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

Fact CrescendoElections & voting

Claim: Madurai Constituency CPM candidate S Venkatesan

Publisher’s rating: Fact Crescendo Rating: True

The review examines a Facebook post welcoming writer S. Venkatesan as the CPM candidate for the Madurai parliamentary constituency. The post praised his work on Keezhadi, his Sahitya Akademi award and his novel Velpari, and said he should enter Parliament. The review identifies the post as one shared by the Facebook group Memes Tamizha. (S1: “அரசியல் வேறுபாடு கடந்து மதுரை நாடாளுமன்ற தொகுதி சிபிஎம் வேட்பாளராக அறிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள சு.வெங்கடேசன் வரவேற்கப்பட வேண்டியவர்!”; “Memes Tamizha என்ற ஃபேஸ்புக் குழு மேற்கண்ட பதிவை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.”) To check the post’s timing and basis, the review says the group’s administrator explained in the comments that it was not politically partisan and had been shared in the public interest. The review also reports that the post was published on March 15, after the party announced its candidates that day. It does not describe an independent examination of the post’s underlying Facebook archive; its account of the post’s context relies on the group’s explanation and the reported announcement. (S1: “மார்ச் 15ம் தேதி வெளியிடப்பட்ட இந்த பதிவு பற்றி குறிப்பிட்ட ஃபேஸ்புக் குழுவே விளக்கம் அளித்துள்ளது.”; “இது அரசியல் சார்பானது இல்லை என்றும், தான் யாருக்கும் ஆதரவு இல்லை என்றும், சமூக நலன் கருதியே இதனை வெளியிட்டதாகவும் அந்த குழுவின் அட்மின் தரப்பில், கமெண்ட் பகுதியில் விளக்கம் அளிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.”) The central factual question was whether Venkatesan had in fact been announced as the CPM candidate for Madurai. The review states that the party’s Tamil Nadu parliamentary-candidate list, released on March 15 as part of the DMK alliance, named Venkatesan for Madurai and former MP P. R. Natarajan for Coimbatore. On that basis, it concludes that the post’s statement about his candidacy was accurate and that the welcome post followed the announcement. (S1: “மார்ச் 15ம் தேதியன்று, திமுக கூட்டணியில் இடம்பெற்றுள்ள சிபிஐ(எம்) கட்சி சார்பாக, தமிழகத்தில் போட்டியிடும் நாடாளுமன்ற வேட்பாளர்கள் பட்டியல் வெளியிடப்பட்டது.”; “அதில், எழுத்தாளர் சு.வெங்கடேசன் மதுரையில் போட்டியிடுவார் என்றும், கோவையில் முன்னாள் நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் பி.ஆர்.நடராஜன் போட்டியிடுவார் என்றும் கூறப்பட்டிருந்தது.”)

FACTLYElections & voting

అభ్యర్థుల కంటే NOTA కి ఎక్కువ ఓట్లు వస్తే ఆ ఎన్నిక రద్దు అవ్వుతుంది. మళ్ళీ ఎన్నికలు వస్తాయి. అప్పుడు మీకు నచ్చిన అభ్యర్థికి ఓటు వెయ్యండి. ప్రజాస్వామ్యాన్ని కాపాడండి.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post claims that if NOTA receives more votes than any candidate, the election will be cancelled and held again, allowing voters to choose a candidate in a new poll. FACTLY’s review addresses that specific claim and says the election would not be cancelled on that basis. It explains that the Returning Officer declares the candidate with the most votes among those who contested as the winner, even if NOTA has more votes than each individual candidate. To check the claim, FACTLY reports searching Google and locating a 2013 Election Commission of India press release explaining NOTA. The review says that the release cites Clause (a) of Rule 64 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, read with Section 65 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. FACTLY applies that rule to the scenario in the post: the officer declares the candidate who leads among the contestants elected; a higher NOTA total does not trigger cancellation or a fresh election. Thus, the post’s proposed consequence—cancelling the election and holding another one—is contradicted by the procedure described in the review. The decisive distinction is between NOTA’s total and the relative vote totals of the candidates: the review says the candidate with the most votes among the candidates wins, even when NOTA exceeds each candidate’s tally.

FACTLYElections & voting

Surveys predict the victory of Telugu Desam Party in the upcoming Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections-2019

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned an image circulating on Facebook that purported to show a 2019 Andhra Pradesh Assembly election survey report and predicted a Telugu Desam Party (TDP) victory. FACTLY checked whether the figures in that image matched the findings attributed to the named survey agencies and television channels. Its conclusion was that the image was fake, rather than an authentic survey-based prediction of a TDP win. The review describes two comparisons. The image assigned 126 seats to TDP and 49 to YSRCP under India TV-CNX, whereas the figures the review says India TV-CNX actually released were 100 for YSRCP and 45 for TDP. For NewsX, the image gave TDP 122 seats and YSRCP 51, while the review reports the channel’s figures as 92 for TDP and 77 for YSRCP. In both cases, the image’s numbers differed from those attributed to the source it named. The review also reports that some agencies named in the circulating material had not disclosed Andhra Pradesh Assembly survey findings by that point. It specifically says CSDS clarified it had released no findings and that a report circulating in its name was fake. Taken together, the stated comparisons and CSDS clarification support the review’s assessment that the circulated survey report was not authentic; the excerpt does not establish a general forecast from all surveys about who would win the election.