PFA Publishes the Results of Its Preliminary Analysis on Presidential
Election in Armenia
02/22/2013
Policy Forum Armenia (PFA) just concluded its preliminary analysis of
the official results of Armenia’s 2013 Presidential Election based on
the data provided by the Central Election Commission. Consistent with
eyewitness accounts and a large body of local media reports, our
analysis – which we summarize below – confirms the following:
路 Presence of a significant and systemic effort to artificially
inflate the voter turnout (Figure 1, Panel 1
). The
deviations from the expected pattern (i.e., the normal or Gaussian
distribution) appear to be larger than those found in our analysis of
the 2008 Presidential Election (see Figure 1 in PFA’s Report on
`Armenia’s 2008 Presidential Election: Select Issues and Analysis
‘).
路 This turnout-enhancing fraud was conducted on behalf of the
incumbent, Serge Sargsyan, and against the main challenger, Raffi
Hovannisian (Figure 1, Panels 1 and 2
). The
deviations from the expected pattern are massive and exceed the range
found during the 2008 election (see Figure 2 in PFA’s Report on
`Armenia’s 2008 Presidential Election: Select Issues and Analysis
‘).
路 In addition to artificially inflating the voter turnout, votes cast
in favor of Raffi Hovannisian and other opposition candidates were
fraudulently assigned to Serge Sargsyan: for every 100 ballots cast in
polling stations with artificially high voter turnout, Serge Sargsyan
received 105 votes (as measured by the slope of the straight line
onFigure 2, Panel 1
).
路 Voter turnout was inflated by ballot stuffing, among other means.
As shown on Figure 2, Panel 3
, the
number of invalid ballots declined asthe voter turnout increased, a
clear sign of ballot stuffing. This result contrasts with the findings
of the 2012 Parliamentary Election, where ballot stuffing was not
found to be a major factor (See PFA’s report on `Armenia’s 2012
Parliamentary Election
‘).
路 There are indications that invalid ballots were counted in favor of
the incumbent (Figure 2, Panel 4
). The
share of votes assigned to Serge Sargsyan is larger in polling
stations where the ratio of ballots treated as `invalid’ is lower.
路 There is strong evidence of vote-counting fraud in polling stations
in rural areas. The digit tests (Figure 3
) reveal
signs of human interference in voter counting (e.g., reassigning of
ballots from one candidate to another, etc.) as measured by a
significant deviation from the uniform distribution (of votes cast in
favor of two front-runners) in polling stations outside of Yerevan and
Gyumri.
All in all, we conclude that in polling stations not affected by
falsifications, the main opposition candidate, Raffi Hovannisian,
shows a lead of at least 4 percent of the vote. This, however, is
likely to be the lower bound of the difference between the two
front-runners, because of the extent of violations in favor of Serge
Sargsyan, as mentioned earlier.
This analysis challenges – in the strongest possible way – the
official version of the events, the statement of the OSCE-ODIHR
observer mission, and the reports in Western media outlets about the
extent of violations that took place on February 18, 2013.
Our results strongly indicate that the final outcome of February 2013
election was subject to massive manipulations and interference and did
not reflect the free will of the Armenian citizens.
They also call into question the role of foreign election observers in
the Armenian context, specifically their impartiality and ability to
detect election fraud that is becoming ever more sophisticated.
We strongly encourage Raffi Hovannisian and his supporters to
forcefully pursue either a system-wide recount of ballots (which would
undoubtedly reduce the share of the incumbent’s votes and lead to the
second round election) or a complete annulment of the election
outcome, as the only ways forward for the country and its people.
FULL REPORT with GRAPHS: