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 Crescendo Sri LankaElections & voting

Fact Check: වරාය නගර පනත් කෙටුම්පත් ඡන්ද විමසීමේ දී සජිත් ඡන්දය දීමෙන් වැළකී සිටියා ද?

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned Sajith Premadasa’s vote on Sri Lanka’s Colombo Port City bill. The investigation says the parliamentary vote took place on May 20, 2021, and that a social-media post suggested the opposition leader had abstained. It examined the NewsFirst material that had prompted the posts, including an image later removed from NewsFirst’s social-media account.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturElections & voting

Die ARD manipuliert und lässt in Wahlumfrage das Ergebnis der Freien Wähler unter den Tisch fallen.

Publisher’s rating: Kurzzeitig waren die Freien Wähler in der Online-Grafik des ARD-Deutschlandtrends tatsächlich nicht angezeigt, da nach Senderangaben zunächst nur Parteien ausgewiesen wurden, welche die Fünf-Prozent-Hürde übersprangen. Als jedoch der Artikel auf «reitschuster.de» publiziert und in sozialen Medien verbreitet wurde, waren die Freien Wähler längst in der ARD-Grafik zu sehen - auch in den «Tagesthemen».

MediaWiseElections & voting

Georgia provision that bans giving away water or food to voters within a certain distance of polling sites is the same law that's in place in Joe Biden's home state of Delaware.

Publisher’s rating: Mostly Not Legit

The claim concerned a specific comparison made by Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling: that Georgia’s restriction on giving food or water to voters near polling sites was the same law in Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware. MediaWise examined whether Delaware had an equivalent food-and-water ban, rather than whether both states had any rules affecting conduct around voters. The review describes Georgia’s restriction as applying within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of a voter in line; it notes that poll workers remained allowed to provide water while other people faced the restriction. (S1: “the law makes it an offense to give away food or water within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of any voter in line.”) To check the Delaware comparison, the review reports searching for coverage and following a Washington Post link upstream to Delaware’s election code. It says that code did not mention food or drinks. The distinction is that Delaware prohibited gifts of any value to voters, but the review found no explicit food-or-water prohibition in Delaware law. A general gifts rule therefore did not establish that Delaware had the specific restriction imposed in Georgia. (S1: “Delaware does not explicitly prohibit food or water. However, Delaware does prohibit giving gifts of any value to voters.”; “Looking through the actual law, there isn’t any mention of food or drinks.”) The review also reports that Snopes found explicit food-and-water rules in Montana and New York, and characterized those bans as less restrictive than Georgia’s. Its conclusion was that Sterling’s equivalence claim was inaccurate: Delaware’s gifts rule was not the same as Georgia’s specific food-and-water ban. (S1: “only Montana and New York have similar bans when it comes to food and water, though they wrote that these bans are actually less restrictive than Georgia’s.”; “since Delaware’s laws don’t even mention food or water.”)

FACTLYElections & voting

Religion wise vote share statistics of different political parties in recent West Bengal assembly elections, as released by ECI

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post circulating on social media attributed religion-wise vote-share figures from the recent West Bengal assembly elections to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The review’s conclusion is that the ECI did not release the information shown in the post. It explains that election information on the electorate and turnout may be separated by gender, while released vote counts are not classified by voters’ religion or caste. [S1] The review describes the underlying constraint as the secret ballot: the ECI may publish votes received by candidates, but those records do not identify the religion or caste of the people who cast them. It also notes that, for the West Bengal election in question, the ECI had published party-wise vote share, constituency-wise candidate vote share, and constituency-wise trends; polling-station-level candidate vote data had not yet been released. None of those categories substantiates the post’s claimed religion-wise breakdown. [S1] The review therefore distinguishes genuine election statistics from the post’s attribution: the existence of official party or constituency results does not establish that the ECI released figures grouped by voters’ religion. Its stated conclusion is that the post’s statistics were wrongly attributed to the ECI. [S1]