Elections turnout as an expression of the will of the people to participate in the vote

Kravchenko Oleg Aleksandrovich PhD in Law Associate Professor of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of the RANEPA 78 Prospekt Vernadskogo str., Moscow, 119454, Russia sf-mka-spb@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The problem of citizens' turnout

In legal doctrine and practice, the problem of citizens' turnout at elections and the legal consequences associated with it is acute. In our opinion, the root of the problem lies in the different understanding of democracy, namely, what is meant by the majority of votes when making a political decision. In this regard, it is necessary to investigate the term "turnout of citizens" and what legal consequences are associated with it by Russian legislation in relation to legal relations arising in the sphere of democracy, as well as to consider and identify the relationship between the turnout of citizens and the will of citizens when making decisions on direct forms of democracy.

At the same time, the author, in revealing the issues of the designated problem of constitutionalism, is mainly focused on the application of the legal method in the study of relevant phenomena and processes. The specificity of the legal method is that it is a way of understanding reality as precisely legal properties, traits, signs (Nersesyants V.S. General Theory of Law and the State. M.: Norm, 2001. pp. 11-12). Hence, in this study, with the help of the legal method, the procedures that accompany the implementation of democracy are considered important for the knowledge and understanding of democracy, but with an orientation both on their legal result and on the legal consequences generated by it. The author uses the method of analyzing regulatory sources, identifying trends in their changes, as well as the works of scientists who comprehend the work of procedures related to direct forms of democracy through the prism of citizens' turnout for these procedures.

There are three approaches to decision-making in a democracy. The first approach proceeds from the fact that a decision should be considered adopted if the majority of citizens who have the right to vote voted for it.

The second approach proceeds from the fact that a decision should be considered adopted if a majority of those who took part in the voting voted for it and at least fifty percent of the total number of citizens eligible to vote participated in the voting.

The third approach proceeds from the fact that a decision should be considered adopted if the majority of citizens who took part in the vote voted for it and the percentage of citizens who voted out of the total number of citizens eligible to vote does not matter.

Accordingly, the turnout of citizens matters only with the first and second approaches to understanding the majority of votes and does not matter with the third approach.

We believe that the third approach to determining the majority of votes when making a political decision is more correct, the justification for the fairness of which will be given below.

The concept and legal consequences of citizens' turnout

The turnout of citizens to procedures related to the highest direct expression of the power of the people (hereinafter – the turnout of citizens) is the subject of research of various sciences, which study mainly quantitative indicators of such turnout and the reasons on which these indicators depend. Thus, the turnout of citizens is studied by political (Busheneva Yu.I. Absenteeism as a factor of the electoral process in modern Russia: abstract of the dis. ... Candidate of Political Sciences: 23.00.01 / Busheneva Yulia Ivanovna; Saint Petersburg State University. St. Petersburg, 2007. 25 p.; Trofimova E.P. Electoral behavior of voters of the Leningrad region in the conditions of reforming the political system of Russia in the period 1995-2008: abstract of the dissertation. ... Candidate of Political Sciences: 23.00.02 / Trofimova, Elena Pavlovna; [Place of defense: Sev.-Zap. academy of Public Services]. St. Petersburg, 2009. 26 S. Gorbacheva O.M. Information and manipulative technologies in the political processes of modern Russia: On the example of election campaigns: abstract of the dis. ... Candidate of Political Sciences: 10.01.10 / Gorbacheva, Olga Mikhailovna; Russian Academy of State Services under the President of the Russian Federation. Moscow, 2004. - 25 p.), historical (Dorozhkina Ya.B. Election campaigns for elections to the supreme and local councils in Western Siberia: 1937-1941: abstract of the dissertation. ... Candidate of Historical Sciences: 07.00.02 / Dorozhkina Yana Borisovna; Novosibirsk State University. Novosibirsk, 2004. 23 p.), economic (Kochetkova O.V. Economic factors of electoral behavior: abstract of dis. ... Candidate of Economic Sciences: 08.00.01 / Kochetkova Olga Vladimirovna; Institute of Economics of the Transition Period. Moscow, 2003. 20 p.), geographical (Sidorenko A.A. Information and political aspects of the development of large cities in Russia in the 2000s: abstract of dis. ... Candidate of Geographical Sciences: 25.00.24 / Sidorenko Alexey Arkadyevich; Lomonosov Moscow State University. Moscow, 2010. 25 p.), philosophical (Modestova D.A. Democratic modernization of Russian society: socio-philosophical analysis: abstract of the dissertation. ... Candidate of Philosophical Sciences: 09.00.11 / Modestova, Darya Alexandrovna; [Place of defense: Tver State University]. Tver, 2009. 21 p.), physical and mathematical (Vartanov S.A. Theoretical and game models of coalition formation and participation in voting : abstract of the dissertation of the candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences: 01.01.09 / Vartanov Sergey Alexandrovich; [Place of defense: Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov]. Moscow, 2013. 23 p.) sciences.

