How voters perceive different types of ballot papers to improve the election process

 

Methodology of Research

As part of the study, 4 focus group discussions (FGD) were designed and conducted in accordance with standard rules and methods of conducting qualitative research. The research was carried out by analysts of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation at the request of the Civil Network OPORA.

Focus groups were conducted in accordance with the guides of the focus group research developed by the executor, on the basis of the terms of reference provided by the customer. The guides were designed for 115 minutes of talk time. In fact, the duration of the focus groups in each group was 120-125 minutes, including completing the entrance test questionnaire and conducting an experiment on voting and evaluation of ballots. During all focus groups, an audio recording of the conversation was made, which was further transcribed into text format. In the case of FGD-4, there was a video recording of the conversation in Zoom, which was also transcribed into text format.

Focus group No.1 took place on Tuesday, June 22, 2021 in Kyiv. It was attended by 10 participants (5 men and 5 women). Participants were selected from different ages and experiences in the electoral system. Three participants represented rural areas near Kyiv. According to the results of the test questionnaire, the average assessment of respondents' knowledge is 1.25 points out of 3. The average level of awareness of participants about the election process can be described as moderate.

Focus group No.2 took place on Thursday, June 24, 2021 in Sumy. It was attended by 10 participants (5 men and 5 women). Participants were selected to represent different ages. The average experience of awareness about the electoral process was slightly higher than the average, some respondents had experience of professional work with the electoral system. Four participants represented rural areas near Sumy. According to the results of the test questionnaire, the average assessment of respondents' knowledge is 1.6 points out of 3.

Focus group No.3 (Odessa) took place on Saturday, June 26, 2021. It was attended by 10 participants (5 men and 5 women). Participants were selected from different ages (3 youth, 4 middle-aged, and 3 senior-age participants). Four participants represented rural areas near Odesa. The average level of awareness of participants about the election process can be described as moderate. According to the results of the test questionnaire, the average assessment of respondents' knowledge is 1.2 points out of 3.

Focus group No.4 took place on July 1, 2021 in online format. It was attended by 11 respondents (7 men and 4 women). The focus group consisted of people with disabilities. Participants were selected of different ages and of different levels of familiarity with the electoral process, but some participants can be described as activists or human rights advocates who work to protect the rights of people with disabilities. According to the results of the test questionnaire, the average assessment of respondents' knowledge is 0.9 points out of 3.

At the end of the focus groups, participants were asked to experiment with voting on ballot layouts. In the online focus group, this experiment was not performed due to the format.

Respondents were asked to fill in 7 sample ballots. In the briefing, they were asked to imagine that they were at the polling station during rush hour when there was a large queue of people behind them. At the same time, they were asked to read the information on the ballot and make their choice based on it. The interviewer asked to choose the parties/candidates that they liked the most by name or by their activity/work. Different samples of ballots were filled in turn, after which the filled ballots were dropped into the dummy ballot box. Special marks were placed on the ballots for possible further identification of respondents and tracking the perception of different ballots by the respondent.

After the experiment, participants were asked to discuss the quality and convenience of ballot templates. During the discussion, participants responded to an evaluation questionnaire for each of the ballots.

 

MAIN PART

Assessment and self-assessment of knowledge about the election process

The majority of FGD participants are active in the elections. Thus, only a few respondents have not participated in the elections at all and a small number of respondents participated sporadically. Other respondents tried to participate all the time.

What answer best describes your participation in the election?

Most respondents rated their level of understanding of the election and the electoral process as average. Approximately the same shares from the remaining minority of respondents indicated that they had either good knowledge of the electoral process or extremely poor knowledge. Also, some respondents noted that their awareness of the election process varied depending on the period of the election process that was currently underway: on the eve of the election, the knowledge increases, and after the election, this knowledge is forgotten as there is no more need for it.

Ф2_Ч5: Filling out the questionnaire, I caught myself thinking that shortly before the election, you seem to know everything how to vote according to this system. But now, as time goes on, this awareness has been somewhat lost. Well, in general, I think that the knowledge is above average.

Ф3_Ж: I think I understand superficially. Well, closer to the election, I get to know more. Time passes… I think my knowledge is superficial.

In general, about a third of respondents had the experience of participating in the election process as a commission member, observer, or even a candidate in local elections.

Ф3_Ж5: I more or less understand. I went as an observer to all elections. However, I can be confused about the terms, because some time has passed and my head now has a slightly different information.

Ф4_Ч3: Experience to take part in elections, of course. The same as with all citizens. In 2004, I was an observer, a representative of the presidential candidate in the second round.

One of the FGD members stated that he had participated in election fraud, which consisted of bribery of voters.

Ф3_Ч5: Bribery of voters. People now lead a rather poor lifestyle. Buying people's votes was easy enough, most people are sad but they accept.

In the entrance questionnaire, about one third of respondents said they knew in detail about the differences between the proportional system with closed voter lists and open voter lists. Indeed, the vast majority of respondents who said yes, answered correctly and were able to name the differences between such election systems. At the same time, some errors and misinterpretations were also present.

At the same time, about a third of respondents incorrectly answered the question of whether it was possible to vote for one party in the elections under the proportional system and at the same time support a single candidate from another party. Respondents who understood how a proportional electoral system with open lists differed from the system with closed lists also made mistakes. Another third of respondents were hesitant about their answers. The correct answers were given by one third of respondents.

There is a similar distribution of respondents' answers regarding the possibility to vote for number one on the party list. Approximately equal shares of FGD participants answered that they could vote for the number one, or gave a negative answer, or answered that they did not know the correct option.

Half of the respondents to the focus group surveys answered correctly to the question of whether the votes of voters affected the order in which candidates from the passing political parties received their mandates.

In summary, it can be stated that the general level of respondents' familiarity with the electoral system is mediocre. In general, respondents who identified their knowledge of the electoral system as high were more likely to answer questions about the electoral system correctly, but still made some mistakes. (Average test result - 1.6 points). In the situations where respondents talked about a mediocre awareness, the score is 1.4 points. The respondents who reported a low level of knowledge scored an average of 0.4 points. In general, the entrance testing confirms the self-identification of respondents in understanding the election process.

Specifics of respondents' participation in the election process

The majority of FGD participants participated in the elections, mostly regularly. In general, at the stage of recruiting respondents, potential participants who do not regularly participate in the elections were much less likely to express their willingness to participate in focus groups. This led to certain fluctuations in the structure of respondents towards active participants in the elections.

Assessment of the organization of the election process from respondents who could see it from the inside

If we look at it in historical retrospect, earlier, in the 1990s and in early 2000s, the election process, according to respondents, was organized very poorly. There were situations of outright falsification of votes, both in Kyiv and in other regions of Ukraine. According to a large number of respondents, the culmination of fraud came in the 2004 presidential election. At least two FGD members (in Kyiv and Sumy) participated in the observation of this election in Donbas, as part of Yushchenko's team. The level of falsifications at that time was extremely high, and it was virtually impossible to resist them. In addition, significant fraud occurred in other types of elections.

