On November 7, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) issued a statement on a worrying trend identified by the watchdog in its analysis of the Central Election Commission’s data on voter activity by gender. The concern is about the difference between the registered number of male and female voters and the proportion of those voters who actually went to the polling stations, as opposed to the figures reflected in the CEC’s voter database.
On the basis of the information requested and received from the CEC, ISFED found that in a significant proportion of precincts, the difference between the activity of male and female voters is skewed away from the normal distribution and has practically impossible characteristics. For example, in 62 precincts where 80-100% of registered male voters actually voted, the average female turnout was 57%. Moreover, in some precincts, male activity reaches the theoretically impossible figure of more than 100% of registered male voters (from both unified and special lists), which ISFED believes indicates manipulation.
ISFED found that:
- In 275 polling stations, the difference between the participation of male and female voters on the unified list is higher than 20 percentage points. Of these, in 243 polling stations this difference is expressed by the majority of male voters, and in 32 polling stations – by the majority of female voters;
- Of the 275 precincts listed, in 67 precincts the level of male voter activity exceeds that of women by more than 30 percentage points, and in 12 precincts the proportion of women registered to vote is higher than that of men by the same percentage points;
- The number of male voters registered in 23 polling stations exceeds the number of male voters registered on the unified list. Among them, in at least 6 polling stations, the proportion of male voters is higher than 100%, even under the theoretical assumption that all the voters registered in the special list on these stations were men.
Precincts where these irregularities were found:
| District | Precinct | Voting Type | Number of Registered Male Voters in the Unified List | Number of Male Voters that Actually Voted | Number of Voters in the Special Lists |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36 Borjomi | 11 | Traditional | 514 | 599 | 8 |
| 16 Kvareli | 12 | Traditional | 123 | 140 | 4 |
| 58 Tskaltubo | 21 | Traditional | 95 | 105 | 3 |
| 38 Adigeni | 11 | Traditional | 122 | 127 | 1 |
| 54 Samtredia | 18 | Electronic | 660 | 673 | 10 |
| 41 Ninotsminda | 15 | Traditional | 26 | 65 | 38 |
ISFED also found unexplained discrepancies when comparing the preliminary data published by the CEC on the number of male and female voters during the elections with the revised data published later. For example, according to the CEC preliminary results about the number of voters, 961,751 women and 1,098,661 men voted on October 26, but according to the revised data, the number of female voters increased and the number of male voters decreased proportionally – 1,053,662 women (91,911 more than shown initially) and 1,009,686 men (88,975 less than shown initially).
In some cases, ISFED found a drastic difference between the preliminary published and revised total number of voters in the district. For example, in Marneuli’s District No. 22, the CEC initially reported that 41,766 voters had voted, but later revised this figure to 43,858. After ISFED had requested detailed data from each precinct, the CEC updated its website and it is now impossible to see the preliminary data on voter activity.
ISFED says it has also requested special lists (the lists include, inter alia, prisoners, people with health problems, employees of MIAs, MOD, inmates, etc.) from the CEC and will provide additional results based on these.
Furthermore, ISFED notes that in the document provided to it by the CEC, in a significant part of the polling stations, the data on the total number of voters who participated in the elections does not correspond to the total number of voters as reflected in the summary protocols as published on the CEC website.
For example, the difference found in 15 polling stations is:
The CEC responded to ISFED’s analysis, on November 8, by claiming that “counting the number of voters participating in the election by gender is not an obligation established by the Electoral Code of Georgia”. They also claimed that “Although such data, even now and in all previous elections, may contain certain inaccuracies, given the methodology and practices of its processing, it is in no way related to, and cannot be related to, the results of the voting, and therefore cannot have any influence on them.”
The CEC cited some irregularities in precincts, although not the ones mentioned by ISFED in its analysis, saying that the organization hadn’t taken into account the “amendment protocol” attached to the summary protocol of these precincts, and that this was the reason for the discrepancy in the figures. The CEC also claimed that the people on special lists hadn’t been taken into account by ISFED [although ISFED did say that the gender-based information about special lists was unavailable at the moment, which however would not change the picture of the irregularities], only admitting the errors in 11 precincts, affecting 150 people, which the CEC said was due to incorrect information sent by the precinct commission on the number of female and male voters.
This news was updated on November 8 at 16:00 to include CEC’s statement.Also Read: