The Central Election Commission releases the statement regarding the disseminated diagrams.

“Some diagrams and comments by the authors regarding the statistical results of voter turnout in individual precinct election commissions (PECs), as well as the mathematical analysis of vote distribution in these precincts, are still circulating through various media outlets and social networks. This method is known to the election administration, and many elections held in Georgia have been the subject of such studies. However, it is widely recognized that these studies alone do not prove anything; they merely indicate a probability of potential anomalies, which the election administration may further investigate using turnout data from the so-called “suspicious” sites.

The main limitations of this research methodology are as follows:

“If a test does suggest a statistical anomaly, it does not necessarily mean that election-related malfeasance caused the result, but that it may have. Statistical anomalies can be caused by benign activities such as strategic voting or divergent voting patterns within a region”. (Making votes count, Report on the 2016 elections).

An anomaly in this study could result from an influx of urban voters into the region - an integral aspect of Georgian elections, as demonstrated by the high turnout, with over 2 million voters participating. By law, all voters exercised their right based on their registered address, not their actual residence. It’s important to note that this statistical method alone cannot confirm or rule out illegal election manipulation. Instead, it helps identify statistical anomalies that merit further investigation and serves as a complementary tool to traditional methods like direct observation at polling stations and parallel vote tabulation and others.

Notably, according to the researcher, there is no doubt about the accuracy of voter turnout statistics in major cities. However, without knowing the research methodology used in these elections - such as whether voting rules as per law, the number of precincts studied, selection criteria, and regional distribution were considered – it’s impossible to provide a more in-depth analysis.

However, it is important to note that, as per best practices in collaboration, the methodology of such studies, along with statistical information and other data, should first be discussed with the election administration before becoming public. In this case, unfortunately, the opposite occurred”, - reads the statement.