Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Elections & voting fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about elections & voting. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

5,414 published reviews in this topic

Fact CrescendoElections & voting

Claim: Edappadi Palanisamy not stated that he will work for Annamalai in 2026 election

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review examined a social-media news card claiming that Edappadi Palanisamy said the AIADMK would work for Annamalai if Annamalai stood as chief-ministerial candidate in the 2026 Tamil Nadu election. It reports that the card was being shared on Facebook and Twitter, and that a reader had also sent it to the fact-checker to ask whether it was genuine. (“‘’2026 சட்டமன்ற தேர்தலில் அண்ணாமலை முதல்வர் வேட்பாளராக நின்றால், அவருக்காக அதிமுக உழைக்கும்,’’ என்று எடப்பாடி பழனிசாமி கூறியதாக, ஒரு தகவல் சமூக வலைதளங்களில் பகிரப்படுகிறது.”; “இதனை வாசகர் ஒருவர் நமக்கு வாட்ஸ்ஆப் வழியே (+91 9049044263) அனுப்பி உண்மையா என சந்தேகம் கேட்டிருந்தார்.”) To check the card’s attribution, the investigators searched News 7 Tamil’s official Facebook and Twitter accounts but found no matching post. They then contacted Sukhita, identified in the review as the outlet’s digital-division administrator. She said the item was fake and that the outlet had not published it. (“குறிப்பிட்ட நியூஸ் கார்டை நியூஸ் 7 தமிழ் ஊடகம் வெளியிட்டதா என அவர்களது அதிகாரப்பூர்வ ஃபேஸ்புக், ட்விட்டர் பக்கங்களில் தகவல் தேடினோம். ஆனால், எதுவும் காணக் கிடைக்கவில்லை.”; “அவர், ‘’இது எங்களது பெயரில் பகிரப்படும் போலியான செய்தி. இப்படி நாங்கள் எதுவும் வெளியிடவில்லை,’’ என்றார்.”) The review also says it searched for coverage of the alleged statement in other media and found none. On the basis of those checks and the outlet representative’s denial, it concluded that the card was fabricated and rated the claim false. The excerpt documents the attribution check and the stated search results; it does not provide a direct recording or transcript of Palanisamy making the alleged statement. (“அடுத்தப்படியாக, இப்படி ஏதேனும் செய்தி ஊடகங்களில் வெளியாகியுள்ளதா என விவரம் தேடினோம். ஆனால், அப்படியான செய்தி எதுவும் காணக் கிடைக்கவில்லை.”; “எனவே, எடப்பாடி பழனிசாமியை கேலி செய்யும் நோக்கில் பகிரப்படும் போலிச் செய்தி இது என சந்தேகமின்றி உறுதி செய்யப்படுகிறது.”)

dpaElections & voting

Marine Le Pen avait récolté plus de 14 millions des voix de l'élection présidentielle, avant que ces chiffres ne soient modifiés.

Publisher’s rating: Ces photos manquent de contexte. Elles ne sont pas la preuve d'une fraude électorale. France 2 a affirmé avoir été victime d’une erreur technique, qui a conduit à la diffusion de chiffres incorrects. Le ministère français de l’Intérieur n’a jamais attribué 14 millions de voix à Marine Le Pen.

The review examines social-media images from France 2’s coverage of the second round of France’s presidential election on 24 April 2022. The images showed Marine Le Pen apparently ahead of Emmanuel Macron with more than 14 million votes, and the displayed figure later fell. The key distinction is that these were figures broadcast by France 2, not a count attributed to Le Pen by the Interior Ministry. The review reports that the final results were 18.7 million votes for Macron and 13.2 million for Le Pen. France 2 acknowledged that its broadcast figures were wrong. The channel said a software error caused votes from some municipalities to be counted twice for both candidates. Around 21:10, the error produced on-screen totals of 14.2 million for Macron and 14.4 million for Le Pen; France 2 said it was corrected afterward. Thus, the images document an erroneous television display, not evidence that Le Pen actually received more than 14 million votes or that the official count was altered. The review compared the broadcast figures with the Interior Ministry’s published data. At 21:15, the ministry reported 5.4 million votes for each candidate; an archived version of its page at 21:42 showed 9.6 million for Macron and 8.6 million for Le Pen. Le Pen’s final total was 13,288,686. The account therefore distinguishes the real, temporary broadcast error from the official results and the unsupported inference of electoral fraud.

dpaElections & voting

Marine Le Pen stond eerst op 14 miljoen stemmen, maar kreeg er toen uiteindelijk toch minder toebedeeld.