Ф1_Ч: I probably had a more interesting story with how I was an observer from Viktor Yushchenko in the Luhansk region. The second round of the 2004 presidential election. We are there as members of NGOs…. And for me, it was a shock. I have known before how the elections ran in Kyiv, and in Kyiv region. Everything was decent and neat. Even if such frauds were made, they were done carefully, so to speak, so that there were fewer complaints. And there, it was pretty tough. That is, they stood at each ballot box "watching", the "watching enforcers" as they can be called. They specifically marked people who cast the ballot for Yanukovych. But then they still failed to get the wanted number of votes. So, they completed the picture, so to speak, another zero to the actual numbers. And of course. There was nothing we could do as observers. We simply told our people that such a fact had been noticed.

Ф1_Ж: They were kind of combined. There, the top leaders were elected, and on the district level. … I was an overnight observer. And at night, the most interesting things were happening there. I remember there was a big table. All ballots were stacked on a large table. Observers were seated 8 meters away from that table. ... They said not to come closer. The ballots, I remember, it was a mountain. That is, people came, people voted. It was a school, a school building it was. A mountain of these ballots. Yes, I also noticed that all the ladies who sat on the commission were plump, I'm sorry to say, big-breasted. And they came in wearing loose blouses. What happens at night? First, vigilance falls asleep. By 3 o'clock in the morning you really want to sleep. And what do they do? They stand, they are all huge, they stand above this table. We only see the rear of that lady. What they do can not be seen. They surrounded that table – there were many of them. You know, like vultures when they eat something. And they, too, sorry people. They say: we want to go to the toilet. … And when she comes out, I can't see well, but I got my glasses on. And there I look – she has a big bust, a loose hoodie, and under the breasts, there is still a lot of space. And she goes to the toilet. She's gone for 20 minutes. Then she comes in, gets over the table again, they just fall out from under the blouse. I sit and say to that Tanya, "Tanya, look what's going on?" – "What do you say about it?". Either they destroyed them there, or checked some other boxes. I don't know, but the ballots were taken out of the counting room three times by these big ladies. There was nothing we could do.

Comparing such situations with what is happening today, those respondents who have had the experience of observing or working in elections say that the elections are now running more honestly and fairly. Today, at least, there are no such significant falsifications as before, and in general, the election process is better organized, although some organizational issues still remain. Key problems are mainly about insufficient training of election commission members. Respondents from among persons with disabilities also assessed the level of organization of the election process mostly positively, but they pointed out a number of shortcomings, which will be discussed below.

Ф1_Ж: No. It was getting more fair now. The people were vigilant. But this chairman still quarreled. This is school 40 we have in Svyatoshyno. Still, observers did not like something. And there was a quarrel with the chairman of the commission. But they still insisted on their own. He was not allowed to do any tampering. I don't really remember anymore. You see, it's not like that. It was stupid to take out the ballots. And now it is cleverly done. And someone there cut off, and said "no, you can't." And there was a clash. But still no.

Ф2_Ж2: Because when I was an observer, for example,… you could come with this new type of passport and without a paper-based residence permit. And the EC members did not know that. And they sent them back. Here are some things. Then retirees came with pension certificates. Someone came with a driver's license, with foreign passports. There was even a man who came without any IDs, and a woman said: well, this is Galya from the 4th section, I know her. That is, some of these things are real, when I looked at the election, they were there, and we just told how to analyze the program of candidates, what the powers of the president and the parliament were. Whether it was allowed to take photos, because, for example, after we told them that you can go to film the polling station, the election process, but the main thing is not to show how they voted, my students decided to make a guide for students on how to go to the polls and vote easily. And they were expelled from three polling stations. They said it was not allowed. So they called the police to some polling stations. The police arrived and said: you may shoot. People are really unaware of the law.

Ф4_Д: In my experience, this happens very well, because every time representatives of the election commission come to my house. Even for elections when I did not plan to participate. And they always come as a group of many people. And they give the opportunity to express your will. No pressure. In the last election, they generally came with a law enforcement officer, who also acted as an observer. Everyone followed safety rules. In particular, they were in personal protective equipment, in face masks, so as not to put my life at risk. They explained how to fill in the ballot paper correctly. Then no one controlled or even looked or tried to look at those candidates for whom I voted. Everything happened very quickly, in a businesslike manner and with great respect.

Within the focus groups, a significant share of respondents were dissatisfied with the current electoral system in local and parliamentary elections. In general, they showed confidence that the electoral system was being deliberately made complicated in order to produce the desired result and the possibility of rigging the election results. These considerations were reinforced by confidence in the corrupt aspects of the election. Such respondents believe that the main characteristic of the electoral system should be simplicity and clarity of application. In addition, respondents sometimes stated that the political process in Ukraine is completely under the control of the oligarchs and their financial and industrial groups, which leads to corruption and ineffective policies. Complaints about the electoral system were also about the fact that it changes with each election, which does not allow voters to adequately navigate the process.

Ф1_Ч: I am not a supporter of the Communist system, but it was like this:… two people – a worker and a milkmaid – and the people there chose something. But at least it was a clear system. … And what is happening now, this so-called proportional system, is so thoughtfully cynical that nothing is clear there, starting with the nomination by political parties. Ending with counting, the opportunity for these gender quotas. In other words, what we see today is made so that there is no system, like traffic rules, which must be clear to everyone. And here everything is done so as to wind up such things. But those who count and those who came up with it all know how to twist it all. … We will cheat once so that normal people could not unite in political parties, and run for elections. The second time – is that we will cheat with the help of a vote threshold. We will be cheated by the number when the village has 5,000 inhabitants, everyone knows each other, they have to choose some party lists. Let's reduce the threshold barrier. We will cheat by counting the votes. We will deceive, if possible, the CEC's intervention or non-intervention, what we see now happening in the Ivano-Frankivsk region. We will cheat, cheat, and cheat. Here's what is taking place,

Ф1_Ч2: Everything is simple. After people said, everyone's brains are scrambled, it is impossible to figure out, then what happens? Who has more bucks?

Ф2_Ч:  Each party in Ukraine originates from either a financial-industrial group or a specific oligarch who is trying to bring his representatives to the local level, to the Verkhovna Rada. … Hence all the trouble. And hence the imperfections of both the political system and, accordingly, our electoral legislation. Everyone works in the vested interests, no matter how much we want to… I may say some seditious things, but democracy and everything else in the election ... Here's the proverb "Pay the piper, play the tune", it is just appropriate. This is where all our problems come from.

Ф4_Д: Whatever system is used, it can be effective, and the problem arises when the electoral law is changed for each election. Especially to match the needs of certain parties or of certain candidates. I think this is the main problem of the country, that our election legislation changes every time, and this confusion does not give people a permanent understanding of the election process, and does not allow political parties and candidates to build their political strategy for the next 5-6-7 -8 years. … Because a person who has already figured it out once, they know it will work, how to participate. Therefore, I do not see any sense in changing the electoral system again. On the contrary, I am in favor of raising public awareness of this. And in general, I support the introduction of a moratorium on changing the electoral system for the next 20 years at least.

Specifics of participation in the election process of respondents with disabilities

Within the focus group, it is possible to state a high level of involvement of people with disabilities in the election process.

