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.

5,413 published reviews in this topic

FACTLYElections & voting

Home Minister Amit Shah asked people not to vote for BJP candidate Manoj Nirbhaysingh of Depalpur in Madhya Pradesh.

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The post presents Amit Shah as telling voters not to elect BJP candidate Manoj Nirbhaysingh in Depalpur, Madhya Pradesh. FACTLY examined a video of Shah’s speech at a public meeting in Depalpur on 11 November 2023. Its review reports that the viral clip was edited, and that the words appearing to reject Nirbhaysingh’s election were not the complete statement. To check the clip, FACTLY says it found a full recording of the meeting on Shah’s official website and YouTube channel, as well as on BJP’s official Facebook page. The review says it watched the full video and identified the viral segment at 7:40–7:59. In that segment, Shah says, “do not vote to make Manoj Nirbhaysingh MLA.” But, according to the review, he continues by explaining that a vote for Nirbhaysingh would affect Madhya Pradesh’s development and security, and that the voter’s choice would help shape a BJP government and Modi’s “double-engine government.” That continuation changes the meaning conveyed by the clipped segment: the review’s account is that Shah was urging a vote for Nirbhaysingh, not against him. The post therefore omits the context that resolves the apparent contradiction in Shah’s words.

Fact CrescendoElections & voting

Claim: Uttar Pradesh campaign video of Akhilesh Yadav being shared on Madhya Pradesh election

Publisher’s rating: ஃபேக்ட் கிரஸண்டோ ரேட்டிங்: FALSE

The claim concerned a video shared as showing Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav campaigning in Madhya Pradesh during the 2023 assembly election. The review notes that the Facebook post described it as a Madhya Pradesh campaign and that the banner visible in the video referred to 2022, prompting the investigators to check whether the footage came from an earlier election instead. The review identifies 2022 as the year of the Uttar Pradesh assembly election.

Folha de S.PauloElections & voting

Vídeo em que uma mesária mostra uma série de números dispostos no terminal utilizado para verificar informações sobre a urna eletrônica. Ela alega que os numerais apontam que o eleitor teria votado duas vezes: uma para cada candidato. Em seguida, um homem comenta o vídeo afirmando que as urnas estariam programadas para dar a vitória a Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT). Sobre o vídeo, está a inscrição “fraude”.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerns a video in which numbers displayed on a poll-worker terminal are presented as evidence that one voter’s vote was counted twice, once for each candidate. The review says the video was old and had already been rebutted by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and fact-checking agencies. It explains that the figures shown refer to polling-place attendance and biometric information—not individual votes. The terminal is used to recognize voters’ fingerprints, and the vote itself is secret. (S1: “O vídeo é antigo e já foi desmentido pelo próprio TSE (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral) e por agências de checagem.”; “os números que aparecem no painel são referentes à quantidade de eleitores que compareceram à seção, total de pessoas que votam naquele local, eleitores que tiveram problemas na coleta da biometria e quantitativo de pessoas com digital cadastradas que compareceram à seção.”) The review further states that the terminal can show general information about the electronic voting machine, including its battery level and how long a voter takes to vote, but cannot reveal how that person voted. That distinction directly undercuts the video’s inference: the displayed figures do not establish that an individual voted twice or that the machine recorded a vote for either candidate. (S1: “A partir dele também é possível acompanhar informações gerais sobre a urna eletrônica, como o nível de bateria e o tempo que o eleitor leva para votar.”; “Não é possível obter qualquer dado sobre o voto do cidadão, que é sigiloso.”)

FACTLYElections & voting

The Congress party has adopted the symbol of Islam as its election symbol

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY examined a social-media post alleging that Congress had chosen “the symbol of Islam” as its election symbol. The review identifies Congress’s current symbol as an open hand and says it found similar images through a reverse image search. It identifies those images as “Panja Alam,” a religious object used in Muharram processions, and notes that the hand form is considered especially sacred. The review’s key qualification is that visual resemblance does not establish why Congress chose its symbol: it says there is no evidence that the party selected the hand because of Panja Alam. The review traces Congress’s election symbols to distinguish the party’s history from the claim about an Islamic origin. It reports that Congress used a pair of oxen carrying a yoke in the 1951–52 election, that Indira Gandhi’s Congress(R) used the cow-calf emblem from 1971 to 1977, and that Congress(I) adopted the open hand for the 1980 election. Thus, the hand was not the party’s original election symbol. For the hand’s reported inspiration, FACTLY describes the Emur Bhagwati (Hemambika) temple in Palakkad, Kerala, where the deity is represented by hands blessing worshippers. It says Soundara Kailasam told Indira Gandhi about the temple and that this is believed to have influenced the adoption of the hand symbol. The review also reports that Gandhi visited the temple in 1982, after the election. Its conclusion is that the resemblance to a religious symbol is not evidence that Congress adopted it as an Islamic symbol.