Talk:2007 Russian legislative election

Lists

Does anyone know whether an open list or a closed list system will be used? Esn 10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's closed list. For example, in the case of United Russia, the first three positions on the list are Putin's. -- int19h 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

open/close lists

It's a closed list system.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

This article should mention that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe recalled all their election monitors due to excessive restrictions placed on them by the Russian government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.175.93 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ballot scanning?

There have been pictures of voters "feeding" their ballots into what appears to be automatic ballot boxes. Are the ballot papers scanned and subject for some sort of computerized counting? --Camptown 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Head of Government vs. Premier

I'm unsure as to what the appropriate language is for the opening sentence: On 1 October 2007, Putin announced he would run first place on the United Russia list and that he might consider becoming Premier after the elections. I think that 'Premier' has larger negative cold war era-based connotations over 'Head of Government'. The original Bloomberg.com article actually quotes Putin as saying: 'To become the head of government is quite a realistic proposal,'. I'm not willing to change these linguistics, but merely suggest here that such a change would be supported by at least one other wikipedian. Jeff Carr 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to Prime Minister as it is the official title. Mushroom (Talk) 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Vladimir Putin will likely become the new prime minister (i.e. "head of government", while the president is "head of state"). The current PM is Viktor Zubkov, who might become the next president if he wins the upcoming election. Cmrdm 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Techincally, the official title is "Chairman of the Government", and not Prime Minister (though the latter is also widely used in Russia unofficially). -- int19h 07:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fraud

All available articles about this election report massive fraud. 99.4% for Putin in Chechnya. This should also be stated in this article. References e.g. BBC, CNN, Hindustan Times, NEWS.com.au --Mpeylo 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia or its editors aren't a jury to decide. And your first source comes from a country that very recently had serious political issues with Russia. An "Allegations of Fraud" would seem fine, not a section deciding it was certainly the case. --Leladax 10:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source, including on issues related to Russia. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-3 10:27

I was not able to find any reliable non-russian article not stating that there has been fraud. So not writing about fraud is the decision to actively omit this. --Mpeylo 11:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I said "Allegations of Fraud" would be fine. Who is the biased? --Leladax 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? then you get E for effort. AP: "Several opposition leaders accused the Kremlin of rigging the vote, and the United States called for an investigation into voting irregularities. Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov called the election "the most irresponsible and dirty" in the post-Soviet era. (...) In Chechnya, where turnout was over 99 percent, witnesses reported seeing election authorities filling out and casting voter ballots in the suburbs of the regional capital, Grozny." Putin's party sweeps Russian election; U.S. calls for investigation --HanzoHattori 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Disregard this. I thought you wrote: "I was not able to find any reliable non-russian article stating that there has been fraud." --HanzoHattori 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo - learn to transliterate properly. Zuyganov said that the Ballot Count was "the most irresponsible and dirty" not the election itself. He simply called for a recount by the Communist Party. And the U.K. and Russia are at odds over the Litvinenko case, so I don't think that BBC would be unbiased. In addition Putin's Gazprom is a direct competitor to British Petrol, once again showing why BBC would be biased. Although I wouldn't call this election Democratic, I would say that it was the most Democratic Election in Russia in the 20th and 21st centuries. UAD 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.82.225 (talk)

You're missing the fact that Britain is not Russia. You might want to check out the Freedom of the press article. The BBC is said to be one of the most objective news sources worldwide and the're never biased by UK politics. --84.56.182.150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

According to whom? BBC? US?

-g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.249 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chechnya: "99% voted, 99,4% on United Russia"

Only over 99%? In Iraq in 2002, Saddam Hussein scored exactly 100%, look Putin and learn. --HanzoHattori 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind, this is nothing new. Already in March 2000, with the carpet bombings still going on, and most of the population diplaced in some way or another (and tens of thousands killed or wounded), Putin supposedly won the presidential elections in Chechnya (even if only 50.6% votes back then). All the next polls followed the pattern, and now they don't care for even a minimal plausibility.

