From September 12 to 14, 2025, Russia goes to the polls: governors are being elected in 20 regions, regional parliaments in 13 federal subjects (the administrative entities of the Russian Federation), along with numerous municipal assemblies and several local referendums.
Governors are chosen by direct universal suffrage: each voter expresses their preference among the registered candidates in their region, and the one with the most votes becomes head of the regional executive for a five-year term. Regional parliaments, on the other hand, are composed through mixed systems: part of the deputies are elected proportionally on party lists, while another part is chosen in single-member districts by simple majority. At the same time, many cities and districts are holding municipal elections with direct voting for local representatives.
Within this broad and complex framework, the real novelty attracting the attention of public opinion, institutions, and observers is the large-scale introduction of remote electronic voting, known in Russian as DEG. This is not the first time Russia has experimented with digital voting, but never before has the experiment been so extensive and structured: over 1.7 million participation requests have come from 24 regions of the country, and more than one million votes were already cast through the platform in the first days of opening. The Central Election Commission emphasizes that the system is running without interruptions, that the vybory.gov.ru platform has proven stable, and that voters are accessing it without particular obstacles, thanks to authentication through the state portal Gosuslugi. These results are presented as signs of technological maturity and organizational reliability, and it is no coincidence that the highest turnout so far has been recorded in Moscow, Tambov, and Kursk.
Elections in Russia have always been a moment of great political significance, a testing ground for the electoral machine, but also an opportunity to experiment with new models of participation. In the past, the “Mobile Voter” project was introduced, which allowed citizens away from their registered region to vote through special procedures. However, that system presented notable limits, especially when dealing with multiple single-member constituencies or large numbers of paper ballots, making its application complicated and sometimes ineffective. With DEG, the aim is to take a qualitative leap, not only technical but also symbolic, because electronic voting is not meant to fully replace paper voting but to serve as an additional tool, aimed especially at citizens living far from their place of residence, those who temporarily live or work in other cities, who do not want to give up their right to vote even if they cannot go to their traditional polling station.
One of the most discussed innovations of this election cycle is the creation of extraterritorial polling stations in the capital. For the first time, voters from 19 regions can cast their votes for their governors not in their own region, but at special polling points set up in Moscow. Twelve state service centers inside large shopping malls, a hotel complex, and even a metro station have been equipped with terminals connected to the remote electronic voting system.
This is where the particularity of these elections lies, the detail that is catching the public imagination and media attention: the first polling station set up inside the Moscow metro, at Kurskaya station. Photos released by news agencies show the DEG terminals with metro signage clearly visible above the stations. This gesture is more than symbolic, as it brings voting into an everyday urban space, a passageway used daily by millions of people, a vital hub of the city that also becomes a democratic hub. It is not only a matter of convenience, but of meaning: voting is no longer confined to traditional administrative spaces, but comes closer to citizens’ real lives, entering the places they frequent and becoming part of their routine.
Vladimir Popov, secretary of the Moscow Election Commission, presents this initiative as an improvement of the “Mobile Voter” project, made possible thanks to the regulatory, methodological, and technical developments of recent years. Popov notes that, thanks to the new system, there is no longer a need to handle the complexity of distributing and managing 19 different paper ballots in a single polling station, as would have been inevitable with traditional methods. On the contrary, now people vote calmly, without crowds or long waits, in a quick and digital process. Traditional transparent ballot boxes remain available for those voting with paper ballots, alongside electronic ballot boxes KOIB (electronic ballot scanners), which automatically read and record the inserted ballots. This is why in images and videos from the election both models are seen side by side: Russia is maintaining a mixed system, allowing voters to choose between classic in-person voting, local digital support, or fully remote voting via DEG.
Naturally, questions and criticisms are not absent. The Central Election Commission recommends voters use wired connections rather than mobile networks to minimize risks of interruptions. Tests and stress checks have been carried out to ensure system security, but every technology raises questions. If electronic voting is more convenient, it is also less verifiable with traditional methods. On a practical level, another issue is unequal access: not everyone has the digital skills or credentials to register and use the system independently. For this reason, extraterritorial polling stations equipped with assisted terminals are presented as a halfway solution: a physical place where, however, voting is carried out electronically, under the supervision of trained staff. It is an interesting hybrid, combining the tradition of the polling station with the innovation of digital voting.