As can be seen, the turnout of citizens is influenced by such factors as the level and type of elections, the level of economic development and social status of the voter, his demographic characteristics, as well as individual and psychological qualities of the voter, the specifics of his culture, including political, socio-psychological state at the time of the election, and others (Busheneva Yu. I. Socially-political foundations of Russian electoral absenteeism // Izvestiya RSPU named after A. I. Herzen. 2007. №32).

As it seems, from the point of view of legal science, the study is subject to: 1) the relationship of the reasons affecting the turnout with the will of citizens encouraging them to appear or refrain from appearing in direct forms of democracy; 2) the turnout of citizens as a legal fact.

Of course, the turnout of citizens is also being studied in constitutional law (Skosarenko E.E. The electoral system in the political life of Russia: constitutional and legal aspects: abstract diss. ... candidate of legal sciences: 12.00.02 / Skosarenko, Ekaterina Evgenievna;  Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov. Moscow, 2006. 25 p.). Here the issues of the emergence, modification and termination of legal relations related to the turnout of citizens for elections and referendums, as well as other procedures related to voting (hereinafter referred to as procedures related to democracy) are important.

Using the legal method of cognition, we will consider the turnout of citizens as the basis for the emergence of legal relations in the field of democracy based on Russian electoral legislation.

The term "turnout" is almost not used in legislation. Thus, the only case of its use is in paragraph 9 of Article 17 of Federal Law No. 67-FZ of June 12, 2002 (ed. of 05/29/2023, with amendments. dated 07.06.2023) "On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - the Law on Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights), where the word "turnout" means the turnout of a citizen on the day of voting in the premises of the precinct commission for voting and is used, in fact, only to regulate a single legal relationship with a citizen, located outside of Russia.

It seems strange that the only case of using the term "turnout" is associated with citizens located outside the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that despite the only direct use of the term "turnout", the electoral legislation, nevertheless, within the meaning of the established norms, implies that voting is impossible without a citizen's turnout on the day of voting at the premises of the precinct commission for voting.

At the same time, the turnout of a citizen at a polling station for voting does not mean that a citizen took part in voting, since the legislation defines citizens who took part in voting in a different way.

We proceed from the doctrine's generally accepted understanding of the term "turnout of citizens" as the number of citizens who took part in the vote.

Approaches to determining turnout

Within the meaning of the electoral legislation, the number of citizens who took part in voting is calculated based on the ballots in the voting boxes ("2.1. The number of voters, referendum participants who took part in voting is determined by the number of ballots of the prescribed form found in the voting boxes" (paragraph 2.1 of Article 70 of the Law on Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights)), and in relation to the referendum by the number of signatures in the list of referendum participants (according to paragraph 2.1 of Article 70 of the Law on Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights: "The number of referendum participants who took part in the referendum is determined by the number of signatures of referendum participants in the list of referendum participants who voted in the voting room on the day of voting, and by the number of marks in the list of participants of the referendum that the participant of the referendum voted outside the voting premises or ahead of schedule").

Consequently, the electoral legislation distinguishes between two approaches to determining the turnout of citizens: the first – by counting citizens who came to the commission to vote, the number of which is confirmed by marks in the list of participants in the referendum (citizens who came to vote); the second - by counting citizens who took part in the vote, the number of which is determined by the number of ballots found in the voting boxes (citizens who voted).

These approaches to clarifying the turnout of citizens, enshrined in the electoral legislation, were applied to the regulation of legal relations similar to referendums and elections, such as popular voting when adopting large-scale amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. What, for example, is set out in Part 25 of Article 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation on the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 14.03.2020 No. 1-FKZ "On improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public power": "The number of citizens who took part in the all-Russian voting is determined by the number of ballots in the voting boxes."

