[HN Gopher] Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersb...
___________________________________________________________________
Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election
ballot
Author : dustintrex
Score : 370 points
Date : 2021-09-07 13:50 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| sfblah wrote:
| Interestingly, the three candidates do have different
| patronymics. So, at least in principle it should be possible to
| disambiguate them.
| exabrial wrote:
| Well obviously the solution is to legally change you name to
| "Real Boris Vishnevskys"
| Grustaf wrote:
| Or add a blue check emoji to his name.
| ukoki wrote:
| I'm taking this as a pretty good sign. My poorly informed
| outsider's opinion of Russian local elections prior to this was
| that organised fraud was so endemic that resorting to such
| obvious measures would be unnecessary.
| lostmsu wrote:
| They are completely rigged at all levels. Here, however, every
| single small region votes for his own candidate, so it is not
| enough to "tweak" votes a bit at local level, then at
| aggregate, then statewide. E.g. only 1 level of rigging works,
| so effect is much smaller.
| int_19h wrote:
| Not really; this kind of stuff has been around since early 90s,
| and especially prominent in local elections (where many voters
| are often not familiar with the candidates on the ballot).
|
| Organized fraud is still as endemic as always, but it still
| needs to be whitewashed, so every little bit helps. Same reason
| why they herd people at workplaces to vote - a 100% fraudulent
| system would just conjure turnout from thin air as needed.
| baybal2 wrote:
| No, they will falsify anyways. It's just them getting a
| complete reassurance that it's at least thrice rigged.
|
| So, what is being falsified? Everything.
|
| 1. Public polls (including fake "independent" polling companies
| appearing out of nowhere just few months before the elections)
|
| 2. Exit polls
|
| 3. Debates (some times fake doppelganger opposition candidates
| are sent to debates instead of real ones!)
|
| 4. Media landscape (again, fake opposition floods the screen
| time)
|
| 5. Politics on the ground (fake protest leaders, informers,
| provocateurs, rabble rousers sent to party meetings, fake
| opposition canvassers)
|
| 6. Fake party politics (fake opposition parties, genuine
| opposition being infiltrated, and packed full of informers,
| saboteurs, and etc, recruitment of turncoats)
|
| 7. Fake voters (obvious cases of people hired to vote under
| others' IDs, but also faked voter registration, and tallies.
| That's how tiny villages near arctic circle suddenly get
| hundreds of thousands registered voters out of nowhere)
|
| 8. Fake ballots (no explanation needed, but this also includes
| 20000% turnouts in mail ballot, or voting in embassies abroad)
|
| 9. Fake census data (to gerrymander, to manipulate turnout
| numbers, and to avoid second rounds, or minimal turnout limits
| in regions)
|
| 10. Fake elections (some times they don't take place at all,
| and people come to face a closed door, or they take place, and
| then they claim that they didn't happen! And then, they throw
| away the ballots.)
|
| 11. Fake ballot counting (well, it's the most conventional
| faking, but even there, there is an "innovation" -- fake
| electoral commissions. A real one given a boot under gunpoint,
| and fake one comes, and stages everything.)
|
| 12. Media coverage of elections (the famous 146% Putin victory
| in Rostov)
|
| 13. Court system (a court claims to issue a fake recount order,
| but actually not issuing any orders, or a fake opposition
| candidate claiming to sue the incumbent candidate, or electoral
| comission, while not really doing so, or just blatantly
| claiming, that the white is black, and the ballot count was
| fair.)
|
| 14. Fake post-election protests (to steer people away from real
| ones)
|
| 15. Fake statistics (when the dust settles, alleged math
| geniuses, and statistics PhDs are invited to draw digits, and
| explain how a 146% vote victory is statistically possible)
|
| A few percents of Russia's population are employed every 4
| years in this circus, just like during USSR's CPSU elections
| where election fakers were indoctrinated into "a deep sense of
| higher purpose" doing so. Small people are comforted by letting
| them feel themselves being "big men," and "doing stuff big boys
| do," if just for a few days, and at the expense of the rest of
| country's population.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| for a second there, I thought you were writing about the US
| election.
| vkou wrote:
| The US largely accomplishes its elections through corrupt
| primaries, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Not all
| of this is relevant for every race - you can't gerrymander
| your way into the federal senate, for instance - but you
| can use it to get a 60% red legislature in a 52% blue
| state.
|
| It looks better when the police uses violence to prevent
| problem people from voting, than to manufacture votes out
| of thin air.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| Nah, US election riggers are significantly better at
| subtlety (or care enough to bother, at least). Hence eg the
| ruling party (the Democratic and Republican Party) being
| nominally two separate political parties.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Maybe not more subtle, but more subtle than the Russians.
