A Comparison of Election Results of Political Parties and Candidates in Single-Seat Constituencies. Case Study: 2016 and 2021 State Duma Elections

Zhuribeda K.O.

Abstract

The paper compares the results of political parties and candidates in single-seat constituencies in the 2016 and 2021 elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The 2016 and 2021 were the first elections to take place under the mixed electoral system after it had been restored at the federal level. These election campaigns share a common geographical component (the number of single-seat constituencies and their territorial borders) and an almost identical list of participants (both campaigns had 14 participating parties; 11 out of these participated in both 2016 and 2021). Election results are studied using various parameters of voter behavior in a mixed system (split vote index, which is the difference between the results of a candidate and a party in a constituency; candidate outperformance index, correlation coefficient between the results of a party and its candidates in a constituency, etc.). The paper also provides information on the dynamics of political party candidates between the two election campaigns.

---

Over the 30 years of elections in modern Russian history, the mixed electoral system has become widespread at almost all levels. Under the mixed system, the voter receives two ballots: one for party list voting and one for voting for a candidate in a majority constituency.

The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russia was elected under a mixed system from 1993 to 2003, readopting the system in 2016. At the same time, in 1993, a mixed electoral system was introduced at the level of regional legislative assemblies. The first regions to hold the mixed system elections were the republics of Mari El and Tuva (December 12, 1993). Later, mixed system elections were introduced in Saratov Oblast (1994), Koryak and Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrugs (1996), and Pskov Oblast (2002). However, these were one-time experiments. The mixed system elections that gained a more widespread use were held in Krasnoyarsk Krai (1997 and 2001) and Kaliningrad Oblast (1996 and 2000). Sverdlovsk Oblast stands out as a special case with its bicameral parliament: the Oblast Duma, elected from party lists, and the House of Representatives, elected from single-seat constituencies. The Oblast Duma deputies were elected for a four-year term, but half of the deputy contingent underwent rotation every two years. The Sverdlovsk Oblast Duma elections were held on April 14, 1996, April 12, 1998, March 26, 2000 (together with the presidential election) and April 14, 2002 [4].

In 2003, elections under the mixed electoral system started to get introduced in all regions or Russia. The first mass elections under the mixed system were held on December 7, 2003, together with the elections to the State Duma of the fourth convocation. Between December 2003 and October 2008, elections using party lists were held in all federal subjects (except for the later abolished Komi-Permyak and Evenk Autonomous Okrugs) [6].

In 2007-2010, a number of Russian regions (the Republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, and Chechnya; Amur, Kaluga, Moscow, and Tula Oblasts; the city of St. Petersburg; Nenets Autonomous Okrug) made a complete switch to a proportional representation system, that is, to elections by party lists only. In 2011–2016, a significant number of those regions switched back to the mixed system. At present, proportional representation system is applied to a complete extent only in seven regions of the North Caucasian and Southern Federal Districts: the republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, and Chechnya.

At the municipal election level, the mixed system was first tested in the Krasnoyarsk Krai. Since 1996, not only the Krasnoyarsk City Council, but also a number of town councils have been elected under the mixed system. In 2005, the region's local councils also started employing the mixed system in elections. The following regional capitals switched to the mixed system to elect their city councils; Tomsk and Nizhny Novgorod (2005); Saratov (2006); Syktyvkar and Vladivostok (2007); Nalchik and Ryazan (2008); Ulan-Ude, Chita, Blagoveshchensk, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Naryan-Mar (2009); Kazan, Izhevsk, Orenburg, Tambov (2010); Stavropol and Saransk (2011); Pskov, Kirov, Omsk, Gorno-Altaisk, Barnaul, Ufa, Kursk, Tver, Yaroslavl (2012); Maykop, Yakutsk, Abakan, Arkhangelsk, Belgorod, Volgograd, Veliky Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Tyumen (2013); Elista, Simferopol, Vladikavkaz, Bryansk, Murmansk (2014); Cheboksary, Krasnodar, Vladimir, Voronezh, Ivanovo, Kaluga, Kostroma, Lipetsk, Magadan, Novosibirsk, Oryol, Rostov-on-Don, Smolensk, Ulyanovsk (2015); Petrozavodsk, Kaliningrad, Kemerovo, Perm, Khanty-Mansiysk (2016); Tula, Penza, Kurgan (2019). However, many of them eventually went back to majority voting. The mixed system was not employed in city councils of regional capitals alone; in 2004, municipal raions started employing it as well.

A survey of literature on the subject

There is a number of studies and publications that detail how the mixed system is applied in elections around the world.

The paper by R.Taagepera and M.Shugart focuses on the main issues associated with the use of electoral systems (gerrymandering, difficulties with voter registration, constituency sizes, distribution of seats in constituencies and in lists, etc.) [11]. Grigory Golosov's paper describes the main characteristics of dependent and independent electoral systems, as well as discusses examples of "inaugural elections" under the mixed system in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Georgia [2].

The use of mixed system in Russian elections at the federal, regional and municipal levels was described by Aleksandr Ivanchenko, Alexander Kynev and Arkadii Lyubarev [4].

