Experts: Proposed election law casts cloud over next year’s parliamentary contest

"Search for new models to develop Ukraine".... but develop Ukraine into WHAT???????

Into a more representative and democratic state. Democracy is not perfect, It is only as good as the system that reflects the diviersity of its people and the methiod used to elect its represenatives. But it is better then the alternative of austrocracy. A parliamentery system of government is aslo more accountable. Unlike under a Presidential system, the executive are held accountable on a daily basis.

Somehow I am having a hard time combining Yanukovich and democracy.....

Yes the same issues existed with Yushchenko.

Yushchenko's proposal was very similar to that put forward by Yanukovych except Yushchenko's  was worst in that he wanted to allocate seats disproportionally. Under Yushchenko's proposal an electorate with just 300,000 constituents would elect the same number of representatives as an electorate with 3 million.

Yushchenko also advocated the use of a First-past-the-post voting system. Whilst both proposals (Yushchenko and Yanukovych's) are bad Yushchenko's would have been the worst and the least democratic.

Thankfully Yushchenko's proposal had no support.

there is no reason to change Ukraine’s existing election legislation. The two last parliamentary elections held under existing rules were recognized internationally as the most democratic ever in Ukraine’s history,

Read more: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/114020/#ixzz1ZjOwtudb

You are a Russian piece of garbage.

I did not realise that the quality of garbage was determined by ethnicity. But the idea of promoting racism is certainly toxic pollution.

Wrong: There is urgent need fro reform. The establishment of local electorates would enhance the accountability of the elected representatives. The adoption of a Single Transferable Proportional represenation voting system would also improve the representatation model.

??????

However Yanukovych is undermining democracy with his current legislation.

Yushenko's proposal was much worst.

Yes the reinstatement of a MMP first-past-the-post (FPTP) mandate will be a backward step and readily allows for manipulation of the outcome of the election. This occurs in Britain, Candidate and the US. under a FPTP voting system the system is wide open to abuse. You can have a candidate "A" that has 34% of the vote and two other candidates "B" and "C" that each have 33% each - Both candidates "B" and "C" are opposed to a policies of candidate "A". Together they represent over 60% of the electorate yet under a first-past-the-post voting system Candidate "A" wins.

The winning side only needs to split the vote by running dummy candidates that might appeal to the supporters of their opposition. This negative voting tactic is widely used in FPTP voting system to deny the opposition the opportunity to win.

Smaller independent parties in particular are the biggest losers as they become the spoilers in the election.

The adoption of a preferential "ranked ballot" voting system allows for smaller party/independent candidates to still run and if not elected their vote can still be counted by being transferred to the next highest polling candidate in order of the preference allocated.

A preferential ballot guarantees that a candidate must receive the prerequisite percentage of votes in order to win a seat. It can be effectively used for both single member and multi-member electorates.

A multi-member electorate is more democratic and representative then a single member electorate.

Single member electorates under a preferential ballot system require the support of 50% or more voters, A multi-member electorate is divided equally in proportion to the number of votes received and the number of positions available.

A nine member electorate would equate to a 10% quota to be elected.

Supporters of candidates that fall short of the quota are not disenfranchised, as their vote can be redistributed according to the voters chosen order of preference to form part of an alternative candidates quota. This is the system referred to as Single Transferable voting (STV) proportional representation. The fairest method of counting an STV ballot is either the Meek or Wright systems. A true one vote one value voting system. Liek all voting system teh rules can be gamed but instead of a negative metghod of unning spoilier candidates you would need to secure a positive responce by having running partners who can assit in directing a voetrs preferences. One is based on a positive recomendation whislt the FPTP system is manipulated by running a deceitful negative campaign.

Having a local based elctorates engages the community and holds the elcted represenatives to account.

The best of both worlds (Local and proportional) can be acheived by establishing local multi-memner electorates. A win win proposal. The main criteria is to esure that each electorate's mandate is equal in size and percentage required to to eletc a represenative. Having a split mandate system (Some elected proportionally and other by a FPTP voting system destroys that nexus of one vote one value).

If there must be a soplit mandate then it is best done by establishing a bicameral parliament with each house having the same basis (Equal) mandates.

“This will be a ‘fabrication of the majority’ to help the ruling party [of Regions],”

Read more: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/114020/20/page/1/#comments#ixzz1ZjPKIUr5

Yushchenko's proposal was very similar to that put forward by Yanukovych except Yushchenko's was worst in that he wanted to allocate seats disproportionally. Under Yushchenko's proposal an electorate with just 300,000 constituents would elect the same number of representatives as an electorate with 3 million.

