, saboteurs, and etc, recruitment of turncoats)
7. Fake voters (obvious cases of people hired to vote under others' IDs, but also faked voter registration, and tallies. That's how tiny villages near arctic circle suddenly get hundreds of thousands registered voters out of nowhere)
8. Fake ballots (no explanation needed, but this also includes 20000% turnouts in mail ballot, or voting in embassies abroad)
9. Fake census data (to gerrymander, to manipulate turnout numbers, and to avoid second rounds, or minimal turnout limits in regions)
10. Fake elections (some times they don't take place at all, and people come to face a closed door, or they take place, and then they claim that they didn't happen! And then, they throw away the ballots.)
11. Fake ballot counting (well, it's the most conventional faking, but even there, there is an "innovation" — fake electoral commissions. A real one given a boot under gunpoint, and fake one comes, and stages everything.)
12. Media coverage of elections (the famous 146% Putin victory in Rostov)
13. Court system (a court claims to issue a fake recount order, but actually not issuing any orders, or a fake opposition candidate claiming to sue the incumbent candidate, or electoral comission, while not really doing so, or just blatantly claiming, that the white is black, and the ballot count was fair.)
14. Fake post-election protests (to steer people away from real ones)
15. Fake statistics (when the dust settles, alleged math geniuses, and statistics PhDs are invited to draw digits, and explain how a 146% vote victory is statistically possible)
A few percents of Russia's population are employed every 4 years in this circus, just like during USSR's CPSU elections where election fakers were indoctrinated into "a deep sense of higher purpose" doing so. Small people are comforted by letting them feel themselves being "big men," and "doing stuff big boys do," if just for a few days, and at the expense of the rest of country's population.
for a second there, I thought you were writing about the US election.
Nah, US election riggers are significantly better at subtlety (or care enough to bother, at least). Hence eg the ruling party (the Democratic and Republican Party) being nominally two separate political parties.
Maybe not more subtle, but more subtle than the Russians.
The US largely accomplishes its elections through corrupt primaries, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Not all of this is relevant for every race - you can't gerrymander your way into the federal senate, for instance - but you can use it to get a 60% red legislature in a 52% blue state.
It looks better when the police uses violence to prevent problem people from voting, than to manufacture votes out of thin air.
It looks better when the police uses violence to prevent problem people from voting, than to manufacture votes out of thin air.
In Sweden they do the opposite, they have half a dozen parties with almost identical politics. Also very effective.
Easy solution: Cattle ear tags for politicians.
A more humane solution would be NASCAR-style jumpsuits, worn by law for all government business, emblazoned with logos of their moneyed sponsors. "Ah, there's my guy, he's the one beholden to land developers."
Of course, I'm not sure how that'd work in Russia. I assume at least some of the criminal masterminds who fill the role of the West's owner class have a, like, inkan [0] or something.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(East_Asia)#Japanese_usag...
Of course, I'm not sure how that'd work in Russia. I assume at least some of the criminal masterminds who fill the role of the West's owner class have a, like, inkan [0] or something.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(East_Asia)#Japanese_usag...
Perhaps as a compromise, a leg band like the ones they use to track birds except with anti-tampering features and a GPS.
This would be handy, and if high ranking unelected officials could wear them too it would be good.
The various UK sagas for lockdown eye checks etc would be easier to monitor.
The various UK sagas for lockdown eye checks etc would be easier to monitor.
This would be nice, because we'd finally has some transparency on who they're being sponsored by.
Or branding their faces.
Yet another point for approval voting ( / score voting). You'd have to confuse people into not just picking the decoy but also dropping the original.
In web-terms: a "Homograph Attack" (=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack)
I know arrows theorem says something about spoiler candidates and irrelevant identical alternatives, but I didn't think it manifested quite like this.
The Rhinoceros Party did this in Canada, in the 80s. They found a guy named "John Turner" to run against the prime minister of the same name, in the same riding. Funny stuff!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party
This example is extremely egregious - can anyone fact check on those identical names and very similar pictures? Other commenters have posted American examples as well, which while blatant are not nearly as egregious as the Russian example. Just goes to show, true democracy is hard to enact.
Interestingly, the three candidates do have different patronymics. So, at least in principle it should be possible to disambiguate them.
Name changes should be refused or rolled back when the request ever so slightly smells like identity theft.
I live in US IL-14. This would be like me changing my name to Lorne Underwood and running as a Republican.
Local elections for mayor here: Arianna Buti vs Monia Buti. The town name is also Buti...
If Bobby Tables gets involved, this will get worse before it gets better:
https://m.xkcd.com/327/
https://m.xkcd.com/327/
silexia(4)
Maybe the most surprising thing about this is how commonplace it is for multiple candidates to share the same name. From the article:
> “Double” candidates regularly pop up during Russia’s election cycles, which can be surprisingly cut-throat despite the expectation that the ruling United Russia party will maintain a majority in the Duma. The rising tide of opposition to United Russia and growing support for the Communist KPRF have apparently spooked the government and nominating doppelgängers can siphon off precious votes in close contests.