One of the key issues in applying the mixed electoral system is that of the proportional political representation. This issue is addressed in a book by Fuad Aleskerov and Vitaly Platonov, where they describe theoretical methods of seat distribution in a party-list election (seat distribution quotas and parliamentary proportionality indices) as well as calculate the indices as they analyze elections in different countries (Lithuania, Finland, Sweden) [1]. Grigory V. Golosov's paper explores the so-called "fabricated majority" phenomenon, which occurs when the party's representation numbers are much greater than its level of support both in the proportional component (the transfer of "against all" votes, invalid ballots and votes for parties that did not get pass the threshold in favor of the leading candidate) and the majority component (parties lacking territorial support in constituencies, mergers with deputies from parties that did not pass the threshold and self-nominated candidates, creating coalitions when nominating candidates in constituencies, etc.) [3].

Speaking of other countries, Yuri Leibo's paper addresses the use of mixed system in Germany, focusing on the legal and organizational parameters of elections [7]. Arkadii Lyubarev, in turn, compares the electoral systems of Russia and Germany [10].

A paper by Arkadii Lyubarev and Nikita Shalayev [9] explores the phenomenon of "vote splitting", that is, the connection between voting for party lists and candidates in majority constituencies, using Russia and Germany as examples. Lastly, the same issue is considered in a book by Arkadii Lyubarev [8].

Research methodology

The research methodology employed in this paper compares the results obtained by lists and candidates from the same party in the same election in the same single-seat constituency.

To assess voter behavior in a mixed electoral system, we propose several parameters:

· average vote gap index (VGIavg) is the arithmetic average of the difference between a candidate's result and the a party list's result in all single-seat constituencies;

· candidate outperformance index (COI) is the proportion of single-seat constituencies where a candidate's result is higher than that of party;

· the correlation coefficient between the results of candidates and the party in the context of single-seat constituencies;

· candidate influence index (CII) is the ratio of the average result of a party in constituencies where its candidates ran for office to the average result of a party in constituencies where it did not have candidates [9].

Information on vote returns for party lists and candidates in single-seat constituencies was taken from the website of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation [12]. Vote returns are usually presented as a percentage of the number of valid ballots or of the number of individuals who voted. In this paper, the returns were calculated from the number of individuals who voted.

The 2016 State Duma Election

Voter behavior under the mixed system in the 2016 State Duma elections was studied by Alexander Kynev, Arkadii Lyubarev, and Andrei Maksimov in their book [5: 1112-1115]. The results of this study are displayed in Table 1.

According to these calculations the parties can be split into three groups. The first group is represented by United Russia and LDPR; the results of their candidates are markedly worse than their party-list results. The second group includes CPRF; its party-list and candidate results in the constituencies are roughly equal. The third group includes all of the remaining 11 parties; their candidate results are markedly better than their party-list results. A Just Russia stands out with the highest index, largely due to strong performance of its candidates in single-seat constituencies, where they had no rivals from United Russia (we will discuss this point later).

The parties can be split into roughly the same groups by the candidate outperformance index.

Speaking of the candidate influence index, liberal parties indicated the highest one. Yabloko had 1.33% of the vote in constituencies with no candidates and 2.73% in the constituencies with candidates; Party of Growth had 0.97% of the vote in constituencies with no candidates and 1.84% in the constituencies with candidates; PARNAS had 0.61% of the vote in constituencies without candidates and 1.12% in constituencies with candidates. We believe that the high values of the candidate influence index are caused by the presence of a large number of candidates from these parties in Moscow and St. Petersburg constituencies where these parties had stronger support. We are not considering the low CII values of CPRF and LDPR as they imply that a party's performance is stronger in constituencies with no candidates: CPRF and LDPR had no candidates in only two and one constituencies, respectively. On the other hand, there were the low CII values of Communists of Russia: the party's vote count amounted to 2.26% and 2.66% in constituencies with and without candidates, respectively. That said, its low CII values show that having candidates in a constituency was more of a hindrance, since it was not mistaken for CPRF that much, all thanks to the parties' name and logo in the ballot looking similar [5: 1114-1115].

Now it is time to consider the performance of each of the parties that ran in the elections.

United Russia had the largest split vote index in favor of a candidate in constituency No. 80 (Suzdalsky in Vladimir Oblast) with 20.85%; No. 108 (Kurgansky in Kurgan Oblast) with 16.82%; No. 76 (Starooskolsky in Belgorod Oblast) with 16.37%; No. 25 (North-Ossetian in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania) with 15.62%; No. 43 (Chitinsky in Zabaikalsky Krai) with 15.25%. The highest split vote index in favor of the party list manifested in constituencies No. 16 (Karachay-Cherkess Republic – Karachay-Cherkess) with 28.64%; No. 14 (Kabardino-Balkaria Republic - Kabardino-Balkaria) with 27.58%; No. 12 (Republic of Dagestan – Southern) with 20.85%; No. 219 (the city of Sevastopol – Sevastopol) with 20.54%; No. 10 (Republic of Dagestan – Northern) with 20.13%; No. 166 (Saratov Oblast – Engels) with 17.24%.

