No. It didn't take Russia's Supreme Court to endow Vladimir Putin with the presidency. However, it did take, according to outside observers, "overwhelming bias in the television media and the use of government money and resources in support of his campaign." (NYT)
And this:
The observers, from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said the election was heavily tilted in Mr. Putin’s favor, and that incidents of voter fraud and other irregularities, which they also found, were not as significant as the overall framework of the campaign, which they said gave opposition candidates little chance.
“The point of elections is that the outcome should be uncertain,” Tonino Picula, a former minister of foreign affairs from Croatia who led one group of observers, said at a news conference. “This was not the case in Russia. There was no real competition, and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt.” ...NYT
Putin's re-"elected" regime also plans to backstop any protest.
... Riot police were already blocking off traffic and setting up barricades for a huge political protest scheduled for Monday evening in central Moscow — the latest in a series of street demonstrations that began in response to widespread voting irregularities in Russia’s parliamentary election in December. ...NYT
Seems just like home to me, njet? Reminds me of when Vladmir V. Bush "swept" Ohio in 2004 and compliant media let him have it, in spite of exit polls and "virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount." (Common Dreams)
Whether we're talking about America or Russia, I don't think we should call a country a "democracy" when so many political, professional, financial, and technological forces are devoted to smothering the voter.