Related: Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov says there is no need for opposition parties in the Russian republic. "Mr Kadyrov also repeated that 100% of voters in Chechnya would support the party headed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in coming elections." --HanzoHattori 11:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

Chechnya has 580,918 voters on its lists, and 578,039 of them took part in the elections. This makes 99.5%," commission head Ismail Baikhanov told Interfax. United Russia gained 99.36% of votes in Chechnya; the Communist Party - 0.13%; the Liberal Democratic Party - 0.08%; and Fair Russia - 0.06%. The rest had less than 0.06%, he said. "The information is final and cannot change," Baikhanov said.

Congratulations, Mr. Putin. Will you next time exceed 100.00% and beat Saddam? Only time will tell! --HanzoHattori 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

why don't you suggest invasion right out. you know you want it. --Leladax 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, delicious invasion. One problem: you are late 8 years. --HanzoHattori 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you stop your Russophobic hysteria just for moment, please? 81.211.60.42 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Putinophobic. It's a phobia of someday wake up to live in the land where over 99% of citiziens supposedly vote the party of a short ex-KGB lieutanant-colonel. Also no. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not a forum. You won't find many immature readers to easily absorb your propaganda. --Leladax (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia can live without your phobias and well wishes. Respect the people's choice, even if they choose someone from your nightmares. 81.211.60.42 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia can live without dicatators and Little Saddams/Little Stalins (excuse me, my Stalinophobia is untreatable). I do respect people's choices, especially when they wonder how they voted when they didn't. Did you "respect people's choices" in the USSR (so-called) elections too? Did you respect the 100% for Saddam Hussein? --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If Iraqis want Hussein to be their president, then let them be. Having a president vilified by the "international community" is better than being occupied, re-colonized by "liberators" in shining armor and having "democracy" shoved down your throat. "Thank you, we'd rather not have the kind of democracy one can see in Iraq" (c) Putin in response to Bush presenting post-2003 Iraq as a "truly democratic country". Russians are not savages in need of your condescending lectures, they are a great nation with a 1000-year history, and they can decide by themselves what's better for their land. 81.211.60.42 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"If Iraqis want Hussein to be their president" I hope you are not serious, or you you must be living on another planet. Anyway, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them supposedly voted for Saddam in 2002. The people who were later tried and executed him, too. And the people (thousands of them) who cheered this event (the hanging of Saddam) on the streets of Iraq, as well. Yeah, they did "want Hussein to be their president". Of course they did, Mr. 81.211.60.42 from the Planet X (or maybe just Russia). --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nice when at least Russians are happy about the elections. Maybe we should put it in article? But rest of the world is not that happy about seeing history repeat himself and a country building up new form of possibly hostile autocratic government.

At the same time, are all Russians happy with the results? Or are those who are not happy being silenced? Like happened to opposition demonstrations? Suva Чего? 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let’s take a look at some official data: of these 17,779 people 17,779 took part in the elections, and 17,779 voted for UR. No comments. Roman V. Odaisky (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to sound boring here, but it is not Wikipedia's place to state that "an implausible 99.2% of residents backed the ruling party". It may or may not be implausible - it is not our place to state it. We could only state that the implausibility has been declared, and then we state when and by whom, and show our sources.Tobycek (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, did the Red Army take your grandfather prisoner and dishonored the entire Japanese Army by defeating it in less then a month, in the War of 1945? Is that where your little Stalinophobia comes from? I'm an American investor in Russia, and let me tell you, Putin = Stability. By electing Putin, Russians have said that they want Stability over Democracy, at least at this point in time, and Russians (living in Russia) please correct that if I am wrong. Also the Soviet Union wasn't hostile until in got invaded by Hitler. Look at the facts kids. And Hanzo, if you want to invade a country with nukes, you are officially retarded. That and if you want to invade Russia, remember all the empires that got crushed invading it, (Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler) just to name a few, so if you want to invade Russia, you are also officially retarded. Thus you are doubly officially retarded. Damn, didn't think that was possible. UAD12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.82.225 (talk)

lol wikipedia. --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Investing in russia... Ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamplways a good idea. I do hope they are short time investments though. :P Suva Чего? 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought democracy = stability and that concentrating all the power in one hands is great strike to stability. And this brain washing from telesion set is annoying me. With help of it 90% of Russians think that US is our primary hostile and Putin is the Chosen One and only one to save our country. I think only US can say thanks to Putin because our oil revenues are invested in the US economy. --195.209.240.30 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, someone once said that great nations (big countries) can never be lead by true democracy as there are too many people and too many views. Bringing true democracy to Russia would probably split the country into many smaller regions which some of them would become autonomous. That might become problem as the natural resources are spread in deeper areas. Democracy is dangerous game to play for Russia. Suva Чего? 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "smaller regions which some of them would become autonomous"? Isn't it supposed to be a federation to begin with? Germany is a federation which successfully made from empire to democracy (eventually), is it now a failed state at any rate? --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Russia and Germany is not that good idea. :) 12:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suva (talk • contribs)

