The truth about elections, held to a single standard.

Next up

Five categories, never conflated

The recorded numbers do not reflect the votes cast.

Unequal media access, repression, illegal financing, vote buying, misuse of state resources.

Cyberattacks, hack-and-leak, covert foreign financing, impersonation of media or institutions by a foreign state or proxy.

Troll farms, fake local-media networks, covert political ads, coordinated inauthentic amplification — foreign or domestic.

Patterns in the data worth examining — explicitly not proof of fraud.

A finding sits in exactly one category. Colors and icons carry the same meaning everywhere on the site.

From the case files

The clearest test of a trustworthy record is whether it can hold both statements at once.

Process violationsConfirmed
The Supreme Court ruled on 3 December 2004 that the Central Election Commission had acted unlawfully in determining the run-off result, annulled the resolutions declaring a winner, and ordered a repeat vote.
More detail
The Court found that the CEC had failed to examine territorial commission protocols and verify their accuracy, and had announced the results without considering complaints that were still pending. It annulled CEC resolutions No. 1264 and No. 1265 and ordered the Commission to schedule a repeat vote, which the CEC did the following day. The Court declined to declare the first-round leader elected.
Sources:1 2 3
Result falsificationConfirmed
Turnout figures for Donetsk region were increased, on occasions after the close of polls — a fact that emerged during the Supreme Court's consideration of the appeal against the run-off result.
More detail
Observers recorded that the CEC announced turnout exceeding 96 per cent for the entire Donetsk region, which ODIHR described as implausible. This is the point at which the record moves from procedural failure to the alteration of reported figures.
Sources:1 2

Result falsificationContested
What the true 21 November result would have been — not established, and not establishable. The Supreme Court did not recompute a corrected tally; it held that the violations made it impossible to reliably establish the genuine will of the voters, which is why it ordered the vote to be held again rather than declaring a different winner.
Sources:1 2
Foreign interferenceContested
Who administered the poison — not established. The peer-reviewed study identifies the agent and confirms the poisoning but makes no finding about responsibility; the treating clinic said expressly that attributing blame was not its role; and no court has attributed it to any person or state.
Sources:1 2