In this connection, the question arises about the significance of these approaches to determining the turnout of citizens.

It seems that the significance of the turnout of citizens is that it determines whether the vote has taken place (not taken place).

Indeed, the minimum turnout is reflected in the legislation in relation to the so-called "turnout threshold" for recognizing the relevant procedure as having taken place.

Thus, according to Part 5 of Article 80 of the Federal Constitutional Law No. 5-FKZ of June 28, 2004 (as amended on December 30, 2021) "On the Referendum of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter – the Law on the Referendum): "The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation recognizes a referendum as held if more than half of the referendum participants included in the lists of referendum participants took part in the voting."

The Federal Constitutional Law of 10.10.1995 No. 2-FKZ "On the Referendum of the Russian Federation", which has become invalid, provided for similar rules in the paragraph. Article 37, 2 and 4: "The Central Commission of the Referendum of the Russian Federation recognizes the referendum of the Russian Federation as held if more than half of the citizens eligible to participate in the referendum of the Russian Federation took part in the vote."

In the legislation on referendums, the turnout of citizens in accordance with their signatures in the lists of referendum participants (citizens who came to vote) is taken into account in order to recognize the vote as held/failed. Thus, by virtue of paragraph 8 of Article 70 of the Law on Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights "8. A referendum is recognized by the relevant referendum commission as not having taken place if no more than half of the referendum participants included in the lists of referendum participants on the territory of the referendum took part in it."

With this approach, the turnout of citizens is determined regardless of the number of citizens who took part in the vote (citizens who voted).

However, it should be borne in mind that there has been no experience of implementing these legal norms in relation to the referendum so far.

As for the elections, the turnout of citizens currently does not matter in federal elections.

It should be noted that approaches to the methods of determining turnout by the legislator are changing.

Thus, in the previous legislation, the turnout of citizens had legal consequences during the presidential elections of the Russian Federation.

The previously valid version of Federal Law No. 19-FZ of 10.01.2003 (as amended. from 16.01.2003, from 21.07.2005, from 12.07.2006, from 25.07.2006, from 30.12.2006, from 21.01.2007) "On the elections of the President of the Russian Federation" contained in sub-item 1 of item 4 of Article 76 the requirement to recognize the elections as held depending on the turnout of citizens, calculated based on the number of citizens included in the voter list ("4. Central the Election Commission of the Russian Federation recognizes the election of the President of the Russian Federation as invalid in one of the following cases: 1) if less than half of the voters included in the voter lists at the time of the end of voting took part in the elections" (Federal Law No. 19-FZ of 10.01.2003 (as amended. from 16.01.2003, from 21.07.2005, from 12.07.2006, from 25.07.2006, from 30.12.2006, from 21.01.2007) "On the election of the President of the Russian Federation").

Thus, the first approach to the method of determining the turnout of citizens (citizens who came to vote) was previously taken as a basis.

However, the Law on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation (as amended) in paragraph 4 of Article 76 excluded the requirement to recognize the elections as invalid due to the non-exceeding of the turnout threshold ("4. The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation recognizes the election of the President of the Russian Federation as not held in one of the following cases: 1) has become invalid; 2) if, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 77 of this Federal Law, voting was conducted on one candidate and less than 50 percent of the number of voters who took part in the voting voted for the corresponding candidate; 3) if two candidates were included in the ballot at the general election and none of them received more than half of the votes of the voters who took part in the voting").

Consequently, the current version excluded the legal consequences associated with the turnout of citizens at the elections.

Thus, the legal consequences of not exceeding the turnout threshold are now preserved only for the referendum, and for federal elections, the turnout of citizens has no legal significance.

Modern legislation under the term "turnout of citizens" understands both the number of citizens who came to vote and the number of citizens who voted.

In our opinion, the turnout of citizens should be determined by the number of citizens who expressed their will when voting (citizens who voted).

If we take a different approach as a basis (citizens who came to vote), then when determining the turnout, those citizens who did not express their will will be taken into account, including those who did not express their will (for example, they received a ballot, but did not vote, signed the voter list, but did not receive a ballot).

In addition, it should be borne in mind that in the history of the development of modern Russia, there are also cases when procedural voting issues were regulated ad hoc, i.e. not on the basis of current and established legislation, but in relation to a specific legal situation.

For example, the ad hoc approach was applied when the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted in 1993 when determining the voting results.

