In cases where the ballot paper must be declared invalid. Invalid elections - invalid ballot

Gives a verdict on the preference of a particular candidate (party) by the voter who voted. The newsletter is not propaganda material.

Types and uses of ballot papers[ | ]

A ballot is a means for a voter to express his choice (preference) regarding a particular candidate/party in an election. One voter is assigned one ballot, but not always only one vote (for example, if in elections to a government body several mandates are distributed in one electoral district, the voter can put from one mark in the squares to the number equal to the number of distributed mandates in the district).

A ballot can be of several types: paper and electronic. An electronic ballot, according to, for example, Russian legislation, is “a ballot prepared by software and hardware in electronic form, used in conducting electronic voting.” Electronic voting is “voting without using a paper ballot, using a set of automation tools from the State Automated System “Elections”. GAS automation systems, in turn, are a complex for electronic voting, “intended for conducting electronic voting, automated counting of votes of voters, referendum participants, establishing voting results and drawing up a protocol of the precinct commission on the voting results.” At the same time, it is not clearly specified what is meant by the software and hardware used to produce the electronic newsletter.

German ballot paper for the 1938 elections.

Newsletter design[ | ]

"Butterfly ballot", USA, 2000

Counts [ by whom?] that the design of a ballot can influence the outcome of an election if the column with one answer or candidate is different from the rest. The most striking example is the ballot paper for the elections in Germany in 1938, where the “for” column was many times larger than the “against” column.

Poor ballot design can result in people voting for a candidate other than their desired one. This happened in the 2000 US presidential election. The so-called butterfly ballot problem in Palm Beach County has become widely known. Its essence was as follows. The photo shows that Gore's name is located second from the left and the arrow points to the third hole for voting for him. While Buconnen's name is located in the column on the right and the arrow points to the second hole. Democrats argued that many of Gore's supporters in Palm Beach County had mixed up the holes and punched a second hole instead of a third, which explained Buconnen's unexpectedly high vote total.

The order of placing candidates on the sheet[ | ]

The placement of items on the ballot affects a person's likelihood of being selected (for example, a candidate placed in the first position may receive a few extra percentage points of the vote). To prevent this effect, try to use a random arrangement. It has been shown that when alphabetical sorting is used, especially in regional elections with many unknown candidates, candidates higher in the list have a better chance.

Status (removal) of the ballot in Russia[ | ]

On the Russian Central Election Commission website, in the background information, there is an answer to the question of a voter’s right to remove a ballot from the polling station. It says:

Responsibility for the voter to remove the ballot paper received for voting from the premises of the precinct election commission on voting day not provided federal legislation. Thus, the specified action is not an offense, in contrast to the theft of ballot papers, which can be considered an attempted crime under Art. 141 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (obstruction of the exercise of electoral rights or the work of election commissions).

Meanwhile, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains Art. 325, which provides for criminal liability for theft, destruction, damage or concealment of official documents committed out of selfish or other personal interest. When asked whether the removal of a ballot by a voter falls under the elements of the indicated crime, can't answer unambiguously without considering a specific situation, for example, clarifying the concepts of “official document”, “personal interest.

In order to prevent further violations using the issued ballot, the following can be suggested. If the commission has recorded an attempt by a voter to remove a ballot, then the members of the commission should explain the purpose of the ballot and offer voter to vote. Other actions commission to suppress the removal of ballots may be classified as illegal.

The Election Commission of the Moscow Region indicated that the fact that the voter received a ballot, but subsequently this ballot, among others, was not found in a stationary/portable voting box (that is, this means that, as a rule, the voter took it out of the polling station ) and the quantitative difference between the issued and found ballots is provable and does not constitute a violation of the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation” (see photo).

