Armenian Presidential Elections 2013

Statistical Evidence of Election Fraud

Sassoon Kosian, PFA FellowApril 20, 2013

Overview

PFA is an independent think tank consisting of professionals in many fields

PFA’s mission includes strengthening the economy and democratic norms in Armenia

PFA provides analysis, recommendations and alternative views on major challenges facing Armenia and the Diaspora

PFA unites professionals and researchers in Armenia and in the Diaspora

Learn more about PFA at www.pf-armenia.org

PFA Reports

Armenia’s 2012 Parliamentary Election, Dec 2012;

Armenia: Averting an Economic Catastrophe, Feb 2012;

The State of Armenia's Environment, Dec 2010;

Armenia-Diaspora Relations: 20 Years Since Independence, Feb 2010;

Yerevan's 2009 Mayoral Election: Statistical Analysis, Sept 2009;

Implications of the World Financial Crisis for Armenia’s Economy, Dec 2008;

Armenia’s 2008 Presidential Election: Select Issues and Analysis, July 2008.

The Elections

On February 18, 2013 presidential elections took place

According to official results, incumbent Serge Sargsyan was declared a winner with 58% of the votes while Raffi Hovhannisyan was reported to get the second place with 37% of the votes

Claims of fraud and protests immediately followed

Shortly after the elections PFA conducted a comprehensive analysis of the results

Key highlights of the analysis are presented here, for the full report visit the PFA website

How We Did the Analysis

Official Voting Results Statistical Analysis

Analysis was exclusively based on official data from CEC

Three Types of Analysis

1. Digit Test

2. Voter Turnout Analysis

3. Candidates Share vs. Turnout

# 1: Digit Test

Digit 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 same rate around 10%

A significant deviation from this rule indicates some kind of artificial interference

Digit Test is particularly effective when looking at the last digit in a number

– E.g. too many zeros could mean someone has inflated the numbers by adding 0’s at the end

– … or, someone has fabricated numbers, and numbers with zeros at the end (200, 50, 5000, …) just happen to be easier to fabricate than numbers without zeros

# 1: Digit Test

Too many 0’s and 1’s

Too few 4’s

Last Digit Last Digit

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n

# 1. Digit Test- Digit Test At Work in Other Countries

# 1: Digit Test

Conclusion

There is evidence of manipulating with vote count numbers in regions outside of Yerevan and Gyumri

# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis

Each polling station has a certain number of registered voters

– Voter’s list is maintained by the Police Department

Not all registered voters go to polls – this is true in every society

Voter Turnout = % of registered voters who actually go to the polling station and cast their vote

Voter Turnout Analysis

Analyzes the distribution of Voter Turnout

Investigates if there are any abnormal patterns in Voter Turnout distribution

Key: In free and fair elections Voter Turnout and Share of Votes for each candidate are expected to have a Normal (Gaussian) distribution

# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Overall Votes

We expect a Normal (Gaussian) distribution of Voter Turnout

# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Overall Votes

In official reported numbers, the distribution of Voter Turnout shows a significant departure from the expected Normal pattern

We observe unusually high turnout (>70%) in many polling stations

Expected Turnout Official Turnout

Inflated voter turnout

# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis- Votes for Each Candidate

Many polling stations registered unusually high number of votes for Serge Sargsyan and unusually low numbers for Raffi Hovhannisian

Expected Outcome

Expected Outcome

Conclusion

Overall Voter Turnout distribution significantly deviates from expected Normal distribution

Analysis shows highly inflated numbers in many polling stations

In many polling stations, Serge Sargsyan received unusually high number of votes while Raffi Hovhannisian received unusually low number of votes

# 2: Voter Turnout Analysis

# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout

Up to this point we have seen some really unusual patterns in the voting numbers and candidates’ shares

We may have started to have suspicions

But we have not yet established a clear link between the abnormal patterns of voter numbers and any particular candidate

We would like to find an answer to a question: Who benefited from inflated voter numbers?