Persons with the group one disability type vote at their place of residence, by default. Accordingly, members of the precinct election commission always come to their places so that they could vote. As a result, the total turnout of such persons is much higher than among the general population. However, this state of affairs poses several problems.

• 1) Voting at the place of residence does not have a fixed time. Accordingly, on election day, the respondents are restricted in their activities, as members of the election commission may appear at any time.
• Some people with disabilities do not want to take part in the voting. Although we cannot treat the arrival of PEC members at a person's place of residence as coercion to vote, but it is an incentive to vote even when they do not wish to. In addition, the list of people who must vote at their place of residence is incomplete: it does not always include those voters who are unable to show up at the polling station due to their health conditions.
• If they wish to vote at the polling station, such persons must appear in person at the polling station with a statement of desire to vote at the polling station.
• There are possibilities to put pressure on the voter by members of the election commission who organize voting at the place of residence.

Ф4_Ж: Last year, I also always tried to go to the polling station to vote, although it is not accessible for me, either. But last year I just didn't have time to go write a statement so that they wouldn't come to my house, this group, so that I went to the polls. Because for some reason, in order for them not to come to my house (since I am a person with a disability, I use a wheelchair) I have to go and write an application about it. In order to write an application, I need to find the chairman of the commission, to find out who the chairman of the commission is. When they are at work. Again, the polling station is not accessible. It's such a long process; and I didn't have the time; I didn't do it. So I stayed at home and waited for them to come and I would vote. By the way, you never know when they come, at what time. Therefore, this day is already lost for you, because you have to stay at home and wait. When the election commission, the members of the election commission come to your place. I think, three people came. And the law enforcement officer. There was pressure from a member of the commission, he encouraged me to vote for the candidate he suggested. That's how it was ...

Ф4_О: If you wanted, you could compile a list of people with disabilities in each district and not force them, but just call: do you want to vote? Yes, I do. So, they came. Because there are so many people, they just don't want to overstrain, but they may want to vote. So, it's not hard to call and find out, isn't it? What if a person wants to vote. So they take record. They came to his house. He voted, cast his vote. And many people do not want to do it for some physical reason or they may have just forgotten. So this point must be taken into account, I think. To compile lists of people with disabilities and to call those who want to vote, regardless of whether they applied, and whether they brought their applications.

Ф4_Д: Another inconvenience for voting at home is in the fact that you actually do not know the approximate time the commissioners come. They may come to you in the morning at 8 or 9 a.m. Or, they may come at the end of the election day. I don't think there are many of them. And it would be possible to somehow plan, within the scale of the polling station, at least to warn people by phone.

According to respondents, problems No.1-3 could be solved via a telephone contact with voters. This will allow you to create accurate lists of those who want to vote at the place of residence and avoid the above-described issues. At the same time, such a decision can be legally problematic, as under these circumstances there is no written confirmation of the voter's wish.

Motivation of participation and non-participation of respondents in the elections

The majority of FGD participants mostly participated in the elections. Their motivation can be described by several main factors:

• Hope for positive changes after the election

Ф2_Ж3: I hope it gets better. As, for example, under Zelensky. I did not think to vote for him. And then everyone would go: he is young, and he is talented. Indeed.

Ф3_Ж4: Why am I going? Well, to a certain naive extent, I hope that somewhere, someday justice will prevail.

• To avoid falsifications and voting "for the respondent"

Ф3_Ж3: It seems to me that these votes can then be used in return. That is, so that they do not vote for us.

Ф4_Ч3. And besides, you need to understand that if you do not throw your ballot in the box, it can be thrown instead of you

• Participation in voting, in certain situations, can be crucial.

Ф2_Ж2: I also participated in the election for the first time. …. And I don't want to say five years later, well, I didn't vote, other people have elected officials, and they are bad. And there are examples in history when one vote could change something. And this, by the way, motivated many students. Are there really such examples? And given that few people go to the polls ... We had a very low turnout at the locals. And there, every vote really mattered.

At the same time, some respondents did not fully understand whether the right to vote is, in fact, a right or an obligation.

Ф3_Ж1: Yes, the interest was there, and I know that I am required by law to participate in elections after the age of 18. Correct?

A specific reason for participating in the voting was voiced by a respondent from among voters with disabilities. He participates in the voting as a matter of principle and personally comes to the polling station to draw attention to the non-observance of the voting rights for people with disabilities, including to the architectural inaccessibility of polling stations.

Ф4_Ч2: I personally participate in order to show that there are such voters like me. That the issues that have been raised for decades in a row, and we know that the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted decades ago, and yet the state of Ukraine, the guarantor of the Constitution violate human rights systematically, cynically, while taxpayers pay for that. That is a vicious circle. Therefore, it is a sort of protest, when the chairman of the commission feels uncomfortable, when he sees that the person still got through. When the police also say that we have no right to do so, but we make an exception for you. When the neighbors see what obstacles I face, even though I have access to housing, and they do not usually associate me with a person with a disability, and here in the election, you can see all these issues. That's why it is my motivation.

The motivation not to vote, according to the majority of respondents, comes from the total disappointment in elections and politics in general. This opinion was dominant in all focus groups. In fact, the main reason for such demotivation is the lack of trusted candidates and the lack of positive change.

Ф1_Ж: Disappointed.

Ф4_О: I think people's frustration is obvious. People see, they go to the polls, waiting for them, and the result, as they say, we see on the outside. That's why they don't go.

Ф3_Ж4: Well, let's say she has such a family epic. Here she once came to the polls, but nothing has changed, well, absolutely nothing in her area, or with kindergartens, even with some social benefits, nothing. The second time she went – nothing again. And here is a potential non-goer to the polls again. Because nothing will change.

Ф2_Ж2: I would rather agree with Mr. NNN. Indeed, what I have heard is that nothing will change. Why go there if nothing changes anyway.

Ф2_Ж2: By the way, if I may, in the local elections, I think a lot of people went there in the first round, they voted. In the second round, they did not go to vote for anyone at all, because there was no one to choose from.

Ф3_Ж3: They do not believe. … There are absolutely no people. Here you know him as a good man, behind him there is a trail of his actions. But he comes to this place, and there is no point. People do not trust their promises.

Ф3_Ч5: It seems to me that this can be divided into four groups. Two of them go to the polls regularly, and two of them do not. The first group is the one that is aware of how elections work. It is probably the smallest. They understand that it is their obligation, their duty to change something for the better in the country through their choice or at least to make their contribution. The second group, who want to make some changes because of their young age, they are ardent and want to make a contribution, perhaps without enough understanding of how it works. The third group is a group of perpetual skeptics who believe that everything is bought everywhere, that neither you nor I can change anything, we will sit and twiddle our thumbs. The fourth group will chant: "You need to hit the road!", "You need to run away!" In fact, in my opinion, that's all.

The second most popular position regarding the unwillingness to participate in elections is the disbelief that their vote will have any influence. In general, participation in the vote does not affect anything, so there is no point in voting.

Ф2_Ж2: And among young people, there are many, probably 80 percent, it's about the fact that our vote does not affect anything at all, in principle, no impact on people, and everything has already been decided for us. This is decided not even by the people we see on the electoral lists, but by those behind them: the oligarchs, the mafia and so on. Why vote?