At the same time, members of the precinct commission and observers, as a rule, try to stop attempts to remove the ballot from the polling station; they often do not let the voter leave the polling station until he places the ballot in the ballot box. Citizens who have legal knowledge on this topic are often released by PEC members and observers with a ballot, however, there are also frequent cases when PEC members literally force, and do not suggest, as the Russian Central Election Commission recommends, the voter to place the ballot in the ballot box.

In the 2018 presidential elections in Russia, voters took with them (more precisely, they received them, but did not put them in boxes) 50,584 ballots. However, the information in the protocols about stolen ballots is very often unreliable. Some citizens at various election campaigns at the federal level conducted an experiment: they took a ballot from the polling station, and after posting the voting results in the State Automated System “Elections”, they checked whether there was a difference between the number of ballots issued to voters and the number of ballots found in ballot boxes; the coincidence of these indicators in the presence of a ballot paper clearly demonstrated that the protocol did not reflect the real voting results at the polling station. It is also worth mentioning the common misconception that stolen ballots should be clearly reflected in the “Lost Ballots” column of the protocol, but this indicator reflects exclusively those ballots that were lost by the precinct commission before the ballots were issued to voters.

Invalid ballot[ | ]

Invalid ballot (not to be confused with spoiled newsletter).

According to paragraph 16 of Article 73 of the Law on Elections of the President of Russia

… Ballots that do not contain marks in the squares located to the right of information about registered candidates, from the position “For” or “Against” (in the case provided for in paragraph 5.1 of Article 67 of this Federal Law), or in which the sign(s) are (are) considered invalid are considered invalid. marked(s) in more than one square. …

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 76 of the Law on Elections of the President of Russia

… A registered candidate who received more than half of the votes of voters who took part in the voting is considered elected. The number of voters who took part in the voting is determined by the number of ballot papers of the established form found in the ballot boxes …

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “Ballott of unspecified form” and “Invalid ballot”.

A ballot in the prescribed form can be either valid or invalid.

Types of invalid ballots (not to be confused with spoiled ones)[ | ]

Types of invalid ballots include:

Interesting Facts[ | ]

see also [ | ]

Notes [ | ]

1. Federal Law of June 12, 2002 N 67-FZ “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation” (as amended). Art. 2 (undefined) .
2. Meduza. The Central Election Commission showed what the ballot for the presidential election will look like. Someone stands out a little on it.

Although I maintain that it does not matter what you do in these “elections”, because these are NOT elections, and they will not be recognized anyway,

but I am outraged by the ignorance (or cunning) of some people who deny the usefulness of almost ballots (an ethically good position, although not flawless) and call for voting for one of Putin’s four puppets (an immoral position).

Therefore, a small educational program:

"Boris Vishnevsky
Deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg (Yabloko faction)

Spoiled ballots are a sure way to the second round

Alexander Minkin is a wonderful journalist. I read almost everything he writes with great pleasure. But in his latest blog on the Echo website, he confused himself and confused his readers.

“There is only one way to cast a vote - to vote for one candidate. For anyone, but only one. Only as a result of such behavior can it happen that none of the five will receive more than half the votes in the first round,” writes Minkin, criticizing the opposition’s proposal to cross out all the “squares,” thereby making the ballot invalid. They say that the law, which “politicians have never read,” is such that spoiled ballots do not in any way affect Vladimir Putin’s results and do not in any way prevent him from winning in the first round.

Dear Alexander! As you know, I am not only a journalist (a columnist for Novaya Gazeta), but also a politician. Once upon a time, you and I ran together for the State Duma from Yabloko. And now I am a deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg. At the same time, I tend to carefully read the laws, especially those related to elections. In addition, I am a mathematician by training. And the combination of these two circumstances clearly leads me to the conclusion that you are completely wrong. Moreover: it is precisely the law to which you refer that proves you are wrong!
I'll explain.
During elections, stationary (which are located at polling stations) and portable ballot boxes (which are carried from home to home) are used. At the end of voting, they are opened and ballots are found inside. The sum of all the ballots found in these boxes gives us the number of voters who took part in the voting.
Let's denote this number by the letter A.