| no_time wrote:
| Easy solution: Cattle ear tags for politicians.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| A more humane solution would be NASCAR-style jumpsuits, worn by
| law for all government business, emblazoned with logos of their
| moneyed sponsors. "Ah, there's my guy, he's the one beholden to
| land developers."
|
| Of course, I'm not sure how that'd work in Russia. I assume at
| least some of the criminal masterminds who fill the role of the
| West's owner class have a, like, inkan [0] or something.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(East_Asia)#Japanese_usag...
| exabrial wrote:
| This would be nice, because we'd finally has some
| transparency on who they're being sponsored by.
| imback wrote:
| Perhaps as a compromise, a leg band like the ones they use to
| track birds except with anti-tampering features and a GPS.
| lostlogin wrote:
| This would be handy, and if high ranking unelected
| officials could wear them too it would be good.
|
| The various UK sagas for lockdown eye checks etc would be
| easier to monitor.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Or branding their faces.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| This example is extremely egregious - can anyone fact check on
| those identical names and very similar pictures? Other commenters
| have posted American examples as well, which while blatant are
| not nearly as egregious as the Russian example. Just goes to
| show, true democracy is hard to enact.
| Grustaf wrote:
| In Sweden they do the opposite, they have half a dozen parties
| with almost identical politics. Also very effective.
| chmod600 wrote:
| If Bobby Tables gets involved, this will get worse before it gets
| better:
|
| https://m.xkcd.com/327/
| NortySpock wrote:
| Happened in Florida in 2020 as well...
|
| https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/12/02/the-name-is-the-...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/20/florida-ele...
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
| drocer88 wrote:
| John F. Kennedy used this trick:
| https://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/06/16-worst-political-...
|
| Note the two "Joseph Russo" entries on the ballot:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_John_F._K...
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Barack Obama won his first election using a different
| procedural trick -- he looked up his three opponents' ballot
| petitions, and challenged enough of the signatures on the
| petitions that they were all delisted.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Not sure why you're being downvoted, because what you said
| is 100% true: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-
| xpm-2007-04-04-070403...
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Your link redirects me to chicagotribune.com/. Maybe only
| works for subscribers?
| jaywalk wrote:
| Interesting. I'm definitely not a subscriber, so that's
| not the issue.
| NortySpock wrote:
| Link worked for me, not a subscriber.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I posted the obligatory archive.is link as a sibling
| comment.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The comment is upvoted now, but possibly the downvotes
| were for describing it as a "trick". One of the
| candidates they managed to interview admitted some
| signatures were forged for $5 each.
|
| (The link opened fine for me.)
| stefan_ wrote:
| The interview says they paid someone for collecting
| signatures, not forging them. Of course at the price of
| $5 that might have been implicit at the time.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| $5/signature is normal price, forged or not.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Non-paywall: https://archive.is/2Jyu2
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| Of course it did.
| nomoreplease wrote:
| In the Florida case it was/is a common surname, not a full
| name. In this Russian case, two humans changed their full name
| to match. Presumably paid to do so. Very different situations
|
| Edit: in the Russian case, they also changed their appearance
| to match
|
| According to a sibling comment, this strategy goes back to
| JohnF Kennedy at least. Except that the Russians take it to the
| next level
| gfaure wrote:
| In the Russia case, not their full name -- notice that the
| patronymic is different for each of the real candidate and
| the two fake candidates.
| EgorKolds wrote:
| It's actually good for them by the way. Since in case of
| the complete full match they would have needed to specify
| their original names before the change.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| At least one did specify the original name in the
| document.
| vmh1928 wrote:
| In Florida a sham candidate with the same surname as the real
| candidate paid to run to siphon off votes from the real
| candidate. Completely different. Not at all similar. Nothing
| in common. Nothing to see in Florida, move along please.
| nomoreplease wrote:
| OP said it happened In Florida but no name changes happened
| in Florida. My comment was meant to clarify, not argue in
| bad faith. I said "very" different not "completely
| different". Nor did I argue that either should be ignored.
| e40 wrote:
| Whether there is a name change involved, the result is
| the same, to siphon off votes. That's the main thrust of
| the story in Russia and FL. I'd say _very similar_ not
| _very different_.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| Can we agree that OP didn't read the article and so
| didn't really contrast the differences and move on?
| [deleted]
| rsj_hn wrote:
| I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why
| Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on the
| bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair enough to
| me, but then why go through the motions?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why
| Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on
| the bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair
| enough to me, but then why go through the motions?