Ф2_Ч5: People do not particularly believe in compromised political forces. Because our mass media are trying to act in a biased way. … The fact is that we have very few new political forces that would not be the left hand of the existing political force, and really few new people appear.And if they appear, as in the last election, they would better not. Therefore, it seems to me that people really do not believe that they can significantly influence the situation, and that this election will change anything.

Ф4_О: I also believe that it is necessary to start from school and cherish among people some sense of responsibility for what is happening in the country. … They could start telling children in a certain grade that they are part of power, that they are power, that things do depend on them. I don’t think that in our schools somebody tells this to children actively. When this is instilled with then since childhood, then there will be more responsible people who will come and understand that this is part of their responsibility in this country. But they don’t care. Someone says: whether you vote or not. You still can’t change anything. We know these sentiments. This is still a lot of Homo Sovieticus who do not believe in elections. Well, the obvious result.

There were also some positions of the respondents that there are no real ideological mass parties in Ukraine.

Ф1_Ч3: Well, in last year’s local elections, let’s be honest, there was only a 30 percent turnout. That is, 70 percent of people did not come to the polls for two reasons. The first is that they have not seen any political parties. That is, what is called the Poroshenko Bloc, Tymoshenko, Lyashko is not a political party. The political party is when here we are, we came together because we have an idea, and there are several oligarchs who have created a closed limited liability company and they register them as political parties. These are not living political parties. That is, people did not see real political parties and therefore they did not really want to take part in this crime.

Another reason that can be mentioned is the unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s choice, so in the absence of positive changes or changes for the worse, such respondents do not consider themselves responsible for such a change in the situation.

Ф2_Ч: Because they do not want to undertake responsibility. It’s easier to say that this neighbor made the wrong choice than accept it yourself.

The issue of no confidence in the voting itself was not raised at all, but one focus group drew attention to the lack of confidence in the election due to the fact that election violations are basically not investigated and punished by law enforcement agencies.

Ф4_О: Tightening the penalty should be for throw-ins. Under Yanukovych, they kept travelling around. I have a lot of acquaintances who rode buses, they were transported from enterprises. They voted and told how it happened. And no one was responsible for that. No one was put to prison. No one was put to prison for those cameras, they bought them for a billion. We do not know where they went. And now everything repeats again. That’s why people don’t believe. All these problems pile up. And then - why don’t they go? That’s why they don’t go.

Ф4_Ч: It seems to me that the election system is not so much important now as the punishment, the mandatory punishment for violations. In many countries, electoral frauds are punished more severely than tax evasion. And if we have it, then we can say whether it’s a better system or not. All our legislation may be very good, but there is no punishment for violation. … No housing and communal services chief has been fired, no minister has been fired for constructing a building that is inaccessible to the disabled people. The same for violations, only within that square. Remember that old story, the head of the CEC during the Orange Revolution. He is now the rector of the Law Academy.

Some respondents are convinced that people do not go to the polls because they do not support any politicians. Also, some respondents believe that the turnout will increase if there is a box “against all” or “I do not support any candidate.”

Ф1_Ж: Yes, the gentleman is right. But this is only the beginning of the process. People would come if there was still a box “I do not support anyone.” Because… They understand that you are being postured. I will exaggerate: you must either go into battle to the left or go into battle to the right. But you don’t want to go either here, or there. And you still have a retreat option. You can say: I do not support anyone. Guys, let’s have others. We are tired of this wheel. Why have you been spinning one turntable for 30 years? I do not support anyone. And some conscious citizens would still catch up to this election. And they would check that box: I’m not a fool, do not tuck here your suggested guys. I do not support anyone, give me others. And there is no such choice. That’s why some smart people still come to the polls, patriots of Ukraine; they come to the elections, take ballots and write that. I saw it myself, across the whole ballot paper: “I do not support anyone!” They introduce that option themselves. I.e. do not consider us as complete fools. So let’s have someone else. I don’t like these, so this box should be a must.

Some respondents said that in order to participate in the vote, you need a lot of effort that does not justify itself. The creation of additional difficulties in changing the place of registration or standing in line kills the desire to vote for those respondents who do not think that of paramount importance.

Ф3_Ж4: When I came to the polling station, I was not comfortable, as a citizen. These are queues. I’m not talking about the last vote during the Covid, it’s autumn, it’s aggravation. Morally uncomfortable. And secondly, it is quite uncomfortable in general. You come, you stand in line. Some woman starts telling you that you are not on the list, go there. Come here, come there. You feel like “why did I come here”? Why did I come here to still feel uncomfortable.

Ф2_Ж3 : In order to vote in Sumy, I go and get this certificate specifically that I live and work in Sumy, because having lived here for six years, I have a Kyiv registration.

Ф4_І: So that I don’t have to worry about having to travel 120 kilometers to Kyiv today, because I’m at another place. But I have to do it. And it’s not very convenient for me. And so I have to choose something: either my family affairs, or whether I have… Even these 120 kilometers bring me away, my inner choice. This should not be so.

Some respondents representing rural areas had their views on the turnout in the recent local elections. In their opinion, the amalgamation of communities into territorial hromadas led to the destruction of the link between local authorities in the village and the population.

Ф2_Ч5: I would distinguish the motivation between town and country. Since we take the following example in the city: if an average citizen of Sumy is more confident that they will not communicate with the mayor for the next 5 years due to various circumstances, the voter in the village will see their mayor one hundred percent, once every two days, and usually says something to him/her. Accordingly, there is motivation and responsibility for who they choose, because they sign up for that person – well, then the utility-related and landscaping-related aspects would be raised, whatever –Then the turnout is higher, and the responsibility is higher, and motivation in the rural area is much higher. Let’s become attached to personal acquaintances, personal awareness, personal needs. Why? When they brought them together into the amalgamated hromadas, they increased… Again, I get back to that circle, that they deprived people of the right to choose for themselves, they push them to the isolated farmstead lifestyle.

Thus, the scope of reasons why people do not participate in elections is even wider than the motivation to participate. In particular, it is possible to determine the main reason: disappointment in the election, which is due to a number of circumstances:

• lack of worthy candidates;
• lack of faith in the influence on the outcome of the election;
• lack of real ideological parties;

Among other reasons, respondents mentioned, in particular, the lack of the box “I do not support any candidate” and the severance of contacts between local authorities and citizens in rural areas. Respondents also cite the low level of interest in politics and the lack of interest in the political and electoral processes as one of the most significant causes. An additional reason given by respondents is that voting often requires additional unworthy effort.

Obtaining information about the election process

Most respondents said that they searched for information about the election process on the Internet. At the same time, the sources of information on the Internet are obviously very different. Among the sources of information on the Internet, we can highlight the following:

• informational and educational materials produced by the subjects of the election process (CEC, or specialized organizations. In particular, they mentioned OPORA, IFES, CVU);
• laws and regulations governing the election process;
• social media and communication with friends on the Internet;
• political advertising and campaigning by political parties.

