OSCE International Election Observation Mission. Ukraine – Presidential Election, Second Round, 21 April 2019

Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions (Ausschnitt)


Election Day

Election day was peaceful, and CEC announced voter turnout of 62.1 per cent, slightly lower than in the first round. The CEC started posting on its website preliminary election results broken down by polling station before 22:00 on election day. The incumbent conceded defeat shortly after the polls closed. The opening was assessed positively in all but 3 of the 182 polling stations observed. With a few exceptions, established procedures were followed. A few polling stations observed opened with slight delays or ahead of time. Voting was assessed positively in 99 per cent of polling stations observed. IEOM assessed that the PECs worked transparently, performed well and almost always adhered to established procedures.

IEOM observers reported only few cases of serious violations such as series of seemingly identical signatures on voter lists (1 per cent), and group voting (2 per cent), and isolated instances of proxy or multiple voting. IEOM observers noted occasional problems with the secrecy of the vote, including voters showing their marked ballots to others present (7 per cent), indications of voters taking pictures of their ballots (1 per cent), or persons other than PEC members keeping track of voters who had voted (2 per cent). All of these could be related to concerns expressed with regard to possible vote-buying. In Ivano-Frankivsk oblast, IEOM observers directly observed a clear case of vote buying in favour of Mr. Zelenskyi. The small size of the runoff ballot resulted in many voters not folding it properly. In 15 per cent of polling station observed, one or more voters were not allowed to vote, most commonly because they could not produce a valid ID or were not on the voter list. IEOM observers reported from 35 polling stations that some voters were allowed to vote without a proper ID. There were significantly fewer observers than in the first round, with candidate observers seen in 33 per cent of polling station observed, and citizen observers in 28 per cent. IEOM observers saw unauthorized persons in 5 per cent of polling stations observed, but they rarely interfered or directed the process. Some 65 per cent of polling stations observed were not accessible for persons with physical disabilities, and the layout of 24 per cent was not suitable for them. IEOM observers reported overcrowding from 2 per cent of polling stations observed. The vote count was assessed positively in 238 of the 264 polling stations observed. Counting was transparent, and the performance of most PECs was assessed positively. Candidate and citizen observers were present at around one third of counts observed. IEOM observers still noted a few procedural errors during the vote count. Procedures were generally followed, although IEOM observers reported that 49 PECs did not perform the count in the prescribed sequence. They also reported that basic reconciliation procedures were again often not followed, including when the PEC did not announce important data, such as the numbers of voters on the voter list (28 cases), voters’ signatures on the voter list (55 cases) or used ballot counterfoils (33 cases). In one quarter of counts observed, the figures established during reconciliation were not entered into the protocol before the PEC opened the ballot boxes. IEOM observers noted 23 cases where the results protocol had been pre-signed by PEC members. These procedural omissions can mostly be explained by lack of training or experience and rarely led to negative assessments by the IEOM observers. Unlike in the first round, the initial stages of the tabulation process were assessed positively, with only two of 205 observations being negative. With few exceptions, the 112 DECs where tabulation was observed followed procedures, and handover and tabulation were transparent, prompt and orderly. IEOM observers reported cases of PEC results protocols that had not been completely filled (63 cases) or did not reconcile (94 cases), with IEOM observers in many cases noting poor training or lack of knowledge of procedures. They also reported from 26 DECs that PEC or DEC members were changing protocol figures at the DEC, which contravenes the law. Conditions at most DECs observed were adequate, with few cases of overcrowding or tension. In 15 cases, IEOM observers could not fully observe the data entry of results, which limited transparency. In 14 cases, IEOM observers were restricted in their observation. In one half of DECs observed, not everybody entitled received copies of the intermediate tabulation protocols. Unlike in the polling stations, citizen and candidate observers were present at the large majority of DECs. As in the first round, almost all of the nine observed cases of interference in the work of DECs were by such observers. […]

Quelle: OSZE, 22.04.2019, https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/417821?download=true.

Zum Weiterlesen


Die Ukraine vor der Präsidentschaftswahl. Ernste Kandidaten für ernste Zeiten?

Von Claudia Kamke, Kristin Wesemann
Die Ukraine wird, so jedenfalls ist es vorgesehen, am 17. Januar 2010 ein neues Staatsoberhaupt wählen. Sollte kein Kandidat die absolute Mehrheit erringen, kommt es in der Woche darauf zur Stichwahl. Den Termin hatte das Verfassungsgericht im Mai 2009 nach langem Tauziehen festgelegt und er wurde Ende Juni 2009 vom Parlament bestätigt. Zunächst hatte das Parlament für den 25. (…)
Zum Artikel

Logo FSO
Logo DGO
Logo DPI
Logo IOS