As the researchers note: "As it turned out, it is possible to hedge in advance and change the legal basis of its conduct specifically for a specific referendum (as happened with the referendum held on December 12, 1993, when instead of the current Law of 1990 on the Referendum of the RSFSR (Law of the RSFSR of 16.10.1990 No. 241-1 "On the Referendum of the RSFSR" // Vedomosti SND and The Supreme Council of the RSFSR, 25.10.1990, No. 21, Article 230) adopted the Regulation on the popular vote on the draft Constitution of the Russian Federation, approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 15, 1993) The difference was that if the Law required a majority of the number of voters included in the voter lists to adopt the Constitution of the Russian Federation, then according to the Provision (Presidential Decree RF dated 15.10.1993 No. 1633 "On holding a popular vote on the draft Constitution of the Russian Federation" // Collection of Acts of the President and Government of the Russian Federation, 18.10.1993, No. 42, Article 3995) a majority of those who took part in the vote (at least 50% of voters) was enough" ^{[1, 32]}.

Thus, according to Article 35 of the Law of the RSFSR of October 16, 1990 No. 241-1 "On the Referendum of the RSFSR", a referendum is declared invalid if less than half of the citizens of the RSFSR who have the right to participate in the referendum took part in the vote; at the same time, the decision to adopt the Constitution of the RSFSR is considered adopted if more than half of the citizens of the RSFSR who were included in the lists for participation in the referendum (the majority of the total number of citizens eligible to vote).

However, according to the ad hoc norms, i.e. by virtue of Part 2 of Article 22 of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 10/15/1993 No. 1633 "On holding a popular vote on the draft Constitution of the Russian Federation", a popular vote is considered invalid if less than 50 percent of registered voters took part in it; the Constitution of the Russian Federation is considered adopted if for its adoption more than 50 percent of the voters who took part in the vote voted (the majority of those citizens who voted).

Consequently, in 1993, when adopting the Constitution of the Russian Federation, despite the existence of a well-established and current Law of 1990 on the referendum of the RSFSR, an ad hoc approach was used to determine the results of voting.

In addition, the ad hoc approach was used when adopting an amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 2020 to the issue of citizens' turnout.

Thus, according to Part 5 of Article 80 of the Law on the Referendum, "The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation recognizes a referendum as held if more than half of the referendum participants included in the lists of referendum participants participated in the voting" (the majority of the total number of citizens eligible to vote).

In turn, the rules established by the Law of the Russian Federation on the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated 03/14/2020 No. 1-FKZ "On Improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public Power" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Amendment) did not provide for rules on the recognition of voting depending on the turnout of citizens. What was noted in paragraph 7 of paragraph 2.1 of the Conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 1-Z dated 03/16/2020 "On compliance with the Provisions of Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with the Provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation on the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation "On Improving the Regulation of Certain Issues of the Organization and Functioning of Public Power", and also on compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation with the procedure for entry into force of Article 1 of this Law in connection with the request of the President of the Russian Federation": "Articles 2 and 3 of the Amendment Law do not contain prescriptions on the number of citizens who must take part in the all-Russian vote in order for it to be recognized as valid." As for the procedure for making a decision on the all-Russian vote, the Amendment Law contained requirements taking into account the turnout of citizens, as stated in Part 5 of Article 3 of the Amendment Law: "Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation provided for in Article 1 of this Law are considered approved if more than half of the citizens of the Russian Federation who took part in the all-Russian voting").

Consequently, in contrast to the established and current Law on the Referendum, an ad hoc approach was used to the question of the legal significance of the turnout of citizens.

Thus, the term "turnout of citizens" is proposed to mean the personal participation of citizens in voting, determined by the total number of citizens who expressed their will for making a political decision.

The turnout of citizens, in contrast to the threshold of the turnout of citizens, is determined by absolute values, i.e. the exact number of citizens who expressed their will for making a political decision.

Turnout threshold

The issue of the thresholds for the turnout of citizens is important.

The classic quantitative threshold for the turnout of citizens is a threshold of 50% of the number of citizens eligible to vote (during a referendum).

The same approach is used in civil law. Thus, according to paragraph 1 of Article 181.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, "the decision of the meeting is considered adopted if the majority of the participants of the meeting voted for it and at the same time at least fifty percent of the total number of participants of the relevant civil society participated in the meeting."

