RUSSIA 🇷🇺 Thread: Wikileaks=FSB front, UKRAINE?, SNOWED LIED; NATO Aggression; Trump = Putins B!tch
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
@88m3 @Blessed Is the Man @ADevilYouKhow
Statistical Evidence Suggests Russia's Ruling Party Cheated Its Way to Supermajority
Statistical Evidence Suggests Russia's Ruling Party Cheated Its Way to Supermajority
Sep. 19 2016 — 21:26
— Update: Sep. 19 2016 — 18:59
Sergey Shpilkin / LiveJournal
Statistical analysis of this Sunday’s parliamentary election results appears to show evidence of some of the same irregularities that plagued the 2011 State Duma contest, according to the Slon news website. The outlet’s senior editor, Mikhail Zelensky, cites findings that suggest nearly half of all the votes recorded for United Russia, the ruling political party, may have been falsified.
According to the Central Election Commission’s official results, United Russia won a historic 343 seats in the next Duma, granting it a massive 76-percent supermajority capable of amending the constitution without support from any rival parties.
Zelensky highlights that United Russia’s performance on Sunday violates some of the statistical assumptions political scientists make about free and open elections, explaining that graphing turnout and voting distribution, as well as turnout and absolute votes, should yield a bell-shaped curve — a so-called Gaussian distribution. According to data from the Central Election Commission, United Russia’s results defy these expectations.
Russia’s three other major political parties (A Just Russia, LDPR, and the Communist Party) gained most of their votes at precincts where they won roughly 10–20 percent of the total. In other words, these opposition parties very rarely won more than 40 percent of the vote at any single voting station.
United Russia, on the other hand, won millions of votes in precincts where it captured more than 70 percent of all ballots cast, meaning that the party continued to earn enormously high numbers of votes even in places where nearly every voter supported United Russia (a bizarre phenomenon most spectacularly visible in Chechnya).
Russia’s party of power also managed to attract drastically more supporters in voting stations with higher turnout, unlike the other three major parties.
According to preliminary research by the Russian physicist Sergey Shpilkin, who published statistical evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2011 State Duma elections, the natural bell curve of voter turnout compared to votes cast in Sunday’s election suggests that the true total turnout was just 37 percent — a whopping 11 percent lower (5.7 million votes fewer) than Russian officials claim.
If Shpilkin is correct, and you throw out the ostensibly falsified votes counted at precincts with turnout above 70 percent, then “corrected” election results are dramatically different from the official figures: United Russia’s share of the electorate falls from 54 percent to 40 percent, the Communist Party’s support rises from 13 percent to 18 percent, LDPR jumps from 13 percent to 17 percent, and A Just Russia wins 8 percent, instead of 6 percent.
In other words, Russia’s opposition parties could have won a slim majority in the parliament for the first time in well more than a decade.
Statistical Evidence Suggests Russia's Ruling Party Cheated Its Way to Supermajority
Statistical Evidence Suggests Russia's Ruling Party Cheated Its Way to Supermajority
Sep. 19 2016 — 21:26
— Update: Sep. 19 2016 — 18:59
Sergey Shpilkin / LiveJournal
Statistical analysis of this Sunday’s parliamentary election results appears to show evidence of some of the same irregularities that plagued the 2011 State Duma contest, according to the Slon news website. The outlet’s senior editor, Mikhail Zelensky, cites findings that suggest nearly half of all the votes recorded for United Russia, the ruling political party, may have been falsified.
According to the Central Election Commission’s official results, United Russia won a historic 343 seats in the next Duma, granting it a massive 76-percent supermajority capable of amending the constitution without support from any rival parties.
Zelensky highlights that United Russia’s performance on Sunday violates some of the statistical assumptions political scientists make about free and open elections, explaining that graphing turnout and voting distribution, as well as turnout and absolute votes, should yield a bell-shaped curve — a so-called Gaussian distribution. According to data from the Central Election Commission, United Russia’s results defy these expectations.
Russia’s three other major political parties (A Just Russia, LDPR, and the Communist Party) gained most of their votes at precincts where they won roughly 10–20 percent of the total. In other words, these opposition parties very rarely won more than 40 percent of the vote at any single voting station.
United Russia, on the other hand, won millions of votes in precincts where it captured more than 70 percent of all ballots cast, meaning that the party continued to earn enormously high numbers of votes even in places where nearly every voter supported United Russia (a bizarre phenomenon most spectacularly visible in Chechnya).
Russia’s party of power also managed to attract drastically more supporters in voting stations with higher turnout, unlike the other three major parties.
