Tuesday 24 november, 2009, 21:48
-a A+

Wolf-crying about likely vote rigging presidential candidates try to justify their future defeat

Various statements by marginal presidential candidates about the likely electoral fraud are aimed to create a background for their post-election information campaigns and lawsuits, the leader of the Yedyny Tsentr Viktor Baloha said Nov. 24.

Alarming declarations about the likely vote rigging directly point to organizational weaknesses of some candidates as the law allows for reliable barriers against any electoral fraud. For instance, any presidential candidate can send his 2 representatives to sit on local and regional electoral commissions, appoint observers to keep an eye on voting and counting of ballots. Proxies of candidates who have wide authority can also supervise the course of the voting.

“These representative must have absolute trust of their patron. Everything depends on the correct choice of a candidate and professional level of his team,” Baloha summed up.

Other effective barriers to electoral fraud are the Central Election Commission [whose members are appointed by major parliamentary parties on a quota principle] and numerous international observers. Mass media and NGOs, notably, the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, will also be effective in helping to curb fraud. Of great importance for establishing the final tally are also exit polls run by respected polling companies.

“There are more than enough supervisory tools, as you see, and they will all be used during the campaign. All the more so that there are 18 presidential candidates, some having considerable weight. That is why any declarations about the likely fraud are just attempts to justify a defeat of those who make them. Note that those candidates who are selling themselves as strong-willed and tough are most given to such declarations. In fact, such declarations expose them as would-be losers and outsiders,” Baloha added.

Comments 2
  • UkrToday 30 November 2009 06:32
    Viktor Baloha is right there is sufficient provisions for the scrutiny of the ballot. Any possibility of fraudulent activities should be readily detected. Those claiming that the election will be stolen are alarmists and their complaints to date have no substance or merit.

    Just because there are some perceived irregularities in the count does not invalidate the election. It needs to be established beyond doubt that any errors in the conduct of the would have produced a different outcome in the poll.

    Current public opinion polls indicate that the election is not even close and that the final choice will between Yulia Tymoshenko and Victor Yanukovych.

    All other candidates at this stage have no substance in their complaints. Sour gapes and disappointed in their own performance maybe. but they have themselves only to blame for that.

    They could have advocated a one round preferential voting system in which case minor candidates would have a greater overall influence in the outcome of the election.

    One round at half the cost. all votes count.
  • The circus 26 November 2009 08:05
    The norm oin any disputation over the conduct of teh election is demonstrated beyond doubt that errors in the administration or conduct would have changed the overall result of the election.

    It is not suffoecent to just say there were errors therefore the who election is flawed. It does not work that way.
    Current polling shows that there is no contest and that the distance between second place and third place candidates is over 10 percent., the only person or group that has a right of disputation will be BYuT or PoR.

    All other players are minor candidates and will not effect the overall outcome. They are fighting amongst themselves for the same bone. Our Ukraine has four candidates running ion the election with each one taking votes away form the others.
    At a cost of over 1 billion dollars one has to seriously question the need for or desirablity for a direct election of head of state.
Новини Кіно