The document assesses the 2012 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, detailing four phases: defining electoral rules, the pre-election campaign, the vote process, and translating votes into seats. It highlights issues such as a mixed electoral system, restricted media access for opposition, and widespread misuse of resources, along with overall smooth voting and voter turnout comparable to previous years. Ultimately, the election results showed a relative majority for the ruling party, with concerns raised about the transparency and fairness of the vote counting process.

1. ASSESSING
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE
2012
Mykhailo Minakov
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
November 2, 2012

2. ASSESSING ALL FOUR PHASES OF ELECTIONS
• definition of the electoral rules
• pre-election campaign
• the vote
• translation of votes into seats

3. DEFINITION OF THE ELECTORAL RULES
• new electoral Law (November 2011) reinstated a mixed electoral
system
• electoral Law novelties:
• higher party threshold – 5%
• only parties to compete, not blocks of parties
• extended rights of domestic nonpartisan observers
• additional Law on elections (July 2, 2012)
• video cameras in all voting chambers
• Internet transmission of voting process

4. DEFINITION OF THE ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

5. PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN
• party competition
• registration of candidates on party lists at the Central Election Commission has
been rather smooth
• restricted access to media for opposition parties
• majoritarian campaigns
• misuse of administrative resources is widespread
• direct buy of votes
• composition of electoral commissions
• final outcome of lottery did not ensure a balanced DEC composition

6. PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

7. THE VOTE DAY
• smooth voting around the country
• developed registry of voters
• ineffective procedure for correction of the voters’ registry in case
of error
• six exit-polls with more or less equal results
• overall positive assessment of the voting day

8. THE VOTE DAY : EXIT POLLS

9. THE VOTE DAY : VOTER TURNOUT
2012 – 57,98%
2007 – 57,94%
2006 – 58,97%
2002 – 65,22%

10. PROPORTIONAL ELECTIONS RESULTS

11. PROPORTIONAL ELECTIONS RESULTS

12. PROPORTIONAL ELECTIONS RESULTS
• 5 parties to seat in the Parliament
• approx. 6% of votes were given to parties under threshold
• first time ever – relative majority of the ruling party
• two parties with articulate totalitarian ideologies
• United Opposition visibly distantiated from democratic values
• no champions of democracy

13. MAJORITARIAN ELECTIONS RESULTS

14. MAJORITARIAN ELECTIONS RESULTS
• most of manipulations reported in connection with the
majoritarian elections
• outcome in favor of financial groups
• doubtful representation of local constituencies

15. FOUR-DAYS LONG COUNTING NIGHT

16. TRANSLATION OF VOTES INTO SEATS
• non-transparent counting
• slow counting in several districts in comparison with other
districts
• quality of counting process made the whole outcome of elections
questionable

17. TRANSLATION OF VOTES INTO SEATS