|
| Why did Stalinist Russia bother with show trials? The
| appearance of legitimacy is enough to give cover to people
| who approve of the government without wanting to own up to
| its dirty tricks, and to mute the voices of those who
| disapprove.
| akoncius wrote:
| spectacle is important here. it's important for Putin to
| claim that people chose him, he is a leader of population
| by choice, not force.
|
| look at Belarus, when stuff became too obvious, people
| started to display dissatisfaction. That is Putin's fear
| IMO.
| doikor wrote:
| In the Russian case they also created fake parties for these
| fake candidates with very similar sounding names.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I don't know if I'd say "very different" -- they have the
| same goal but with different steps.
| dzdt wrote:
| The third of those links is the most important: in the Florida
| case the spoiler candidate and the man paying him to run were
| charged with a crime. This doesn't reverse the election, whose
| outcome was almost certainly changed by the scheme, but it
| might deter others from following this playbook.
| e40 wrote:
| I really, really, really hope this becomes illegal.
|
| In one of the FL cases, reporters went to the house of the
| "other" one and he literally couldn't say why he was on the
| ballot. That is my recollection of the story I read at the
| time.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| The Russian case will likely end differently.
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| Trump will win?
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Maybe the assassination will be recorded on dashcam? (/s,
| hopefully)
| ummwhat wrote:
| I know arrows theorem says something about spoiler candidates and
| irrelevant identical alternatives, but I didn't think it
| manifested quite like this.
| golergka wrote:
| A comment for outsiders: Russian elections are multi-layered.
| When dominance of Putin and his party is threatened, then the
| state will employ everything it's power. But within his own
| party, and on many local levels, there's also a lot of
| competition -- and there, elections can be much less fraudulent.
| So, those local crooks can't rely on repressive apparatus of the
| whole state, and have to revert to political technologies and
| tricks which are usually used in developed democracies.
|
| Boris Vishnevsky, as many other candidates (including my own
| father) are being elected not through centralised party lists,
| but through single-mandate districts. (I think it's similar to UK
| electorate system). And while United Russia (Putin's party) total
| numbers over the whole country will be very tightly controlled,
| results of those district-based elections are, in general, much
| more honest.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Do Russian ballot papers not include the name of the candidate's
| political party? Ideally they would also include the parties'
| logos, which would be required to be distinct from previously-
| registered logos, so that people with literacy problems could
| still vote confidently.
| alkonaut wrote:
| If I were United Russia I'd make sure there were no party names
| or logos on the ballots. Also randomize the order of candidates
| between ballots so word couldn't get out saying "it's the
| middle Boris".
| roveo wrote:
| In this year's elections, many of the pro-regime candidates are
| registered as having no party affiliation because of the very
| bad ratings of United Russia party.
|
| Also, the authorities don't care about people voting
| confidently at all, quite the opposite.
|
| It's mandated by law though to list candidates' previous names
| if changed, which is done in this case. But you have to be
| aware of this spoiler strategy to notice, which most people
| aren't.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Also, the authorities don't care about people voting
| confidently at all, quite the opposite.
|
| Can you explain this?
| aazaa wrote:
| Maybe the most surprising thing about this is how commonplace it
| is for multiple candidates to share the same name. From the
| article:
|
| > "Double" candidates regularly pop up during Russia's election
| cycles, which can be surprisingly cut-throat despite the
| expectation that the ruling United Russia party will maintain a
| majority in the Duma. The rising tide of opposition to United
| Russia and growing support for the Communist KPRF have apparently
| spooked the government and nominating doppelgangers can siphon
| off precious votes in close contests.
| PeterisP wrote:
| That's not an accidental match of the names or finding
| "doppelgangers" somewhere, it's intentionally _making_
| doppelgangers - these "spoiler" candidates literally changed
| their name before the elections, one of them was born as Viktor
| Bykov and the other was Alexei Shmelev. The only thing they
| can't legally change is the patronymic, which a key part of the
| name in Russia and differentiates the names of these three
| candidates.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| You absolutely can change patronymics, that's how lot's of
| Mikhailovich's and Arkadievich's became Moishevich's and
| Abramovich's in the 90ies after the collapse of the USSR.
| PeterisP wrote:
| That's interesting - wouldn't that be because the actual
| fathers changed their names in those cases back to the non-
| Russianized versions (Moishe/Mikhail) when e.g. emigrating
| to Israel when that ceased to be forbidden?
|
| But in any case, those particular candidates had their
| names and surnames changed but for whatever reason their
| patronymics were left intact.
| aazaa wrote:
| And what I'm saying is that the change of appearance in this
| particular case is _less_ surprising than the fact that
| double or triple name candidates on a ballot "regularly"
| occur.