Why not? Formerly totalitarian Germany is now small but wealthy democratic federal state (and this wealth is shared between the citizens). While Russia is the world's biggest cross between banana republic and oil emirate, ruled by what they now say is the richest man in Europe ($40,000,000,000). --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, than maybe US is not a great nation (big country) or it is not a true democracy? And how about India. Maybe Germany not a big country. The fact is that Russia never was a democracy and this because we lag behind western world now. Such country as Russia MUST be very very rich and prosperous and now this is not so. And about "true democracy to Russia would probably split the country into many smaller regions which some of them would become autonomous": is federative system is not a key to OK?--Euoa (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Democracy in USA is disputable. Someone commented on the Putin Plan, that the goals might be bringing Russia to democracy through pseudo-democratic oligarchy. Compare the idea of soviet plans to bring USSR to communism through socialism. Either way, as democracy is relatively new thing for Russia and as it suffered during Yeltsin time (Not so much because of the fact of democracy but general problematic period of collapse of the USSR), it is more stable to run the country this way. Whether this works, and whether this is beneficial for the Russian people and rest of the world is another topic. Suva Чего? 12:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Democracy in USA is disputable." No comment. --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But democracy is always disputable. Only totalitarianism isn't disputed by anyone. The democracy is always a struggle to protect your rights, it's never a static thing, but a dynamic: you fight for yourself, and simultaneous fight of millions people is called democracy. It's same in Russia just we don't always understand why and how and why for should we fight. ellol (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what ellol said. Other thing is election mechanics for example. Let's say, I give my vote to person X, what does it mean? For me, it means I like person X and I want him to make decisions that benefit me. But what does it mean for people Up There? Lot of things. Person X and his whole party might have set up candidacy only to dissolve votes. (People against party Y vote for this party or some other party, thus effectively dissolving votes between several parties which none of them gets over the threshold). Person X might be there to collect votes for the party (Later say he don't want to go into parliament and give his votes to someone else in party). Either way whether this is a democracy or not, is really disputable. Do you really decide who get's into parliament, or does people who want to get into parliament create good enough methods to get the goal?

For example current Russian elections had dissolver parties, and as US elections are even more complex and allow more playing room. The elections and democracy in USA are really disputable. Not in the form as if ballots were faked or stuff like thab. But in the ratio of who decides over what really happens, is it you, or the Big Man? Suva Чего? 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Say better, big money... ellol (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here I better agree with the opinion of the Civilian Power: only when Russian middle class grows substantial enough will it claim for its rights. Not ask for them, discuss or issue concerns, it'll just take them. [1] [2] True democracy can't be settled by the government -- any government -- democracy can only arise with the middle class. ellol (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is funny to compare Russian and American democracy. Elections in US is in autumn 2008 and in Russia in March and I hear much more about American elections than about Russian, living in Russia :-). Maybe who not sure that US a democracy told me who will win elections? I'm simply can say who will win in Russian golosovalka. May I ask you, Ellol, don't you think Civilian Power is one more Kremlin project? Some people call it simply spoiler created for last parliament 'election'.--195.209.240.30 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

State news coverage

I just watched the Russian news on RTR2 (RTR-Planet) and the story clearly said that "There were absolutely no complaints registered from OCSE / other parties". This is a fine case of state-owned media lying to the people.ASk 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. The Russian Central Election Commission really didn't get any complaints from OSCE yet. There was a little scandal (well, little -- reaching as far as to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) that OSCE has made public its opinion on the poll without even informing the Central Election Commission about it. And, as Russian Ministry claims, OSCE has made its statement before it could ever talk to its observers. [3]

