Armenian PresidentialElections 2013Statistical Evidence ofElection FraudSassoon Kosian, PFA FellowApril 20, 2013
OverviewPFA is an independent think tank consisting ofprofessionals in many fieldsPFA‟s mission includes strengthening the...
PFA ReportsArmenia‟s 2012 Parliamentary Election, Dec 2012;Armenia: Averting an Economic Catastrophe, Feb 2012;The State o...
The ElectionsOn February 18, 2013 presidential elections tookplaceAccording to official results, incumbent SergeSargsyan w...
How We Did the AnalysisOfficial Voting Results Statistical AnalysisAnalysis was exclusively based on official data from CEC
Three Types of Analysis1. Digit Test2. Voter Turnout Analysis3. Candidates Share vs. Turnout
# 1: Digit TestDigit Test checks if reported numbers show an even use of digits(0, 1, 2, 3, …)In all natural processes all...
# 1: Digit TestToo many0‟s and 1‟sToo few 4‟sLast Digit Last Digit%Distribution%Distribution
# 1. Digit Test- Digit Test At Work in Other Countries
# 1: Digit TestConclusionThere is evidence of manipulating with votecount numbers in regions outside of Yerevanand Gyumri
# 2: Voter Turnout AnalysisEach polling station has a certain number of registered voters– Voter‟s list is maintained by t...
# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Overall VotesWe expect a Normal (Gaussian) distribution of Voter Turnout
# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Overall VotesIn official reported numbers, the distribution of Voter Turnout showsa significa...
# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Votes for Each CandidateMany polling stations registered unusually high number of votes forSe...
ConclusionOverall Voter Turnout distribution significantlydeviates from expected Normal distributionAnalysis shows highly ...
# 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutUp to this point we have seen some really unusual patterns in thevoting numbers and candi...
# 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutThis is another common type of analysis for Election FraudWe need to plot the Candidate S...
# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout- Research on other countries national pollsThere is a clear difference in pattern betwee...
# 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutAnalysis reveals a strong relationship between the voter turnout and % ofvotes received b...
# 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutWe see the opposite picture with the votes received for Raffi HovhannisianHigher turnout ...
ConclusionWe have established a strong link betweenturnout and the main candidates‟ share ofvotesSerge Sargsyan significan...
Overall Results Of the AnalysisElections were significantly rigged in favor of incumbentSerge SargsyanAnalysis included mu...
How Fraud Takes PlaceMany forms of fraudulent actions lead to rigged elections– Ballot stuffing– Vote bribing– Intimidatio...
The Role of Criminal OligarchyOligarchy is the primary support base of the ruling regimeOligarchy provides machinery, musc...
Voters List Needs To Be PublicizedCurrent election law does not allow to publish the list ofregistered voters who actually...
Constitutional CourtElection outcomes were challenged in Armenia‟s highest court,the Constitutional Court, by Raffi Hovhan...
Western ObserversWestern Observers‟ assessments serve as a major factor for thegovernment in creating a legitimate appeara...
Reactions From SocietyStrong reaction from the small but vibrant civil societyWe have seen a major shift from previous ele...
Reactions In DiasporaDiaspora has traditionally supported the government, whoever mightbe in charge of itWhile the sense o...
THANK YOU!
Non-PFA Independent AnalysisThe Protesters Are Right: Evidence Suggests More Election Fraud in Last Week’sElections in Arm...
Non-PFA Independent AnalysisIndependent Russian analysts
Non-PFA Independent AnalysisIndependent Russian analysts
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Statistical analysis of electoral fraud presidential elections in armenia 2013

899 views

Published on

This is a presentation of analysis done by Policy Forum Armenia (PFA) revealing wide scale election fraud committed during 2013 presidential elections in Armenia

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
899
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Statistical analysis of electoral fraud presidential elections in armenia 2013