| smoyer wrote:
| This is pretty similar to Ross Perot splitting the republican
| vote in the U.S. '92 election except that Perot and Bush should
| have been political allies and instead split the vote in favor of
| Clinton. I can't think of an example of using this against an
| opponent as described in the article could certainly be used here
| (though I suspect using duplicate names) would be harder to
| hide).
| int_19h wrote:
| How is it similar? Perot was clearly a separate candidate, and
| people who voted for him all knew that.
| [deleted]
| phpnode wrote:
| I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your comment is strongly
| reminiscent of this classic Russian political tactic for
| dealing with criticism from the west:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| morganvachon wrote:
| Recognizing a somewhat similar incident from one's own
| country's history is not at all "whataboutism", especially
| when there was no obvious intent to diminish the impact of
| the original subject or otherwise distract from it. Not every
| comment on a web forum is an attempt to argue or act in bad
| faith.
| phpnode wrote:
| You're right of course, at the time of writing there were
| only 2 comments in this thread, and both were along the
| same lines which made the effect seem more pronounced.
| smoyer wrote:
| I didn't intend it ... and it looks like I probably shouldn't
| have gone reminiscing in an HN comment!
| morganvachon wrote:
| HN tends to have waves of (for lack of a better term)
| "troll hunters" who come here with an attitude that
| everyone here is commenting in bad faith and must be called
| out for it. They will do it to commenters from all sides of
| an argument, even in cases like this where it was clear
| your comment was simply remembering a past event and not
| intended to be anything else.
|
| I haven't figured out if they mean well and are just sorely
| misguided, or are actually trolls themselves here from
| places like Reddit where such bad faith activity actually
| happens in every single post.
| smoyer wrote:
| I'm not in it for the karma and don't worry about being
| down-voted when I'm writing a thoughtful but perhaps
| contrary comment. Sometimes (like now) it teaches me that
| I'm out of step with the "mood" of the commons. That's
| fine too.
| twalla wrote:
| > using this against an opponent as described in the article
| could certainly be used here
|
| It's called a "spoiler" and they don't necessarily have to have
| the same or similar names to be effective, in fact, a similar
| tactic _was_ used here less than a year ago:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/florida-senate-race-fr...
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| This tactic was used in Florida in 2020:
| https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/12/02/the-name-is-the-...
| ccleve wrote:
| A friend of mine (and my successor as chairman of the Chicago
| Republican Party) filed a case in the U.S. Supreme Court this
| week over the same tactic right here in Chicago.
|
| https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-michael-madigan-c...
|
| If we win this thing, then filing sham candidates will become
| illegal in the U.S. It's an utterly corrupt practice.
| [deleted]
| noneeeed wrote:
| Sorry, not from the US so I might be missing something, but the
| link you posted was about someone from the Democrats. Did your
| friend switch parties after that election (I wouldn't be
| surprised if that kind of thing had happened)?
| gogobandang wrote:
| It's a marriage of convenience. Until Madigan is indicted by
| the FBI (probably happening in the next 12mos, his underlings
| are helping the FBI now), if you are a (D) on his bad side,
| your choices are to exit Chicago politics or switch parties.
| cguess wrote:
| Why are Republicans suing over a Democratic primary? I'm
| doubting good faith.
|
| Also this seems to be civil case, not a criminal one, so I'm
| not sure how it'd make anything illegal?
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Maybe because having a political affiliation you disagree
| with by no means incriminates you of having no morals or
| ethics.
| ccleve wrote:
| "Illegal" means contrary to the law. Plenty of things that
| are illegal but carry no criminal penalties.
|
| As a practical matter, the court would rule that sham
| candidates are impermissible, and then their opponents would
| have an opportunity to remove them from the ballot via a
| civil lawsuit, or seek sanctions again whoever put them up,
| or collect civil damages, or in an extreme case overturn an
| election altogether.
| sct202 wrote:
| Not this particular case but just to give context on why
| padding the primary with sham candidates of the same ethnic
| group is an issue, but also in Chicago it has happened that
| people change their names to imply certain
| ethnic/heritage/characteristics like Phillip Spiwak (R) became
| Shannon P. O'Malley (D) to win an elected judge position in
| 2018 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illinois-judge-
| candidat...
| lrem wrote:
| There was a movie about a person searching their Irish
| ancestors. Ended with the protagonist confronting their
| father, who admitted they made it up to win votes. The movie
| must be decades old now.
| rory wrote:
| John Kerry comes to mind here, although at least the official
| story states that his grandfather chose an Irish name
| essentially through dumb luck.