Anyway this new age informational cold war gets more and more interesting. On December 2 state TV Channel Vesti 24 has aired 3 statements of observers (2 western and 1 chineese) who admitted elections were free and well organized [4]. On December 3 there was interview with an independent observer Michael Collins (could you recognize the guy, btw?) [5] who e.g. said "OSCE has a very confrontational position towards Russia". ellol 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Check Russian presidential election, 2004. OSCE and PACE observers called the elections "free but not fair". I believe the question today is the same: are the elections free? are the elections fair? ellol 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The elections in 2004 were called free but not fair largely because voters were allowed to make their own choices; they were not compelled to vote for any particular party and if they wanted to stay home, they weren't pressured to go out and vote. They were not "fair" in the sense that the state media didn't give people information about opposition party and the government made it extremely difficult for opposition parties to be heard. It's different this time because of the allegations of interference by Nashi, allegations of ballot fraud in Chechnya, expelling of observers...well, I mean come on. It's patently obvious that Putin rigged this election. 204.191.171.63 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Illisium

The problem is we have no information. In previous elections OSCE and PACE had issued thorough reports, which we do not have now. We do not know how seriously did the violations affect people's ability to freely express their will. Note things which Chechnya were the same, Nashi didn't do any actions in the day of the election, Opposition parties had TV time to express their positions, althout much info about the United Russia went in usual informational blocks which was not fair. There are lots of registered violations. But we need to scale them to millions of voters which seemingly wasn't done yet. Although of course the major unfairness of the elections was Putin's support for the United Russia which gave the party some additional 20% of votes due to Putin's immense popularity.

E.g., it's not a right point in the discussion as it's OR but I've got important information about my party through TV debates, I voted for it in my polling station (a town in the Moscow district) and there were no violations of secrecy of my vote (booths), no influence for me to vote on someone specific, people in the commission were quite friendly. Not a point for discussion, but I mean there's practically no information on the elections rather than allegations. ellol (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Supermajority

" But for the first time since collapse of the Soviet Union one party meaning United Russia got supermajority (more than 2/3 of seats). " So we say, but 64 % is not more than 2/3. What have I missed? 130.88.140.4 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The percent of votes a party receives doesn't mean the number of seats they get in parliament. Seats are got by different mandates, either by location, by person, by party, etc. Also, some votes get "lost" as they don't go over the 7% threshold party needs to get any mandates. (The system is quite more complex than just percent of votes) Suva Чего? 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement is not actually true. United Russia had supermajority as early as 2005 already (with 305 seats out of 450), because of many PMs - mostly independents - joining United Russia some time after the 2003 parliamentary election. -- int19h (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is proportional system of voting. Votes that received parties which didn't overcome 7% threshold go to parties which did it. 91% votes got parties which now have mandates in Duma. So if you had voted for party which didn't overcome threshold, 64,3% of 91% (70,7%) of your vote go to United Russia, 11.6% of 91% (12,7%) of your vote go to CPRF, 8.1% of 91% (8,9%) of your vote go to LDPR and 7.7% of 91% (8,4%) of your vote go to Fair Russia, and in fact your vote for this party is cancelled. 80.251.112.43 17:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Norman Stone is a very odd person

His victory also reflects a will on the part of Russians never to have to go through the horrors of the Chechen war ever again. Remember the Moscow theatre siege, and the gassing of the audience? Or the Beslan schoolchildren massacred in their own urine? That these things are in the past is to Mr Putin's credit, and so they deserve to be.