Yushchenko also advocated the use of a First-past-the-post voting system. Whilst both proposals (Yushchenko and Yanukovych's) are bad Yushchenko's would have been the worst and the least democratic.

Thankfully Yushchenko's proposal had no support.

The only way to stop this law being passed is simple.

All media, tv , print, foreign press, etc......must show up at the Rada the day of the vote and make sure the 225+ vote is legitimate.....that is one member = one vote.....as the Constitution is very clear about.

Look, half the Por oligarch members , Firtash, Ahkmetov, etc, NEVER show up to vote !!!

If the vote is kept honest and lawful, there is no way this bill will be passed.

What is so hard to understand??????

Why is this paper does not write more about the ILLEGAL VOTING ????

Everyone bitches and complains about the decrees and laws Yanuk passes, by ILLEGAL PIANO VOTING, yet nothing is done to stop this voting.

Article 85 is in the Constitution of Ukraine,,,,,,,and Yanuk ignores it ,,,,and everyone gives him their blessing to contiue !!???@@??

He continually passes illegal laws......

And no one does anything to stop him ?????

WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

You can not have one vote one vaoue under a fist=past-the-post votiong system. This system is undemocratic and outdated. A MMP canidate can be elected with as little as 26% of the vote.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I am not referring to elections.....

I am referring to members who have been elected ( Ha) and are sitting in the current Rada.

The PIANO VOTERS are voting up to 20 times for absent members.

This is not how the Constitution is written.

Sect. 3, Article 85 , clearly states.....one vote in person per member........not 10 , 15 or 20 votes per PIANO VOTER.

THE ONE MEMBER = ONE VOTE IS THE FOUNDATION OF A DEMOCRACY , and is written in Ukraines Constitution....j..but is ignored and tolerated by both sides.

WHY ? WHY ?

That's a BS issue. You clutching at straws.

The absentee voting you refer to is not a major issue, It happens in the US legislatures all the time.

If you want change you need to change the foundation of the system and the basis of the mandate given. The system needs to be reflective of the will of the people. This is best achieved by a system of STV proportional representation. The Party List system is flawed in that it does not provide for direct representation. That does not preclude or exclude a proportional voting system per say. The establishment of

smaller local regional electorates would provide for smaller electorates and direct representation without the need to throw out the democratic process of determining who should be elected. One vote- one value means that the system must reflect accurate the outcome of electorate as a whole. Each electorate must have an equal mandate and an equal distribution of support.

The proposal to establish 45 local electorates each electorate returning nine members of parliament elected by a system of proportional representation on a 10% quota would deliver the best possible outcome. It would not be open to manipulation to the extent that a FPTP voting system would be. It would ensure that the people of Ukraine are fairly represented. It is then up to each parity/candidates to secure the prerequisite support.

The Party or coalition that wins a majority of the seats will have the right to govern.

Those dark days are upon us again, and there is no peaceful way out. The people must realize that only they can change the cause of our country by forcefully removing Yanukonvict and his evil gang of criminals.

Correction: Ukraine needs to rempve power aned authroity from teh Office of the president and follow in Latvia and Estonia's foot steps and adopt a full Parliamnetary system of governance. Then address serious shortfalls with Ukraine's judiciary. It needs to relay the foundation stones and rebuild a democratic state.

Yes the proposed parliamentary electoral reform is a mistake and will not resolve the ongoing political divisions.

The establishment of a dual mandate, MMP system, will only exacerbate the divisions, made worst by the adoption of first-past-the-post voting system where single member electorates are determined by whoever gets the highest vote not the majority. Under a First-past-the-post voting system a candidate can be elected with as little as 26% of the overall vote.

If Ukraine feels it is important to have a split mandate (National versus Local) then this is best achieved by having a bicameral parliament with the upper-house (The Senate) elected on a national basis and the lower-house (The legislature) elected locally. The system of electing single member electorates should be via a preferential "Instant run-off" ballot so as to ensure that any successful candidate has the support of 50% or more of the electorate..

A even better alternative

Establish 45 local based electorates. With each electorate electing nine members of parliament to a single chamber. The method of election should be single transferable Proportional Representation using either Meek or Wright method of counting the vote. The quota for election would be 10%. Supporters of minor candidates/parties would not be disenfranchised as their vote would be transfered to form part of a quota of a winning candidate.