CPRF had the most divergence in favor of candidates in constituencies No. 52 (Armavirsky in Krasnodar Krai) with 21.21%; No. 22 (Mariysky in the Mari El Republic) with 18.95%; No. 140 (Moskalensky in Omsk Oblast) with 18.89%; No. 216 (Tsentralny in St. Petersburg) with 13.64%; No. 187 (Ulyanovsky in Ulyanovsk Oblast) with 12.33%; No. 35 (Khakassian in the Republic of Khakassia) with 10.71%. CPRF candidates (N.Kharitonov, S.Kazankov, O.Smolin, V.Bortko, and A.Kurinny, respectively) won in all of the above-mentioned constituencies, except for Khakasskii. The most divergence in favor of party lists were observed in constituencies No. 43 with 6.89%; No. 101 (Kemerovsky in Kemerovo Oblast) with 6.43%; No. 5 (Beloretsky in the Republic of Bashkortostan) with 5.91%; No. 76 with 5.83%; No. 142 (Orenburgsky in Orenburg Oblast) with 5.73%; No. 8 (Sterlitamaksky in the Republic of Bashkortostan) with 5.59%.

LDPR candidates had the largest upper hand in constituencies No. 44 (Daursky in Zabaikalsky Krai) with 17.18%; No. 71 (Amursky in Amur Oblast) with 16.96%; No. 127 (Shchelkovsky in Moscow Oblast) with 12.91%; No. 181 (Tomsky in Tomsk Oblast) with 12.91%; No. 70 (Komsomolsky in Khabarovsk Krai) with 10.93%. LDPR candidates (V.Kuliyeva, I.Abramov, S.Zhigarev, A.Didenko, and S.Furgal, respectively) won in the above-mentioned constituencies for the lack of United Russia candidates. Other constituencies that deserved consideration included No. 193 (Zlatoustovsky in Chelyabinsk Oblast) and No. 216 with an advantage of 6.83% and 6.57%, respectively. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 43 with 13.56%; No. 106 (Kirovo-Chepetsky in Kirov Oblast) with 11.19%; No. 80 with 11.18%; No. 221 (Nenetsky in Nenets Autonomous Oblast) with 10.70%; No. 95 (Shelekhovsky in Irkutsk Oblast) with 10.17%.

As was pointed out earlier, A Just Russia indicated the largest vote gap. The leader in this indicator is constituency No. 147 (the Lermontovsky in Penza Oblast), where the party's candidate Leonid Levin gained 61.85% in his constituency, while the party itself gained only 4.78%. A similar situation occurred in constituency No. 150 (Yuzhny in Rostov Oblast), where the party's candidate Mikhail Yemelyanov gained 57.43%, while the party itself gained only 4.22%. High gaps were also detected in constituencies No. 195 (Rostovsky in Yaroslavl Oblast won by A. Greshnevikov) with 31.16%; No. 214 (North-Eastern in the city of St. Petersburg won by Ye. Drapeko) with 25.55%; No. 24 (Yakutsky in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) won by F.Tumusov) with 22.32%; No. 198 (Leningradsky in the city of Moscow won by G.Khovanskaya) with 21.85%. In all of the above districts, A Just Russia candidates had no rivals from United Russia. Other constituencies that deserved consideration were No. 74 (Astrakhansky in Astrakhan Oblast with O.Shein as nominee) with 15.39%; No. 72 (Arkhangelsky in Arkhangelsk Oblast with O.Yepifanova as nominee) with 15.37%; No. 101 with 15.15%; No. 14 with 13.77%. The most divergence in favor of party lists were observed in constituencies No. 108 with 6.55%; No. 94 (Angarsky in Irkutsk Oblast) with 3.11%; No. 104 (Novokuznetsky in Kemerovo Oblast) with 2.92%; No. 185 (Vologodsky in Vologda Oblast) with 2.08%.

For Communists of Russia, the largest difference in favour of a candidate was observed in constituencies No. 16 (Naberezhno-Chelninsky in the Republic of Tatarstan, where the former First Secretary of the CPRF city committee T.Guriyeva was the nominee) with 18.43%; No. 45 (Kamchatsky in Kamchatka Krai, where former governor M.Mashkovtsev was nominated) with 8.04%; No. 87 (Voronezhsky in Voronezh Region, where former deputy of Voronezh City Duma G.Kudryavtseva was nominated) with 7.57%; No. 18 (Syktyvkarsky in Komi Republic) with 5.91%. The largest difference in favor of the party was observed in constituencies No. 22 with 3.51%; No. 2 (Altaisky in Altai Republic) with 2.18%; No. 110 (Seimsky in Kursk Oblast) with 1.68%.

Yabloko indicated largest differences between party and candidate results in constituencies No. 77 (Bryansky in Bryansk Oblast, where the namesake of the head of the region A.Bogomaz was nominated) with 9.40%; No. 39 (Barnaulsky in Altai Krai, where V.Ryzhkov was nominated) with 8.96%; No. 109 (Kursky in Kursk Oblast, where O.Lee was nominated) with 8.38%; No. 206 (Tushinsky in the city of Moscow) with 7.16%; No. 5 (Beloretsky in the Republic of Bashkortostan) with 7.01%; No. 200 (Medvedkovsky in the city of Moscow, where A.Babushkin was nominated) with 6.23%; No. 35 with 6.02%; No. 187 (Ulyanovsky in Ulyanovsk Oblast, where former governor O.Goryachev was nominated) with 5.33%. The constituencies with the largest differences in favor of the list included No. 209 (Cheremushkinsky in the city of Moscow) with 2.20%; No. 199 (Lublinsky in the city of Moscow) with 1.61%; No. 217 (Southeastern in the city of St. Petersburg) with 1.48%; and No. 202 (Novomoskovsky in the city of Moscow) with 0.84%.