  1. 1. Armenian PresidentialElections 2013Statistical Evidence ofElection FraudSassoon Kosian, PFA FellowApril 20, 2013
  2. 2. OverviewPFA is an independent think tank consisting ofprofessionals in many fieldsPFA‟s mission includes strengthening the economyand democratic norms in ArmeniaPFA provides analysis, recommendations andalternative views on major challenges facing Armeniaand the DiasporaPFA unites professionals and researchers in Armeniaand in the DiasporaLearn more about PFA at www.pf-armenia.org
  3. 3. PFA ReportsArmenia‟s 2012 Parliamentary Election, Dec 2012;Armenia: Averting an Economic Catastrophe, Feb 2012;The State of Armenias Environment, Dec 2010;Armenia-Diaspora Relations: 20 Years SinceIndependence, Feb 2010;Yerevans 2009 Mayoral Election: Statistical Analysis,Sept 2009;Implications of the World Financial Crisis for Armenia‟sEconomy, Dec 2008;Armenia‟s 2008 Presidential Election: Select Issues andAnalysis, July 2008.
  4. 4. The ElectionsOn February 18, 2013 presidential elections tookplaceAccording to official results, incumbent SergeSargsyan was declared a winner with 58% of thevotes while Raffi Hovhannisyan was reported to getthe second place with 37% of the votesClaims of fraud and protests immediately followedShortly after the elections PFA conducted acomprehensive analysis of the resultsKey highlights of the analysis are presented here,for the full report visit the PFA website
  5. 5. How We Did the AnalysisOfficial Voting Results Statistical AnalysisAnalysis was exclusively based on official data from CEC
  6. 6. Three Types of Analysis1. Digit Test2. Voter Turnout Analysis3. Candidates Share vs. Turnout
  7. 7. # 1: Digit TestDigit Test checks if reported numbers show an even use of digits(0, 1, 2, 3, …)In all natural processes all digits occur at approximately the samerate around 10%A significant deviation from this rule indicates some kind ofartificial interferenceDigit Test is particularly effective when looking at the last digit ina number– E.g. too many zeros could mean someone has inflated thenumbers by adding 0‟s at the end– … or, someone has fabricated numbers, and numbers withzeros at the end (200, 50, 5000, …) just happen to be easierto fabricate than numbers without zeros
  8. 8. # 1: Digit TestToo many0‟s and 1‟sToo few 4‟sLast Digit Last Digit%Distribution%Distribution
  9. 9. # 1. Digit Test- Digit Test At Work in Other Countries
  10. 10. # 1: Digit TestConclusionThere is evidence of manipulating with votecount numbers in regions outside of Yerevanand Gyumri
  11. 11. # 2: Voter Turnout AnalysisEach polling station has a certain number of registered voters– Voter‟s list is maintained by the Police DepartmentNot all registered voters go to polls – this is true in every societyVoter Turnout = % of registered voters who actually go to the pollingstation and cast their voteVoter Turnout AnalysisAnalyzes the distribution of Voter TurnoutInvestigates if there are any abnormal patterns in Voter TurnoutdistributionKey: In free and fair elections Voter Turnout and Share of Votesfor each candidate are expected to have a Normal (Gaussian)distribution
  12. 12. # 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Overall VotesWe expect a Normal (Gaussian) distribution of Voter Turnout
  13. 13. # 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Overall VotesIn official reported numbers, the distribution of Voter Turnout showsa significant departure from the expected Normal patternWe observe unusually high turnout (>70%) in many polling stationsExpected Turnout Official TurnoutInflated voterturnout
  14. 14. # 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Votes for Each CandidateMany polling stations registered unusually high number of votes forSerge Sargsyan and unusually low numbers for Raffi HovhannisianExpected OutcomeExpected Outcome
  15. 15. ConclusionOverall Voter Turnout distribution significantlydeviates from expected Normal distributionAnalysis shows highly inflated numbers inmany polling stationsIn many polling stations, Serge Sargsyanreceived unusually high number of votes whileRaffi Hovhannisian received unusually lownumber of votes# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis
  16. 16. # 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutUp to this point we have seen some really unusual patterns in thevoting numbers and candidates‟ sharesWe may have started to have suspicionsBut we have not yet established a clear link between theabnormal patterns of voter numbers and any particular candidateWe would like to find an answer to a question: Who benefitedfrom inflated voter numbers?To answer the question we need to see the relationship betweenVoter Turnout and Candidate Shares
  17. 17. # 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutThis is another common type of analysis for Election FraudWe need to plot the Candidate Share by Voter Turnout and lookfor trendCandidate Share vs. Turnout AnalysisAnalyzes the relationship between Voter Turnout and theshare of votes for each candidateKey: In free and fair elections, the % of votes receivedby any candidate should not be dependent on thenumber of voters in each polling station.In other words, we should not see a trend.