Ф2_Ж4: On the Internet, how to vote, and also what will happen next. Suppose, I vote here; what was your question – if I vote for the party, how does it apply to the candidate who is at the top of the list. But I actually vote for a completely different person. Therefore, of course, all information was searched on the Internet.

Ф4_В : This is, of course, the Internet. Well, since I watch TV, the commercials very often showed in such a simplified language how to vote properly. I’ve actually watched this ad a few times to understand how I should vote. On the Internet, I also really studied this and saw how to do it right so as not to be embarrassed, and then when they come to me and ask me to tell you how to fill out the ballot.

Ф4_Ч: I also collected information like everyone else, but I meticulously looked at the Internet, and from seemingly reputable sites, but the information data is mutually absorbing. That is, here they said one thing, and on another site they said the opposite. That’s why I got to the CEC website. And I think there were some materials on our website of the district election commission. I think it is necessary to still have one official resource that is responsible for everything, where everything would be explained in detail.

At the same time, some respondents call TV the main source of information. Here, the main content that explains the voting process and tells about the election process comes mainly from political advertising.

The role of political parties in explaining how to vote in elections should be mentioned separately. At the same time, the task of political parties is not to explain the voting process itself, but how to vote for a particular party. When it comes to voting for an individual candidate, it is the task of a particular candidate who is interested in advancing on the party list. At the same time, parties and candidates do not explain the voting process itself and how the elections take place – only how to vote correctly in each case.

Ф2_Ж: I don’t think it’s a secret for anyone – a political party says to vote for itself. … For a certain candidate, in a certain constituency at a particular polling station. Here’s the number, where to check. More visualization so as not to confuse. There is such a number in the ballot paper, here is a tick. And here is the number for the candidate. And especially when they still get to the constituency. Here, in our city, in each district several candidates came from one political force, they already compete within the constituency. And everyone goes to their voter with their number, because.

Ф4_Д: Of course, the Internet, I want to agree with everyone. And the second thing is about the advertising materials of the candidates, who usually posted an example of how to vote on the last page. That is, it was a real example, and it helped a lot .

Direct communication, or communication on Facebook, is an important source of information for some respondents, mostly for older-age respondents.

Ф3_Ж3: I come from Facebook. I have friends there, a certain circle of my own. And that’s how we communicate on interests and see. And the information comes there from the outside, and you already read about it. And when, say, I speak, also as my daughter, about our city municipal elections, there should not be a random person passing, but a person born here should offer his candidacy for a leader; who was born here, who lives here, who lives among these interests. And the outsiders, it’s just like a kind of another step for them – to jump, and then to go further. Only our guys have to come here, all of this staff is much closer for them.

Ф4_С: I think, especially when it comes to my parents, the elderly, non-Internet users, they used the information received from neighbors more. How they voted what they put there. This is very important because a lot of people do.

Respondents also noted that a significant proportion of people became interested in the voting process in recent weeks, or even days before the vote. It is in the last few days or weeks that the main work of political parties and candidates is in trying to convince voters that it make sense to vote for them.

Ф1_Ч5: Well, in principle, at the last stage, such electoral excitement occurs two weeks before the election, when the people are massively interested, asking each other. A huge amount of different propaganda literature from political parties, from the CEC, from everywhere else – it was such a small instruction such as come and you will put a party tick here. That is, they simply said that there are different political parties. You choose political parties. But the people did not hear the complexity. That is, if you want to support this, you need to get… that is, all these nuances – this is when a person wanted to know something more. But actually, they just brought it to most people. They said: you vote for the party, you choose. And then when you choose the party, you put whatever you decide… Here is such a simple primitive informing people on paper at a distance of about two weeks. This is for most people.

Knowledge of recent local elections and respondents’ assessments

Some respondents complained about the ongoing changes in the electoral system, including before the local elections. The respondent, who lived in other countries during the election process, pointed out that changes in the electoral system in full-fledged democracies are extremely rare and are accompanied by a mass awareness-building campaign, which did not happen in Ukraine.

Ф4_М: And I have seen the elections in these countries: in US, New Zealand, Switzerland and the Netherlands, I lived in families. The first is that they do not need to explain the principle of elections, because it has been stable over the years. If there is an amendment, they bombard you with explanations of what has changed.

Most of the respondents at the time of the focus groups forgot what the ballots looked like in the 2020 local elections and could not immediately remember exactly how many ballots they received in the previous elections.

Ф1_Ж: Well a long one.

Ф1_Ч: One long one.

Ф1_Ч2 : Maybe two. It’s just that they were somehow united into one. That is, they may have been attached together.

Ф2_Ж: Pink, green, yellow.

Ф2_Ч: And there was a huge sheet.

Ф3_Ч3: And I can say that I am having a hard time. It seems to me that they were different. And every time the election imposes responsibility on you, some stress.

After some time of recalling, respondents still managed to mostly remember what the ballots looked like in the recent local elections.

Ф1_Ж4: Name of the party. And, I guess there was the first person. In fact, we voted for the party. I voted in Kyiv and I remember that there was the first person there. And that just didn’t mean that… ah, we just didn’t choose that person. Because our constituency was number something but in the ballot paper it said, well, for example, “Holos” Vakarchuk. But we did not vote for him. Not Vakarchuk, I mean. Someone else in The Holos. Well just a very, very complex system and really in order to… “Two crocodiles are flying, one is green, another one to Africa. How old is my grandmother?” Here is a brief description. That’s my impression.

Ф1_Ч: The ballots didn’t really look like that, but the description is absolutely correct. People could not just understand.

Ф1_Ч5: Well in the party when you check the box… And the number was very interesting, and it was proposed to draw it as a Soviet postal index.

A big share of respondents complained about the incomprehensibility of ballots in the recent local elections in 2020. In fact, some respondents voted at random. The majority of FGD participants thought that the ballots were too complicated, which made it difficult for them, for their relatives and friends to vote.

Ф1_Ж3: Not everyone understood these ballots. So my daughter went to vote in the last election, she couldn’t really find even the party she wanted to vote for. … There was a lot of everything. Just something like that. She was confused and upset. I say, go write a statement that you are confused. And no, she says, I won’t. In general, she says, I will not come here again.

Ф2_Ж1: Let me tell you as a member of the election commission. The old ladies were shocked that there were 4 ballots, and the middle age people were also shocked. They somehow thought it was just two ballots. Some, the most advanced voters knew that there were 3, but that there would be 4 ballots – it was a shock for everyone. Then, those who are the simplest, well the most sincere people, said: “Kid, show me where Lysenko is here.” And when that old lady said she wanted to vote for Lysenko, I pointed my finger in there.

Ф3_В: That is, you put a number? Or just a tick?

Ф3_Ж3: No, I ticked it. I put a tick in front of the full name.

Ф3_Ч : Yes. But it so happened to me that I voted for a candidate from another party.

A large number of complaints about the stencil system of writing numbers when filling out ballots should be highlighted. Respondents generally mentioned that writing numbers in that way was optional, in their opinion; it greatly confused voters and members of election commissions. Focus group participants were perplexed at the choice of writing numbers, which in fact is not used in modern life, and most young people have never encountered its use.