The leading constituencies for Rodina in terms of candidates include No. 89 (Anninsky in Voronezh Oblast, won by party leader A.Zhuravlyov) with 42.43%; No. 24 (Yakutsky in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)) with 18.89%; No. 206 (where I.Korotchenko was nominated) with 11.39%; No. 223 (Nizhnevartovsky in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug) with 10.52%; No. 178 (Rasskazovsky in Tambov Oblast, where R.Khudyakov was nominated) with 9.83%; No. 195 (Rostovsky in Yaroslavl Oblast) with 9.56%. The greatest difference in favor of the party list occurred in three Moscow contituencies: No. 203 (Orekhovo-Borisovsky) with 1.40%; No. 205 (Preobrazhensky) with 1.05%; No. 204 (Perovsky) with 0.86%.

Party of Growth candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 37 (Kanashsky in the Chuvash Republic) with 20.72%; No. 219 (Sevastopolsky in the city of Sevastopol, where O.Nikolayev was nominated) with 20.34%; No. 9 (Buryatsky in the Republic of Buryatia) with 18.85%; No. 33 (Izhevsky in the Udmurt Republic, where A.Chulkin was nominated) with 13.26%; No. 217 (where O.Dmitrieva was nominated) with 12.63%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 215 (Northwestern in the city of St. Petersburg) with 1.13%; No. 201 (Nagatinskiy in the city of Moscow) with 0.94%; and No. 199 with 0.56%.

REP The Greens candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 14 (Kabardino-Balkarian Republic) with 14.24%; No. 8 (Sterlitamaksky in the Republic of Bashkortostan) with 11.63%; No. 200 (where O.Mitvol was nominated) with 11.15%; No. 195 (Rostovsky in the Yaroslavl Region) with 5.11%. The only constituency where a party list gained more votes than a candidate (by 0.05%) was constituency No. 118 (Dmitrovsky in Moscow Oblast).

PARNAS candidates outperformed party lists by a large margin in constituencies No. 208 (Tsentralny in Moscow) with 7.52%; No. 85 (Vologodsky in Vologda Oblast) with 4.67%; No. 196 (Babushkinsky in the city of Moscow) with 4.48%; No. 209 (Cheremushkinsky in the city of Moscow) with 4.44%; No. 2 with 3.99%. The only constituency where a party list gained more votes than a candidate (by 0.16%) was constituency No. 217.

Patriots of Russia candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 110 (where A.Rutskoi was nominated) with 14.09%; No. 82 (Krasnoarmeisky in Volgograd Oblast) with 12.26%; No. 104 (Novokuznetsky in Kemerovo Oblast) with 6.87%; No. 6 (Neftekamsky in the Republic of Bashkortostan) with 6.59%; No. 94 (Angarsky in Irkutsk Oblast) with 5.70%; No. 43 (Chitinsky in Zabaikalsky Krai) with 5.56%.

Civic Platform candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 6 (Neftekamsky in the Republic of Bashkortostan won by the party leader R.Shaikhutdinov) with 43.23%; No. 44 (Daursky in Zabaikalsky Krai) with 7.23%; No. 162 (Industrialny in Samara Oblast) with 3.88%; No. 79 (Vladimirsky in Vladimir Oblast) with 3.71%; No. 128 (Murmansky in Murmansk Oblast) with 3.26%.

Civilian Power candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 200 with 4.51%; No. 217 with 4.31%; No. 197 (Kuntsevsky in the city of Moscow) with 3.35%.

The 2021 State Duma Election

Table 2 provides data on the performance of political parties under a mixed electoral system in the 2021 State Duma election.

The split vote index can be used to identify several groups of parties. The first group includes United Russia, CPRF and LDPR. The results of candidates from these parties were much lower than those of party lists. United Russia's candidates outperformed its party lists in 67 constituencies out of 218. For CPRF and LDPR, the same numbers were 58 out of 223 and 40 out of 224, respectively. The second group includes New People and Green Alternative: the results of candidates and party lists were roughly the same (1% difference, give or take) for both parties. The third group includes all of the remaining parties where candidates outperformed party lists. All candidates from Communists of Russia and Civic Platform outperformed their respective party lists in all constituencies. Rodina and Party of Growth had one candidate each who outperformed their respective party lists, and RPSJ had two such candidates.

Like in 2016, candidates from liberal parties (Yabloko and Party of Growth) stood out with their candidate influence indices. Incidentally, the influence of candidates from these parties on the results was only getting stronger as parties were losing their ground during the election campaign, which ultimately led to a weaker overall performance. For example, Yabloko's results in constituencies with and without its candidates amounted to 1.92% and 0.74%, respectively. Party of Growth gained respective 0.81% and 0.38% in constituencies with and without its candidates.

Speaking of specific examples, United Russia had the largest difference in favor of candidates in constituencies No. 190 (Metallurgichesky in Chelyabinsk Oblast) with 14.74%; No. 105 (Kirovsky in Kirov Oblast) with 13.60%; No. 80 (Suzdalsky in Vladimir Oblast) with 13.40%; No. 221 (Nenetsky in Nenets Autonomous Okrug) with 10.51%; No. 76 (Starooskolsky in Belgorod Oblast) with 10.13%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 6 (Neftekamsky in the Republic of Bashkortostan) with 50.37%; No. 37 (Kanashsky in Chuvash Republic) with 23.68%; No. 137 (Iskitimsky in Novosibirsk Oblast) with 21.23%; No. 26 (Privolzhsky in the Republic of Tatarstan) with 17.61%; No. 31 (Tsentralny in the Republic of Tatarstan) with 17.55%.