> “Double” candidates regularly pop up during Russia’s election cycles, which can be surprisingly cut-throat despite the expectation that the ruling United Russia party will maintain a majority in the Duma. The rising tide of opposition to United Russia and growing support for the Communist KPRF have apparently spooked the government and nominating doppelgängers can siphon off precious votes in close contests.
That's not an accidental match of the names or finding "doppelgangers" somewhere, it's intentionally making doppelgangers - these "spoiler" candidates literally changed their name before the elections, one of them was born as Viktor Bykov and the other was Alexei Shmelev. The only thing they can't legally change is the patronymic, which a key part of the name in Russia and differentiates the names of these three candidates.
You absolutely can change patronymics, that's how lot's of Mikhailovich's and Arkadievich's became Moishevich's and Abramovich's in the 90ies after the collapse of the USSR.
That's interesting - wouldn't that be because the actual fathers changed their names in those cases back to the non-Russianized versions (Moishe/Mikhail) when e.g. emigrating to Israel when that ceased to be forbidden?
But in any case, those particular candidates had their names and surnames changed but for whatever reason their patronymics were left intact.
But in any case, those particular candidates had their names and surnames changed but for whatever reason their patronymics were left intact.
And what I'm saying is that the change of appearance in this particular case is less surprising than the fact that double or triple name candidates on a ballot "regularly" occur.
Oh, two nearly identical doppelgangers, with matching appearance, age and name?
I wouldn't hesitate to follow great old russian tradition and take a loan. A few million rubles in cash here and there from those shady and unscrupulous lenders, then miss a payment or two and see what happens! A completely legal way to remind those people that Russia isn't European country yet. Nor Saint Petersburg is Miami.
I wouldn't hesitate to follow great old russian tradition and take a loan. A few million rubles in cash here and there from those shady and unscrupulous lenders, then miss a payment or two and see what happens! A completely legal way to remind those people that Russia isn't European country yet. Nor Saint Petersburg is Miami.
> Nor Saint Petersburg is Miami
True enough. Saint Petersburg has a fantastic history, brought us some of the most important writers in history and is full of theatres, palaces and one of the best museums in the world. It's also very beautiful.
True enough. Saint Petersburg has a fantastic history, brought us some of the most important writers in history and is full of theatres, palaces and one of the best museums in the world. It's also very beautiful.
If this happened in India, the SC would strike it down so hard. You don't need a law for every specific wrongdoing. You just need a decent judicial system.
The practice of assigning electoral symbols to each political party is also very useful for differentiating them.
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/india-election-party-s...
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/india-election-party-s...
Russian electoral system allows for unaffiliated candidates, and spoilers usually run as such.
Unaffiliated candidates or independents as they are called are also assigned a symbol.
The symbols of recognised political parties are fairly common knowledge and are emphasised during rge campaign
The symbols of recognised political parties are fairly common knowledge and are emphasised during rge campaign
This happens in Indian elections all the time. And I'm rather surprised to find someone holding the Indian judicial system in such high regard.
Which is why there's no decent judicial system here
This is pretty similar to Ross Perot splitting the republican vote in the U.S. '92 election except that Perot and Bush should have been political allies and instead split the vote in favor of Clinton. I can't think of an example of using this against an opponent as described in the article could certainly be used here (though I suspect using duplicate names) would be harder to hide).
This tactic was used in Florida in 2020: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/12/02/the-name-is-the-...
> using this against an opponent as described in the article could certainly be used here
It's called a "spoiler" and they don't necessarily have to have the same or similar names to be effective, in fact, a similar tactic was used here less than a year ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/florida-senate-race-fr...
It's called a "spoiler" and they don't necessarily have to have the same or similar names to be effective, in fact, a similar tactic was used here less than a year ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/florida-senate-race-fr...
How is it similar? Perot was clearly a separate candidate, and people who voted for him all knew that.
[deleted]
I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your comment is strongly reminiscent of this classic Russian political tactic for dealing with criticism from the west: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I didn't intend it ... and it looks like I probably shouldn't have gone reminiscing in an HN comment!
HN tends to have waves of (for lack of a better term) "troll hunters" who come here with an attitude that everyone here is commenting in bad faith and must be called out for it. They will do it to commenters from all sides of an argument, even in cases like this where it was clear your comment was simply remembering a past event and not intended to be anything else.
I haven't figured out if they mean well and are just sorely misguided, or are actually trolls themselves here from places like Reddit where such bad faith activity actually happens in every single post.
I haven't figured out if they mean well and are just sorely misguided, or are actually trolls themselves here from places like Reddit where such bad faith activity actually happens in every single post.
I'm not in it for the karma and don't worry about being down-voted when I'm writing a thoughtful but perhaps contrary comment. Sometimes (like now) it teaches me that I'm out of step with the "mood" of the commons. That's fine too.
Recognizing a somewhat similar incident from one's own country's history is not at all "whataboutism", especially when there was no obvious intent to diminish the impact of the original subject or otherwise distract from it. Not every comment on a web forum is an attempt to argue or act in bad faith.
You're right of course, at the time of writing there were only 2 comments in this thread, and both were along the same lines which made the effect seem more pronounced.
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/12/02/the-name-is-the-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/20/florida-ele...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...