The ballots found in the ballot box are divided into two groups: valid, in which it is clear that the voter voted for one of the candidates, and invalid, in which this is not clear.
In invalid ballots there are no marks in the boxes next to the names of the candidates at all, or there are more than one of them. The exact wording is clause 16 of Art. 73 of the Law “On the Elections of the President of the Russian Federation”: ballot papers are considered invalid if they do not contain marks in the squares located to the right of the information about registered candidates, or in which the sign(s) are (are) placed in more than one square.

We denote the number of valid ballots as A1.
We denote the number of invalid ones as A2.
The sum of valid and invalid ballots A1 + A2 gives, as is easy to see, the number A mentioned above - the total number of voters who took part in the vote (that is, not only who received the ballot, but also put it in the ballot box).

The percentage of votes cast for each candidate is in accordance with clause 3 of Art. 76 of the Law “On Elections of the President of the Russian Federation” is defined as the number of votes cast for a candidate divided by the number of voters who took part in the vote.

Let's assume that there are five candidates (as in our case). K1, K2, K3, K4 and K5 votes were cast for them, respectively.
Since only valid ballots are taken into account when determining the number of votes cast, if we add up all these numbers K1+K2+K3+K4+K5, we should get the number A1, that is, the number of valid ballots. But at the same time, the percentages of votes cast for candidates are determined as fractions in which the numerator is the number of votes cast for them, and the denominator is the TOTAL number of voters who took part in the vote (A), and not the number of valid ballots (A1).

P1 = K1/A
P2 = K2/A
P3 = K3/A
P4 = K4/A
P5 = K5/A

What follows from this? Here's the thing: Each invalid ballot counted in number A INCREASES the DENOMINATOR of each of those fractions while maintaining the numerator. That is, it reduces all these fractions. Reduces the percentage of votes cast for each candidate. Including the percentage of votes cast for Putin. And as soon as this percentage is less than 50% - in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 77 of the Law “On Elections of the President of the Russian Federation”, it will be necessary to hold a second round. Because no one will be elected president in the first round (for this you need to get more than 50% of the votes).

The conclusion is simple. Not going to the polls is really useless (you have no influence on anything). Taking the ballot with you is also useless for the same reasons. But every spoiled ballot brings us closer to the second round of elections, just like every ballot where the voter’s vote is not cast for Putin. He really prevents Putin from winning in the first round. And this should be understood by everyone who is thinking about how to behave in elections.

Well, okay, we come to the meeting with prepared ballots for Form No. 1, and they (the members of the Investigative Committee) create their own, where this is not provided. The question is asked in such a way that it can be answered either for or against, there are no other options. And if we declare it invalid, how then will the voting results be counted? Just as if this participant abstained or can a majority be counted from the number of votes cast correctly?

What do you mean they sculpt their own? There are options for voting - vote for against abstain. if, for example, an overlay votes “against” the AU report, then I always ask you not to write your notes on the ballot, but to express them in writing or orally (from some you can only get an extract from the voting order through the court, and it seems that if this happens they would rather burn inspection than they will give these materials to the bailiffs, again, idiocy). spoke out, reflected in the minutes in all details, I also understand that the person needs to report about the meeting. Look at the protocol, our nonsense in all its glory. If it cannot be reflected in the protocol, is it necessary to specifically resolve the issue posed by a ballot? no question during the registration period, submit your additional questions. if you “forgot” then we will remember at the next meeting. if you did not vote for inclusion on the agenda by a majority, well, excuse me, keep your thoughts to yourself, the meeting is against this issue in this wording. but about arriving with ready-made ballots, this is an ambush, at least because of the opportunity to put additional issues on the agenda. It’s better not to be lazy and take with you a small laptop and a small printer; an outlet can be found in any remote village these days.