As it was indicated, the previous legislation also applied an approach to determining the turnout threshold of 50% of the number of citizens eligible to vote (in the presidential elections of the Russian Federation).

In the previous legislation, the turnout threshold for elections was used in the amount of 20% of the number of citizens eligible to vote (clause a) clause 2 of Article 70 of Federal Law No. 67-FZ of June 12, 2002 (ed. dated 07/25/2006) "On Basic guarantees of Electoral rights and the Right to participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation Federation"). Then this provision was declared invalid by paragraph (a) of paragraph 10 of Article 1 of Federal Law No. 225-FZ of December 5, 2006 "On Amendments to the Federal Law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation" and the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation".

The threshold of citizens' turnout determines whether the vote has taken place or failed.

The threshold of citizens' turnout is determined by relative values, i.e. the percentage value of the number of citizens who expressed their will for making a political decision, in relation to the total number of voters.

In this regard, the threshold of the turnout of citizens should be understood as the least possible value of the turnout of citizens to recognize the vote as valid, determined by the percentage (threshold percentage) of the citizens who voted out of the total number of citizens eligible to vote.

The relationship of the citizen's turnout with the will of the citizen

As it was shown above, issues related to the turnout of citizens should be disclosed through the will and will of citizens. Let's consider the ratio of the turnout of citizens with the will and will of citizens when voting.

First of all, we note that the will of a citizen is decisive for the occurrence of legal consequences provided for by law.

Let us ask ourselves whether the expression of will should be an action, and also whether the expression of will can occur through the inaction of the person who expresses it. According to A.P. Sergeev: "Expression of will is an expression of the inner will from the outside in one way or another, so that it becomes available for perception by other persons" (Sergeev A.P. Transactions // Commentary to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Part One: Educational and practical commentary / Edited by N.D. Egorov, A.P. Sergeeva. M.: Prospect, 2010. pp. 348 – 349). In relation to civil legal relations, the authors give similar definitions. Thus, V.A. Ryasentsev noted that "expression of will in civil law is such an expression of the will of a person outside, in which it becomes accessible to the perception of other persons and can give rise to legal consequences" ^{[2, 8]}.

It is necessary to distinguish between the expression of will at the turnout of citizens, where the will is expressed through action, and the expression of will at voting, where the will can be expressed both through action and through inaction.

In the first case, the citizen's turnout is an action in the form of a transaction (a legal fact) to exercise the right to vote, since voting is conditioned by the purposeful will of the citizen. After all, "legal acts refer to those actions in which a person is guided by a predetermined goal. Setting a goal requires certain prerequisites of a psychological order: aspirations, desires. The choice of the main and most important of the numerous desires and motives occurs through a volitional act" ^{[3, 170]}.

In this case, the will of a citizen's turnout is recognized by its expression in the ballot paper and in the final voting protocol.

In the second case, i.e. when voting, the will of a citizen can be expressed both in the form of an action (in the form of a transaction) and in the form of inaction (in the form of silence).

The citizen's will is expressed in the form of an action by voting and is reflected both in the ballot paper and in the final voting protocol.

The citizen's will is expressed in the form of inaction by tacit consent to any political decision and is reflected only in the final voting protocol.

In the latter case, in our opinion, the will of a citizen was expressed through silence for a political decision that was made by the majority of citizens who took part in the vote.

We believe that if a citizen had formed the will to make a different decision, he would have expressed it by turning out to vote.

Moreover, any citizen who has an active right to vote is not deprived of the opportunity to participate in voting.

Some authors note that a low turnout (a high level of silence) can lead to the victory of an alternative with a lower level of support (Vartanov S.A. Game-theoretic models of coalition formation and voting participation : abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences: 01.01.09 / Vartanov Sergey Alexandrovich; [Place of defense: Moscow State University-M.V. Lomonosov t]. Moscow, 2013. 23 p. 3.) (the so-called voting paradox ^{[4, 333-350]}).

Other authors go even further. They associate the low turnout of citizens with the distortion of their will and declare: "With a low turnout for elections, there is a threat of representing the interests of only a small part of the population, state authorities or local self-government in the current situation will raise doubts about their legitimacy" (Maksimenko, A.V. Voluntary participation in elections as one of the fundamental principles of the implementation of constitutional law on protest / A.V. Maksimenko, A.V. Zeynalbdyeva // Bulletin of the Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2021. No. 1(42). pp. 67-71).