Each electorate would be equal in size, representation and percentage required to elect a representative. (10%) One vote, one value

The above model retains the proportionality of representation whilst providing a local focus of accountability. A single chamber with equal mandates.

The Mixed madndate system did not work before what makes him think it will work now? It will not. It will only exacerbate teh disparity and divions within the parliament. Each elected represenatoive MUST have an equal mandate. If need be Ukraine should adopt a bicameral parliamnat as outlined below. The Upper-house or Senate represenating National intersts and the lower-house or legilstaure representing Local interests. The votings system must not be first-past-the-post. This is a seriously flawed and outdated system. It does not work in Canada, briatain or the USA.

More information fairvote.org

This law has one purpose and one purpose only. To aid Yanukonvicts Party of thieves in gaining a majority at the next parliamentary elections.Free and fair elections are a thing of the past while these power hungry criminals are in control.

In Canada we have First Past the Post voting. Its function is to make sure the parties of the elite win 90 %t of the time. The President of the US is not elected by FPP but must obtain 50 % + 1 although the electoral college system can sometimes skew this result. Approve FPP and you will have POR for the next 100 years or another revolution. Ukraine is not yet dead but it is on its death bed. Alas.

The US presidential electoral College is elected by a first-past-the-post voting system. In the US the system is worst in that the highest polling party wins 100% of the state delegates.

There are 225 voting districts already establish in Ukraine.

A simple analysis of the last three elections. Presidential and Parliamentary elections can provide an indication of the likely result of the system proposed by Yanukovych. Further adjustments and tweaks would need to be taken into consideration when determining the results of "Swing" seats.

Although I have undertaken such an analysis the assessment of an electoral system should not be based on the perceived outcome but should be based on the policies of equality. one vote one value.

The First-past-the-post voting system and split mandate provisions fail the test of an equal and effective representational based on the policies of equality. one vote one value.

The First-past-the-post voting system and split mandate provisions fail the test of an equal and effective representational model.

one of the problems associated with any single member electorate system is the disproportionate distribution of votes that exist in any given electorate. Any electorate that has a concentration of supporters above 50% is wasted as their vote is absorbed by then winning candidate. Under a proportional representation system there is no such thing as the swinging seat. A surplus of votes is used to make up the quota of a number of elected candidates if you have 60% support you elect 50 percent of the positions available. This will work against Party fo regions and also Tymoshenko as most of their votes are concentrated in particular geographic regions. Minor parties of course lose out in total.

Correction: If you have 60% support you elect 60 percent of the positions available, If you have 40% you elect 40% of the number of positions. in a single member electorate using FPTP only the highest polling party/candidate wins. Under a Single member preferential voting system the candidate that has 50% or more wins one seat.

In the end, it's not the electoral system that will keep these cretins in power, but the idiotic sheep that vote for their own funeral in the country's eastern and southern provinces. I've never understood why the regions with the highest levels of AIDS are the most resistant to change, and are bought off just because Beyonce or Rihanna comes to their football stadium. Bread and circuses. They have the power through the ballot box to break the cycle of negativity but they won't do it. Better the devil you know. We are captives to the lack of imagination of the country's duped and docile masses.

I disagree with the premise of this article. Where were all these 'experts' in 2007 when Ukrainian Parliament was being elected on closed party lists? Even if it is far from perfect, the new election law is for sure an improvement over the previous one.

No way, It is a backward step read the comments and facts belor. It still retains the closed party list system and instead introduces a slit manadate first=pst-the-post voting system. This model exited in Ukriane before and it failed then what makes you think it will work again? There are better alternatives.

This is a law that can easily be manipulated by the criminals in power. It was used during Kuchma times to help him cheat his way into gaining majority support in parliament. Yanukonvict is repeating the same senario.Free and fair elections will never happen under his dictatorship!

The only changes needed is to mandate open lists and ban party blocs.

Second, a new electoral law is being devised which would move the system towards a dual proportional/constituency based system, from the current fully proportional system. The head of the electoral commission has warned that the proposed new system could end up with a party securing just 20 percent of votes in the election (Regions, presumably) securing 60 percent of seats in parliament.

Read more:

http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/op_ed/detail/114333/#ixzz1a5pXpEcH

This quote from Bykov I got from the web:

‘The Russian elite has a vague idea about the life of common folk; yet their standards of living, fundamental values and even subcultures have diverged so far that they hardly speak a common language.

The Russian people have long given up the voting game, and demand no accountability from their government.’

http://ru-bykov.livejournal.com/524773.html