I absolutely support, fill out only those fields where and what needs to be filled in in order of filling, everything else is from the evil one)

Threat, let me digress a little, I hope you will forgive me, I have one small but evil creditor who has finished reading what needs to be delivered any a sign with the voting option you have chosen... so this... the prankster at the first meeting drew a male genital organ in the manner of a schoolboy... I asked what it was, he explained to the meeting that this is what the creditors will receive from bankruptcy. I explained that any sign meant decent, and asked to refill the ballots, otherwise I refuse to accept them. He thought for a long time and began to draw “sun” in all the squares, also in the same manner as at school. Until the last meeting, I pictured it like that, the judge even allowed weakness in the meetings - “so, what does the sun say about this.” In this way he attracted the attention of even the court. Maybe UpOru can also come up with some kind of symbol “double-headed eagle” in all its glory, for example, and chipboard from Moscow throughout Russia))

Problems of holding a general meeting of shareholders

Election of the Board of Directors

Registrar's Responsibility

Annual general meetings of shareholders based on the results of 2002 are held under significantly different legal conditions compared to meetings of previous years. The adoption by the Federal Commission for the Securities Market of Additional requirements for the procedure for preparing, convening and holding a general meeting of shareholders, approved by Resolution No. 17/ps of May 31, 2002, in practice did not make it easier, but rather complicated the holding of meetings. A number of regulations, including restrictions on the ability of depositary banks to transfer voting rights by proxy, raise doubts about their legality.

A description of all the conflicts of the norms of the current legislation regulating the conduct of general meetings of shareholders cannot be contained within one article, so we will focus on discussing two aspects: the problem of invalidating ballots when counting votes following a meeting of shareholders, as well as the problem that arises when voting with ballots on the issue of electing the board of directors of the company.

The Federal Law “On Joint Stock Companies” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on JSC) contains only one article (Article 61) regulating the issue of invalidating a voting ballot. It concerns the rule on invalidating ballots in which voters are left with more than one of the possible voting options.

The Federal Securities Commission of Russia has expanded the list of grounds for declaring ballots invalid. Thus, according to the Additional Requirements, the counting commission should not take into account:

Ballots in respect of which, no later than two days before the meeting, a notice was received from the shareholder about the replacement (revocation) of a representative (clause 4.12);

Ballots on the issue of electing company bodies, in which voters left the option “for” for a larger number of candidates than the number of persons who should be elected to the corresponding body of the company (with the exception of elections of members of the board of directors, carried out by cumulative voting) (clause 4.17).

The last two rules do not apply to ballots signed by a shareholder voting at the direction of new acquirers of shares or by the acquirers themselves who received shares after the date of compilation of the list. A similar exemption was established by the Federal Securities Commission of Russia for the norm defined in Article 61 of the Law on JSC (see above).

The legality of some of these provisions is questionable. In accordance with Article 47 of the Law on JSC, the Federal Securities Commission of Russia has the right to establish additional requirements for the procedure for preparing, convening and holding a general meeting of shareholders. It is obvious that such requirements should not contradict the imperative norms of the Law. At the same time, according to Article 57 of this Law, a shareholder has the right at any time to replace his representative at the general meeting of shareholders or to personally participate in the general meeting. In our opinion, the limitation on the time limit for accepting a notice of replacement (revocation of a representative) contradicts Article 57 of the Law. The same can be said about establishing exceptions to the rules of Article 61 of the JSC Law.

Questions arise: can the counting commission, at its discretion, invalidate ballots on other grounds? Does a joint stock company have the right to establish such additional grounds in its internal document, for example in the regulations on convening and holding a general meeting of shareholders?

It seems that, following the principle “everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted,” the answer to these questions should be in the affirmative. However, some lawyers do not share this opinion, considering the list of the above grounds established by current legislation to be exhaustive.

One way or another, almost all joint-stock companies (their counting commissions) consider it justified to invalidate a ballot if it contains corrections and erasures, and is not filled out completely or in part.