However, such statements, in our opinion, are unfounded.

"Alternative" will win precisely due to the fact that it will receive the support of citizens who showed up to vote. The rest of the citizens agreed with any political decision made from the set of political decisions that was presented at the vote.

Indeed, according to the electoral legislation, it is possible to accurately determine the will of a citizen only if he showed up to vote. If a citizen had a different will, but he did not show up to vote, then it is impossible to reliably determine his will.

However, in our opinion, the silence of a citizen is a presumption of expression of will for any political decision taken.

At the same time, it is known that silence can be recognized as a legal fact entailing the emergence, change or termination of legal relations (for example, according to paragraph 3 of Article 158 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation "Silence is recognized as an expression of the will to make a transaction in cases provided for by law or by agreement of the parties").

Since the voting participants are all citizens of the Russian Federation who have an active right to vote (So, according to Parts 1 and 3 of Article 4 of the Law on Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights: "1. A citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached the age of 18 on the day of voting ... 2. Citizens recognized by the court as incompetent or held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court verdict have no right to vote, to be elected, to carry out other electoral actions, to participate in a referendum"), insofar as the subjects of expression of will are both persons who appeared to vote and persons who did not take part in the vote.

The existing legal practice of the recent history of Russia, in which, at the federal and regional levels, there was no cancellation of election results due to mass disagreement of citizens with their results, including in the difficult post-election period in 2011, also testifies in favor of the above arguments. Thus, according to E.N. Golovenkin: "The most difficult period for the Russian political system was the period after the elections to the State Duma in 2011, when mass protests against the falsification of election results took place in the country (Golovenkin, E. N. Evolution of the representative system of modern Russia: dynamics of the redistribution of political power / E. N. Golovenkin // PolitBook. – 2018. – No. 1. – pp. 150-167).

In the scientific literature, in turn, the absence of mass disagreement of citizens with the election results is considered as agreement with them. As A.I. Razinskaya notes: "Not only the turnout indicator is an indicator of the legitimacy of the elections and their participants. Another consensus plays an important role: the consent of citizens and the consent of election participants with the results of the campaign" (Razinskaya, A. I. Electoral process in Russia: its features and possibilities of influence on the development of democracy in the country / A. I. Razinskaya // Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. – 2018. – No. 4. – pp. 122-134).

A decision adopted by a majority of the total number of citizens who took part in the vote should be recognized as binding and legally binding, despite the fact that it does not directly reflect the will of the majority of capable citizens.

It should also be borne in mind that the will of citizens depends on the variety of proposed options for choosing political solutions.

So, with one set of political decisions (for example, one list of parties or candidates), there will be one distribution between the voting and silent will of citizens, and with another set (another list of parties or candidates) there will be another distribution.

This circumstance clearly indicates that the silent expression of the will of citizens is not always indifferent, but can take into account the assessment of the political situation during a particular vote.

So, if a popular candidate was deprived of the right to vote, then the will of the people can be recognized as distorted in conditions when citizens who intended to vote for the withdrawn candidate expressed their will in silence.

However, the problems associated with active silence should be solved not in the plane of taking into account or not taking into account their opinions, but in the plane of legality or illegality of actions to deprive a candidate of the right to vote.

The ratio of the turnout of citizens and the will of a citizen

The will of citizens is recorded in the ballot paper in relation to the political decision that is elected by the citizen. Accordingly, the turnout of citizens precedes the discovery of their will.

At the same time, the will of a citizen reflected in the ballot paper cannot always be detected.

For example, when a citizen made more marks on the ballot than necessary or did not make any, or when the election commission declared the ballot invalid.

Consequently, the size of the turnout of citizens may not coincide with the number of expressions of will of citizens. At the same time, if the turnout of citizens is recorded by marks in the voter list and the presence of the ballot itself, then in order to fix the will of a citizen, it should, firstly, be found in the ballot, secondly, counted in conjunction with the will of other citizens and, thirdly, reflected in the final protocol.

In addition, a citizen who has come to the polling station may reflect his will in the ballot that does not correspond to his will: for example, in the case of bribing a voter or suppressing his will (with the help of violence or the threat of violence). In this case, the voter, by turning out to vote, distorts not only the results of voting, but also the turnout rate of citizens, since his turnout was due to unfree will.

Because of this, it is important to answer the question of whether the turnout of citizens affects the reliability of determining the will of the people.

