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.

5,415 published reviews in this topic

Deutsche Presse-AgenturElections & voting

Ein Post auf Facebook vom 17. September 2020 zeigt ein vermeintliches Wahlplakat der Partei Die Grünen (hier archiviert). Auf diesem ist zu lesen: «WIR SIND AUF DEM RICHTIGEN WEG». Das Kuriose: Das Plakat umschließt die Stange eines Straßenschildes, das den Weg zum Friedhof weist. «Manche Wahlplakate sind ein wenig unglücklich platziert», kommentiert der Nutzer den Standort. Aber ist das Plakat wirklich ein aktuelles Wahlplakat der Grünen?

Publisher’s rating: Das Foto wurde manipuliert, es handelt sich nicht um Wahlplakat der Grünen. In einer älteren Variante ist es mit dem Logo der CDU im Netz zu finden.

The post in question shows a supposed Green Party election poster bearing the words “WIR SIND AUF DEM RICHTIGEN WEG,” wrapped around a road sign pointing toward a cemetery. The original review investigated whether that image was an authentic, current Green campaign poster. It concluded that the image had been manipulated and did not show a poster from the Greens. The review describes several checks of the image. It compared the poster’s green color with colors on Green Party campaign posters and reported RGB values of 55, 149, 13 for the Facebook image, versus 55, 174, 58 for the party’s original posters. It also noted that the apparent poster’s typography differed from Green campaign examples and that it lacked the party’s sunflower logo. The review treated these details together as signs of a fake, rather than relying on color alone. A reverse-image search led the review to an older version of the poster bearing the CDU logo. The review further used the larger image’s surroundings to identify the location as the direction sign for Friedhof Ickern, with a pedestrian crossing over Vinckestraße visible in the background. That provenance supports the conclusion that the image was an altered version of an older CDU-associated poster, not an authentic Green Party poster.

Pagella PoliticaElections & voting

«I cittadini hanno risposto addirittura con dei quorum che hanno superato quelli di riferimento delle precedenti competizioni elettorali, e anche in termini assoluti, se guardiamo alle consultazioni referendarie» (min. 11:19)

Publisher’s rating: Nì

The statement was made by Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at a press point with journalists in Rome on 22 September, after regional elections and a referendum held on 20–21 September 2020. He said turnout had exceeded the reference levels of previous electoral contests. The review compared referendum participation with earlier constitutional and abrogative referendums, and regional turnout with both the previous regional elections in 2015 and the 2019 European elections. Its figures come from data attributed to Italy’s Interior Ministry for the referendum and turnout percentages for the regional comparisons. “Secondo i dati del Ministero dell’Interno, i votanti tra l’Italia e l’estero sono stati oltre 26 milioni e 50 mila, il 51,1 per cento degli aventi diritto.” “confrontando l’affluenza di queste elezioni regionali con quelle del 2015 e con l’ultima tornata elettorale a livello nazionale (le europee del 2019), si scopre che in alcune regioni le percentuali del 20 e 21 settembre sono più alte di quelle del passato, mentre in altre no.” The referendum comparison does not support a blanket claim that participation surpassed previous benchmarks. Turnout was 51.1 per cent: lower than the 65.5 per cent in the 2016 constitutional referendum and 52.5 per cent in the 2006 one, but higher than the 34 per cent in 2001. Among the five most recent abrogative referendums considered, only the 2011 vote had higher turnout, at about 54.8 per cent. The review also notes that the 2020 constitutional referendum did not require a turnout quorum, while abrogative referendums did. “In entrambi i casi, dunque, si è avuta un’affluenza più alta rispetto a quella per il taglio dei parlamentari.” “solo il referendum del 12-13 giugno 2011 – quello su acqua pubblica, nucleare e legittimo impedimento – ha raggiunto un’affluenza di circa il 54,8 per cento, superiore a quella per il taglio dei parlamentari.” “Ricordiamo che essendo un referendum costituzionale confermativo, non era richiesto il raggiungimento di alcun quorum”. Regional results were mixed, rather than uniformly higher than past elections. Turnout in Campania and Puglia exceeded both their 2015 regional-election figures and their 2019 European-election figures. In the other four regions—Tuscany, Liguria, Marche and Veneto—turnout was higher than in the 2015 regional elections but lower than in the 2019 European elections. The review cautions that the referendum was held alongside regional and municipal elections in several areas, which may have affected referendum turnout; it also notes that the coronavirus emergency could have discouraged some voters. Its conclusion is that Conte’s assertion overstates what the comparisons show. “In Campania e Puglia, l’affluenza a queste regionali è stata più alta sia di quelle del 2015 che delle ultime elezioni a livello nazionale, ossia le europee del 2019.” “Nelle altre quattro regioni, l’affluenza del 20 e 21 settembre è stata più alta delle precedenti regionali ma non delle europee.” “in diverse regioni il voto referendario si è svolto in concomitanza con le elezioni regionali e comunali. Questo può avere avuto un effetto sull’affluenza”

USA TODAYElections & voting

Day 1 DNC : 21.4 Million Viewed. Day 1 RNC : 128.4 Million Views

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned the first night of the 2020 Republican National Convention (RNC), held the week after the Democratic National Convention (DNC). USA TODAY reports that a post by the page Absolute Patriot compared 21.4 million views for the DNC’s first day with 128.4 million for the RNC. The review says the post provided no source for its RNC figure, and that the publication found no evidence supporting it. For a like-for-like comparison of television audiences, the review cites Nielsen estimates of 17 million viewers for the first night of the RNC and 19.7 million for the first night of the DNC. It notes that these figures exclude people who streamed the conventions. The review also states that neither party’s first-night convention broadcast exceeded 20 million TV viewers, making the claimed 128.4 million figure far above the reported television audience. The review describes a possible origin for the inflated number, not a valid total audience count: C-SPAN’s livestream of the RNC’s start had nearly six times as many views as the DNC’s start, 440,000 compared with 76,000. Multiplying the DNC’s 21.4 million figure by roughly six produces 128.4 million, but that arithmetic applies a ratio from C-SPAN livestream views to a separate audience figure. The review says no source was provided to substantiate 128.4 million viewers.