We would like to draw attention to more complex legal problems that we had to face in practice. Their resolution will become more effective if the meeting of shareholders of the company approves an internal document that most fully defines the list of grounds for the invalidity of ballots. At the same time, we do not consider such a measure to be exhaustive and do not exclude the possibility of shareholders appealing to the arbitration court.

Does a shareholder have the right to authorize several persons on his behalf to vote at a meeting of shareholders? Is the registrar obligated to issue additional ballots and take into account the votes of attorneys when tabulating the voting results? Note that this refers to representation that is not conditional on the sale of shares after the date of the list.

This question is not theoretical. The real need for voting in this way may arise from offshore shareholders, who in reality are backed by owners with often differing interests.

It appears that multiple legal relationships do not follow from the fact that a shareholder owns more than one share. In other words, the legal relationship “shareholder - issuer” is one, and, as in the case if a shareholder owns ten shares, and if he owns one share, the legal relationship between him and the company is one, and, therefore, the shareholder has only two options: vote at the general meeting as a whole package at your own discretion or authorize your representative on your behalf to exercise this right.

This point of view is confirmed by the provisions of the Law on JSC. Thus, according to Article 57, a shareholder has the right to replace his representative (and not representatives!) at any time.

So, if the counting commission received two or more ballots from one person on the list, and the powers of attorney were not issued in connection with the transfer of shares, which of them should be considered invalid?

According to clause 4.16 of Resolution No. 17/ps of the Federal Commission for the Securities Market of Russia “On Additional Requirements for the Procedure for Preparing, Convening and Conducting a General Meeting of Shareholders,” if, during the vote count, two or more completed ballots of one person are found, in which one item on the agenda of the general meeting voters are left with various voting options, then in terms of voting on such an issue, all specified ballots are declared invalid. We believe that by “person” here we mean a person from the list who has the right to participate in the meeting of shareholders. With this interpretation, the representatives of one shareholder are not different persons, therefore the counting commission has grounds to recognize all ballots received from the shareholder (person from the list) and his representatives as invalid.

If, in order to avoid a conflict, the counting commission recognizes such ballots as valid, the following must be kept in mind. Other shareholders, legally having access to completed ballots and appealing to the above arguments, may demand that such a vote count be declared illegal and the decision of the general meeting invalid (of course, subject to other conditions necessary for an appeal established by law).

The situation is even more confusing when the counting commission receives two or more ballots received from a person included in the list for participation in the meeting of shareholders and/or his representatives who vote with shares acquired after the date of compilation of the list. In this case, the total number of votes declared on the ballots exceeds the number of votes with which a person has the right to vote in accordance with the data in the list.

Such a discrepancy can result either from a simple oversight by any of the listed persons (the shareholder or purchasers of shares), or in the event that the shareholder first voted and then sold the shares, issuing a power of attorney in his name at the request of the purchaser. A third option is also possible: the shareholder sold his stake in parts, and the new acquirers presented ballots and powers of attorney, the sum of votes for which exceeded the original number of votes of the seller.

What should the counting commission be guided by when making a decision on the invalidity of ballots? Obviously, with the data that voters are required to fill out on the ballot, it is often impossible to determine who has unlawfully inflated their votes.

Even when such a situation comes down to the simplest case, it is also impossible to make the only correct decision. So, suppose that a shareholder from the list votes with all his votes, sending a ballot by mail to the company. After some time, he sells his stake, and the acquirer, by proxy, also votes in absentia. As a result, the counting commission receives two ballots with double the amount of votes.

As is known, the counting commission is not obliged to verify the validity of the transfer of shares. In addition, such a check is not feasible, given the possibility of transferring shares with registration of rights with a nominal holder. Considering each of those who voted as a proper party in the legal relationship "issuer - shareholder" and being guided only by the list data, in order not to exceed the number of votes according to the list data, we believe that the commission can take into account one of the ballots received. Which ballot to invalidate is a task that must be decided on the basis of each specific situation.

