Как проходили самые грязные выборы в истории России?

Overview

The video argues that Russia’s State Duma elections were the “dirtiest” in the history of the Russian Federation. It cites:

• Widespread exclusion of opposition candidates
• Violations of voters’ rights
• Heavy use of forced voting
• Multiple alleged mechanisms of vote manipulation—especially involving electronic voting and procedures in occupied/annexed regions

Key claims about “dirty tricks” and opposition exclusion

• A large share of candidates was allegedly prevented from participating: about one in ten candidates were not allowed to run, with nearly 500 people deregistered or otherwise blocked.
• The video claims Yabloko had the highest rate of non-admission: around a third of its candidates were removed from the race.
• It asserts that the only openly anti-war federal party list was removed. It also claims that, for the first time, federal lists were voted on “without an apple.”
• It claims the elections involved forced turnout and rights violations.
• It says the ruling party (United Russia) declared itself the winner with a “record” result (about 58% on party lists), but argues the figure is not believed due to alleged observer-protocols showing different rankings.

Early voting and special regimes in occupied/annexed areas

• Voting is described as spread across multiple days, with the video claiming the ruling party effectively has time to:
  • “plant results,” or
  • replace/adjust outcomes before official reporting.
• In the LPR, early voting is said to have begun as early as Aug 29, and the video claims early voting reached “incredible proportions”:
  • Just over 4 million early votes in newly annexed territories and border regions
  • Versus about 260,000 early votes in other regions, where early voting was mainly for hard-to-reach areas
• The video cites alleged special election rules, including:
  • Non-publication of polling-station addresses and commission member details
  • Reduced use of conventional video surveillance
  • Mobile ballot boxes and procedures allowed in military settings
• It claims turnout figures (e.g., over 70% on day one in the DPR, reaching 80% by closing) are difficult to believe due to residence uncertainty.
• It also notes alleged rules allowing voting by people with Ukrainian passports, and claims that occupied territories are segmented into districts.

Electronic voting: alleged coercion and opacity

A major section focuses on remote electronic voting and electronic voting at polling stations, described as convenient but lacking meaningful transparency (e.g., no observers/cameras/verified controls).

Alleged coercion

• The video alleges electronic voting is pushed at work and school, including promises of marks or small rewards, and claims institutional instructions to vote starting at 12:00.
• Examples mentioned include employees of large retailers and budget organizations.

Reported scale (Moscow, as claimed)

• About 750,000 in the first two hours
• By the end of day one: 2.27 million total voters in Moscow
• Of those, about 2.1 million allegedly voted electronically
• Only ~180,000 allegedly used paper ballots

Technical/security-related concerns (as claimed)

• A researcher’s claim is cited: Moscow’s electronic system checks for VPN access by testing whether YouTube loads, then sending the result to the election server before login.
• The video also alleges electronic systems failed under pressure (electronic queues) and were later “restored.”

“Noon for Peace,” queues, and polling-station malfunctions (paper voting fails)

• Opposition-called protest voting actions are mentioned, including “Noon for Peace”, where people are instructed to show up at polling stations at 12:00, and queues formed in some places (e.g., Yerevan).
• The video claims that on the main day, many polling stations began failing to issue paper ballots, forcing voters to wait while electronic voting remained available.
• It includes an example of long queues in Moscow where some voters reportedly could not finish voting before stations closed.

High-profile case: disappearance of candidate Yulia Kuznetsova (allegations of pressure)

The video describes the disappearance of State Duma candidate Yulia Kuznetsova shortly before the first voting day in Moscow.

It includes:

• Alleged denial/forgery of documents about withdrawing polling-station representatives
• Observers reportedly being removed based on a claim that she requested it
• Police statements that she was found, but with unclear location details
• Videos/posts indicating she was “fine,” followed by continued lack of a clear explanation

The speaker suggests it is unclear whether this involved:

• kidnapping by security forces, or
• coercion to reduce observer presence,

and argues it seems unlikely to be coincidence.

Observer suppression and alleged bribery/disqualification

The video claims hundreds of thousands of observers were declared, but also describes:

• Observers being barred for technical/administrative reasons
• Conflicts where observers were threatened, removed, or detained
• Internal video surveillance being shut off

It alleges officials treated some observers as “enemies of falsifiers,” using barriers such as:

• controlled entry
• restricted filming
• manipulation of safe packages/ballot handling

Alleged paid observer scheme

• It cites an online advertisement (Avito) offering observers 10,000 rubles per shift, contrasted with proper observer training and lower, legal compensation.

Examples used to illustrate suppression

The video describes incidents such as:

• observers denied due to flash drives or registration arguments
• police removal
• refusal to sign required documentation
• physical conflicts

Specific examples of alleged ballot manipulation

The video presents multiple anecdotal “cases” in which it claims violations were confirmed.

• Yakutsk: observers allegedly conducted overnight monitoring; before counting, officials allegedly opened ballot safe packages early; the commission chairman’s deputy was suspended and hidden ballots declared invalid.
• Oryol region: a damaged seal on a mobile ballot box allegedly led to declaring 250 ballots invalid.
• Additional presented examples include:
  • ballots thrown into collection areas even with camera coverage
  • unexplained “extra ballots” appearing overnight
  • completed ballots found from commission members
  • alleged swapping of ballots in packages/safes

“Carousel” and “home voting” tactics (as described)

• Commission members allegedly collected completed ballots during so-called home voting.
• It claims voters were included without consent, including alleged dead people.
• The speaker argues “home voters” numbers were implausibly high.

Discrediting evidence via AI claims (as argued in the video)

The video claims election authorities attempted to preemptively discredit leaked proof by citing claims that AI could spoof polling-station videos by altering images to fabricate violations.

It argues:

• the “don’t trust videos” narrative is unreliable, and
• some alleged leaks were obvious even without AI.

Overall conclusion

The speaker’s central conclusion is that authorities used a broad toolkit—such as exclusion of opposition candidates, coercion, electronic voting opacity, failure of paper-ballot issuance, suppression of observers, and various forms of ballot manipulation—producing outcomes that do not reflect genuine voter choice.

Presenters / contributors (as named in the subtitles)

• Ella Pamfilova (head of the Central Election Commission, referenced)
• Dmitry Medvedev (referenced)
• Vladimir Putin (referenced)
• Sergei Metrokhin (referenced)
• Viktor Khasiev (polling station head in St. Petersburg, referenced)
• Yulia Kuznetsova (candidate, described)
• Vera Gandhi (referenced)
• Petr Zhizhin (researcher/programmer referenced)
• Nikolai Rybakov (referenced)

Mentioned commission representatives and observers

• Lyuba Vladimirovna Ershova (named in a ballot-counting example)
• Vasily Belkin (candidate referenced)
• Dzhemali Gogol (referenced)
• Yabloko observer Sergei Metrokhin’s observers (unnamed individuals referenced)
• Marina Gennadyevna Malikova (referenced)
• Samaila Pamfilova (referenced)
• Vera Gandhi (referenced)
• Yulia Kuznetsova’s husband (unnamed, referenced)