To answer this question, it is necessary to distinguish between the possible, actual and predicted turnout of citizens.

The possible turnout of citizens means the total number of all citizens who have an active right to vote.

The actual turnout of citizens means the actual number of citizens who voted.

The projected turnout of citizens means the projected number of citizens who would have taken part in the vote if the vote had taken place under other conditions than the conditions under which it took place.

So, if a popular candidate was deprived of the right to vote, then not only the will of the people, but also the turnout of citizens should be recognized as distorted, since the actual turnout of citizens in the absence of a popular candidate will differ from the actual turnout of citizens in the presence of such a candidate.

If a candidate is not allowed to vote, the actual turnout will be the turnout of citizens who expressed their will in the conditions of the candidate's non-admission. The predicted turnout in this case will be the turnout of citizens who would express their will in the conditions of admission of the candidate.

Thus, if a popular candidate is not allowed to vote, the actual turnout of citizens does not correspond to the predicted turnout of citizens, which is why the will of the people to participate in the vote may be recognized as distorted in conditions when citizens expressed their will in silence.

However, by itself, the turnout of citizens does not affect the reliability of determining the will of the people.

The reliability of determining the will of the people (the reliability of the will to make a political decision), as well as the turnout of citizens (the reliability of the will to participate in the vote) is influenced by the voting conditions. In turn, proper voting conditions should be provided with sufficient and necessary effective guarantees.

Mechanisms for increasing the turnout of citizens

An important issue is the need to attract the largest number of citizens to participate in electoral procedures and identify the reasons and ways to increase the turnout of citizens.

It seems to us that in order to increase the turnout of citizens, we should talk, first of all, about expanding competition and competitive voting.

For example, since parliamentary elections are held according to the rules of the majority electoral system, with numerous options for political choice, a situation may occur in which the winning option of political choice will be the choice for which not the majority of citizens voted due to the dispersion of votes in different political elections. To more fully take into account the will of the people, it is proposed to vote in the elections in two rounds: in the first round, the two most popular political forces are selected among all those who have offered themselves in this capacity; in the second round, voting is carried out on two options for political choice, which gained the majority of votes in the first round, and the option of political choice that will gain the majority votes, will reflect the will of the people as much as possible and reliably.

In turn, the mechanism for exercising the right to vote should include legal means aimed at encouraging the will and incentives of voters to vote. As already noted: "The specifics of Russian electoral behavior are determined not only by personal, but also by geographical, demographic, socio-economic and historical-genetic factors" ^{[5, 100]}.

Increasing the turnout of citizens seems to us an important task of improving the legal culture and the development of the idea of democracy, since we believe that the maximum possible participation of citizens in voting directly correlates with the full implementation of democracy, increasing its representativeness and legitimacy.

In this sense, the turnout of citizens is one of the indicators of the level of development of democracy.

However, we see two methodological problems in measures to increase turnout.

Firstly, the approach of increasing the turnout of citizens by itself affects the freedom of choice of a citizen and his right to take part or not to take part in voting.

Ultimately, it can be said that "traditional" measures to increase turnout (encouragement and punishment for turnout at elections) may violate the autonomy of the citizen's will.

Secondly, often the proposed traditional measures to increase turnout are designed to solve a specific political task (encouragement for participation, including monetary, or punishment for non-participation), and not to form a systematic political thinking among citizens.

However, there are opportunities in the arsenal of legal regulation that involve the use of various legal means aimed at forming a citizen's stable desire to participate in the electoral process.

These legal means can be directed to the formation of the free and unfree will of the citizen.

Measures to increase turnout can be considered justified if they are aimed at the systematic development of political institutions (expanding opportunities for the implementation of the principles of competitiveness and competitiveness in elections, independent media, freedom of speech) and the political thinking of a citizen (political education of citizens), i.e. contribute to the formation of the free will of a citizen.

As a result of the application of second measures, such as encouragement for participation in elections, or punishment for non-participation, the unfree will of citizens may be formed, which, in the end, may lead to distortion of the authentic will of the people.

