Monday, May 26, 2008

Bad day for BYuT

Leonid Chernovetsky, by obtaining about 36% of votes cast, has won a handsome victory in the Kyiv mayoral elections. His two nearest opponents, BYuT's Oleksandr Turchynov and boxer Vitaliy Klychko received about 18% each. There's no two ways about this - for Yulia Tymoshenko and for BYuT, who forced the early elections, the result is a major set-back. There will, no doubt, be much political gloating in the Chernovetsky camp.

Other 'democratic' candidates faired badly too, and it looks as if the PoR candidate will barely achieve 3% of the votes.

As to the future of Ukraine's national politics, one commentator says, "..it is important on how Party of Regions [now] conducts itself. If it decides it is necessary to support Yushchenko in order to 'finish off' Tymoshenko, they could be next [in power]. If it makes the right choice, by Autumn we will have political stability."

Last Friday Yulia Tymoshenko attended a heads of CIS conference in Minsk and had a meeting with Russian premier Vladimir Putin. There are reports she may agree to Russia's Black Sea fleet continuing to use its naval base on the Crimean peninsula after 2017, and may 'back pedal' on Ukraine's entry into NATO in exchange for Putin's support in the next presidential elections in Ukraine. This was part of a discussion on an acceptable price for Russian gas...

4 comments:

Fairvote said...

Democratic in Name alone.

The Kyiv Municipal elections are a blow to the government and were a total wast of limited resources. Proposed fresh elections in Kharkiv must now seriously be under revision.

What needs to be noted is that the incumbent and winning candidate did not receive an absolute majority. The elections results were also a mortal blow to NU and the President who actively campaigned to undermine the so called "Democratic" cause.

Ukraine needs to seriously consider the need to adopt a host of elecoral reforms, one being the adoption of a preferential voting system.

If no candidate has an absolute majority (50% or more) then the candidate with the lowest vote is excluded from the count and their votes are redistibuted according to the voter's nominated preference. This process continues until a candidate has an absolute majority. One round of voting with same result as the two round ballot.

More information

http://fairvote.org

The USA, Britain and Canada should also give consideration to the adoption of a preferential "Instant RunOff" voting system. The fiurst-past-the-post system is a rellic from the 19th century, designed at a time when people could not read or write

Just look at the situation in the US primaries and the millions of dollars spent in deciding who will be elected President.

Gene said...

Preferential voting is a VERY, VERY bad idea as your vote could count for someone you are opposed to. In preferential voting you rate the candidates. If there are 5, they each get a rating. It could be there is only one candidate you support or possibly two. In preferential voting all the candidates will get a share of your vote. This makes no sense and is wrong. Why should someone I oppose get a portion of my vote?

I agree that a candidate should receive 50%+, but that can be obtained by a runoff election between the top two vote receivers.

fairvote said...

Gene, you are showing a complete ignorance in how voting systems work. I suggest you take time to study the basis of the system before you make such ill informed comments.

The preferential system produces the same result as the two round voting system but with only one round of voting.

Under the current first past the post system if two candidates with similar platform stand then they cancel out each other. One candidate could have 40% of the other candiates could have 35% and 25% percent each supporting the other respectively as the preferred candidate to the first. Together they have 60% support. Who should be elected? The candidate with 40%?

Under a preferential system the candidate with 25% would be excluded and their vote is redistributed according to the voters nominated preference.

Which is a more democratic elected outcome? Electing a candidate on 60% of the vote or electing a candidate with only 40%.

You need more informtaion check out the http;//fairvte.org web site

Anonymous said...

Why would you have two rounds of voting when you can achieve EXCTALY the same result with one round at half the cost. Instant Run-Off preferntiual voting is the way to go.