Political Evaluation of Election Results Using Mathematical Methods: The Cases of the Russian Federation, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Afghanistan

Mathematical methods are today the most popular way of evaluating the voting results, providing insight on their reliability. In Russia and in the rest of the world, there is a need to develop scientific tools for the application of mathematical research methods to assess the election results, especially if such results are considered fraudulent by the public. The author examines four case studies: Mexico, Great Britain, Afghanistan, Russia, discussing advantages and disadvantages of adopting mathematical research methods in evaluating the election results. The article finds that the reason for the refusal of the state authorities to conduct such an assessment of election results, may be first of all the nature of the actors requesting the ex-post analysis, namely a non-professional political scientists and the opposition, aiming at identifying electoral fraud. Indeed, a mathematical evaluation of the election results can show approximately the same balance of forces and dynamics of the electoral process that were already well known even before. Indeed, in countries where government agencies refuse to conduct such an assessment, independent experts rely on the resources of civil society and international organizations. For all these reasons, the article concludes suggesting that state authorities should implement the process of evaluation of election results using mathematical methods, as well as provide clear guidance for conducting such a process.

References

1. Belotelov, N. V., and Pavlovskii, Iu. N. “O tekhnologiiakh, ob"ediniaiushchikh matematicheskie i gumanitarnye metody analiza i prognoza slozhnykh protsessov, sistem, iavlenii,” Sinergetika: Budushchee mira i Rossii, ed. G. G. Malinetskii. Moscow: LKI, 2008, pp. 297–322. 
2. Borisov, I. B., Zadorin, I. V., Ignatov, A. V., Marachevskii, V. N., and Fedorov, V. I. Matematicheskie instrumenty delegitimizatsii vyborov. Moscow: Rossiiskii obshchestvennyi institut izbiratel'nogo prava, 2020, URL: http://www.roiip.ru/images/data/gallery/0_299_Matematicheskie_instrumenti_delegitimatsii_viborov.pdf 
3. Buzin, A. Iu., and Liubarev, A. E. Prestuplenie bez nakazaniia: Administrativnye izbiratel'nye tekhnologii federal'nykh vyborov 2007–2008 godov. Moscow: Nikkolo M: Tsentr «Panorama», 2008.
4. Cota Preciado, L. G. “Elecciones presidenciales en México, simulaciones computacionales y la ley de los grandes números,” Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, August 28, 2006, URL: http://em.fis.unam.mx/~mochan/elecciones/archivos/pdf00017.pdf
5. Gizinger, Iu. O. “Sovremennye izbiratel'nye tekhnologii: ispol'zovanie matematicheskikh metodov peredachi golosov izbiratelei,” Vestnik Cheliabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No. 13: Filosofiia. Sotsiologiia. Kul'turologiia, 2013, pp. 172–179.
6. Hanel, P. H. P. “Conducting High Impact Research with Limited Financial Resources (while Working from Home),” Meta-Psychology, Vol. 4, 2020, URL: https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/2560/2307
7. Kamalian, R. Z., Kamalian, S. R., and Mnatsakanian, A. R. “Matematicheskie modeli v analize sotsial'no-ekonomicheskikh protsessov,” Sfera uslug: innovatsii i kachestvo, No. 3, 2011, p. 10, URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25621853
8. Lee, J., and Gronke, P. The Problems of Minimal Support: Considerations for an Establishment Survey of Local Election Officials: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, 2020, January 28, URL: http://people.reed.edu/~gronkep/docs/spsa_sampling_paper.pdf
9. López Gallardo, J. A. 2006 ¿Fraude electoral? Estudio de los anomalies de la elections presidental. Chihuahua: Doble Hélice, 2009.
10. López Gallardo, J.A. “Métodos matemáticos para análisis de elecciones,” Congreso de matemáticas aplicadas a las ciencias sociales, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México, Mar. 12–13, 2011, URL: https://wiki.utep.edu/download/Fattachments/39715320/Congreso-UdG.pdf
11. Makarenkov, E. V., and Pavlenko, A. A. “Tekhnologiia primeneniia fizicheskikh i matematicheskikh modelei v politicheskoi nauke i praktike,” Vestnik Cheliabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No. 9: Filosofskie nauki, 2018, pp. 7–11.
12. Mikhailov, V. “Statisticheskii analiz rezul'tatov vyborov: neobkhodimost' vkliucheniia v pravovoe pole,” Rossiiskoe elektoral'noe obozrenie, No. 1, 2010, pp. 20–30.
13. Podlazov, A. V. Formal'nye metody vyiavleniia masshtabnykh elektoral'nykh fal'sifikatsii na materiale federal'nykh vyborov 1999–2018 godov: Preprint. Moscow: IPM imeni M.V. Keldysha RAN, 2019, URL: http://www.mathnet.ru/links/bb3fcbc64f5b7b87287299fc9b586920/ipmp2640.pdf
14. Podlazov, A. V. Issledovanie statisticheskikh metodov vyiavleniia vydumannykh rezul'tatov vyborov, Vol. 2: Sgustki iavki i rezul'tatov: Preprint. Moscow: IPM imeni M.V. Keldysha, 2020, URL: http://www.mathnet.ru/links/b876bfe77f651cd4135865e4a0052ce4/ipmp2811.pdf
15. Prosser, C., Fieldhouse, E. A., Green, J., Mellon, J., and Evans G. “Tremors but no Youthquake: Measuring Changes in the Age and Turnout Gradients at the 2015 and 2017 British General Elections,” SSRN, January 28, 2018, URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=311183
16. Sharifullin, V. N., and Sharifullina, A. V. “Primenenie matematicheskikh metodov dlia otsenki ob"ektivnosti rezul'tatov vyborov,” Vestnik Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo energeticheskogo universiteta, No. 2, 2010, pp. 169–171.
17. Shumilov, A. V. “Mnimye i real'nye issledovaniia elektoral'noi statistiki: vliianie na elektoral'nye protsessy,” Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta, No. 3, 2013, pp. 85–89.
18. Sobianin, A. A., and Sukhovol'skii, V. G. Demokratiia, ogranichennaia fal'sifikatsiiami: Vybory i referendumy v Rossii v 1991–1993 gody. Moscow: Proektnaia gruppa po pravam cheloveka, 1995.
19. Stoetzer, L. F., and Orlowski, M. “Estimating Coalition Majorities during Political Campaigns Based on Pre-election Polls,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2020, pp. 126–137.
20. Tolstova, Iu. N. “Matematicheskie metody — faktory sviazi estestvennykh i sotsial'no-gumanitarnykh nauk (sotsiologii),” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, No. 10, 2015, pp. 12–21.
21. Tsatskina, E. P. “Istoricheskii aspekt integratsii matematicheskikh metodov i politicheskikh protsessov,” Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Obshchestvennye nauki, No. 3, 2017, pp. 95–104.
22. Weisbrot, М., Rosnick, D., Sandoval, L., and Paredes-Drouet, C. An Analysis of Mexico’s Recounted Ballots. Washington: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2006, URL: https://www.cepr.net/documents/mexico_recount_2006_08.pdf 
23. Yoshinaka, A., and Murphy, C. “The Paradox of Redistricting: How Partisan Mapmakers Foster Competition but Disrupt Representation,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2011, pp. 435–447.