To answer the question we need to see the relationship between Voter Turnout and Candidate Shares

# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout

This is another common type of analysis for Election Fraud

We need to plot the Candidate Share by Voter Turnout and look for trend

Candidate Share vs. Turnout Analysis

Analyzes the relationship between Voter Turnout and the share of votes for each candidate

Key: In free and fair elections, the % of votes received by any candidate should not be dependent on the number of voters in each polling station.

In other words, we should not see a trend.

# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout- Research on other countries national polls

There is a clear difference in pattern between democratic and non-democratic countries

# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout

Analysis reveals a strong relationship between the voter turnout and % of votes received by Serge Sargsyan

Higher turnout meant more votes for Serge Sargsyan

Voter Turnout

% V

otes

for

Ser

ge S

args

yan

# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout

We see the opposite picture with the votes received for Raffi Hovhannisian

Higher turnout meant fewer votes for Raffi Hovhannisian

Voter Turnout

% V

otes

for

Raf

fi H

ovha

nnis

ian

Conclusion

We have established a strong link between turnout and the main candidates’ share of votes

Serge Sargsyan significantly benefits from inflated voter turnout while Raffi Hovhannisian suffers from it

# 3: Candidates Share vs. Turnout

Overall Results Of the Analysis

Elections were significantly rigged in favor of incumbent Serge Sargsyan

Analysis included multiple types of statistical tests all pointing to fraud

Fraud was more prevalent in remote rural areas

The extent of fraud was large enough to change the outcome of the elections!

– Fair polls would have either resulted in outright victory for Raffi Hovhannisian or at least given a second round of voting

How Fraud Takes Place

Many 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 books

Voters list is the single most important reason enabling other forms of fraud

Voters’ list is believed to be significantly inflated as it has never taken into account the massive emigration since Armenia became independent

The Role of Criminal Oligarchy

Oligarchy is the primary support base of the ruling regime

Oligarchy provides machinery, muscle and money to the regime

It’s a shared business with common interests

The role of oligarchy is in its highest demand during elections

The “operatives” of election fraud consist of Republican Party grassroots functionaries and street thugs employed by oligarchs

– Often you cannot tell one from the other, they overlap to a large extent

Shared interests are protected by both legal and criminal methods

Voters List Needs To Be Publicized

Current election law does not allow to publish the list of registered voters who actually participated in the vote

– We only need to publicize who voted, not how they voted

This has lead to missing voters’ ballots being fraudulently used by the ruling party

Vicious circle – fraudulently elected National Assembly adopts laws preventing free and fair elections

Election code, in particular on voters list, is a major reason of election fraud

Constitutional Court

Election outcomes were challenged in Armenia’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, by Raffi Hovhannisian’s team and another presidential candidate, Andrias Ghukasyan

The 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 analysis

The 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!

Western Observers

Western Observers’ assessments serve as a major factor for the government in creating a legitimate appearance, and they have largely succeeded

As always, the assessment has been inadequate and superficial

Fraud is a multi-billion dollar industry internationally

Fraudsters are smart, they always learn new ways to defraud

Anti-fraud is also a big industry employing powerful analytical methods to learn and fight against fraud

There has to be a shift from ‘observing’ to a deeper and comprehensive analysis

Anything short of that is inadequate with very serious implications for Armenia

Reactions From Society

Strong reaction from the small but vibrant civil society

We have seen a major shift from previous elections – higher sense of responsibility

Everyone knows the elections were rigged but nobody can prove it!

Raffi Hovhannisian and his team have been staging numerous protests in Yerevan and in regions

So far that has not lead to any tangible results

Reactions In Diaspora

Diaspora has traditionally supported the government, whoever might be in charge of it

While the sense of loyalty is much appreciated, we have to realize what it has gotten us to and where it’s leading to

By and large, Diaspora organizations have not participated in democracy building in Armenia

There 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

THANK YOU!

Non-PFA Independent Analysis

The Protesters Are Right: Evidence Suggests More Election Fraud in Last Week’s Elections in Armenia ( Fredrik M Sjoberg, a Postdoctoral Scholar at Columbia University – The Harriman Institute)

Non-PFA Independent Analysis

Independent Russian analysts

Non-PFA Independent Analysis

Independent Russian analysts