Ф1_Ч5: Well in the party, when you put a tick… And the number was very interesting, and it was proposed to draw it as a Soviet postal index.

Ф1_Ж4: And the explanation also came several times. It was 01. Then vice versa. In any case, but only 1. Or vice versa 1 on the right or 1 on the left.

Ф1_Ж3: This is such a confusion. It’s such a nightmare that even literate and young people say, well, they did something like that. Well, I don’t know all this. Those programmers can type it into a computer to denote it. But, let’s say, people who are engaged in economics or something else, this time – that’s that, they thinks fast on the go. And all humanitarian-type peopel, it is unacceptable for them.

Ф2_Ч2: At the beginning of the election there was information that it is necessary to put not just a number, to draw it as on envelopes. And even I was like “I need to open and check how to do that.” My grandmother says – oh, yes, I remember how the envelopes were written. But I am a person who has not written the letters. And it was that way, but then they canceled. And it became easier for people. Although some did not know that they had canceled, and talked to each other, I googled it and looked for how to put numbers. It was a problem about that. Well, really, people did not understand why there were 4 of them, what the difference was. And why people are repeated, and in other places it was different. And then, you could also have it either way, both here and there, if it was the same person. That’s right, it’s problematic-ish.

The respondent with a disability, who was a candidate in the 2020 local elections, drew attention to the inadequacy of the awareness campaign that should accompany the process of changing the electoral system. Thus, assessing her experience of participating in the election campaign, the respondent highlighted the difficulties faced by candidates in conducting campaigning and awareness work.

Ф4_Ді: It seems to me that the problem was that there was not enough advertising campaign to explain to the public about the new lists. That when you do not vote for the candidate, it goes separately to the first number. And really I was a participant, I was a candidate. And a very big disadvantage is that people voted for me as a candidate and voted for another party. And it turns out that the voice was not taken into account by me. And it was a very big minus. In principle, it seems to me. What more people need to be involved. Because we had few young people in Vinnytsia at the elections. Accordingly, the turnout was very low. And not everyone was able to deal with these lists. This, I think, is a minus. And many complained that the list was quite large. Many candidates were registered and very small letters. And some did not see. I had acquaintances who came. They say: we can’t see well, there was bad lighting and we couldn’t find it. For some people, this was specific. It was a little heavier because of the small size of the letters.

Application of twin candidates technology

A significant number of respondents encountered the technology of twin candidates in various elections. Although the respondents themselves did not state that they were not directly mistaken in their election, they did admit that such candidates keep “biting off” a few percent of the vote. The main effect of such technologies on elections is the ongoing political struggle and the difference between the candidates is minimal. The headquarters of political parties participating in the election process are trying to counteract this. Currently, FGD members do not see the possibility of counteracting this anyhow, except for how to provide additional information about the candidates - say, the year of birth.

Ф2_Ч5 : We have this technology used regularly in the region. I will say how much it works after the parliamentary elections. These were parliamentary elections in the constituency where Andriy Derkach won. There was a candidate from the “Servant of the People,” there was an absolute twin from “Servant of the People,” PP, ie there was an absolute clone – name, surname, patronymic. There was also another, also from the “Servant of the People” party; he was only criticizing the real candidate from “Servant of the People”, and Volodymyr Zelensky also was there. I then summarized... Well, Andriy Derkach won, he really won over that candidate from the “Servant of the People” by 14%. That is, all these twins claimed about 10% in total. They took these votes away. If it were not for them, the advantage would not be so significant. In general, we regularly have “twins” technology used. I can’t remember them actually affecting the outcome of the election. But they manage to bite off two or three percent.

Ф1_Ч4: The headquarters of political parties have long opposed this system. They say specifically under what number “your right candidate” goes.

Ф2_Ч3: I wanted to say about Tymoshenko, that there really was such a problem. Actually, the name is written in small letters. You know, it’s very easy to get confused there. Even when I watched it, it was in the presidential election, and I look and see there is a very small font, it was very difficult to see, and the surname was in capital letters. Therefore, the old lady could well have voted for the Yuriy. I do not remember how much he received.

General feedback and remarks to the ballot papers

In general, the respondents emphasized several aspects that must be taken into account when designing ballot papers.

A proposal has been made to determine as accurately and correctly as possible which mark or marks should be entered on the ballot papers.

Ф2_Ж2: I think you need to be as clear as possible to explain what mark to put. Because in a voting booth, people would often try to write "I do not support" or leave some obscene words. And it is considered that any mark is automatically ... And we sat and thought what to do about it. That is, some things need to be explained – what counts, what does not count, and that it doesn’t count to put any mark. I don’t know, flowers can’t be drawn... It seems to me that this is the most important thing to talk about.

Ф4_В: I mentioned another point that it seems that the ballots had to have a tick or a plus. I asked the members of the polling station what to put, a tick or a plus, and they didn’t know, either. They did not know what was right, I do not remember what I put there, whether I did it right or ...

Ф4_О : I had the same issue, but I was told that I should only put a tick.

Ф4_Д: If I’m not mistaken, first it was said that you need a tick, and then many people began to say that not everyone will know about it, and made a new rule that you can tick and put a plus. That’s what we had. As to the candidates, I basically voted for the candidates because I knew many of them personally. We do not have such a big city that we do not know the candidates in person. Therefore, it was not a problem for me, I voted for the party and personally for the candidate.

The font of the ballots should be large enough for visually impaired respondents to use them without assistance. Respondents with disabilities particularly emphasized this fact, such as that the minimum font size should be "14". The contrast of print in the ballots was also emphasized, which was not observed in the previous elections. When discussing ballot layouts, a large number of respondents complained about the small print.

Ф4_О: As for the font of the ballot paper, it’s obviously a violation, too. Because it should not be smaller than font size 14. Instead, there are limitations for size, due to the number of candidates. And that’s why such a mishap.

Ф4_В: And for me, the font is too small where it says “full name of the local organization, last name and initials” because I had to climb higher to see what kind of people are there, what kind of last names, and for me it was a very small font.

Ф4_О: Small font. And it would be nice if each party, such as “Ukrainian Artists,” “Actors” had their own color. It would be nice, too. It would be easier to identify that way.

Ф4_М: And the font shall not only be bigger but also bold type. Because party names and serial numbers read very well, and all other information is very thin. And we have many visually impaired voters. Therefore, it must be taken into account.

Third, respondents would like to simplify the language of ballots. In the local elections, this was manifested in the wording, such as: “territorial organization of the political party “NNN Party” in the city of LLL”, which makes it difficult for respondents to read and understand. Writing ballots in such legalese does not add the necessary information, but only confuses voters. The same applies to the instructions for filling in the ballots: it is necessary to test them for comprehensibility for voters and the impossibility of ambiguous interpretation. One option could be that ballot layouts can be tested on voters with mental disorders – this will minimize the chances of their incorrect filling.

