Home / OPINION / Analysis / Montenegro Population Statistics and Voting Lists Inconsistency
Wikipedia

Montenegro Population Statistics and Voting Lists Inconsistency

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As of August 1, 2016 the total population of Montenegro (Table 1) equals to 622.813 persons (column 3), of which n=53.124 are preschool children (4), n=98.351 are school pupils (5), the children who do not attend school are n=5.364 (6). Consequently, the number of citizens over the age of 18 years who are entitled to vote equals 465.974 persons. (8).

The problem, however, is that the voting list prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, shows the number of citizens entitled to vote and registered on the voting lists as 529.993 persons, as of August 2016 (9). This number – by 64.019 persons (10) goes over the country’s officially registered population number.

Administrative unit Total population Preschool children School pupils Children who do not attend school Total (p.4 +p.5 +p.6) Persons entitled to vote (p.3-p.7) August 2016 number of voters Difference

p.9-p.8

Percent

9/8

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Andriievica 4.980 350 656 39 1.045 3,935 4,251 +316 108.03
2 Bar 43,708 3,738 4,641 332 10,711 32,697 31,963 +5,166 116,11
3 Berane 32,838 2,845 6,027 422 9,294 23,544 30,135 +6,591 127,99
4 Bijelo polje 44,292 3,919 7,457 313 11,749 32,543 40,672 +8,129 124,98
5 Budva 20,301 1,959 3,090 124 5,173 15,128 16,453 +1,325 108,76
6 Danilovgrad 18,421 1,263 2,441 73 3,177 14,644 12,846 -1,798 87,72
7 Zabliak 3,315 204 430 13 647 2,668 3,205 +537 120,13
8 Kolasiin 7,783 535 1,066 43 1,644 6,139 6,703 +564 109,19
9 Kotor 12,656 1,960 3,222 97 5,279 17,377 18,137 +760 104,37
10 Moikovac 8,126 521 1,411 42 1,9741 6,152 7,233 +1,081 117,57
11 Niksic 70,945 5,760 11,246 562 17,568 53,377 58,365 +5,488 110,28
12 Plav 12,741 987 2,615 157 3,759 8,582 13,741 +4,759 137,66
13 Pluzinje 1,851 141 359 14 514 2,337 2,600 +263 111,25
14 Plievlia 28,919 1,521 4,076 163 5,760 13,159 26,612 +3,453 114,91
15 Podgorica 145,046 18,454 31,622 2,114 52,290 142,756 156,432 +13,767 109,57
16 Rozaje 23,170 2,484 4,338 160 7,082 16,088 21,893 +5,805 136,08
17 Tivat 14,442 1,225 2,063 103 3,391 11,051 11,235 +184 101,67
18 Ulcinij 20,073 1,598 3,332 100 5,030 15,043 19,760 +4,717 131,36
19 Herceg Novi 30,754 2,337 4,024 161 6,522 24,232 25,110 +878 103,62
20 Cetinje 15,960 1,205 1,063 62 3,330 12,630 14,456 +1,826 114,46
21 Savinac 1,192 118 172 10 300 1,492 1,700 +208 113,94
I 622,813 53,124 98,351 5,364 156,839 465,974 529,993 +64,019 113,74

Table 1: Total population of Montenegro as at August 1, 2016

The analysis of the number of citizens in the voting age bracket (18+), and the number of people holding Montenegrin citizenship and the respective right to vote (Table 2), returns even more curious results.

Out of 465.974 citizens of voting age (column 3), 3.873 have a dual citizenship (4), and 23.946 persons are citizens of another country (i.e. no right to vote).

As a result, the number of Montenegrin citizens of voting age (18+) amounts to 438.191 persons (7), while the difference in number of voters entered on the electoral registers amounts to 91.802 persons. (9).

Name of administrative unit Voters number Increase in the voters number during the most recent election Increase in the voters number since 1990 to 2016 Sum

(5+4)

Voters number

(3-6)

Total population Difference

(8-7)

%

(8:7)