What the heck? These things are precisely "Mr Putin's credit". He ordered all these attacks, gave medals to his field commanders (and also to "the chemist who poured the gas", as we are on "the gassing"), and presided over "the horrors". This argumentation is purely insane, it's like saying about Stalin in the 1940s: "Remember the horrors of the Great Purge, or the Ukrainians starved to death in their millions? That these things are in the past is to Mr Stalin's credit, and so they deserve to be." --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, usually the major blame on possible or real victims in such cases lies on the terrorists. It's they who sieged the Moscow Theater. It's they who sieged kids in Beslan. The authorities had to react. To react forcibly because no government negotiates with terrorists. They made huge mistakes in both cases. Perhaps they shall be qualified as crimes (like in Moscow Siege -- medics weren't allowed to know the classified formula of the gas and so couldn't provide adequate treatment). But I hope you don't want to claim it were not terrorists but Putin who organized Siege of Moscow Theater and Beslan Siege? ellol (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Every DEMOCRATIC government negotiates with terrorists, in order to rescue the hostages (even Israelis commented on this after Moscow). Russian government actually REFUSED to some hostages (like foreigners in 2002) to be released, and did nothing to release the others. In 2004 hostages were released only by... a FORMER government official who was previously forced to resign by Putin, that is Ruslan Aushev, and Putin's own pack did absolutely NOTHING positive and only severely worsened the situation (lies about the numbers), and eventually triggered the bloodbath in which most hostages were most probably killed by the government forces (again, even if not gassed to death this time so the people most directly responsible for this gassing would be named the Heroes of Russia by their glorious commander-in-chief). --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, you have any proof, or are you just rabbling at this point? Because Putin lost popularity after Nordost. It's kinda strange that he would sacrifice his own popularity, don't ya think? Proof, proof, proof, and you have none. UAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.82.225 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Proof" of what? The massacres did nothing to make him lost his power, or actually even popularity in long terms - his power only increased (the laws were changed in favour of the regime and siloviki). And as of popularity... these "horrors" (citation) of Chechnya CREATED the (genue) popularity of Putin - before them he was nobody in the cabinet of a really, really unpopular Boris Yeltsin. But now some guy (Norman Stone) argues the things Putin did (like the "horror" war he personally initiated) are now "past" also thanks to Putin. This is an insane logic. Or maybe a really, really sick display of cynicism. Or maybe he was just ironic, in the way I didn't get it? Anyway, let's try if I can write an awesome comment like this, too - His victory in the 2002 poll also reflects a will on the part of Iraqis never to have to go through the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war ever again. Remember the Operation Anfal, and the gassing of Halabja? Or the mass graves of Shiites and a conscript soldiers melted with their vehicles on the road from Kuwait? That these things are in the past is to Mr Hussein's credit, and so they deserve to be. - hey, I can! I must write an opinion article for The Times pronto, so I can be cited on Wikipedia.

And again, you meant a "proof" of what exactly? That Putin is responsible for all the "horrors" of the war he 1) started 2) personally directed (from the very beginning to the end, if there was any) 3) presided over? The "horrors of the Chechen war" made him the president, and Beslan was even already in his second term. And no, the terrorism in Russia didn't end because of him, it ended because the rebels decided to rather concentrate on attacking government forces in Chechnya and beyond, and just stop attacking civilians. Blowing up or seizing some civilians at random is really much, much easier than turning a regional capital into a battlefield for a day (Nalchik in 2005) or shooting-up a police car or checkpoint practically every day (little Ingushetia in 2007). Or do you need a further "proof" for this too? --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Final results

Someone who actually understands Russian should probably get the information about invalid votes, valid votes, total votes cast and turnout from the official site and put it into the template -- I only managed to get the party percentages and votes. Thanks! —Nightstallion 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Babelfish and I figured it out. —Nightstallion 14:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is perfect now