The Tambov region has the highest number of requests for electronic voting in Moscow, followed by Kursk and Bryansk. This reflects socio-economic dynamics: these are regions from which many citizens temporarily move to the capital for work or study, and therefore benefit from the ability to vote without returning home. For these people, DEG represents a concrete opportunity for participation.
Politically, the introduction of remote electronic voting is presented by the authorities as a modernization of the Russian electoral process. It is a signal to citizens, but also to the outside world: Russia is not lagging behind technologically, but is instead experimenting with solutions that elsewhere remain only on paper. The fact that a polling station has been opened inside the Moscow metro becomes a metaphor for voting that travels with society, that permeates its everyday spaces, and that adapts to modern times.
It is worth adding an important clarification: in this election cycle, DEG does not close before the opening of physical polling stations but remains active in parallel during the entire voting window, from 8 a.m. on the first day to 8 p.m. on the last. To prevent anyone from voting twice, the system provides that those registered for electronic voting are placed on a separate list and do not receive a paper ballot at the physical polling station. The Election Commission has also implemented a control algorithm capable of blocking in real time any attempts at double voting. In this way, the risk of duplication is neutralized at the source, without needing to close online voting in advance.
A useful comparison is with the United States, where the electoral system remains tied to tools that many observers consider obsolete. In recent years there has been heavy reliance on mail-in voting, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, when millions of ballots were sent by post. This method expanded participation but raised doubts about security and timeliness: ballots could be lost, arrive late, be contested in court, trigger recounts, and generate endless disputes. In 2020 and 2022, there were indeed cases of ballots arriving after election day, debates over unclear signatures, and mutual accusations of fraud. The slowness of the postal process and the fragmentation of state rules increased distrust among part of the American electorate, fueling a climate of polarization and suspicion.
The Russian model of remote electronic voting, despite risks linked to cybersecurity, offers greater speed and technical traceability in comparison: the voter authenticates via the Gosuslugi state portal, accesses the centralized vybory.gov.ru platform, votes, and immediately receives confirmation. Data are collected in real time, reducing the margin of logistical errors typical of paper-based management. There are no physical ballots to transport and no manual counts to verify days later. In essence, the difference is between a system vulnerable to external factors such as postal delays or legal disputes, and a system designed to function uniformly, quickly, and in an integrated way across the country. From this perspective, Russia positions itself as a laboratory of modernization, while the United States, despite its image as a technological innovator, appears tied to twentieth-century electoral procedures. The polling station in the Moscow metro thus becomes a powerful metaphor: voting entering daily life with a click, to the rhythm of modernity, while on the other side of the Atlantic people are still waiting for the mailman.
At the same time, however, DEG raises concerns regarding trust. Without the possibility of physically observing the ballot count, as with paper voting, citizens must trust the platform, institutions, and digital controls. Not everyone is ready to take this step. Some traditionalist voters still prefer to go to the polling station and insert a ballot into the box, a tangible act that for many embodies the very essence of voting. This is where the future of DEG will be decided: will it consolidate as a participation tool without undermining the trust that paper voting, despite its limits, has maintained for centuries?
From an organizational standpoint, the September 12-14, 2025 elections demonstrate that the system can withstand a significant load, with millions of requests and hundreds of thousands of simultaneous accesses. Authorities state that no significant malfunctions are occurring and that data flows are being handled correctly. It is likely that this success will encourage a gradual extension of the model, with more regions adopting DEG in future elections.
Ultimately, remote electronic voting in Russia is still an evolving experiment, but one that is becoming increasingly widespread, structured, and integrated into everyday life. As with all aspects of digitalization in Russia, nothing is imposed from above—unlike in parts of Europe—so everyone can choose whether to take advantage of digital convenience or prefer the classic ballot.
The 2025 election cycle will be remembered not only for its political results but also for the mark left by an innovation that is putting voting directly into the hands of citizens, wherever they are—even in the depths of the Moscow metro. The image of these elections could well be the young manager living 2,000 kilometers from home casting his vote at Kurskaya metro station, while his grandmother simultaneously goes to her local polling station to vote just as she has done her entire life. Russia innovates, but it does not force anyone to abandon traditional methods through a digitalization imposed from above.