Publisher’s rating: De foto is geen bewijs dat er iets mis zou zijn met de uitslag van de Franse verkiezingen. Het aantal stemmen dat in de televisieuitzending te zien was, klopte niet vanwege een softwarefout. De officiële overheidsinstanties hebben nooit 14 miljoen stemmen aan Marine Le Pen toegekend.

The claim concerns figures shown in a French television election broadcast on 24 April 2022: the image appeared to show Marine Le Pen ahead of Emmanuel Macron, with about 14 million votes, while her eventual total was lower. The review confirms that the image reflected figures France 2 actually broadcast, but says the discrepancy is not evidence of election fraud: the broadcaster displayed erroneous numbers because of a software problem. The review reports France 2’s explanation that its software double-counted votes from some municipalities, and that the error was noticed and corrected. [S1: “De uitslag die te zien is, kwam echt zo op televisie. Namelijk bij het verkiezingsprogramma van France 2 (op 02:50:52) op 24 april.”; “De verkiezingsuitslagen zijn de verantwoordelijkheid van het Franse ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken. Maar de software waarmee de televisiezender deze cijfers omzette voor de uitzending, telde de stemmen van sommige gemeenten dubbel.”] The review compares the broadcast with figures attributed to the French Ministry of the Interior. It says AFP received the ministry’s data for 21:15, just minutes after the erroneous TV figures appeared: those figures showed 5.41 million votes for Macron and 5.44 million counted for Le Pen, not about 14 million for either candidate. It also cites an archived ministry-results page at 21:42, when 58% of votes had been counted; that page showed 9.7 million for Macron and 8.7 million for Le Pen. The final totals were 18.8 million for Macron and 13.3 million for Le Pen. [S1: “Het Franse persbureau AFP schrijft dat de foute cijfers niet verschenen in de gegevens van 21.15 uur, die zij van het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken ontvingen.”; “In de gearchiveerde versie van de pagina meldt het ministerie voor Macron om 21.42 uur nog maar 9,7 miljoen stemmen en voor Le Pen 8,7 miljoen. Op dat punt was 58 procent van de stemmen geteld.”; “Uiteindelijk won Emmanuel Macron de verkiezing met 18,8 miljoen stemmen. Marine Le Pen kreeg 13,3 miljoen stemmen.”] The distinction is that the image accurately captured a faulty television display, not an official allocation of votes. The review reports that it found no evidence the erroneous figures had appeared on the Ministry of the Interior’s website, and that the ministry—not the broadcaster—was responsible for the official results. [S1: “Er is geen enkel bewijs dat het ooit verkeerd op de website van het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken heeft gestaan.”; “De verkiezingsuitslagen zijn de verantwoordelijkheid van het Franse ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken.”]

dpaElections & voting

Ein Video, indem leicht eingerissene Stimmzettel zu sehen sind belegt Wahlbetrug in Frankreich.

Publisher’s rating: Tatsächlich sind in Nordfrankreich solche leicht beschädigten Stimmzettel aufgetaucht. Laut Aussage des französischen Innenministeriums reichen derart leichte Beschädigungen aber nicht aus, um sie für ungültig zu erklären. Außerdem hatten Bürger die Möglichkeiten, sich im Wahllokal einen neuen, unbeschädigten Stimmzettel aushändigen zu lassen.

dpaElections & voting

De resultaten van de Franse presidentsverkiezingen kwamen ongeloofwaardig snel naar buiten.

Publisher’s rating: Om acht uur 's avonds sloten de laatste stembureaus in Frankrijk, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat er dan pas geteld werd. De meeste media maakt overigens gebruik van gespecialiseerde opiniepeilingsbureaus die op basis van zelf verzamelde informatie om acht uur een betrouwbaar resultaat klaar hebben. Dit is dus geen aanleiding om het gecommuniceerde resultaat in twijfel te trekken.

The claim concerned the timing of reports that Emmanuel Macron had won the second round of France’s presidential election on 24 April 2022. The review distinguishes the first reported result from a final count: French law barred French media from publishing provisional results before polling stations had closed, but it did not require counting to begin only once the last stations closed. The final stations on mainland France closed at 8 p.m.; counting had already begun elsewhere, and the Interior Ministry’s first provisional figures appeared then. Those figures were not final: the review reports that 79% of votes had been counted by 8:32 p.m. The early winner calls by Le Monde and Le Figaro were estimates, not claims that a complete official count had already finished. The review says they relied on estimates from polling specialists Ipsos and Ifop, based on information collected at polling stations and algorithms. It notes that the approach had been used since 1965 and that these estimates had not named a different winner from the ministry’s final result. The review therefore finds that the speed of the reports, on its own, did not justify doubting the election result.