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

1 Andriievica

3,935

32 165 197 3,738 4,251 +513 113,72
2 Bar

32,697

245 3,519 3,764 28,933 37,963 +9,030

131,21

3 Berane

23,544

208 898 1,106 22,438 30,135 +7,697

134,30

4 Bijelo polje

32,543

292 422 714 31,829 40,672 +8,843

127,78

5 Budva

15,128

101 2,713 2,814 12,314 16,453 +4,139

133,61

6 Danilovgrad

14,644

118 710 828 13,816 12,846 -970

92,98

7 Zabliak

2,668

25 29 54 2,614 3,205 +591

122,61

8 Kolasin

6,139

56 184 240 5,899 6,703 +804

113,63

9 Kotor

17,377

143 1,132 1,275 16,102 18,137 +2,035

112,64

10 Moikovac

6,152

58 50 108 6,044 7,233 +1,189

119,67

11 Nikisic

53,377

471 1,159 1,630 51,747 58,865 +7,118

113.76

12 Plav

8,982

80 212 292 8,690 13,741 +5,051

158.12

13 Pluzine

2,377

23 26 49 2,288 2,600 +312

113.64

14 Plevlia

23,159

209 497 706 22,453 26,612 +4,159

118.52

15 Podgorica

142,756

1,136 6,683 7,819 134,937 156,423 +21,486

115.92

16 Rozaje

16,088

130 263 393 15,695 21,983 +6,198

139.49

17 Tivat

11.051

79 1,392 1,471 9,580 11,235 +1,655

117.28

18 Ulcinj

15.043

123 749 872 14,171 19,760 +5,589

139.44

19 Herceg Novi

24,234

176 2,972 3,148 21,084 25,110 +4,026

119.10

20 Cetinje

12,630

117

148

265 12,365 14,456 +2,091

116.91

21 Savinac

1,492

15 23 38 1,454 1,700 +246

116.92

 

 

465,374 3,837 23,946 27,783 437,591 529,993 92,401

121.12

Table 2: Comparative summary of country’s total population and the voters’ numbers

 

The comparative summary of the country’s total population and the voters’ number (Table 3) shows that the maximum growth of the total population (column 3) from 1990 to 2016 equals to 10,848 persons (average of 434 persons per annum), and the increase in the voters’ number for the same period (4) equals 127,132 persons (average of 5,085 persons per annum).

№ п/п Election Total population Voters number Difference

(4-3)

%

(4:3)

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1990 – Parliamentary 611.965 402.861 -209.104 65.83
2 1992– Parliamentary 615.459 429.047 -186.412 69.71
3 1996– Parliamentary 617.168 449.824 -167.344 72.89
4 1997 – Parliamentary, 1st round 617.587 461.754 -155.833 74.77
5 1997 – Parliamentary, 2nd round 617.587 470.487 -147.100 76.18
6 1998– Parliamentary 618.016 457.633 -160.383 74.05
7 2001– Parliamentary 619.291 447.673 -171.618 72.29
8 2002– Parliamentary 619.715 455.791 -163.924 73.55
9 2006 – Referendum 620.102 484.718 -135.384 78.17
10 2006– Parliamentary 620.087 484.430 -135.657 78.12
11 2008– Parliamentary 620.073 490.412 -129.661 79.09
12 2009– Parliamentary 620.058 498.305 -121.753 80.36
13 2012– Parliamentary 621.207 514.055 -107.152 82.75
14 2014 – Elections 621.810 515.905 -105.895 82.97
15 2016 – Avgust 622.813 529.993 -92.820 85.10

Table 3: Crna Gora / Montenegro

Comparative analysis of the population growth rates and the increase in the number of voters in the communities shows that, in some of them, the ratio of these indicators results in absurd figures, as shown below:

– In Bijelo Polje (Table 4) population (column 3) is n=44.292 persons, voters (4) are n=40.672 persons, and the difference (5) equals n=3.620 persons.

– In Rožaje (Table 5) population (4) is n=23.170 persons, voters (4) are n=21.893 persons, and the difference (5) equals n=1.277 persons.

– In Ulcinj (Table 6) population (4) is n=20.063 persons, voters (5) are n=19.760 persons, and the difference (5) equals to n=303 persons.

As seen from the tables, the number of voters in the vote lists in the communities of Bijelo Polje, Rožaje and Ulcinj, almost equals the total population number. However, in the Plav unit (Table 7) the voters’ number is by thousand (n=1.000) persons higher than the total number of inhabitants of that community (i.e. population n=12.741 persons, voters n=13.741 persons).

The analysis of the statistical data presented here does not draw any political conclusions. The purpose is to make simple arithmetic calculations and draw attention to the fact that in the recent years there has been an outpacing growth in the number of voters in relation to the growth of the total population.

Analysts also note that the significant difference in population growth numbers and number of voters may be interpreted as the falsification of the vote-eligible citizens’ lists in order to use those “extra” votes for the electoral outcome manipulation.

It is noteworthy that these inflated figures started to rise significantly after the 2006 referendum. This is probably linked to the fact that the popularity of the governing party at the time had already began to decline, creating a need for additional votes to ensure electoral victory.

Moreover, given the exact percentages of the tabular data, the percentage of the ratio of voter number and overall population growth is much higher than the average admissible statistical bias rates.

The data shown in Tables 4-7 give rise to reasonable doubt with regard to the validity of the voters’ lists, and in the case of the community of Plav they require verification not only by the the National Electoral Commission, but also by investigating authorities, both national and international.