| juped wrote:
| Warren "Bill de Blasio" Wilhelm.
| mig39 wrote:
| The Rhinoceros Party did this in Canada, in the 80s. They found a
| guy named "John Turner" to run against the prime minister of the
| same name, in the same riding. Funny stuff!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party
| a-priori wrote:
| This reminds me of the 2019 Canadian federal election. There was
| a new party in that election led by a man named Maxime Bernier
| called the People's Party. They're a far-right populist party and
| generally awful. Bernier himself was running in Beauce, Quebec,
| which he had represented through the Conservative party since
| 2006 before he had created the People's Party.
|
| But then the Rhinoceros Party, a satirical political party,
| announced a new candidate for Beauce named... Maxime Bernier.
| When asked about the confusion, the Rhinoceros Party's Maxime
| Bernier said, "If you're not sure, then vote for both!".
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maxime-bernier-rhino...
|
| The Conservative candidate won with 22817 votes, the People's
| Party candidate came second with 16772, and the Rhinoceros Party
| candidate came last with 1072 votes and another 1147 were
| rejected. This left the People's Party with no seats in
| parliament.
| gpm wrote:
| > This left the People's Party with no seats in parliament.
|
| Note that even if the Rhinoceros votes went for the peoples
| party the same thing would have happened...
| throwdecro wrote:
| > Note that even if the Rhinoceros votes went for the peoples
| party the same thing would have happened...
|
| Which is probably for the best. If this type of trickery had
| made a meaningful difference, the people fooled by the trick
| would have had some legitimate complaints. Moreover it would
| have really undermined the credibility of the winner, even if
| it wasn't their doing.
| wussboy wrote:
| Maybe it's a shame that nothing of consequence hinged on
| it. If someone was aggrieved, we're more likely to get a
| court case out of it and the law changed.
| a-priori wrote:
| True, this probably didn't actually change the results, but
| it likely narrowed the margin in an already narrow vote.
| gpm wrote:
| You and I have very different understandings of the word
| narrow.
|
| That's 58% vs 42% just counting the votes that went to the
| PPC/Conservatives. 39% vs 28% looking at all the votes in
| the riding. The rhino candidate got less than 2% of the
| votes in the riding.
|
| It _definitely_ didn 't actually change the results.
| patentatt wrote:
| Is it possible that such a move may dissuade voters from
| even showing up to the polls to participate in an
| election that they view as a sham, or as being made a
| circus? It certainly doesn't build trust in democracy.
| gpm wrote:
| In general I'm sure that's a possibility, and it probably
| occurs in the Russian case. In Canada we are quite
| confident in our electoral system, and this sort of
| shenanigans doesn't change that (or result in substantial
| confusion, since we clearly spell out candidates
| political parties - indeed I suspect most people vote
| based on party more than based on candidate name). I
| don't believe for an instant that this had a substantial
| effect on the PPCs voter turnout.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| They're the only party to oppose vaccine passports in Canada.
| So can't be all bad. Polling around 5-8% now and gaining, high
| enough might make a big difference who next leader of Canada
| will be. On the conspiracy side, some are speculating he's a
| plant to help Trudeau.
| gpm wrote:
| Cbc's polling average has them at 4.8%, which isn't inside
| your 5-8% interval... but it's true that they have been
| slowly trending upwards... though whether you should prefer a
| momentum model or a reversion to the mean model for polling
| variation is unclear.
|
| Separately, giving airtime to ridiculous conspiracies that
| even you don't believe is simply not helpful.
| CarelessExpert wrote:
| Well, in Canada (and I'd assume elsewhere, but I've not
| checked) our ballots include party affiliation, so it's pretty
| easy to tell the candidates apart if you're paying any
| attention at all.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| The US's does as well. That's why I don't understand why
| people are up and arms. People aren't getting names confused,
| they're seriously don't care.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| It appears that Maxim Bernier from the Rhinoceros party hasn't
| registered to run in this year's election. I wonder if they've
| been blocked from doing so?
| deanCommie wrote:
| > This left the People's Party with no seats in parliament.
|
| "This" implies that the Rhinoceros Party prank KEPT Bernier
| from having a seat. Simple math shows that's not the case.
| silexia wrote:
| Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship, why does Putin bother with
| silly tactics like this? A trick to try to lend an appearance of
| credibility to elections?
| phpnode wrote:
| One of Putin's defining characteristics is that he does not
| leave things to chance. Why wouldn't he use every tool and
| trick available to him in order to secure his grip on power?
| mikewarot wrote:
| Being a ruler in such a manner isn't as simple as you might
| suspect... there are rules for rulers. CGP Grey explains it all
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
| bigdict wrote:
| Maybe precisely because he doesn't have the degree of control
| that would be present in an actual totalitarian dictatorship?..