Ф4_С: Where the explanation is the full name of a political organization or a party, it seems to me, the text should be shortened. To simply have the surname or name of the party. In quite simple language, not in legalese. This is not a legal document in terms of explanation, it is a note, an explanation. It needs to be simplified. The name of the candidate, his/her reference number in the electoral list. Why more? Here it is clear that this is a ballot to the party, for example. Or a ballot paper about the party, it will be clear what kind of ballot paper it is. And then the text will be reduced. It is very difficult to grasp the meaning. It is clear what O.P. is, it is clear to anyone that these are the initials of the candidate. We can say that the candidate, his reference number, and plus – to repeat what we have already said about the first ballot. It is necessary to simplify, to present this information in simpler language.

Ф4_Д : For example, I would recommend testing it on people with mental disorders. If they figure out, and statistically there will be no big mistake among them, then this will be an ideal option.

The large size of ballots creates a number of problems that respondents pointed out, but they do not see any prospects for their speedy resolution. There is a problem with the small font, which solution will make the ballots even bigger. Also, there is a risk of tearing the ballot when dropped into the ballot box due to its large size and thickness when folded, which can lead to dismissing the vote.

Ф1_Ч3: There was still a high probability of damaging the ballot. It’s big enough and when you try to throw it in the ballot box, it doesn’t get there. I had that problem. That is, it had to be folded in some special way.

Fifth, respondents drew attention to the problem with the detachable part of the ballot. Many voters are wary of this and fear that it is a control of their voting. Some voters fear that their will can be identified by a detachable coupon. Respondents also do not see a solution to this problem, except for continuing the awareness raising.

Ф1_Ч: And the problem of the ballot is that it has two parts – a detachable part, it stays with the commission. It’s a major problem. I don’t know how to solve it, because it is the control over the commission so that it does not throw away unnecessary ballots. These two parts, they ... There is no way to determine how people voted. But people do not understand this, you need to explain it all the time. It’s a problem. And I have no idea how to solve it.

Ф1_Ж: That is, people are scared that that piece…

Ф1_Ч: The commission member has a detachable part, and people think it’s control over them. Although in reality it is control over the members of the commission.

Ф1_Ж3 : Yes, people are afraid of that, yes, they are. They think that’s how they know who they voted for. Many say so.

Also, some respondents consider it appropriate to duplicate the information on the ballot in Braille for visually impaired voters, although they doubt the technical feasibility of such a decision.

Ф1_Ж: I sometimes lead the blind to the polls. This is also a problem. There are about 500,000 completely blind people in Ukraine. They go to the polls, they are very active. They have nothing to do, they stay there and listen to the radio all the time. And for them, voting is a very important moment; they feel like people. They have to be brought to the polls. To the booth, that’s right. If that woman led me here, she trusts me, they let me into the booth. And when you have to read the whole list! And they ask to read all the names included there. You stand for 20 minutes reading. Here I came across the fact that some of the blind people, they listen to the radio, but they listen to it, they get the sound. But they misunderstand, they are misguided. Then they ask – I vote for that one. I ask: why? She is a woman and the surname is nice. I say: you don’t vote like that. No. I trust you, put a tick there. And you are tempted not to check that box, but I have to. It’s a separate cohort. They are pretty numerous, they are proactive. She says that if it were written in Braille, I would have chosen myself, but I understand that it is still impossible to write ballot papers in Braille.

Also, some respondents support the electronic voting system, in particular through the “Diya” application. At the same time, this issue provoked huge discussions, especially in FGD-4, regarding the protection of voting and personal data. This issue was most often raised among respondents with disabilities, for whom voting requires more effort than among other voters.

Ф1_Ч5: If we really came to e-voting, when it would be possible to use the Diya application, for example, or some other special app that would allow us to vote, to see both the candidate’s program and the party’s agenda, and the detailed lists. If a person is interested, they will come and understand. After all, not everyone can see the information stands at the polling stations when there is a flow of people, especially in Kyiv. So it would be very convenient. Because there are a lot of people, and I know some of them, who come to the polling station and actually read the candidates’ programs. That is, they want to understand for themselves what that person or a party are proposing to implement, who we are voting for. And so it’s all usually a matter of technology. We should have as much information as possible in the ballot paper, but of course it cannot be put on paper. Therefore, I agree with Mykola when he said that the system is optimally tested, when we have a list of parties, we have the top five candidates. At least something is there in that ballot paper.

 

EXPRESS ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ELECTORAL BALLOT LAYOUTS

Ballot layout No.1

Overall assessment. The first layout of the ballot was not clear enough to the respondents. This is also confirmed by the large number of errors in filling out this template.

Remarks: In this experiment, there were several issues with filling out.

• 1) For some respondents, it was unclear what to enter in the field: a mark (tick or plus) or a number;
• 2) Some respondents entered numbers in all fields to fill in, choosing a candidate from each party.
• 3) It is not clear enough that a candidate from the party list can be voted for and that it is not just a list of party members.

Ф1_Ч: That’s what I said – there were mistakes. The voting procedure is not obvious. That is, here we need to think that next to each party, as far as I understand correctly, it turns out that it is necessary to choose not one party and put a candidate there, but to put one of the candidates next to each of the six cells. That goes against all my rationale.

Ф2_Ж3: Well, it is not clear here, how it’s not as usual, to put a tick or some mark in front of the party that I am voting for. And here is only one cell, and it is unclear whether to vote for the party or to vote for the candidate.

Ф2_Ж2: You seem not to pay attention to the party number at all. You pay attention to the name, and this list, it intuitively seems that this is just a list of people who are members of that party.

Ф2_Ж3: Yes, as if you can’t choose, either the first, or the second, or the third; they just list the candidates who are included there, and that’s it.

Ф4_Д: I have an objection to the first ballot. Look, you have one square, and it is not clear what you need to do there – whether to enter a tick just for the party, or the number of the candidate.

Ф4_Д А І. I noticed this exclamation mark with explanations. It doesn’t work at all. Even after reading it, I have the impression that you look and do not understand what you see. It is necessary either to have a visual example, such as to have a model on top, how to mark, or to remove that, to make it logical.

Suggestions: The available layout of the ballot paper can be made clearer by making digital formatting in the field for selecting the party and the candidate. This will allow voters to understand that it is possible to choose not only the party but also the candidate from its list. At the same time, the markup of the selection field should not repeat the index markup: most respondents do not remember how to apply it. Also, the instructions for filling in the ballot paper should clearly state that only one choice can be made, and it is not allowed to elect a candidate from several political parties.

 

Ballot layout No.2

Overall assessment. Respondents rated this layout of the ballot slightly better than the layout No.1. In a situation when the number of the candidate needed to be entered in the ballot, the respondents indicated that it was necessary to make a markup in the cell, which will push the respondents to understand that in a certain field you need to enter the number. On the other hand, respondents mostly do not like the style of drawing that was used in this layout (as a postal zip code).

Ф1_Ч .: Well, here, compared to the first sample, in this ballot paper I have an idea that you need to write the number in that box. That is, it is better. But still not the best. Because you have to think in which mode to write that number.

Ф2_Ж3.: Here it is already clear that a tick is not the option.

Ф3_Ч5: There was a problem with postal codes because it is necessary to remember these stencils. For example, how should I draw the “nine”? On a bend or diagonally?

