Putin Wins 88% with Record Election Turnout

I don’t even think the US media would attempt to claim that this election is somehow “rigged.” They can whine about Navalny, but the reality is, all polls show that Putin has this much support.


President Vladimir Putin won a record post-Soviet landslide in Russia’s election on Sunday, cementing his grip on power though thousands of opponents staged a noon protest at polling stations and the United States said the vote was neither free nor fair.

For Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel who first rose to power in 1999, the result is intended to underscore to the West that its leaders will have to reckon with an emboldened Russia, whether in war or in peace, for many more years to come.

The early result means Putin, 71, will easily secure a new six-year term that would enable him to overtake Josef Stalin and become Russia’s longest-serving leader for more than 200 years.

Putin won 87.8% of the vote, the highest ever result in Russia’s post-Soviet history, according to an exit poll by pollster the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM). The Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VCIOM) put Putin on 87%. First official results indicated the polls were accurate.

Communist candidate Nikolai Kharitonov came second with just under 4%, newcomer Vladislav Davankov third, and ultra-nationalist Leonid Slutsky fourth, results suggested.

In terms of the 12% that didn’t vote for him, there are always going to be around that percentage of people who are just against any government. You can’t ever get to 100%, because for whatever reasons you are always going to have these unhappy people. Anything above 85% is basically 100%.

Further, although the official numbers are not out, there are usually around 5% of Russians who vote for the LDPR, which is a far-right party that supports Putin, but runs in elections and serves in Parliament to try to push Putin further right. Rodina, another far-right party, was running a candidate. I would not be surprised if the majority of the 12% were voting for far-right candidates for the purpose of signaling to Putin they want a more extreme war policy.

There’s also some old guy who wants to bring back communism who some number of elderly people probably vote for, also more to send a signal than anything else.

The issue is: if Putin is a “dictator” or an “autocrat” or whatever slur the media wants to use, doesn’t that mean autocracy and dictatorship are better systems, because they have more wide popular support?

Doesn’t it actually mean that a “dictatorship” is more “democratic” in terms of “popular support”?

Basically, liberal democracy has failed.

The American system is a disaster, the American subsidiaries in Europe are all disasters.

Some type of “authoritarian” leadership which rejects pluralism based on first principles is always going to be the natural system of human governance. It’s been this way since the days of the tribal chieftain. Pluralism is stupid. Societies should be unified under a shared identity that is defined by a shared history and heritage.

This should have been obvious from the beginning, but assuming it somehow wasn’t, it is certainly obvious now. In the West, everyone is fighting with each other and protesting and disagreeing about everything, while in Russia and China and non-pluralistic societies, people are getting along and supporting their leaders, who they feel represent them.

“A leader who represents pluralism” is an oxymoron. Who does he represent? He represents multiple groups of people who disagree with each other on first principles? How is that possible? It’s just a recipe for corruption and tyranny.