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| I think arguing about Putin's level of control over Russia is
| splitting dissidents, I mean hairs. The ability to openly
| murder and gaslight your opponents, even when they are in
| other countries, is certainly within tolerances for an
| "actual totalitarian dictatorship"; Putin has, and flaunts,
| this ability. Is he publicly directing uniformed thugs to
| kick down doors and execute people in the streets? Well, no,
| but not being able to recognize Putin's Russia as a savvy,
| modern, post-truth translation of that classic dictatorship
| pattern will be met with me rolling my eyes (and then my
| whole body, along with some 9mm bullets, out of an upper-
| storey window, which will be ruled a suicide).
| int_19h wrote:
| "Totalitarian" implies total control - i.e. yes, the
| ability to direct uniform thugs to kick down doors and
| execute people in the streets is included in it.
|
| Putin's Russia is authoritarian, not totalitarian. That's
| why political opponents are murdered by assassins, not
| executed by firing squads.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Can you show a quote from somewhere, where "totalitarian"
| would imply total control? Wikipedia's description of
| "Totalitarianism" matches state of things in Russia
| exactly:
|
| - prohibits all opposition parties // check
|
| - outlaws individual opposition to the state // check
|
| - extremely high degree of control over public life //
| check
|
| - private life // that maybe not, but I am not sure what
| that means
|
| - political power is often held by autocrats // check
|
| - propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media
| in order to control the citizenry // check
|
| So the only thing missing is "private life", where I
| simply can't claim it because I don't understand the
| requirement.
| unrequitedlove wrote:
| Totalitarian regimes demand total participation (hence
| the "total" part). In Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany you
| either participated in the Komsomol, voted for the right
| candidate, studied marxism/whatever the nazi equivalent
| was, publicly expressed loyalist opinions etc, or you
| were considered a malicious actor.
|
| Authoritarian regimes demand compliance. In modern Russia
| no one really cares what you think unless you're some
| sort of an activist or a state employee. Meaning, regular
| people are generally left to be, can de-facto and de-jure
| think and say whatever they wish, and they only get
| messed with if they are in the way of power or in
| position of power.
|
| Totalitarian regimes resemble cults, authoritarian
| regimes resemble corporations (and many corporations are,
| in fact, authoritarian).
|
| A regime can be authoritarian, but not totalitarian
| (think Principate Rome) and in some case can be
| totalitarian, but not authoritarian (think a democracy
| ran by fanatical Puritans)
| lostmsu wrote:
| This is all great, but let's stick to definitions when
| discussing if a country matches one or not. Either
| disagree with the definition and give your alternative,
| or disagree with checkpoints in the current one.
| unrequitedlove wrote:
| Let's. As outlined above, totalitarian regimes strive to
| control your private life while authoritarian regimes
| generally do not. Since you wrote that the difference is
| unclear to you, I thought I'd explain it.
| [deleted]
| vogre wrote:
| > prohibits all opposition parties
|
| Not all opposition parties are prohibited. there are more
| parties in Russian parliament(6) than in US congress(2).
| Even after this year elections there will probably be 3+
| parties in parliament.
|
| > outlaws individual opposition to the state
|
| it's not really outlawed still, but yes, we are very
| close to it
|
| >extremely high degree of control over public life
|
| no. There are very chaotic attempts to control public
| life, but they are not very systemic.
|
| > political power is often held by autocrats
|
| This sentence is like "democracy is when political power
| is held by democrats"
|
| > propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media
| in order to control the citizenry
|
| check for every country in the world
| lostmsu wrote:
| > Not all opposition parties are prohibited.
|
| De-facto they are all prohibited, as rigged elections
| means their vote in the parliament has no bearing.
|
| > it's not really outlawed still, but yes, we are very
| close to it
|
| They just did exactly that by making Navalny's org
| "terrorist" thereby outlawing all individual supporters.
| And before that by banning underspecified forms of
| critique in the Internet.
|
| > they are not very systemic
|
| Mandatory religious education (with barely accessible
| opt-out). Outlawing specific groups from advocating their
| political views (like "gay propaganda"). This is a very
| "systemic" pushing of certain values by authoritarian
| means. If you do not consider it "systemic", please,
| define "systemic".
|
| > This sentence is like "democracy is when political
| power is held by democrats"
|
| It does not matter what it is like. We are doing a
| "totalitarianism" test and this checks.