In some countries, they are trying to solve this issue with the help of state coercive measures of a moral, material, physical and other nature. Mandatory voting has been adopted in Belgium, Australia, Luxembourg, Greece, some cantons of Switzerland and almost all Latin American countries. In Brazil, all men and working women between the ages of 18 and 65 are required to vote. Voluntary voting is provided for non-working women, as well as for persons over 65 years of age and for officers of the armed forces of the country. The current Constitution of the Republic of Peru establishes compulsory voting for citizens aged 18 to 70 years. And the most effective sanction for non-compliance with this requirement is provided in the form of a fine. The system of monetary fines also operates in Austria, Belgium, Denmark ^{[5, 101-102]}. In Italy, censure measures are used: following the results of the elections, lists of those who did not take part in the voting are compiled, which are recorded in official documents, which are preserved for 5 years. In the Netherlands, for failing to attend elections relatively recently, they could have been deprived of freedom (Constitutional (state) law of foreign countries. Ed. by B.A. Strashun. M., 1995. pp. 333-334).

It seems that this kind of approach does not entail the development of a citizen's sense of responsibility for the country and civic duty, which is necessary for the formation of a civil society.

With this approach, the actions of a citizen to turn out for elections are conditioned only by a sense of fear based on the possibility of bringing to legal responsibility, which is why the will of a citizen is distorted by state coercion and it is impossible to talk about the formation of the free will of a citizen.

Similarly, the so-called incentive measures contribute to the formation of unfree will, since, in fact, they represent legalized bribery of citizens for voting.

With this approach, the question arises as to which motive for expressing the will is predominant: obtaining material benefits regardless of a political decision or a conscious choice of a decision during voting.

Therefore, it is necessary to disagree with the authors who claim that state stimulation entails the emergence of interest in the subject of electoral law to express their will in elections by turning out to vote. As V.P. Gribanov notes in relation to the category of "interest": "Interest is an objective need that has taken the form of conscious motivation and manifests itself in the form of desires, intentions, aspirations, and ultimately in the relationships that people enter into in the course of their activities" ^{[6, 8-9]}.

The novelty of the study consists in the following conclusions regarding the turnout of citizens in direct forms of democracy.

The electoral legislation distinguishes two approaches to determining the turnout of citizens: 1) the number of citizens who came to vote; 2) the number of citizens who voted.

In our opinion, the second approach is more preferable, since when determining the turnout, citizens who have not expressed their will should not be taken into account (for example, they received a ballot, but did not vote).

The legal significance of the turnout of citizens is that it determines whether the vote has taken place (not taken place).

Thus, the term "turnout of citizens" is proposed to mean the personal participation of citizens in voting, determined by the total number of citizens who expressed their will for making a political decision.

In turn, the threshold of the turnout of citizens should be understood as the least possible value of the turnout of citizens to recognize the vote as valid, determined by the percentage (threshold percentage) of citizens who voted out of the total number of citizens eligible to vote.

The expression of will during voting can be active and silent. The silent expression of the will of citizens, i.e. non-participation in voting, is not always indifferent, but can take into account the assessment of the political situation during a particular vote.

To determine the impact of the turnout of citizens on the reliability of determining the will of the people, first of all, it is necessary to distinguish between the actual and predicted turnout of citizens: 1) the actual turnout of citizens means the actual number of citizens who voted; 2) the projected turnout of citizens means the projected number of citizens who would have taken part in the vote if the vote had taken place under other conditions than the conditions under which it took place.

It should be concluded that the turnout of citizens by itself does not affect the reliability of determining the will of the people. The reliability of determining the will of the people (the reliability of the will to make a political decision), as well as the turnout of citizens (the reliability of the will to vote) is influenced by the voting conditions, which must be provided with appropriate guarantees.

In addition, increasing the turnout of citizens for elections is an important issue of modern constitutionalism, but when solving it, it should be borne in mind that measures to increase the turnout of citizens can be aimed at forming a free and unfree will of a citizen. So, we can state the following: 1) measures to increase turnout can be considered justified, i.e. contributing to the formation of a citizen's free will, if they are aimed at the systematic development of political institutions (expanding opportunities for the implementation of the principles of competitiveness and competitiveness in elections, independent media, freedom of speech) and political thinking of a citizen (political education of citizens); 2) measures to the increase in turnout should be recognized as unjustified, i.e. contributing to the formation of a citizen's unfree will, if, as a result of the application of such measures (for example, encouragement for participation in elections, or punishment for non-participation), a citizen does not develop a sense of responsibility for the country and civic duty, and his actions to turn out to vote are due only to a sense of fear based on the possibility of bringing to legal responsibility, or represent legalized bribery for voting.