  18. 18. # 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout- Research on other countries national pollsThere is a clear difference in pattern between democratic and non-democraticcountries
  19. 19. # 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutAnalysis reveals a strong relationship between the voter turnout and % ofvotes received by Serge SargsyanHigher turnout meant more votes for Serge SargsyanVoter Turnout%VotesforSergeSargsyan
  20. 20. # 3: Candidates Share vs. TurnoutWe see the opposite picture with the votes received for Raffi HovhannisianHigher turnout meant fewer votes for Raffi HovhannisianVoter Turnout%VotesforRaffiHovhannisian
  21. 21. ConclusionWe have established a strong link betweenturnout and the main candidates‟ share ofvotesSerge Sargsyan significantly benefits frominflated voter turnout while Raffi Hovhannisiansuffers from it# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout
  22. 22. Overall Results Of the AnalysisElections were significantly rigged in favor of incumbentSerge SargsyanAnalysis included multiple types of statistical tests allpointing to fraudFraud was more prevalent in remote rural areasThe extent of fraud was large enough to change theoutcome of the elections!– Fair polls would have either resulted in outright victoryfor Raffi Hovhannisian or at least given a secondround of voting
  23. 23. How Fraud Takes PlaceMany forms of fraudulent actions lead to rigged elections– Ballot stuffing– Vote bribing– Intimidation by criminal oligarchy on the street– Administrative pressure– Multiple voting (evaporating ink)– Manipulating the numbers in the booksVoters list is the single most important reason enabling otherforms of fraudVoters‟ list is believed to be significantly inflated as it has nevertaken into account the massive emigration since Armeniabecame independent
  24. 24. The Role of Criminal OligarchyOligarchy is the primary support base of the ruling regimeOligarchy provides machinery, muscle and money to the regimeIt‟s a shared business with common interestsThe role of oligarchy is in its highest demand during electionsThe “operatives” of election fraud consist of Republican Partygrassroots functionaries and street thugs employed by oligarchs– Often you cannot tell one from the other, they overlap to alarge extentShared interests are protected by both legal and criminalmethods
  25. 25. Voters List Needs To Be PublicizedCurrent election law does not allow to publish the list ofregistered voters who actually participated in the vote– We only need to publicize who voted, not how they votedThis has lead to missing voters‟ ballots being fraudulently usedby the ruling partyVicious circle – fraudulently elected National Assembly adoptslaws preventing free and fair electionsElection code, in particular on voters list, is a major reason ofelection fraud
  26. 26. Constitutional CourtElection outcomes were challenged in Armenia‟s highest court,the Constitutional Court, by Raffi Hovhannisian‟s team andanother presidential candidate, Andrias GhukasyanThe plaintiff demanded to annul the results of Feb 18 elections– Legal case included specific facts of fraud– … and PFA‟s 10 page long, detailed statistical analysisThe Court didn‟t find sufficient grounds to challenge the outcome!The Court completely ignored PFA‟s analysis!Request of vote recount was met with the most cynical excuse:the Constitutional Court does not have time to count the votes!
  27. 27. Western ObserversWestern Observers‟ assessments serve as a major factor for thegovernment in creating a legitimate appearance, and they havelargely succeededAs always, the assessment has been inadequate and superficialFraud is a multi-billion dollar industry internationallyFraudsters are smart, they always learn new ways to defraudAnti-fraud is also a big industry employing powerful analyticalmethods to learn and fight against fraudThere has to be a shift from „observing‟ to a deeper andcomprehensive analysisAnything short of that is inadequate with very serious implicationsfor Armenia
  28. 28. Reactions From SocietyStrong reaction from the small but vibrant civil societyWe have seen a major shift from previous elections – highersense of responsibilityEveryone knows the elections were rigged but nobody canprove it!Raffi Hovhannisian and his team have been staging numerousprotests in Yerevan and in regionsSo far that has not lead to any tangible results
  29. 29. Reactions In DiasporaDiaspora has traditionally supported the government, whoever mightbe in charge of itWhile the sense of loyalty is much appreciated, we have to realizewhat it has gotten us to and where it‟s leading toBy and large, Diaspora organizations have not participated indemocracy building in ArmeniaThere must be a shift– Always support the people and democratic norms in Armenia– Support the government only when it‟s democratic– Pressure the government when it‟s not democratic – remember,your voice counts!Talk to Diaspora organizations and political parties
  30. 30. THANK YOU!
  31. 31. Non-PFA Independent AnalysisThe Protesters Are Right: Evidence Suggests More Election Fraud in Last Week’sElections in Armenia ( Fredrik M Sjoberg, a Postdoctoral Scholar at ColumbiaUniversity – The Harriman Institute)
  32. 32. Non-PFA Independent AnalysisIndependent Russian analysts
  33. 33. Non-PFA Independent AnalysisIndependent Russian analysts

×