How different was electronic voting in the presidential elections from “paper” voting?

Voters who voted online in the last presidential election more often than visitors to regular polling stations preferred Vladimir Putin and Vladislav Davankov (“New People”), Kommersant calculated. Communist Nikolai Kharitonov was more likely to lose in electronic voting, and only the result of LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky remained almost unchanged. In the case of each candidate, different factors were at work, the expert believes: from the age of voters to their “advancement” from a technical point of view.

During online voting in 29 regions, Vladimir Putin scored a total of 2.85 percentage points (pp) more than in traditional elections, Kommersant calculated: 88.07% of voters who voted using remote voting systems gave him votes electronic voting (EV), while at regular polling stations this figure was 85.22%.

Let us recall that the DEG in the 2024 elections was used in 28 regions connected to the federal platform, and in Moscow, which uses its own system. In total, more than 8 million voters voted online, that is, almost every tenth of those who took part in these elections. However, about 45% of the participants in the DEG were given by Moscow, where more than half of the voters chose this voting format. In other regions, their share of the total number of election participants was significantly lower. Also in the capital, Vladimir Putin’s predominance in electronic polling stations turned out to be the most serious: if in “paper” polls he received 76.8%, then online – 89.1%, the difference was 12.3 percentage points.

A high gap was also demonstrated by the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (6.7 p.p.) and Chuvashia (5.4 p.p.). The results of candidate Putin online and offline in the Nizhny Novgorod region completely coincided. And worse than in “paper” polling stations, its online result was only in two regions: in the Rostov (minus 5.2 percentage points) and Voronezh regions (minus 2.7 percentage points).

The candidate from the New People party, Vladislav Davankov, also had better online results than paper results – by an average of 0.61 percentage points. The most significant (over 4 percentage points) electronic advantage was in his favor in the Perm region and Rostov region. The exceptions were three regions: Moscow, Sevastopol and the Tomsk region. Moreover, in the capital the gap turned out to be the most significant: thanks to the “paper”, the candidate from “New People” received 11.28% of the votes, and in the DEG – only 4.44% (the difference was 6.83 percentage points).

But Nikolai Kharitonov (Communist Party of the Russian Federation), who took second place, showed worse results in online sections than in regular ones. The most significant gap (4.4 percentage points) was in the Nenets Okrug, where the communist scored 7.58% in paper and only 3.18% online: according to the results of the DEG in the region, he lost not only to the third overall winner place for Vladislav Davankov (6.97% online and 6.36% in regular polling stations), but also for the LDPR candidate Leonid Slutsky (5.18% online and 5.96% in paper), who overall took last place. In general, in 28 regions (with the exception of Kamchatka), Mr. Kharitonov lost “silver” to Vladislav Davankov in the DEG, but the overall result, taking into account paper voting, provided him with second place in 16 of them.

Finally, Leonid Slutsky showed the most even result: the discrepancy between electronic and “paper” voting for him in most regions was within 1 percentage point. In general, in the DEG he gained rather than lost: the average electronic increase in all 30 regions was 0. 4 p.p.

Political scientist Alexey Makarkin considers the lag of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in the DEG to be quite logical: traditionally, the party for which the older generation votes receives fewer votes remotely than offline. This happens not only in Russia, but also, for example, in Estonia, where online voting is also used, the expert points out. In addition, he recalls that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has more than once expressed distrust of the DEG and called on its voters to vote only at polling stations. Mr. Makarkin also drew an analogy with the United States, where Republicans, unlike Democrats, did not vote by mail – with all the ensuing consequences.

But the supporter of Vladislav Davankov turned out to be different, the political scientist notes: in part, he is an opposition voter who does not trust the DEG and therefore votes “in person on the last day (and sometimes at 12 o’clock).” But there is a second type of voters – those who, in principle, like the New People party and who voted for it in the parliamentary elections in 2021. They do not follow what the parliamentary opposition proposes, and it is convenient for them to vote through the DEG, because they are already accustomed to doing many things online, says Alexey Makarkin.

Finally, the high activity of Vladimir Putin’s online electorate can be explained, among other things, by “corporate mobilization,” the expert believes: it was more convenient for those who fell under it to vote electronically rather than go to the polling station. Moreover, in Moscow, DEG was actively offered to all election participants, and the capital’s voters are traditionally the most advanced from a technical point of view, the political scientist recalls.

Anastasia Kornya, Andrey Prah