|
| > check for every country in the world
|
| No, it is not. Most of Russian mass-media is owned
| directly or indirectly by the government. The ones that
| are not owned are heavily censored. In the rest of the
| world many governments do not own or censor media. For
| instance, US government owns just a handful of media
| companies, which are not that popular in the US.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| Sure, but for a society to be "totalitarian" is an
| asymptotic climb, not a defined goal. An independent
| Russian businessman might find himself approached by the
| local mob (under the aegis of an oligarch, who is under
| the aegis of the Russian state) to acquire a share of his
| business. He can't turn to any authority for help, and if
| he refuses his business (or he) will be crippled. That's
| not _total_ control.
|
| Political opponents are murdered by assassins, and
| domestic coverage of the murder makes no bones about what
| happened, nor is the even truthier international coverage
| suppressed at all. Public execution by implication. I'm
| certain Putin has the functional ability to _quietly_
| kill someone; he was in the KGB. Most of the big
| assassinations read more like expansive threats: "look
| what I can get away with, and the West just wags a stern
| finger at me; you are not safe, enemy of mine, even in
| the UK".
|
| I appreciate that words usually have fairly fixed
| definitions (but sometimes not so literally, aha). That
| said, while Putin's Russia may not be totalitarian to the
| standards of, say, Maoist China, I think it's pretty damn
| difficult, and moreso than in most other countries, to do
| anything that the ruling class doesn't want done. That
| _approaches_ total control.
| int_19h wrote:
| Russian businessmen being approached by the local mob was
| more common back in 90s (that much I know from
| experience, because my parents ran a small business back
| then, and had to deal with all that). But the country as
| a whole was less authoritarian than it is today.
|
| As far as doing something that the ruling class doesn't
| want done - if you mean politically, there are plenty of
| comparable countries, such as Singapore, that are
| similarly considered authoritarian but not totalitarian.
| Totalitarianism normally means _total_ control (or at
| least the possibility of it) - not just of political
| participation, but of all spheres of life. Russia may
| turn totalitarian yet - there are certainly plenty of
| ideologues advocating it - but it hasn 't crossed that
| line so far.
|
| And yes, of course it's all a spectrum. Totalitarianism
| itself is a small subset of the much wider authoritarian
| spectrum.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| What does it have to do with Putin?
| pvaldes wrote:
| In Spain not much years ago happened a slightly different but
| related trick. A party changed late their logo in the ballots to
| a circle. Casually their rivals from the opposite ideology had
| adopted before a thin circle as a logo in the voting sheets
| (shared by all parties). The second circle was more thick (and
| more visible) than the other and had different letters inside.
| Clearly different for people with a good sight, maybe not so much
| for elders.
|
| I bet that this didn't helped at the hour of counting the ballots
| and I wouldn't be surprised to know that a few votes were
| assigned wrongly that night at the slighest opportunity.
| JackFr wrote:
| I worked with Boris Vishnevsky! Oh wait, different guy ...
|
| (But I really did.)
| tclancy wrote:
| Yes, but which one?
| hamilyon2 wrote:
| Oh, two nearly identical doppelgangers, with matching appearance,
| age and name?
|
| I wouldn't hesitate to follow great old russian tradition and
| take a loan. A few million rubles in cash here and there from
| those shady and unscrupulous lenders, then miss a payment or two
| and see what happens! A completely legal way to remind those
| people that Russia isn't European country yet. Nor Saint
| Petersburg is Miami.
| Grustaf wrote:
| > Nor Saint Petersburg is Miami
|
| True enough. Saint Petersburg has a fantastic history, brought
| us some of the most important writers in history and is full of
| theatres, palaces and one of the best museums in the world.
| It's also very beautiful.
| sireat wrote:
| This is endemic in eastern European politics.
|
| It is especially prevalent among parties oriented towards Russian
| speaking populace in the Baltics.
|
| I've never seen it work, but maybe there is a bit of Ross
| Perot(not that Clinton/Bush looked like Perot) effect.
|
| PS it is hilarious that when I made a comment I didn't realize
| this could be taken as a what-aboutism comment.
|
| So on a meta level I should be more lenient when posters do
| similar things in other threads. Maybe not every poster is
| actively engaging in organized
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism but there is an urge
| to draw parallels on some psychological level.
| jgilias wrote:
| Do you have any sources?
|
| I'm from the Baltics and I've never ever heard of anything
| similar going on in any of the three countries.
| smcl wrote:
| I think you can usually ignore people who complain about
| "whataboutism" - on HN at least it usually boils down to
| someone trying to dismiss a legitimate comparison with "Hey you
| can't say that, I said it first!"
