I returned home yesterday – time is an amazing thing because I left Kyiv at 6:45 a.m. and arrived in Denver just after noon after 15 hours of flying.

Thank you to those of you who have responded with questions about the trip and the election process. I hope I answer below all inquiries about Election Day itself.

If you don’t read everything below, I note that I wish we had the level of commitment to the democratic process we found in Ukraine. The precinct committees had both young and older committee members. These people were dedicated to the election process, having spent several weeks preparing for the election and working about 24 hours on Election Day itself. Paper ballots worked well. Even for the 4th election in three years, turnout was over 60%. Despite the problems, the election was free and transparent, and Ukrainians throughout the day thanked us for being there to assure that remained the case. I hope that the election is not challenged by any of the three ruling parties, but that the parties accept the vote of the people and work together to govern Ukraine.

Election Day

Election Day in Ukraine is a Sunday. In the past, under Soviets, Election Day was a big holiday with food and music – something to attract voters even though it was a one party system. Even today, the polling places try to be festive, with curtains of the blue and yellow Ukrainian colors covering the voting booths. One of the polling stations that we observed even had music playing. (I took a few pictures inside polling stations and hope to post them soon.) We visited polling places in grade schools, technical schools, a hotel and restaurant school, as well as a few public areas like shopping centers. The special polling places are military bases, hospitals and prisons, all of which we also observed.

Election Day starts similarly to those in the U.S. By law, polling places must start the process of opening by 6:15 am. There is a specific method of accounting for ballots and sealing ballot boxes. The polling place is set up so that the voter checks in by their address – street name and building number, with the person’s name, address and birthdate to be verified. Most Ukrainians live in apartments they own where they (or their family) have resided for many years. There are very few single family houses. The voter must present their internal passport as it is the only official identification that contains this information for verification.

Voter Lists

Voter lists this year were very problematic. Updated information from the 2006 election had not been included on the lists. The instances of duplicate names and ‘dead souls’ were also problematic. Because of changes in the law, more voters were disenfranchised this year because there was no absentee voting for anyone, including students or persons out of the country. The only way to vote other than at the polling place is by “mobile voting,” where the precinct committee hand delivers the ballot to the voter. If your name was not on the precinct or mobile voting list by a few days before the election, you were out of luck because the list was closed. No “provisional ballot” was available, and the courts were not taking quick, prompt action for voters in many cases.

Actual voting is from 7 am to 10 pm by paper ballot (the ballot was about 6 inches wide and 24 inches long). Each voter must put their own ballot into the clear ballot box. The first few ballots that went into these clear boxes often unfolded and the voter’s choice could be viewed by all.

We watched our translator’s polling place open, and she voted right at 7 a.m. During our morning observations, we went to our driver’s polling place as well. At 9 p.m., we went to a grade school to observe two polling places – despite the darkened entrance, with no lights marking the driveway, or the doorway, voters were still getting there to vote.

The possibilities for voting fraud are multiple – first, intimidation and influence could easily be imposed upon the mobile voter. Families asked that deceased family members be stricken from the voting lists so that no one could vote in their place. But, if the request was made after the date that the list closed, by law, the precinct commission could not strike the dead person’s name. Duplicate names could also result in voting fraud. We were warned to watch for cell phone cameras going into the voting booth so that a voter could take a picture of their voted ballot to get payment.

Amazingly, very little of this occurred. Overall, Ukrainians had a very successful Election Day, with a fair and transparent election process. What my colleague and I observed in Lviv was generally the case throughout Ukraine: very well run precincts with very little, if any, voter fraud or intimidation. The precinct committees comprised of representatives of four or five parties worked well together. They voted on various issues to resolve them throughout the day. The observers from all the parties also worked well with the precinct committees and each other. At each precinct, it was apparent that there was a goal of a free and transparent election.

On a side note, after the election, we were told of complaints by some voters that they were contacted to get to the polls by one of the ruling parties. They complained that someone knocked at their door or telephoned. I could not help but think that is what we call “Get Out the Vote!”

The “protocol”

The biggest problems occurred with the close of the polls and the completion of the so-called “protocols.” The “protocol” was the form to be completed by each precinct with the information about spoiled ballots, unused ballots, and the vote for each party. The protocol, together with all voted ballots, all unused ballots, spoiled ballots, voting lists and other official documents were counted, taped, sealed and returned to the District Election Commission.

Someone noted that the protocol was like the kind of form that the old Soviets would use – it was required, it was necessary, it had largely useless information, it was time consuming and it was purposefully difficult to correctly complete.

At many precincts throughout Ukraine, it was well after 3 or 4 a.m. before votes were counted and the protocol completed. This means that the precinct workers had been going almost 24 hours. It was hard to be at the top of your game after such a long day. Counting ballots was easy enough, but completing the protocol proved difficult throughout Ukraine. Then, the District Election Commissions had to accept the protocol for the precinct votes to be counted (much like delivering precinct votes to a county election officer).

When we arrived at the District Election Commission, located in the City Council building, it was dark outside but bustling inside. We observed that the District Election Commission took about one-half of the protocols, sending precinct committees back at 4 a.m. to redo the document. (Presumably, the precinct committees were able to redo the form for acceptance by the District, as these votes appeared in the count by the time we left Ukraine.) This was form over substance. We watched the District send back protocols of precinct committees where we had observed a well run and democratic voting process. We observed a correct vote count. What was imperfect in the protocols was information that was not relevant to the outcome of the election, but required in the form itself.

It was clear that the District felt it had to have perfectly completed protocols in order to preserve the election results from being overturned by the courts. In hindsight, it is clear that the protocol should be simplified, and the precinct committees trained in doing the post election procedures.

We returned to our hotel about 5 a.m. – we had exhausted our translator and driver. Though it needs improvement, we were elated about the success of the election process in Ukraine.

annemcgihon's blog | login to post comments