Unless something new worth of mention happens (an appeal, investigation, etc) I'd leave it as it is, and also request the new rating(s). --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I think this article is now in good condition and could be even rated higher than "B". It worth mentioning that people did not know who were voting for: no any names were shown in the bulletins, only names of parties. Many people though they are voting for Putin. But Putin and 150+ other people now have declared that they withdraw, although they were officially announced as Party candidates before the elections. Also, more could be said about various fraud tactics used at these elections, such as "dead souls" (people who died a few years ago but whose bulletins were used to vote for United Russia), giving "gifts" to voters, and a lot of other things.Biophys (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It worth mentioning that people did not know who were voting for: no any names were shown in the bulletins, only names of parties. That's not exactly true. As far as I can remember the sight of a bulletin, for each party there were 1) "federal three" (troika) of the party and 2) troika of the party in the region of RF where the election took place. See one such bulletin, just note that regional troikas were different for different regions. ellol (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That picture actually confirms the the Biophys opinion. Note that the federal troika of United Russia is actually an "odinka". About frauds, a friend from russia confirmed atleast ballot stuffing in region outside Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Suva Чего? 09:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did I say anything about ballot stuffing? Can you read at all? I wrote: "that's not exactly true". If you read that as "that's completely false" it's only your problems. ellol (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The ballot stuffing was actually a reply to Biophys. Not to you. And as for the bulleting. The Putins name is prominently mentioned alone in there (+ regional leaders). Thus confirming that people considered the vote mostly as a vote for Putin. But as the party system works in Russia (and in most other places in the world), there isn't much difference who you vote for in person, as the decisions are made inside party, and in parliamentary voting the party votes as a whole. If someone from the party doesn't he is considered to be a traitor and sometimes even cast out of the party. Suva Чего? 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my sharp answer, it wasn't correct. In fact, I envy you. Really. You so easily understand Russia and Putin. While I, a Russian who's looking into the Russian politics for the last several years still understand nothing and that hardly will change. ellol (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good comment by Andrei Piontkovsky [6]. Biophys (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And an interesting essay by Sergei Kovalev [7]. Suva Чего? 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation of my contrib -- "эти выборы сделаны по-русски, - я не могу сказать демократические или не демократические - я не могу анализировать в этом смысле." "the election was made in a Russian style — I can't say whether democratic or not — I can't analyze it in this aspect" "Я вчера был на около десяти участках вчера и видел, как люди голосовали и также как считались в конце выборов результаты. И моя общая точка зрения была такая - в принципе то, что случилось вчера – это были нормальные выборы, и в техническом смысле работали хорошо. " Commenting on his personal experience of observing about 10 polling stations, he said "my general point is that in principle what happened yesterday were normal elections and in technical sense they worked well." http://echo.msk.ru/guests/15077/ ellol (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"А.ВОРОБЬЕВ: Но, тем не менее, формально президент имел право возглавить список одной из партий.

К.КИЛЬЮНЕН: Да, это интересный вопрос. Потому что я тоже так думаю. Вы не сделали против вашего закона. И когда я наблюдаю выборы, я честно скажу, - было это против закона, или не против закона. Я думаю, что президент имеет право быть кандидатом, губернатор имеет право быть кандидатом - я не критикую это, я только спрашиваю - как это возможно?"

Commenting a statement by the host that "the president had a formal right to head the list of one of the parties" he said "I also think so. You didn't do it against your law." ellol (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's keep this short and essantional

Examplary "Journalist Grigory Belonuchkin, delegated as an observer by the CPRF, who had a chance to oversee the process of counting votes both in the polling station No. 301 and in the local election committee of the town of Dolgoprudny, Moscow Oblast, claims that the chairpersons of several polling stations attempted to forge the results while transmitting them to the above committee, rigging vote count in favor of the United Russia, as the final figures issued to the observers at the polling stations and final figures sent to the above committee were considerably different." is absolutely excessive in detail. CPRF claims thousands of violations, if we would analyse even part of them in this manner we'd at least need a sub-article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good source

Good Russian language source. Go to Institute for Economic Analysis, a think-tank led by Andrey Illarionov and click "СПЕЦОПЕРАЦИЯ «ВЫБОРЫ 2 ДЕКАБРЯ 2007 г.» (Special operation "Elections 2007") - this is an excellent statistical analysis of this and other elections results. It shows scientifically which elections in Russia and Ukraine were doctored and how. Also look here [8] and especially "The Siloviki Regime In Russia" (English) a Power point presentation in the Institute for Economic Analysis. That is so good! Biophys (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Какой явный вид коррелятора на слайде 10? ellol (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

results

traditionally the % results are give at net of invalid ballot not at gross--79.49.21.248 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian legislative election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071225214059/http://www.news.com.au:80/mercury/story/0,22884,22866767-5005940,00.html?from=public_rss to http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22866767-5005940,00.html?from=public_rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian legislative election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309025708/http://www.partinform.ru/new.htm to http://www.partinform.ru/new.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0%2C22884%2C22866767-5005940%2C00.html?from=public_rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Russian legislative election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225104924/http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&date=20071203&id=7889771 to http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&date=20071203&id=7889771
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624194344/http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1-rus.asp to http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1-rus.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624194344/http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1-rus.asp to http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1-rus.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209155923/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1979 to http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1979
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624194344/http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1-rus.asp to http://www.rferl.org/newsline/1-rus.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)