The question remains unresolved: is a shareholder included in the list obliged, in accordance with Article 57 of the Law, to issue a power of attorney to the acquirer if he has already exercised his voting rights, or not?

In any case, a person purchasing shares after the list has been completed must ensure that the seller notifies the counting committee of the withdrawal of his ballot. However, the corresponding standards are not included in the Additional Requirements of the Federal Securities Commission of Russia, as a result of which mistakes are possible even for sophisticated investors.

Election of the Board of Directors

Particular difficulties arise if the agenda of the meeting includes questions about determining the quantitative and personal composition of the board of directors. This practice is widespread, but there is an inherent problem here.

The number of votes of a shareholder in the ballot for elections to the board of directors of the company by cumulative voting is calculated based on the quantitative composition of the supervisory body (according to clause 4 of article 66 of the JSC Law, the number of votes belonging to the shareholder is multiplied by the number of persons who must be elected to the board of directors ). And since at the time of voting on the personal composition of the board of directors no decision was made on its quantitative composition, it is simply impossible to calculate the number of cumulative votes.

Most companies resolved this conflict simply: the number of board members for which the controlling shareholder would vote was taken into account.

Obviously, this approach violated the will of the companies' minority shareholders, however, it was and remains the most common way to resolve this problem. However, firstly, in companies in which there is no controlling shareholder, this scheme turns out to be unrealizable, and secondly, violation of the rights of shareholders may become a basis for appealing the decisions of the meeting. It is unlikely that the decision of the general meeting on such a complaint will be canceled (judicial practice is currently developing in such a way that decisions, the adoption of which by the plaintiff’s votes could not influence, are not canceled by arbitration courts). However, the prospect of being involved in legal proceedings may not seem tempting.

Before the publication of the Additional Requirements of the Federal Securities Commission of Russia, some companies used a more “fair” method. Shareholders received two voting ballots on this issue. In one ballot, the number of votes is calculated based on the existing number of members of the board of directors, in the other - from the possible number (in accordance with the draft decision on the issue of quantitative composition). Shareholders fill out both ballots, one of which is invalidated by the counting commission, depending on what decision is made regarding the number of members of the board.

This voting option does not violate the rights of shareholders. However, with the adoption of the Additional Requirements by the Federal Securities Commission of Russia, the situation has changed somewhat. In accordance with clause 4.16 of the Additional Requirements, if during the counting of votes two or more completed ballots of one person are found, in which different voting options are left for the same issue on the agenda of the general meeting, then in terms of voting on such an issue, all of these ballots are declared invalid . It seems that, if desired, this rule can be applied to the voting scheme described above, which makes it legally flawed.

Obviously, the situation is a stalemate, and one could only recommend not to combine these two issues at one meeting, but in accordance with Article 53 of the Law on JSC, “two percent shareholders” have the right to put such an issue on the agenda, regardless of the wishes of the company. Therefore, until amendments are made to the Law, joint-stock companies will be doomed to violate the will of their shareholders.

Registrar's Responsibility

In conclusion, I would like to dwell on the issuer’s responsibility for counting votes following the results of the general meeting of shareholders. Despite the fact that the obligation of a company with more than 500 shareholders - owners of voting shares - to involve its registrar to perform the functions of the counting commission is enshrined in law, the latter acts on the basis of an agency agreement. We have heard more than once from the management of joint stock companies that if the registrar holds a general meeting, then he is responsible if any problems arise. However, the registrar does not act on its own behalf, but on behalf of the company. Therefore, the actions of the registrar are the actions of society. If a shareholder’s rights are violated during registration or when counting votes, he will make demands on the company, and the company can then present recourse claims to the registrar.