According to preliminary research by the Russian physicist Sergey Shpilkin, who published statistical evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2011 State Duma elections, the natural bell curve of voter turnout compared to votes cast in Sunday’s election suggests that the true total turnout was just 37 percent — a whopping 11 percent lower (5.7 million votes fewer) than Russian officials claim.
If Shpilkin is correct, and you throw out the ostensibly falsified votes counted at precincts with turnout above 70 percent, then “corrected” election results are dramatically different from the official figures: United Russia’s share of the electorate falls from 54 percent to 40 percent, the Communist Party’s support rises from 13 percent to 18 percent, LDPR jumps from 13 percent to 17 percent, and A Just Russia wins 8 percent, instead of 6 percent.
In other words, Russia’s opposition parties could have won a slim majority in the parliament for the first time in well more than a decade.
Pull Up the Roots
I have a good time when I go out of my mind..
They should just drop the pretense already, and declare Putin Tsar.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Yup voting rates had been falling then boom
@Blessed Is the Man @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @88m3 @ADevilYouKhow @Swavy Karl Marx
Why Russia Bombed the Aid Convoy
On Monday, Russian forces bombed a humanitarian convoy in Syria. They destroyed 18 aid trucks and killed 20 civilians. But to understand why the Russians did so, you should first search “Putin pen” on YouTube. Watch the final 45 seconds and you’ll see two central tenets of Putin’s personality: first, his hard-edged sense of humor; second, his cultivation of varying images of himself. Putin wants some to view him as a tough-headed realist. He wants others to see him as a servant of the common man. And most important, he wants his adversaries to believe he is a leader who cannot be deterred from his destiny.
That cultivation of his image is exactly why Putin bombed this convoy. The Russians are denying that their aircraft were operating above Aleppo during the strike, but they know the U.S. government quickly figured out that they were responsible. After all, every time the Russians or Syrians launch jets, U.S. radar and intelligence assets carefully monitor them, warning U.S. forces of any deliberate Russian or Syrian air strike. The monitoring also provided valuable intelligence on where Russian military attention is focused. Regardless, Putin knows the U.S. employs these capabilities and that we would have been focused on Russia’s heavy air coverage of Aleppo. And that leads to the key takeaway: Putin just doesn’t care that he’s been caught. On the contrary, his strategy is actually served by his lack of concern. As I noted at NRO when the cease-fire began last week:
As with the little boy in Aleppo, the innocent victims of chlorine attacks, starvation, and barrel bombings are means by which Russia can pressure the West to yield and accept Assad as Syria’s perpetual ruler. Borrowing from Mao’s adage that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, Putin uses civilian carnage in Syria to augment his diplomatic leverage. And it is working. Putin has no strategic interest in helping improve the civilian situation in Syria. This deal will not hold because ultimately he does not want it to hold.
In destroying the humanitarian convoy, Putin has simply reinforced his longstanding message to the West. In many ways, it is pitch-perfect. An aid convoy is not off-limits, Putin is telling President Obama — which means that we should expect worse to come. In other words, unless the United States accepts keeping Bashar al-Assad in power, Putin will continue to burn Syria. And Assad — totally undeterred by the pathetic weakness of U.S. deterrent power — revels in this longstanding slaughter strategy. Russia might hint that this attack is retaliation for the accidental U.S. bombing of Syrian soldiers, but it wasn’t. Instead, it was pure Putin: deliberate and brutal application of force in the service of a long-term strategy.
Related: Russia’s War on Fracking
Of course, this raises another question: If Putin’s interests are served by this strike, why is Russia denying involvement? The answer is simple: Putin knows that President Obama knows, and that’s all that counts. To preserve a pretense of moral credibility, Russia is employing its familiar disinformation strategy to deny responsibility. These denials will cool or distract some of the international public anger against him. But Putin also predicts that two developments will now follow. First, the U.S. won’t provide evidence of Russian culpability. Second, the U.S. will continue dancing Russia’s diplomatic waltz by redeploying John Kerry into another round of pointless negotiations.
The U.S should defy Putin’s expectations in both cases. We should use the U.N. Security Council to confront the Russians with evidence of their culpability. The U.S. should also suspend all cabinet-level discussions with Russia on Syria’s future. Instead, we should escalate our support to moderate rebel factions. For some groups, that support should include the provision of man-portable surface-to-air missile systems.
Related: Putin’s Gun vs. Obama’s Pen
The whys behind this latest Russian aggression are not complicated. In the end, it’s just another product of President Obama’s foreign-policy lethargy. As in the Baltics, Putin continues to hold the reins. And so, Assad’s confidence — and the fuel his regime gives ISIS — grows ever stronger. And U.S. credibility — moral and strategic — grows ever weaker. And the overflowing morgue that is Syria grows ever more desperate.
