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

Deutsche Presse-AgenturElections & voting

Der Wahlzettel ist ungültig, wenn die rechte obere Ecke abgeschnitten ist.

Publisher’s rating: Die abgeschnittene Ecke ermöglicht Blinden oder Menschen mit Sehbehinderung die Wahl. Die Behauptung zu einer vermeintlichen Ungültigkeit ist somit falsch. Das Wahlgesetz scheibt die Ecke oder ein Loch vor, damit eine Stimmzettelschablone angelegt werden kann.

The claim concerned a photographed ballot sent by post for the September 26, 2021 Bundestag election. The Facebook post asserted that cutting off the upper-right corner had invalidated it. The review identifies the pictured ballot as coming from a constituency in North Rhine-Westphalia and checked the applicable election rules, including the Federal Electoral Regulations and the state’s election law. It also sought an explanation from Torsten Resa of the German Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired. The rules provide for the corner to be cut off or punched so that a ballot template can be positioned correctly. Resa explained that the mark helps blind voters place the ballot in the template and vote independently. The review adds that ballots are made alike so that voters with and without visual impairments receive the same format. Under the North Rhine-Westphalia rule cited by the review, the upper-right corner is cut off for use with ballot templates. The review distinguishes this accessibility feature from conditions that can make a ballot invalid. It cites examples including a ballot not officially produced, too many marks, or a vote that cannot be determined unambiguously. For postal voting, it notes that some invalidity conditions concern the ballot envelope arriving late or a missing signature on the voting certificate—not a cut corner on the ballot. The post’s photo therefore showed a feature prescribed for accessibility, not evidence that the ballot was invalid.

FACTLYElections & voting

‘Aaj Tak’ వార్తా సంస్థ కాబోయే భారత ప్రధాని ఎవరనే విషయం పై ఇటీవల సర్వే నిర్వహిస్తే రాహుల్ గాంధీకి 52 శాతం, ప్రధాని నరేంద్ర మోదీకి 46 శాతం ఓట్లు వచ్చినట్టుగా షేర్ చేస్తున్న ఫోటో

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

dpaElections & voting

Eine Wahlbeteiligung unter 50 Prozent schafft ein rechtliches Problem.

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung ist rundum falsch und frei erfunden.

The claim concerned a social-media post asserting that Germany’s next federal election would be invalid if fewer than half of eligible voters participated. The post attributed this supposed threshold to a continuing “occupation statute” and argued that turnout legitimized the political system. The review identifies the allegation as resembling Reichsbürger narratives, which deny Germany’s sovereignty and describe it as under foreign administration. The review checked the alleged legal basis against the occupation statute and German election law. It reports that the post may have confused an alleged “Besatzerstatut” with the actual occupation statute, published on April 10, 1949. That document reserved certain powers for the Western Allies, including aspects of foreign policy, demilitarization and reparations. But it contained no rules on conducting elections: the review notes that the word “Wahl” does not appear in it. The statute therefore provides no 50-percent turnout requirement. The review also says the occupation statute was repealed when the Paris Agreements took effect on May 5, 1955. It reports that remaining Allied reserved rights concerning German reunification and Berlin’s status formally ended with the Two Plus Four Treaty, effective March 15, 1991. Separately, it checked the Basic Law, Federal Election Act and Federal Electoral Regulations, finding no minimum-turnout rule in any of them. The Federal Returning Officer’s stated position, quoted in the review, is that even very low turnout does not by itself invalidate an election; validity depends on there being no basis for an election challenge and the established result producing the correct composition of parliament.

BR24 FaktenfuchsElections & voting

Kann der Kanzlerkandidat oder die Kanzlerkandidatin einer Partei ausgewechselt werden?

Publisher’s rating: "Eine Kanzlerkandidatur ist lediglich eine ""Absichtserklärung"" und in keiner Weise rechtlich bindend. Ein Kandidat oder eine Kandidatin kann also jederzeit - vor der Wahl, nach der Wahl oder auch im Falle von Neuwahlen - von der entsprechenden Partei ""ausgetauscht"" werden. Auch wenn ein Wechsel der Kanzlerkandidaten jederzeit möglich wäre, wahrscheinlich ist dieses Szenario bei der diesjährigen Bundestagswahl nicht. "

FACTLYElections & voting

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra wearing Indira Gandhi’s saree ahead of Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections-2022 campaign

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post presented a photograph of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in a saree, ringing a temple bell, as evidence that she was wearing a saree belonging to her grandmother, Indira Gandhi, ahead of the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. It also framed the image as an appeal to family sentiment in a campaign. The review investigated whether that photograph showed the claimed occasion and clothing provenance. The review reports that reverse image searches found the same photograph circulating earlier, including in social-media posts from 2018. It also says a search using other keywords and a time filter located the image on Pressbrief.in’s Flickr account. The account description dated the photograph to 12 April 2009, when Priyanka Gandhi visited a Durga temple in Amethi during campaigning for her brother Rahul Gandhi in the Lok Sabha election. That earlier date and setting do not match the post’s portrayal of the image as connected to the approaching 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly campaign. The review further reports finding related photographs of the 2009 temple visit on Getty Images and Outlook. It says it could not find information establishing that the saree belonged to Indira Gandhi. The available evidence therefore supports the conclusion that the image is old and does not substantiate the post’s election-campaign framing or its claim about the saree’s ownership.