Not only the winner of the Ukrainian presidential election matters. The conduct of the contest is inextricably tied to the public’s acceptance of the result as a true expression of the free will of Ukraine’s 30 million voters.
Ukrainians are acutely sensitive to election-rigging and voter fraud. The first revolution of the 21st century was fought over Viktor Yanukovych’s attempt to falsify vote totals in the 2004 election, triggering the Orange Revolution and a new vote in which Viktor Yushchenko ultimately prevailed.
Conducting a free and fair vote is a tricky business, even in advanced democracies such as the United States, especially in close contests. Dishonesty and flaws in the process become especially magnified in close contests, such as the 2000 presidential election that saw George W. Bush prevail over Al Gore after disputes went to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Already, the conduct of Ukraine’s election campaign is troubling: the lack of true public debate among candidates, the effective disenfranchment of many voters living abroad or out of their home city by overly bureaucratic procedures, the lack of transparency in the financing of campaign as well as the lack of penalties for violations.
But now attention turns to Election Day itself as well as the honesty and transparency of the vote counting and tabulation. There are opportunities for cheating all along the way amid a campaign that has focused attention on the voter register and allegations of vote-buying.
Ukraine has 30,000 polling stations. At 8 p. m., election officials watched by local and international observers begin the count. Those results move their way up the line to 199 district election commissions and ultimately the Central Election Commission. The speed, honesty and transparency of this tabulation are of fundamental importance. This is where the cheating occurred in Ukraine’s 2004 presidential election and, likely, others.
The vote audit — the honesty of the aggregation — is ensured by the wide distribution of official protocols at each level of counting.
While the official results won’t be known the next day, three preliminary events are worth watching on April 1. They include the preliminary findings of the Central Election Commission, the parallel vote count by the civil network Opora and the first impression by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Election Observation Mission, run by the Office of Democratic Initiatives and Human Rights.
On the morning after, we won’t know everything, but we’ll know a lot.