| oh_sigh wrote:
| "you're ruining my point by showing my hypocrisy"
| FpUser wrote:
| Exact reason I think ;) Or maybe they feel so righteous
| that they do not even notice their hypocrisy.
| smcl wrote:
| Precisely. Also I think I'm being downvoted by people
| misinterpreting my use of "usually" as "in every single
| case without exception". But anecdotally, nearly every time
| I've seen the whataboutism response it has been in that
| context I described - someone trying to dismiss a
| legitimate criticism by deploying what they think is a sort
| of cheat code.
| abecedarius wrote:
| Yet another point for approval voting ( / score voting). You'd
| have to confuse people into not just picking the decoy but also
| dropping the original.
| trhway wrote:
| Imagine what they would do with a good AI.
|
| Anyway, a recent anekdot from Russian democracy illustrating why
| the ruling power is so obstructing oppositional candidates. A
| mayor of small town to make elections legally democratic, ie to
| have at least 2 candidates while of course not allowing any real
| oppositional candidates, ran his office janitor woman against
| himself. The people voted for the janitor.
| buybackoff wrote:
| Lots of discussions whether it will work or not. Same as 10k
| rubles payout for seniors. Likely people are not so much stupid
| and such things won't work per se. But in Russia there is the
| second step: falsify the elections and explain that people voted
| for a fake or for the party they hate because of the payout. A
| casual observer will have less questions, or there will be an
| "explanation".
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Dirty tricks can also give actual vote rigging plausibility
| cover, and increase the inevitability factor.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Local elections for mayor here: Arianna Buti vs Monia Buti. The
| town name is also Buti...
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| If this happened in India, the SC would strike it down so hard.
| You don't need a law for every specific wrongdoing. You just need
| a decent judicial system.
| s_trumpet wrote:
| The practice of assigning electoral symbols to each political
| party is also very useful for differentiating them.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/india-election-party-s...
| int_19h wrote:
| Russian electoral system allows for unaffiliated candidates,
| and spoilers usually run as such.
| unmole wrote:
| Unaffiliated candidates or independents as they are called
| are also assigned a symbol.
|
| The symbols of recognised political parties are fairly
| common knowledge and are emphasised during rge campaign
| unmole wrote:
| This happens in Indian elections all the time. And I'm rather
| surprised to find someone holding the Indian judicial system in
| such high regard.
| roveo wrote:
| Which is why there's no decent judicial system here
| grishka wrote:
| Why do they even go through this much trouble when they can just
| count votes such that Edinaia Rossiia comes out as a winner, like
| they did on every election I remember. They stuff ballots into
| boxes. They invalidate ballots with "wrong" votes. They just
| simply change the numbers in the protocols without anyone
| rechecking or recounting. Worst of all, the people who do it are
| usually school teachers, because polling stations are often in
| schools.
|
| Yes, I'll go and vote anyway. No, this won't change the outcome,
| but at least I'll be able to tell myself that I did my part.
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| It's terribly hard to actually falsify the vote counts across
| thousands of polling places. In theory, someone observing the
| process, as should be legal everywhere, will notice the
| irregularities.
|
| It's not impossible, obviously-especially if you have full
| control of at least anyone important. But plausible deniability
| suffers rather fast, and that's a valuable assets at the Putin-
| level of dic(tator|k)ishness.
| grishka wrote:
| Oh they interfere with observers a lot. It's a battle,
| really.
|
| Sometimes, in some far-flung region, an election will end up
| being fair. Then they still find a way to ultimately "fix"
| the outcome -- see what happened in Khabarovsk with
| everyone's favorite mayor Sergey Furgal. They found a court
| case on him from very long ago, arrested him, flew him to
| Moscow, then Putin dismissed him from mayorship "for loss of
| trust". Yeah sure, _people_ elected him and had no problems
| with him, but it 's _lack of Putin 's trust_ that caused him
| to lose his office against his and people's will.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Usually only a few polling places actually determine an
| election. Based on historical vote data, you'd only flip
| votes in the few locations where it actually matters; for
| example, a few counties in a few swing states, or anywhere
| where the votes can be cured or recounted without being
| observed.
|
| It's strange that people really don't realize how easy it is
| to cheat; just a little bit of leverage in the right place
| can tip an election.
| flopp wrote:
| In web-terms: a "Homograph Attack" (=>
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack)
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| I live in US IL-14. This would be like me changing my name to
| Lorne Underwood and running as a Republican.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Eddie Murphy is a household name in Russia and someone must've
| been just helping themselves to some material from one of his
| movies.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman
|
| Talk about life imitating art and all that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-07 23:01 UTC)