This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
I wonder where to put the negative reactions to the Presidential decision to held early elections. In this article or in the 2008 Ukrainian political crisis article (or both), I think it belongs in this article. It seems that a lot of members (read party's) of Yuchenko's bloc (OU-PSD) think it was a bad move [1][2]. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy head of Supreme Administrative Court hospitalized with heart attack
In Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2008#Public opinion polls we had the statement "Political parties or election blocs need to collect at least 3% of the national vote in order to gain seats in parliament" linked to OU's 1.8% support in the KIS October poll. The statement is correct, but incomplete. To enter parliament a party must gain 3% of the vote cast for all parties - votes against all parties don't count and of course people whose intention is not to vote don't count either, and those whose intentions are not yet known can only be assumed to follow the trend of those who have already decided. Thus when analysing opinon poll data, the 1.8% support for OU must be evaluated as a proportion of the total % support for all parties, which is 46.1% of those polled. Thus the support for the parties is divided as follows:
BYuT 14.7% out of 46.1% = 31.9%
PR 17.4% out of 46.1% = 37.7%
OU-PSD 1.8% out of 46.1% = 3.9%
CPU 4.6%% out of 46.1% = 10.0%
LB 2.3% out of 46.1% = 5.0%
SPU 0.8% out of 46.1% = 1.7%...
OU's proportion of the productive vote is above 3% so on this basis it would enter the VR. In fact the significant point to be understood when looking at OU's 1.8% support compared to earlier polls cited in the article is that in the KIS poll support for OU and PSD was measured separately; I've therefore changed the single * (3%) to **** (PSD separate) -- Timberframe (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted 3 polls (Razumkov center (31.01-05.02),R&B (01.02-08.02) and Sofiya center (06.02-13.02)) since the say nearly the same ass the FOM poll from Februari and we don't know how they calculated the results. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Parties or blocs which have obtained at least 3% of the vote are in bold" appears to pre-judge the outcome of the election; I wonder if it relates to the 2007 election. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number in parentheses is the number of candidates the said party put forth to get into the Verkhovna Rada. Parties or blocs which have obtained at least 3% of the vote are in bold.[data missing]
This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.
Communist Party of Ukraine (444)
Party of Regions (450)
Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (403)
Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc (401)
All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom" (351)
Lytvyn's Bloc (260)
Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (447)
Socialist Party of Ukraine (282)
All-Ukrainian Party of People's Trust (86)
Party of National Economic Development of Ukraine (136)
Bloc "All-Ukrainian Community" (103)
Electoral bloc of Liudmyla Suprun – Ukrainian Regional Asset (387)
Party of Free Democrats (85)
Communist Party of Ukraine (renewed) (41)
Peasant's Bloc "Agricultural Ukraine" (136)
Party of Greens of Ukraine (147)
Ukrainian People's Bloc (213)
Electoral bloc of political parties "KUCHMA" (168)
[4] Deputy President’s Chief of Staff Andriy Kyslynskiy says the snap poll will take place as soon as the economic situation improves and he claims that any format of parliamentary coalition is acceptable as of today. Should this be put in the article or is what a Deputy President’s Chief says not noticible? I'm not sure myself and UNIAN is the only source I could find for this rather interesting piece of news. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup of article now that there is a new coalition
Now that there is a coalition and new elections seem not for tomorrow I think it is time for a clean-up. I suggest this article only keeps the Public opinion polls & Election time line sections and a small Political crisis section and that the rest be moved too 2008 Ukrainian political crisis. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The polls of Democratic Initiatives Foundation Methodology & National institute of strategic researches of Ukraine shows a sure victory by the Party of Regions (PoR). I never heard of them and I don't know witch newspaper used them. Are the reliable institutes or are the paid by someone to make PoR look big? That would be a typical post-Soviet trick according to the book: Virtual Politics - Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World, Andrew Wilson, Yale University Press, 2005, ISBN0-300-09545-7. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This event did not happen and this article should be deleted, There is too much false and misleading information to fix it. All issues are covered in the 2008 Crisis article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukr-Trident (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is much polls in the table I am adding new data on the left of the table, right to the name of party and last election data so it is much eastier to track updates.Datastat (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a new table is necessary as the politically Ukraine has changed when the 2004 political reform was declared void by the Constitution Court in 2010. There are no electoral blocs any longer, therefore all the date is incorrect and should be revised, not to mention that the table itself is ridiculous in its design. The table has lost its practical value. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aleksandr, here above you speak of "no electoral blocs any longer". Although this was the case in the 2010 local elections, I have seen no election law for the parliamentary election 2012, just a date has been set, and for the 2010 local elections a election law was made at the last moment. It could be that blocs would be allowed to run in 2012... Just as in 2002.
Yea, you are correct. I confused electoral blocs with a coalition principal, I guess. It is kind of a tricky concept. I am thinking that the event mostly touched the executive branch of the government rather than changed anything for the parliament. On the other hand the ratings are not effective for the wikipedia article, in my opinion, particularly of such a length. They do provide a certain perspective, however, who really needs it he knows where to look for it. I think a simple reflection with a reference to an analytic source would be sufficient to disclose the situation on such as issue. Thank you for inviting me to your discussion. Also, if I may comment, I think there (in Ukraine) are starting to develop dual, at the most triple party representation in parliament. It certainly takes quite some time, but if one looks at the ratings he or she might see the pattern. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, here is a good article about Political parties in Ukraine #2365-14 (active). Too bad it is in Ukrainian. The article mentions that Ministry of Justice sent an inquiry to Central Election Commission for the information on status of political parties' activities since 2002. Considering that elections will take place at the end of 2012 (after Euro-2012:) there is plenty of time to make some changes.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one!LokiiT seems to enjoy making "informational graphics" about Ukraine. Click here to see them. Shall we ask him to make a chart with the polls by Razumkov Centre (they seem most reliable and non-partisan)? Or at least the beginning of one (a chart with only timeliness (dates) and percentages I mean) since I have no idea how to make one... Yes I think that Ukraine's political landscape is also transforming into "something new", but what? I have no idea, let's wait and see. Sorry for the long wait for response.. I got distracted... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me!17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should limit the number of polls in this article to 2 a year and the “latest available” to make it best readable; a couple of months ago this article had about 20 polls and that did make them unreadable (at least for me…)… I suggest the next poll will be a December 2011 one (so to see if the new election law made any changes) and one from another company then Sociological group "RATING" for diversity. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any news stories about this? It has already been 3.25 hours since polls closed, and still no official results. I'm from Canada, where official results (not exit polls) start trickling in 30 minutes after polls close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.111.98 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Details on the 2012 districting, compared with the 2002 districting and with an assessment of the fairness of the districting exercise (gerrymandering or not?) can be found at IFES.--Bancki (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this statement comes from a misunderstanding because I found a source in which somebody wrote "turnout was up to 100% in Horlivka" but the real story is far less impressive than the wording of that sentence may make you believe.
