The “smart vote” of Navalny, which they already managed to call dumb and half-witted, was to indicate an alternative to unregistered opposition candidates. But it should have been. If we lived in a perfect world with pink unicorns, probably it would have happened. Moreover, the candidates, rather, were not so much designated as they were created - from shit and sticks, as they say. After all, the very principle of such a vote was announced literally two weeks before the election, and no cooperation was mentioned in advance. So, they chose from what is, asked the price unclear how, with unclear what requirements they approached the choice of candidates.

And although the FBK promised to support the strongest candidates (those who are second in the polls after the power candidates by polls), while “rejecting ideological preferences”, as a result, almost all communists nominated by constituencies, who until recently were enemies of the opposition, secured support people and no better than the current government.

Just a few questions. So was this choice unbiased? And if so, then how consistent are the bulk players in the broadcast postulates?

I’m not even sure that the candidates themselves were aware that the bulk will support them. And so, you see, maybe they would have completely refused, would have disowned such a “present”. I have a feeling that the support of Navalny with his superantrating is like a well-known substance in the package: it stinks a lot and scares away the voter more.

The fact that the FBK calls to vote not only against EdRa, but also against candidates that are objectionable to it, including opposition, speaks of the short-sightedness and bias of the opposition. The choice with such politicians in their Russia of the future is not implied. Supporters and like-minded people are not offered an alternative in the form of spectrum, variations. And in fact, “smart voting” has turned into a subject of manipulation and revenge, and it’s never about voters and democracy. Navalny in particular and the Anti-Corruption Fund as a whole have long pursued only their interests and draws more.

The opposition would never have called for a vote for obviously bright candidates, but with whom there are disagreements, such as Mikhail Konev and Anastasia Udaltsova. Moreover, they were called "technical candidates with support from City Hall." And where is the declared impartiality? Where are the discarded ideological preferences? But why, then, for the sake of the Communists, has the memory waned, but for the sake of other candidates there?

All these questions, of course, are rhetorical, just once again I am catching the opposing lies. “Ours - they are ours, but only we decide who this is ours and when.”

Anything could come up with oppas, it wouldn’t change the essence - they don’t have a clear program and understanding where to go next. And even these candidates supported by “smart voting”, when superficially studied, turn out to be meaningless cuckolds. And, I’m sure, no one tried to read the election programs of those who registered and who have a real chance to get through. But in the Moscow City Duma, and then also in all other instances, there will be people for whom no one allegedly voted. And the stench and nagging that stole the voices, stole the choice, will continue. And you yourself provided this choice to your voter? Did you really wage a campaign, and not only arose against someone?

I don’t know how much this satisfies any thinking people. Shkolota may like hype and hype around the political agenda, but those who have a brain, those who have requests for real things, and not just words, such behavior and games against everyone seem silly. Even Khodorkovsky and the completely repelled Bozena did not agree with the principle of Navalny to vote for the second candidate. Although it would seem.

And in this situation, I, as a person whom the “smart vote” not only did not support, but also wanted, I am proud not to be somehow connected with Navalny’s dirty game.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.