Election anomalies, their scale and consequences. We explain the situation

fakenews.pl 1 month ago

Following the announcement of the result of the presidential election by PKW, the media highlighted anomalies in the results, and conflicting information on their scale appeared on the network. The irregularities actually happened, but there is no indication at this minute that they affect Karol Nawrocki's win or prove election manipulation. The case will yet be dealt with by the ultimate Court, and it will explain whether these mistakes had a real impact on the elections.

Our evaluation:

Analysis

More about our evaluation system:

An anomaly in OKW 95 and snowball effect

On 2 June 2025, the State Election Commission announced results the second circular of presidential elections, which Karol Nawrocki won with the support of 50.89% of the voters. By data This means that Karol Nawrocki defeated Rafał Trzaskowski by a 369591 vote.

Two days later Radio writer Kraków Bartek Ziaja reported on X about the curious result of Circuit Election Commission No 95. He concluded that the support for Rafał Trzaskowski in the second circular fell slightly, while expanding 5 times for his opponent. The disproportion is commonly referred to as “the miracle over the urn”. Ziaja pointed out that the origin of this consequence may have been an mistake while completing the protocol. The message @bartekziaja95 reached 1.7 million views.

Information about the anomaly in OKW No. 95 raised doubts about the process of counting votes. In the evening on Github user JacekPyra (name changed later to KoronaWuhan) started the task CSI_PKW_WYKOP, after which he published a message on the portal Wykop. The code maker arbitrarily linked the candidates' electorates to the first circular and then compared the amount received with the results of the second circular with the division by area. In the event of disagreement, the votes were exchanged between the candidates. The results obtained in this way were to show the advantage of the votes on the side of Rafał Trzaskowski. The code author did not make a clear thesis or propose methodological refinement of the tool. The results provided by KoronaWuhan were based on simplifications and are neither evidence nor reliable statistical analysis. The message in which the KoronaWuhan account made its conclusions available on the Excavation has already been removed. However, it functions further in the form of a screenshot circulating on social media.

News of the alleged scale of electoral error, as well as the alleged abuse, was commented on the website Wykop and on social media. Profile statedthat behind the irregularities lies the ‘apka Matecki’, about which wrote It's concrete24. meantime @lukfol1 He suggestedthat irregularities may have occurred already at the phase of the draft voting cards. Both accounts utilized dubious calculations from CrownWuhan's account as a starting point to scope a full of 1 million recipients.

6 June Polish Radio 24 reportedthat "on the net and social media, as the users of the excavation have initiated, many analyses are circulating indicating serious anomalies in any regional commissions".

There is no evidence that anomalies have a crucial impact on the results of the vote.

According to Onetu journalists there are at least a twelve irregularities. According to the authors of the text in 15 committees, the results of candidates were more than 200% higher than in the first round. PAP confirmed already, that there was a reverse attribution of votes in committee 95. The mistake was detected and reported by the committee members themselves, but besides late to make the correction. Despite this, there is no indication that the discovered anomalies could have a crucial impact on the result of the presidential election. From the Onetu conclusions resultthat as a consequence of the mistakes made by the commissions, Karol Nawrocki could gain about 4.5 1000 votes, which would inactive give him an advantage over 360 1000 votes. Moreover, errors were not unilateral – in Magnuszew, Bychawa and Staszów the commissions saw a fewer 100 percent increase in support for Rafał Trzaskowski. 1 quoted the words of PKW spokesperson Marcin Chmielnicki regarding the procedure for verifying the results transferred to PKW by the peripheral commissions:

At present, the results of the vote in the regional electoral commissions can only be verified by the ultimate Court, following the submitted electoral protests. [...] The procedure for the approval of post-vote protocols is that, erstwhile a circuit electoral committee transmits specified a protocol to a territory commission, it may examine it only in terms of formal and arithmetic consistency. He is not entitled to challenge the protocol due to the fact that the results are different from those of the first round.

In the speech of 5 June, the account of the chief of the electoral staff of Rafał Trzaskowski @WiolaPaprock encouraged to send information on detected irregularities by a specially prepared page. According to the announcement, the reported cases will be sent to the PKW for clarification.

A fewer hours later, a fresh 1 appeared on the dig portal statement CrownWuhan. The author denied erstwhile conclusions on electoral irregularities and admitted a miscalculation.

Election anomalies should not surprise us

In order to better item the problem of election anomalies, we contacted Sylwest Oracz, an expert Responsible Politics Foundation. He is an information safety analyst and is active in researching various aspects of policy financing. Below we present our questions along with the answers obtained.

1. Following the win of Karol Nawrocki, anomalies were found in counting the votes. Is this a surprise to you in the context of the presidential election? Have they happened in the past?

It is not a peculiar surprise, due to the fact that specified mistakes happen during all elections. The number of known cases does not disagree from erstwhile cases, but of course it may be astonishment as in the case of 2 candidates specified a mistake may have occurred.

2. Should the detection of these anomalies rise doubts about the safety of the full electoral process? Is the electoral strategy in Poland prepared for specified situations?

The electoral process must be viewed as a whole, not only as a day of vote. In Poland, all general elections are subject to judicial review as part of electoral protests. We expect, among others, that the cases referred to on social media will be the subject of a ultimate Court investigation. We encourage you to present cases of irregularities to the court and to this end as all election share a model letter with a detailed explanation. We see no reason to believe that the Polish electoral strategy is bad, although we see a number of fields to improve it.

3. What conditions would should be met in order to find errors at the level of OKW question the result of the presidential elections in Poland?

Proceedings on election results are of 2 kinds: electoral protests and the validity of the election of the president of the Republic of Poland. Protests usually concern circumstantial situations in the peripheral election commission. The court takes into account the formal requirements (whether or not a qualified individual has submitted a protest within a certain time limit, has indicated the plea and the conclusions of evidence), the substantive (if there has been an unlawful action) and the anticipation of compensation for harm (if any action can change anything). The validity resolution shall take account of the result of the protest proceedings and, if it can be concluded that the mandate has not been decently filled, the elections may be repeated.

Summary

Clarification of irregularities in the number of votes serves the transparency of the electoral process, but with the current state of cognition it will not change the final result of the election. In the territory of 95 Kraków-Krowodrza the irregularity has already been confirmed. In the case of another committees with akin imbalances, the request to check the results is justified.

Voices promoting the thesis about possible manipulation and the crucial influence of the OKW errors on the result of the election do not find solid support. Moreover, the very existence of an anomaly is no reason to question the result of the full election. Errors of this kind, although they require clarification, happen regularly during the electoral process. They may well give emergence to concern erstwhile the scale of the problem exceeds erstwhile experience, which is not the case according to current knowledge. Emotions accompanying the elections encourage the impulsive dissemination of uncertain information – both for attention and in sincere faith.