— Tom Rogan writes for National Review Online and Opportunity Lives. A former panelist on The McLaughlin Group, he is a senior fellow at the Steamboat Institute.His homepage is tomroganthinks.com.
Why Russia Bombed the Aid Convoy
On Monday, Russian forces bombed a humanitarian convoy in Syria. They destroyed 18 aid trucks and killed 20 civilians. But to understand why the Russians did so, you should first search “Putin pen” on YouTube. Watch the final 45 seconds and you’ll see two central tenets of Putin’s personality: first, his hard-edged sense of humor; second, his cultivation of varying images of himself. Putin wants some to view him as a tough-headed realist. He wants others to see him as a servant of the common man. And most important, he wants his adversaries to believe he is a leader who cannot be deterred from his destiny.
That cultivation of his image is exactly why Putin bombed this convoy. The Russians are denying that their aircraft were operating above Aleppo during the strike, but they know the U.S. government quickly figured out that they were responsible. After all, every time the Russians or Syrians launch jets, U.S. radar and intelligence assets carefully monitor them, warning U.S. forces of any deliberate Russian or Syrian air strike. The monitoring also provided valuable intelligence on where Russian military attention is focused. Regardless, Putin knows the U.S. employs these capabilities and that we would have been focused on Russia’s heavy air coverage of Aleppo. And that leads to the key takeaway: Putin just doesn’t care that he’s been caught. On the contrary, his strategy is actually served by his lack of concern. As I noted at NRO when the cease-fire began last week:
As with the little boy in Aleppo, the innocent victims of chlorine attacks, starvation, and barrel bombings are means by which Russia can pressure the West to yield and accept Assad as Syria’s perpetual ruler. Borrowing from Mao’s adage that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, Putin uses civilian carnage in Syria to augment his diplomatic leverage. And it is working. Putin has no strategic interest in helping improve the civilian situation in Syria. This deal will not hold because ultimately he does not want it to hold.
In destroying the humanitarian convoy, Putin has simply reinforced his longstanding message to the West. In many ways, it is pitch-perfect. An aid convoy is not off-limits, Putin is telling President Obama — which means that we should expect worse to come. In other words, unless the United States accepts keeping Bashar al-Assad in power, Putin will continue to burn Syria. And Assad — totally undeterred by the pathetic weakness of U.S. deterrent power — revels in this longstanding slaughter strategy. Russia might hint that this attack is retaliation for the accidental U.S. bombing of Syrian soldiers, but it wasn’t. Instead, it was pure Putin: deliberate and brutal application of force in the service of a long-term strategy.
Related: Russia’s War on Fracking
Of course, this raises another question: If Putin’s interests are served by this strike, why is Russia denying involvement? The answer is simple: Putin knows that President Obama knows, and that’s all that counts. To preserve a pretense of moral credibility, Russia is employing its familiar disinformation strategy to deny responsibility. These denials will cool or distract some of the international public anger against him. But Putin also predicts that two developments will now follow. First, the U.S. won’t provide evidence of Russian culpability. Second, the U.S. will continue dancing Russia’s diplomatic waltz by redeploying John Kerry into another round of pointless negotiations.
The U.S should defy Putin’s expectations in both cases. We should use the U.N. Security Council to confront the Russians with evidence of their culpability. The U.S. should also suspend all cabinet-level discussions with Russia on Syria’s future. Instead, we should escalate our support to moderate rebel factions. For some groups, that support should include the provision of man-portable surface-to-air missile systems.
Related: Putin’s Gun vs. Obama’s Pen
The whys behind this latest Russian aggression are not complicated. In the end, it’s just another product of President Obama’s foreign-policy lethargy. As in the Baltics, Putin continues to hold the reins. And so, Assad’s confidence — and the fuel his regime gives ISIS — grows ever stronger. And U.S. credibility — moral and strategic — grows ever weaker. And the overflowing morgue that is Syria grows ever more desperate.
— Tom Rogan writes for National Review Online and Opportunity Lives. A former panelist on The McLaughlin Group, he is a senior fellow at the Steamboat Institute.His homepage is tomroganthinks.com.
@thekingsmen smarten up. New cold war.
@88m3 and @Blessed Is the Man and @ADevilYouKhow know whats up.
@88m3 and @Blessed Is the Man and @ADevilYouKhow know whats up.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Heres the thing...as disgusting as the GOP is...them MFers know whats up when it comes to geopolitics.Rove...
Bleed.
The.
Enemy.
Period.