E. Kulikova,

Institute expert

corporate law and governance

Pskov "YABLOKO" calls on voters to come to the polls and vote against all candidates for governor of the Pskov region

The regional council of the Pskov regional branch of the YABLOKO party adopted an appeal to voters in the Pskov region. Pskov “YABLOKO” calls on voters to come to the polls and express no confidence in all candidates for the post of governor of the Pskov region without exception: put a “cross” in the box next to the name of each candidate. This way the ballots will be counted, invalidated and may show the level of public protest. The call of the Pskov “YABLOKO” is addressed to supporters of all parties and citizens who do not support any parties or candidates participating in the elections.

Appeal from the Pskov regional branch of the YABLOKO party to voters in the Pskov region

Elections for the governor of the Pskov region were scheduled for September 9, 2018. The upcoming action has nothing to do with free, fair, democratic elections.

Not a single candidate independent of the current authorities, not a single candidate representing an alternative to their policies, not a single candidate representing and protecting the interests of civil society participates in the elections. The authorities are absolutely unprepared for fair elections and are afraid of them.

There is no political competition in the elections for the governor of the Pskov region; the participation of all candidates is sanctioned by the authorities themselves in order to eliminate even the slightest threat to the result of the candidate from the United Russia party. Essentially all candidates for the post of governor of the Pskov region are candidates of the United Russia party.

Tens of thousands of citizens of the Pskov region, who are supporters of the democratic foundations of political life, have a sense of self-esteem and do not agree with the policies of the United Russia party, are faced with the question: what to do on September 9, 2018, how to express their civic position in the absence of a candidate representing voters democratic beliefs.

This is an appeal to all citizens of the Pskov region, regardless of party and other political beliefs, who believe that the fate of power should be decided by the people in open and free elections, and not by officials fighting to preserve and actually usurp power.

The Pskov regional branch of the YABLOKO party calls on all democratic voters in the Pskov region to take part in the vote on September 9.

We do not trust the electoral system of Russia, including the electoral system of the Pskov region, and we believe that the ballots of citizens who did not come to the elections could be used to ensure an unreliable result for the candidate from United Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to come to the polling stations.

We invite voters to check the boxes opposite the names of all candidates without exception on the ballot for the election of governor of the Pskov region, thereby making the ballot officially invalid.

Invalid ballots are counted as a separate line in the protocols of election commissions; this number is published following the election results. Such voting reduces the share of votes cast for all candidates.

Essentially, such voting is now the only legal way to vote against all candidates, a legal and visible way of expressing civil protest in elections that are devoid of the meaning of personal political choice.

Such a vote is a legal way of public protest of citizens against the policies of the authorities of Russia and the Pskov region that are anti-people, destructive and insulting to citizens in every sense of the word. Such a vote is a direct civil protest against the political arbitrariness of the authorities and destructive socio-economic policies.

Such a vote, if it is massive, will reflect the level of citizens’ indignation at the policies of the United Russia party. This may be the most significant political result of the so-called. "elections of the governor of the Pskov region."

We urge all voters to convey this position to the maximum number of citizens, to take part in the discussion of this position and in voting.

We also encourage voters to participate in citizen oversight of elections to ensure that political protest votes are not falsified by unscrupulous individuals in election commissions. The Pskov regional branch of the YABLOKO party, as a party represented in the regional parliament, has the right to provide all citizens with such an opportunity at all polling stations in the Pskov region, and is ready to do so.

Dear citizens!

The Pskov region is a land of deep historical democratic traditions. Devalued elections are an attempt not only to preserve power for the ruling group at any cost, but also an attempt to erase these traditions from people's memory and political practice.

The only source of power in Russia is the people.

The Pskov regional branch of the YABLOKO party calls on citizens of the Pskov region to vote against all candidates for the post of governor of the Pskov region and show both the authorities and themselves the strength of Pskov civil society.

Adopted by the Regional Council
Pskov regional branch of the YABLOKO party
Pskov, August 27, 2018