CPRF candidates had the most advantage in constituencies No. 93 (Irkutsky in Irkutsk Oblast) with 21.33%; No. 22 (Mariysky in the Mari El Republic) with 14.06%; No. 159 (Tolyattinsky in Samara Oblast) with 10.37%; No. 140 (Moskalensky in Omsk Oblast) with 10.34%; No. 162 (Promyshlenny in Samara Oblast) with 7.37%. CPRF candidates also won in all of the listed constituencies: M.Shchapov, S.Kazankov, L.Kalshnikov, O.Smolin and M.Matveyev, respectively. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 38 (Cheboksarsky in Chuvash Republic) with 13.64%; No. 24 (Yakutsky in Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)) with 13.54% (although CPRF's P.Ammosov was the winning candidate here); No. 188 (Radishchevsky in Ulyanovsk Oblast) with 12.24%; No 192 (Magnitogorsky in Chelyabinsk Oblast) with 12.20%; No. 195 (Rostovsky in Yaroslavl Oblast) with 12.16%.

LDPR candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in two constituencies where they also won: No. 176 (Roslavlsky in Smolensk Oblast won by S.Leonov) with 21.69% and No. 181 (Tomsky in Tomsk Oblast won by A.Didenko) with 9.36%. Next up are constituencies No. 224 (Chukotsky in Chukotsky Autonomous Okrug) with 4.71%; No. 13 (Ingushsky in the Republic of Ingushetia) with 4.60%; No. 157 (Skopinsky in Ryazan Oblast) with 4.15%; No. 25 (Osetinsky in the Republic of North Ossetia) with 4.08%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 69 (Khabarovsky in Khabarovsk Krai) with 6.78%; No. 105 with 6.55%; No. 78 (Unechsky in Bryansk Oblast) with 6.09%; No. 195 with 5.99%; No. 43 (Chitinsky in Zabaikalsky Krai) with 5.74%; No. 57 (Yeniseisky in Krasnoyarsk Krai) with 5.66%; No. 82 (Krasnoarmeisky in Volgograd Oblast) with 5.56%.

A Just Russia — For Truth candidates outperformed its party lists in constituencies No. 37 (won by A.Aksakov) with 26.59%; No. 191 (Korkinsky in Chelyabinsk Oblast won by V.Gartung) with 21.51%; No. 137 (won by A.Aksyonenko) with 20.92%; No. 194 (Yaroslavsky in Yaroslavl Oblast won by A.Lisitsyn) with 17.43%); No. 214 (Northeastern in the city of St. Petersburg won by Ye.Drapeko) with 17.37%. Other constituencies that deserved consideration included No. 24 (where F.Tumusov was nominated) with a 11.36% difference; No. 182 (Obsky in Tomsk Oblast, where G.Nemtseva was nominated) with 10.84%; No. 150 (Nizhnedonsky in Rostov Oblast, where M.Yemelyanov was nominated) with 10.21%. The largest advantage in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 25 with 5.21%; No. 190 with 4.78%; No. 67 (Kavminovodsky in Stavropol Krai) with 4.67%; No. 66 (Nevinnomyssky in Stavropol Krai) with 4.24%; No. 95 (Shelekhovsky in Irkutsk Oblast) with 3.75%.

New People candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 202 (Novomoskovsky in the city of Moscow, where S.Makhnitsky was nominated) with 7.94%; No. 24 with 5.65%; No. 155 (Volgodonsky in Rostov Oblast) with 5.37%; No. 109 (Kursky in Kursk Oblast) wiht 3.82%; No. 152 (Yuzhny in Rostov Oblast) with 3.72%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 9 (Buryatsky in the Republic of Buryatia) with 4.87%; No. 15 (Kalmytsky in the Republic of Kalmykia) with 3.98%; No. 135 (Novosibirsky in Novosibirsk Oblast) with 3.33%; No. 96 (Bratsky in Irkutsk Oblast) with 3.29%; No. 107 (Kostromskoi in Kostroma Oblast) with 3.28%. Significantly, New People achieved strongest results in these very constituencies countrywise.

Candidates from Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice (RPPSJ) were most successful in constituencies No. 113 (Volkhovsky in Leningrad Oblast) with 6.55%; No. 224 with 6.24%; No. 185 (Tyumensky in Tyumen Oblast) with 6.21%; No. 70 (Komsomolsky in Khabarovsk Krai) with 6.07%; No. 44 (Daursky in Zabaikalsky Krai) with 6.00%; No. 109 (Kursky in Kursk Oblast) with 5.48%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 76 (Starooskolsky in Belgorod Oblast) with 0.51%; No. 74 (Astrakhansky in Astrakhan Oblast) with 0.44%; No. 174 (Serovsky in Sverdlovsk Oblast) with 0.35%; No. 163 (Saratovsky in Saratov Oblast) with 0.30%.

