The opposition was defeated in the election. Lists of non-parliamentary parties received three percent (which means they have not even received government funding and the right to nominate their candidates without collecting signatures). Not passed and candidates in single-mandate constituencies. Their poor results in the province are not surprising. This is exactly how explained a member of the Federal political Committee of “Yabloko” Lev Shlosberg, “that is, Moscow is not Russia”. Provinces are reluctant to vote for the opposition, but in some areas in Moscow and in St. Petersburg the same “Apple” was firmly in second place. Why, then, not a single Democrat did not take a single Metropolitan area?
Dmitry Gudkov at work.
District No. 208, Central
1. Nikolai Gonchar,
“United Russia” — 34,13%
2. Pavel Tarasov, the Communist party — 13, 23 %
3. Andrei Zubov, PARNAS — of 11.31%
“We have yet to overcome the legacy of the Communist past, but we will be able to do it sooner or later”
4. Maria Baronova, an independent candidate, “Open Russia” — 8,15%
“I are unable to convince their voters that it is necessary to come to the polling station”
Opposition candidates competed. Most likely, if the County had nominated only one of them, then vote in his favor would have been greater. But it is unlikely they would be enough to bypass the main competitor of the “United Russia”. Nikolay Gonchar has already presented the Central district of the capital in the state Duma. Accordingly, awareness among citizens is much higher than that of the defender’s and Professor Zubov, who began campaigning this year alone.
Another factor that influenced the result — low turnout. This is the conventional argument that the opposition explain their defeat. Baronova was illustrated by his good example. She gathered more than 15 thousand signatures for his nomination, but I voted for her 13 thousand people. “At the meetings with voters, many (many 70-80%) of those who signed up for me, said that the elections themselves will not go, because they do not believe in elections and for a long time they do not participate,” wrote Mary, recognizing that to convince voters to change the point of view she could not.
photo: From personal archive
Maria Baronova at work.
District No. 196, Babushkinskiy
1. Ivan Teterin,
“United Russia” — 35,86%
2. Sergei Mitrokhin, Yabloko — 12,78%
“If not biorobots, caught up to vote for the artists (workers of the GBU “zhilischnik”, students of the Academy of the Ministry of emergency situations, etc.), we’d took 2nd and 1st place!”
3. Alexander Potapov, the Communist party — 12,29%
4. Nikolai Lyaskin, the progress Party, PARNAS — 8,07%
“Couldn’t win, and the final reasons have yet to understand. Will have a lot to think about, but it’s too late”
Here was the same problem as in the Central district. The opposition took away votes from each other. But then again, even the sum would not be enough to defeat Colonel-General Teterin.
Sergei Mitrokhin complained to the administrative resource. Nikolai Lyaskin, provided that documentary proof, posting a photo, how the students are going to vote crowd. But still it is not 15% of voters. Most likely, the role played by the fact that Mitrokhin is not a very bright candidate, and Lyaskin too well known among a narrow circle of opposition.
District No. 206, Tushino
1. Gennady Onishchenko,
“United Russia” — 26,04%
2. Dmitry Gudkov, “Apple” And 20.4%
“Our enemy was not Onishchenko, and the turnout, or lack thereof. Unbelief. Indifference”
Campaign Dmitry Gudkov can be called exemplary. He held 250 meetings with voters and has managed to attract enormous opposition to the candidate amount election Fund of 40 million rubles.
Part of the loss due to unequal financial possibilities. The analyst Maxim Katz noted that some things, such as putting up flyers, hooters paid for from the electoral Fund, and former chief sanitary doctor Onishchenko this work for free did municipal workers.
In addition, in the last days before the elections Gudkov was flooded with horror. That there is only a poster with a photo of the former Deputy and the caption “let’s Give Crimea to lift the sanctions”, which was printed competitors. Crimea to our voters — the question is painful, so it is possible that many took a poster for the truth and decided not to vote for Gudkov.
Well, the mantra “the former chief sanitary doctor” sounds very attractive to older voters. Many believe that if the state Duma will be the doctor, it will protect the public health.
District No. 217, Southeast
1. Michael Romanov
“United Russia” — Of 31.39%
2. Oksana Dmitrieva, the Party of growth — 23,92%
“I hope that in the 217th district will cancel the results.In Petersburg there were no fair elections.We demand to investigate the activities of the chairmen and members of election commissions. Falsification has become a profession, this craft,which was put on stream. You need to demand accountability”
Oksana Dmitrieva in 1999 and 2003 has already passed in the Parliament in single-mandate district in St. Petersburg. Results “Fair Russia” in 2011 in the Northern capital was higher than in the whole country, largely due to its popularity. The answer to the question, why Dmitrieva lost to a little-known United Russia Michael Romanov, on the surface. In the same district there were two candidates-spoiler — Olesya Dmitrieva and… Oksana Dmitrieva. Together spoilers gathered 9031 voice — almost as many had Dmitriyeva not enough to get around Mikhail Romanov. Information on violations reviewed by a Prosecutor General, however, Ella Pamfilova said that the CEC has no right to count the votes.
The conclusion of this story is. In the state Duma the candidate from the party list, you only need 5% of votes. The system of elections in single-mandate constituencies is different: a real politician, having in the neighborhood of 25-30%, can get nothing, because the competitor has gained a couple thousand more votes. Into the hands of the candidate of the government can play anything — and administrative resources, and a large amount of money and low turnout, and just fame. It’s the system, not the unbelief of the people has become the main enemy of the opposition candidates in single-mandate constituencies.
By the way, in 2014 Moscow city Duma deputies chose only single-member districts. In particular, therefore, in the capital’s Parliament has no MP from the “Apple”, which, as shown by the elections to the state Duma, has good support in Moscow.