Moscow Oblast is the second-largest region in the country by number of voters and is highly heterogeneous, with voting results that can vary substantially — especially in places where observers are present. Analysis of electoral statistics reveals a whole range of signs of falsification, and they are most pronounced precisely in those areas where there were no observers and no reports of violations.
This year, Moscow Oblast was the region from which the largest number of reports of violations came. This is because relatively robust observation was organised in some municipalities. Observers from Dolgoprudny, the hometown of politician Boris Nadezhdin, who was declared a "foreign agent" during the election campaign and forced to emigrate, were particularly notable.
The website "Elections 2026 — observing together" received 135 signals of violations from the Moscow region — even more than from Moscow or St Petersburg. Observers reported that ballot boxes contained more ballots than had been issued according to the voter lists, that independent observers and commission members were being mass-suspended and removed from polling stations, about ballot stuffing during mobile voting and many other violations. The Telegram channel "Observers at elections in Moscow Oblast" also wrote in detail about the violations.
Turnout in the region was 52.74%, and United Russia won 56.22%; the party's candidates won in all 12 single-member districts. In the elections to the Moscow Oblast Duma, which were held in parallel, the party received 39 of 50 seats.
The highest result for United Russia was painted in Naro-Fominsk — 73.8%, that is, 17.6 percentage points above the regional average. There are precincts here where the ruling party's result approaches Chechen levels. For example, at PEC No. 1770, 3,871 of 4,627 people allegedly took part in the voting (83.66%), and United Russia received 95.06%. No information about violations came from Naro-Fominsk.
In second place by United Russia's indicators was Istra. Here the turnout was invented more modestly, just 55.4%, and the party received 71.7%. Of the 65 PECs in this city, United Russia's result was below 70% at only five precincts. At the remaining 60 commissions it was distributed in the range from 70 to 74% and is clearly anomalous in origin. There appears to have been no organised independent observation in this city either.
The most elegant "falsification" was produced in Ramenskoye. Here United Russia's indicators are close to the regional average — 56.29%. True, the local election organisers decided not to bother too much and painted them across all 102 precincts with a spread of less than 2%. A classic "shelf", which can be observed, for example, in the North Caucasus. The results of the other parties are also almost identical across all precincts of the city.
The lowest results for United Russia were produced in Pavlovsky Posad. It appears that the beneficiaries of falsification here were the LDPR and A Just Russia. The LDPR received 27.1%, United Russia came second with 25.71%, A Just Russia — 21.91%, and the Communist Party only 13.04%. Moreover, while at some of the 75 precincts the LDPR and United Russia alternate between first and second place, A Just Russia and the Communist Party always take third and fourth place.
In Dolgoprudny, where observation was the most organised and from where the most reports of violations came, the picture turned out to be far more varied. United Russia received 43.05%, the Communist Party came second with 17.32%, New People came third with 15.29% — their second-best result after Dubna — the LDPR got 7.05%, and A Just Russia won only 4.9%. Of the 46 commissions, at 13 PECs the ruling party receives more than 60%, at six — from 40 to 60%, and in the remaining cases less than 40%. United Russia's worst result was in commission No. 342, where it won only 19.4%, and New People came first with 33.3%.