Yabloko candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 72 (Arkhangelsky in Arkhangelsk Oblast, where O.Mandrykin was nominated) with 11.90%; No. 208 (Tsentralny in the city of Moscow, where S.Mitrokhin was nominated) with 11.62%; No. 209 (Cheremushkinsky in the city of Moscow, where I.Nikolayev was nominated) with 10.20%; No. 216 (Tsentralny in the city of St. Petersburg, where B.Vishnevsky was nominated) with 9.34%; No. 144 (Orsky in Orenburg Oblast) with 8.40%; No. 168 (Sverdlovsky in Sverdlovsk Oblast, where V.Postnikov was nominated) with 7.57%; No. 17 (Karelsky in the Republic of Karelia, where E.Slabunova was nominated) with 7.29%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 212 (Zapadny in the city of St. Petersburg) with 1.58%; No. 211 (Vostochny in the city of St. Petersburg) with 1.32%; No. 217 (Yugo-Vostochny in the city of St. Petersburg) with 1.27%; No. 215 (Severo-Zapadny in the city of St. Petersburg) with 1.25%; No. 196 (Babushkinsky in the city of Moscow) with 1.17%.

Communists of Russia candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 70 (Komsomolsky in Khabarovsk Krai) with 14.37%; No. 187 (Ulyanovsky in Ulyanovsk Oblast) with 10.70%; No. 92 (Kineshmsky in Ivanovo Oblast) with 9.90%; No. 38 (Cheboksarsky in Chuvash Republic) with 9.40%; No 71 (Amursky in Amur Oblast) with 8.92%.

REP The Greens candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 135 (Novosibirsky in Novosibirsk Oblast) with 6.24%; No. 57 with 6.01%; No. 9 (Buryatsky in the Republic of Buryatia, where S.Zverev was nominated) with 5.67%; No. 24 with 5.54%; No. 211 with 4.57%; No. 55 (Tsentralny in Krasnoyarsk Krai) with 4.29%. The largest difference in favor of the party list was observed in constituencies No. 196 with 0.50%; No. 204 (Perovsky in the city of Moscow) with 0.38%; No. 199 (Lyublinsky in the city of Moscow) with 0.35%; and No. 206 (Tushinsky in the city of Moscow) with 0.25%.

Rodina candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 177 (Tambovsky in Tambov Oblast won by party leader A.Zhuravlyov) with 41.59%; No. 173 (Pervouralsky in Sverdlovsk Oblast) with 6.59%; No. 212 with 6.28%; No. 92 with 4.99%; No. 225 (Yamalsky in Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug) with 4.10%. The party list outperformed the candidate only in constituency No. 213 (Severny in the city of St. Petersburg) by 0.08%.

Party of Growth candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 217 (Yugo-Vostochny in the city of St. Petersburg won by O.Dmitriyeva) with 23.83%; No. 185 (Tyumensky in Tyumen Oblast) with 6.43%; No. 126 (Serpukhovsky in Moscow Oblast) with 3.89%; No. 179 (Tverskoi in Tver Oblast) with 3.40%; No. 216 with 3.18%; No. 133 (Borsky in Nizhegorodskaya Oblast) with 3.15%. The party list outperformed the candidate only in constituency No. 212 by 0.31%.

Russian Party of Freedom and Justice (RPFJ) candidates outperformed its party lists in constituencies No. 170 (Beryozovsky in Sverdlovsk Oblast) by 5.13%; No. 205 by 4.26%; No. 208 (where M.Shevchenko was nominated) by 3.77%; No. 15 (Kalmytsky in the Repubic of Kalmykia) by 3.23%; No. 196 by 2.89%. The party list outperformed the candidate only in constituencies No. 207 (Khovrinsky in the city of Moscow) by 0.12% and No. 206 (Tushinsky in the city of Moscow) by 0.11%.

Green Alternative candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 205 with 3.27%; No. 34 (Izhevsky in Udmurt Republic) with 2.95%; No. 18 (Syktyvkarsky in Komi Republic) with 2.28%; No. 177 with 1.80%; No. 119 (Kolomensky in Moscow Oblast) with 1.13%. Party lists outperformed candidates in Moscow constituencies No. 198 (Leningradsky) by 0.53%: No. 204 (perovsky) by 0.37%; No. 199 (Lyublinsky) by 0.30%; No. 207 (Khovrinsky) by 0.26% and in St. Petersburg's constituency No. 218 (Yuzhny) by 0.38%.

Civic Platform candidates outperformed its party lists by the largest margin in constituencies No. 6 (Neftekamsky in the Republic of Bashkortostan won by party leader R.Shaikhutdinov) with 46.20%; No. 109 (Kursky in Kursk Oblast) with 5.20%; No. 9 with 3.66%; No. 187 with 3.08%; No. 223 (Khanty-Mansiysky in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug) with 3.07%.

Candidate results by constituency in the two election campaigns: a comparison

Seeing how the results of parties by constituency differ between the two campaigns yielded some interesting data for consideration. The selection criteria for parties was their participation in the State Duma election in both 2016 and 2021 The list of parties selected for comparison includes United Russia, CPRF, LDPR, A Just Russia, Communists of Russia, and Yabloko (see Table 3).

Then we compared the results in constituencies where the party candidate was present during both election campaigns.

