{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02401921537229784, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006405124099279423, 'mean_word_length': 5.490909090909091, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Russia’s electoral landscape: yesterday, today, tomorrow

In the collective monograph “Election in the context of Crimea: the 2016-2018 election cycle and prospects for a political transition”, edited by V. Fyodorov, experts from the Russia Public Opinion Research Center analyze the evolution of Russian people’s political behavior during the years 2016-2018, while revealing the prospects and risks for subsequent election cycles. Major sociological evaluations of the latest electoral campaigns served as a basis for analyzing the electoral landscape. The authors note that elections in Russia are held under a political system with limited competition, which doesn’t create any possibility for an array of alternative choices. Sociological studies show that all of the latest election cycles in Russia were conducted in the typical spirit of Weber’s plebiscitary democracy, while the main source of public trust in society is the political leader’s personality, legitimized in a paternalistic fashion. Russian people do not consider elections within the logic of rational behavior and usefulness, or personal benefit and potential gains for the country as a whole. In public consciousness overcoming economic issues is not linked to developing democratic institutions. Most people distrust the opposition, made apparent by the failed election boycott proposed by the non-system opposition, by meager signal voting etc. This collective monograph highlights the basic foundations for a “post-Crimea consensus” – rallying around a strong leader figure, intensifying patriotic attitudes within the context of returning the Crimea and in the face of western sanctions. While studying mass consciousness, the authors highlight an “intermediate” state of the value environment, which is characterized by ideological divides and separations, the main of which divides the conservative majority and the liberal minority. Such ambiguity in the realm of values provides equal grounds for stating that we are dealing with both a “post-Crimea consensus” and a “post-Crimea divide”. The “post-Crimea consensus” served not only as a means of consolidation, but also as a means of isolation and exclusion. The monograph also considers the emotional component’s effect on electoral choice. The book pays careful attention to issues with political forecasting, as well as techniques and methods used in political forecasting, which allows for highlighting the subsequent course and trends in electoral processes.