Problems

Traditional secret voting creates problems at every stage: in the pre-election phase, during the voting process, and when determining the results and their reliable publication. These problems can be caused by malicious actors involved in the election. They can be members of the Central Election Commission, members of the territorial election commissions, members of the precinct election commissions, voters, and non-voters.

Inaccurate Voter Registration

Accidental and Natural Errors

Various technical errors can occur when compiling voter lists. There may be misspellings of names or inaccuracies in the documents serving as the basis for voting eligibility. Voters residing at addresses included in the lists may be accidentally omitted. Conversely, voters who should not be present may be included—those who have moved to other cities, are deceased, have changed citizenship, or are simply “phantom” voters who never existed. Individuals without voting rights may be included in the voter lists. All these errors can arise accidentally or due to natural causes. Natural inaccuracies in registration may be associated with the lack of timely and complete information from the services that supply data to election commissions about all residents in their territory and those leaving it.

Malicious Distortions

Alongside accidental errors, deliberate distortions can be introduced into the voter lists. Non-existent addresses may appear—apartments, houses, and even entire settlements. Non-existent voters may be registered, residing at either existing or non-existent addresses. These “phantom” voters can significantly influence the outcome of an election by altering both the total number of voters and the number of votes cast for a particular candidate.

Detecting such distortions through public oversight is difficult because publishing the full voter list with addresses—which would allow residents to immediately identify additions or omissions—is illegal. Such publication would violate personal data protection laws. It would constitute a massive invasion of the legally protected privacy of private citizens by disseminating information about who lives where and with whom.

Low Voter Turnout

Inconvenience of Visiting a Polling Station

Everyday practical reasons play a significant role in voters’ reluctance to participate in elections. Low turnout is often linked to the need to change one’s plans for the day because of the election, which proves impossible for many. Sometimes, simply getting to one’s designated polling station within the designated voting hours is difficult.

The Problem of Voting Away From One’s Registration Address

A significant problem arises when a voter is far from their registration address at the time of the election. If the legislation provides for postal voting in such a situation, a host of issues emerge: the potential breach of voting secrecy, the risk of fraud through ballot tampering, the logistical challenges of synchronizing the sending, receiving, and counting of ballots, and the necessity of storing ballots that arrive early, among others.

If the system requires obtaining an absentee certificate, which is presented at any polling station along with a passport and is confiscated when casting a vote, the hassle of obtaining this certificate becomes a major inconvenience. Not to mention that a voter who is away for an extended period and did not obtain the certificate in advance for the entire duration of their absence is effectively disenfranchised. Furthermore, these certificates themselves can become a tool for abuse.

Distrust in the Process

One reason for voters’ unwillingness to participate is often the absence of suitable candidates among those running and a disbelief in the effectiveness of voting “against all.” Another reason is distrust in the vote-counting procedure, which, due to its lack of transparency, is perceived as dishonest.

Violations at Polling Stations

Ballot Counting Manipulation

The simplest method is the fictitious counting of votes, where ballots are sorted and counted not according to the marks on them, but arbitrarily or according to a pre-arranged plan. The counting is conducted without showing the marks on the ballots to the members of the election commission, essentially asking them to trust that the sorting was done correctly allegedly based on those marks.

Ballot Stuffing

Carousel Voting

A complex scheme was developed and implemented for ballot stuffing during voting hours. It involves creating groups of implementers, some of whom are members of election commissions, while others act as voters. This scheme became known as “carousel”.

According to this method, lists of voters not participating in the election were prepared in advance, and route sheets were compiled. These sheets specified the polling stations where to vote and the candidates to vote for at each of them.

On election day, these route sheets were distributed to fake voters who followed the routes, voting at different polling stations by signing in the voter lists on behalf of those who were not voting. Discreet stickers were pasted in passports of fake voters for their identification by engaged members of the precinct election commission. These stickers were easily removed after the “carousel” . So that fake voters could identify their accomplices on the commissions, these accomplices wore a conspicuous, pre-agreed badge. Buses or private cars were often used to quickly transport these fake voters from one polling station to another.

Countering such violations is practically impossible. They are carried out under the direct patronage of local authorities, who form the election commissions and control their work. Detecting such violations is only possible by engaging independent public observers. However, even if detected and independently video-recorded, observers lack conclusive evidence of these crimes, as unofficial video recordings are generally not admissible as evidence in court.

Manipulation of Protocols and Result

Substitution of Protocols and Falsification of Results

The protocol containing the voting results, signed by members of the precinct election commission, can be substituted by the courier—usually the chairman of the precinct election commission—during its transfer to a higher election commission. The protocols can be forged at the level of the territorial election commission. Furthermore, the territorial election commission can enter deliberately distorted voting results into the summary protocols transmitted to the central election commission, where, in turn, distortions can be introduced into the published election results. All these actions are hidden from the public and observers. Preventing them is impossible, and securing punishment for them is extremely difficult due to the ease with which they can be concealed and, consequently, the lack of accessible evidence.

The Helplessness of the Law

Introducing legal liability for the falsification of voting results into legislation does not protect against its occurrence. For instance, in Russia, Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for any actions leading to the distortion of voting results, carried out at any stage of the organization and conduct of elections [le1] .

However, the application of this article is only possible in case of detection of the crimes described therein and the submission of corroborating evidence to the court. Yet, the law does not specify the essence of such evidence. And implementing total control that would allow for the identification and evidential recording of these offenses, especially in the territorial and central election commissions, is practically impossible, and there is no one. Only indirect confirmations of the crimes committed are available, for example, through mathematical analysis. But such reasoning cannot be presented in court as evidence and does not allow for the identification of the guilty parties. Therefore, many of the offenses provided for by this article can be committed with complete impunity.

Unfree Voting

Vote Buying and Coerced Voting

Numerous cases of vote trading have been recorded, where a voter casts their ballot as required and reports on their vote by presenting photographs of their ballots. The parties to such voting agreements do not publicize their arrangement, making it practically impossible to learn about, let alone counteract.

Cases of coercion to vote in a certain way, with confirmation of participation and choice provided by photographs of the ballot, are also frequent. Even when a voter wants to free themselves from this coercion, they cannot count on the support of the Law, as it is impossible to prove the malicious intent of those pressuring them, or even the fact of pressure itself.

An Ineffective Law

The law against vote buying or voter coercion is powerless because it cannot be enforced. For instance, in Russia, Article 141 of the Criminal Code provides for criminal liability for “Obstructing the free exercise by a citizen of their electoral rights …, violation of voting secrecy, … combined with bribery, deception, coercion, the use of violence or the threat of its use … using one’s official position …” [le2] .

However, no known cases of this article being applied are known.

Non-admission of a Candidate

Refusal of Registration

In a moment of fracture, when an individual or group seeks to usurp power and already has the ability to change laws, they can alter legislation in such a way that the registration of a candidate for an elected office is surrounded by a set of conditions allowing for the disqualification of any person. Following the principle of “to friends - everything, to others - the law.” The implementation of this principle relies on the ability of the authorities to influence legal practice.

There are no legal means to counter these abuses.

The arrest

The extreme form of illegally retaining power has become the arrest of a candidate on fabricated grounds or without any grounds at all. This method is used by criminals who have seized power. Society is not prepared to counter this arbitrariness because it cannot comprehend the extent to which its rights are being violated and what real support the arrested candidate enjoys within the population.