Compared to the 2016 election, United Russia candidates' performance improved and declined in 46 and 155 constituencies, respectively. The largest increases occurred in constituencies No. 16 (Cherkessky in Karachay-Cherkess Republic); No. 219 (Sevastopolsky in the city of Sevastopol); No. 81 (Volgogradsky in Volgograd Oblast); No. 14 (Kabardino-Balkarsky in Kabardino-Balkarian Republic); No. 163 (Saratovsky in Saratov Oblast). The largest decrease manifested in constituencies No. 137 (Iskitimsky in Novosibirsk Oblast); No. 176 (Roslavlsky in Smolensk Oblast); No. 23 (Mordovsky in the Republic of Mordovia); No. 15 (Kalmytsky in the Republic of Kalmykia); No. 191 (Korkinsky in Chelyabinsk Oblast).

Compared to 2016, CPRF candidates' performance improved and declined in 190 and 46 constituencies, respectively. The most substantial increase in the results manifested in constituencies No. 162 (Promyshlenny in Samara Oblast), No. 18 (Syktyvkarsky in Komi Republic), No. 197 (Kuntsevsky in the city of Moscow), No. 93 (Irkutsky in Irkutsk Oblast), and No. 165 (Balashovsky in Saratov Oblast). The largest drops were recorded in constituencies No. 52 (Armavirsky in Krasnodar Krai), No. 216 (Tsentralny in the city of St. Petersburg); No. 187 (Ulyanovsky in Ulyanovsk Oblast); No. 8 (Sterlitamaksky in the Republic of Bashkortostan); and No. 35 (Khakassky in the Republic of Khakassia).

Compared to 2016, in 2021 LDPR candidates' performance improved and declined in 32 and 191 constituencies, respectively. The largest increases were recorded in constituencies No. 176, No. 13 (Ingushsky in the Republic of Ingushetia), No. 23; No. 14; and No. 25 (Osetinsky in the Republic of North Ossetia). The largest drops occurred in constituencies No. 71 (Amursky in Amur Oblast); No. 44 (Daursky in Zabaikalsky Krai); No. 127 (Shchelkovsky in Moscow Oblast); No. 70 (Komsomolsky in Khabarovsk Krai); and No. 193 (Zlatoustovsky in Chelyabinsk Oblast). We mentioned before that in 2016, LDPR candidates won in all of the aforementioned constituencies except for No. 193 for the lack of United Russia candidates.

In 2021, A Just Russia candidates' performance improved and declined in 103 and 110 constituencies, respectively. The following constituencies saw the largest increases: No. 194 (Yaroslavsky in Yaroslavl Oblast), No. 137, No. 12 (Southern in the Republic of Dagestan); No. 2 (Altaisky in Altai Republic); and No. 191. The most substantial declines were recorded in constituencies No. 147 (Lermontovsky in Penza Oblast), No. 150 (Nizhnedonsky in Rostov Oblast), No. 24 (Yakutsky in Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)), No. 72 (Arkhangelsky in Arkhangelsk Oblast) and No. 101 (Kemerovsky in Kemerovo Oblast).

Compared to 2016, in 2021 the performance of Communists of Russia candidates improved and declined in 94 and 28 constituencies, respectively. The most significant improvements were recorded in constituencies No. 70, No. 38 (Cheboksarsky in Chuvash Republic), No. 92 (Kineshmsky in Ivanovo Oblast), and No. 42 (Slavgorodsky in Altai Krai). The most substantial declines were recorded in constituencies No. 16, No. 87 (Voronezhsky in Voronezh Oblast), No. 200 (Medvedkovsky in the city of Moscow), No. 41 (Biysky in Altai Krai), and No. 18.

In 2021, the performance of Yabloko candidates improved and declined in 37 and 70 constituencies, respectively. The most significant improvements were recorded in constituencies No. 72, No. 216, No. 209 (Cheryomushkinsky in the city of Moscow), No. 218 (Yuzhny in the city of St. Petersburg), and No. 144 (Orsky in Orenburg Oblast). The most substantial declines were recorded in constituencies No. 206 (Tushinsky in the city of Moscow), No. 196 (Babushkinsky in the city of Moscow), No. 197, No. 200, No. 214 (North-Eastern in the city of St. Petersburg).

Speaking of split vote index, the list of the constituencies where the candidate was successful in 2016 and the list in 2021 include the following: No. 43, 137, 176, 191 for United Russia; No. 35, 52, 167, 187 for CPRF; No. 52, 72, 101 for A Just Russia; No. 70, 127, 193 for LDPR; No. 197, 201, 214, 215 for Yabloko. Speaking of the reverse situation (improved candidate performance in 2021 vs. improved party list performance in 2016), United Russia's constituencies are No. 10, 45, 90, 158, 161; CPRF's constituencies are No. 13, 178, 201, 212, 225; LDPR's constituencies are No. 62, 112, 157, 176, 219, 223; A Just Russia's constituencies are No. 12, 32, 225; Communists of Russia's constituencies are No. 22, 139; Yabloko's constituencies are No. 191, 194, 209, 216.

Conclusion

The resulting conclusions are as follows:

1. There is a tight connection between voting for parties and their candidates in Russian elections. Nearly all of the parties running in both the 2016 and 2021 elections have a fairly strong correlation with the results of their candidates in single-seat constituencies. This factor prompts a conclusion about party voting in single-seat constituencies. As a matter of fact, this is quite obvious if one takes a look at candidate lineups in constituencies where most candidates were from parties running in the State Duma election. Representatives of other parties and self-nominated candidates were virtually absent from the ballot (for example, there were 19 self-nominated candidates in the 2016 election and 10 candidates in 2021). In this respect, the situation is different from those in 1995-2003, when a significant number of deputies elected to parliament were non-partisan.

2. Personality factor is largely the cause behind a candidate surpassing a party's result in a single-seat constituency: candidates who are famous and/or have extensive working experience in the region of nomination are nominated in the constituencies. These candidates are the reason why people vote for their parties in the regions. Another significant indicator of candidates gaining more votes than was expected is the absence of United Russia candidates in the constituencies (this specifically applies to candidates from LDPR and A Just Russia, as well as to some CPRF candidates in 2016). Another factor may be this party's participation in the regional parliamentary elections, which take place at the same time as the Duma elections. This is particularly true for representatives of non-parliamentary parties (Rodina in Tambov Oblast in 2016 and 2021; Party of Growth in St. Petersburg in 2016 and 2021; Patriots of Russia in Kaliningrad Oblast and Krasnoyarsk Krai in 2016; Yabloko in the Republic of Karelia in 2021; REP The Greens in 2021; Communists of Russia in Amur Oblast in 2021).

3. Speaking of the dynamics of party candidates between the two federal elections, significant positive or negative dynamics depend on both certain candidate personalities and competition level in the constituency. A striking example of the negative dynamics is the constituencies where United Russia candidates did not run in 2016, but did in 2021: candidates from parliamentary parties lost the most votes in these constituencies. Examples of positive dynamics include nomination of candidates well-known in the region.

Received 27.02.2023, revision received 30.03.2023.

---

References

1. Aleskerov F.T., Platonov V.V. Sistemy proportsionalnogo predstavitelstva i indeksy predstavitelnosti parlamenta [Systems and Indices of Disproportionality of a Parliament]. Working paper. Moscow: GU – HSE, 2003. (In Russ.)
2. Golosov G.V. Predely elektoralnoi inzhenerii: "smeshannyye nesvyazannyye" izbiratelnyye sistemy v novykh demokratiyakh [Limits of Electoral Engineering: "Mixed Independent" Electoral Systems in Emerging Democracies]. – POLIS. 1997. No. 3. P. 102–113. (In Russ.)
3. Golosov G.V. Sfabrikovannoye bolshinstvo: konversiya golosov v mesta na dumskikh vyborakh 2003 g. [A Fabricated Majority: Votes-to-Seats Conversion in the 2003 State Duma Election]. – POLIS. 2005. No. 3. P. 108–119. (In Russ.)
4. Ivanchenko A.V., Kynev A.V., Lyubarev A.E. Proportsionalnaya izbiratelnaya sistema v Rossii: istoriya, sovremennoye sostoyaniye, perspektivy [Proportional Representation System in Russia: History, Current Status, Prospects]. Moscow: Aspekt-press, 2005. 333 p. (In Russ.)
5. Kynev A., Lyubarev A., Maksimov A. Kak vybirala Rossiya – 2016. Rezultaty monitoringa izbiratelnogo protsessa [The 2016 Russian Election. Electoral Process Monitoring Results]. Moscow: Liberal Mission Foundation, 2017. 1142 p. (In Russ.)
6. Kynev A. Vybory parlamentov rossiiskikh regionov 2003-2009: Pervyi tsikl vnedreniya proportsionalnoi izbiratelnoi sistemy [Regional Parliamentary Elections in Russia in 2003–2009: The First Cycle of Adopting the Electoral System of Proportional Representation]. Moscow: Tsentr "Panorama", 2009. 516 p. (In Russ.)
7. Leibo Yu.I. Izbiratelnaya sistema Germanii: Traditsii i perspektivy [Electoral System of Germany: Tradition and Prospects]. – Journal of Law and Administration. 2012. No. 1 (22). P. 18–26. (In Russ.)
8. Lyubarev A.E. Izbiratelnyye sistemy: rossiiskii i mirovoi opyt [Electoral Systems: Russian and International Experience]. Moscow: ROO "Liberalnaya missiya"; Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye. 2016. 632 p. (In Russ.)
9. Lyubarev A.E., Shalayev N.E. Rasshchepleniye golosov v smeshannykh izbiratelnykh sistemakh: popytka kompleksnogo issledovaniya [Vote Splitting in Mixed Electoral Systems: A Comprehensive Study]. – Sotsiodinamika. 2015. No. 8. P. 125–286. DOI: 10.7256/2409-7144.2015.8.16076. (In Russ.) - https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=16076
10. Lyubarev A.E. Sravneniye germanskoi i rossiiskoi izbiratelnykh sistem [Electoral Systems of Russia and Germany: A Comparison]. Yuridicheskiye issledovaniya. 2013. No. 11. P. 1–29. DOI: 10.7256/2305-9699.2013.11.1013. (In Russ.) - https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=10131
11. Taagepera R., Shugart M.S. Opisaniye izbiratelnykh sistem [Electoral Systems: A Description]. – Partii i vybory: khrestomatiya. 2004. (In Russ.)
12. The website of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation. URL: http://www.cikrf.ru/ (accessed 20.03.2023). - http://www.cikrf.ru/