Ф2_Ч: In this technical format, it was not convenient for me to use. You must draw out several times. Because if you draw one time only, you can’t see enough. Here you just need to draw, to press harder to see what number you are drawing. Plus,  I was lucky with my candidate. There’s the number 4, then it’s clear how to write. And the number 7, I do not remember how to write it. Or the “2”.

Remark: In version 2 of the ballot layout, a mistake was also made when they filled in all the fields and entered candidates from each party at the same time.

Ф1_Ч2: About all or one to choose. That it is necessary to choose more than one.

Ф1_Ж3 : I wrote six there.

Suggestions: If you can’t avoid stencil markup pattern, the numbers of candidates you can choose should be written in the same style so that voters can copy the writing style on the ballot.

Ballot layout No.3

Overall assessment. The majority of respondents positively assessed this layout of the ballot paper. It is easier for most respondents to understand.

Ф2_Ж: It is the simplest. The system in the 2020 elections, when you had to enter the number, and people used to write a tick or a cross, so it was the most difficult. Therefore, such a system, with a tick and a cross, with no numbers, it is the simplest.

Ф4_О: It is necessary to take the third option as a basis and to finalize it.

Remarks. The information part with the guidelines is worded not clear enough, and ambiguously.

Ф1_Ч5: But the question at the exclamation mark is very confusing in this ballot. That is, here it is so twisted that it is necessary to. We see how to vote, but if we start reading this question, then you immediately get some thinking that brings you into confusion.

Ф3_Ч5: And it seems to me that it is the most convenient for the voter, because it is just explained in detail here, what to put here ... That is, if you read the instructions it is extremely clear that there you need to simply put the “plus”. It seems totally clear to me. Because indeed, maybe you need to increase the font size of the last name, at least half-point, for people with poor eyesight.

Suggestions: Some respondents suggested changing the layout of the ballot paper to make the choice of candidates more obvious. Also, a hugh number of respondents suggested increasing the font size and margin for marking candidates, as it would be inconvenient to use such a ballot for people with visual impairements.

Ф4_Д: And also, put that box for the party in front, it should logically stand in front of the party.

Ballot layout No.4

Overall assessment. Most respondents rated this ballot as less convenient, especially compared to the ballot No.3 layout. However, there were some assessments that such a ballot was generally convenient to use.

Remarks. As in other ballot layouts, where candidate numbers must be entered, respondents were often confused about how to enter a candidate's number from the first dozen: with or without a zero in front. Also, the layout of the ballot and two separate fields for registration push voters to think that these two cells can be filled out independently: you separately choose a party and a separate candidate (even from another party). Also, some respondents saw several boxes in one because of the formatting.

Ф1_Ж2: And here again candidates from 1 to 10, how to write it – “1” or “01.”

Ф1_Ж: “01.”

Ф1_Ж2: And if you write “1” it will not be valid.

Ф3_Ч: Well, this is inconvenient. Why? Because there are four squares. What are they for? After all, here is one candidate. One square is enough to write a number, a number, and that’s it.

Ф4_О : And what are these four squares?

Ф4_Д: The fact is that here, as D. said, the hand is still reaching to choose a personal candidate from one party, and to vote for another party.

Suggestions. If you keep this type of the ballot, you should consider changing the layout. The field for selecting a party or a candidate must be done coherently, at the beginning of the line, or at the end. The main suggestions for improving the ballots based on options No.1, No.2, and No.4 are presented in the next section.

Ф4_Ол.: No, and the number is a little lower. Or, they wrote “Party of Ukrainian Writers.” Next follows a huge square, or in front of the name. And the number is in a completely different place, and everyone is comfortable.

Ballot layout No.5

Overall assessment. Respondents assessed this layout of the ballot moderately. The advantages include a large font size describing the political parties on the ballot and the number of the party, which is rather conspicuous. Some respondents liked the placement of the entry field at the end, but there were few of them.

Ф3_Ж4 : It also seems to me that this is quite correct. It already looks like a summary, you look through, and then you are ready to put your choice in the end.

Remarks. Major shortcomings of the ballot, according to the respondents, are related to the need to enter the candidate from the party in a separate field at the bottom of the ballot. Respondents noted that voters will forget to enter an individual candidate in this field (especially in real conditions, when the ballots will be larger). It was also suggested that the field may not contain a single candidate, but the serial number of a political party in the ballot.

Ф1_Ч5: The only remark here is that the people will forget to put a number at the bottom. But in general it is convenient.

Ф1_Ч2: And you still need to think it over, to distract your attention, and there will be no time for it.

Ф1_Ч5: Probably, in the instruction it should be specified in more detail that one should state the number exactly as it is specified – opposite the candidates. Because you don’t want to have a different “three” or other symbols.

Ф4_І.: That is, here they will put a tick or a number, whatever they feel like, and in the end ... Well that’s a complicated one.

Respondents also drew attention to the inconvenience of the way the list of political party candidates was compiled.

Ф2_Ж3: And so, as the candidates are listed here, that here – Ya.V., then “03”, it all goes wrong. These abbreviations with numbers, that is, when the numbers are written in a column, then there is some logic behind, and when they go in a row, these all where there is a comma, where the dot, where the number begins, where the initials end – it’s all…

Suggestions. If possible, you should avoid having to enter the candidate’s number in a separate field at the bottom of the ballot. It can be entered in the same field as the party choice.

Ballot layout No.6

Overall assessment. In general, respondents assessed this version of the ballot positively. After some finalization, it can be convenient for use by both voters and subjects of the election process, especially for candidates.

Ф1_Ч4: It’s a good idea. It is also great for campaigning. That is, vote for the candidate “405”, for example, and it immediately catches your eye.

Remark: It was unclear to the respondents whether the convenience of using the ballot would be maintained when the process is scaled up: in cases where the number of parties is larger.

Ф1_Ч2: And imagine if there are not 4 or 5, but two dozen of these lists.

Ф1_Ч: Well, yes, we have 100 parties.

Ф1_Ж: Yes, such a ballot is not good. An old lady will come, she will write only what she catches by ear.

Also, some respondents complained about the small font size of the ballot, especially for numbers and candidates behind.

Ф1_Ж : Yes, you can imagine what I have to do. I read everything honestly. And I can’t see well.

Ф1_Ч3: In principle, we can say that the font is too small. Actually, it is possible to do it as in the previous ballots, by sectors or blocks. The design of the ballot itself can still be worked out. To place information more compactly.

Ф4_Ол: First, everything is small, it is unrealistic to understand. Surnames are small, everything is piled up, some crazy numbers - 101, 102, 103. Who is the 200. Who will be figuring that out?

Respondents also drew attention to the lack of separation of the information field with instructions for filling in the ballot. Here, it is not highlighted clearly enough and without any visual symbols.

Ж4: But the ballot still wins a little over the previous one, because there is a window box for the number. You can already see that there is an empty field. But at the same time this is the place where the instructions are. Here, in the previous ballots there is an exclamation mark, a black square – it somehow visually catches your eye, and you see that this is some important information, it should be read. There is no such mark here, and accordingly ... I will speak for myself, when you see a list of people under the numbers, but you do not see squares in front of them for the ticks, you will still be looking for them, where to vote, how to put it. And if you want, you will find, but you could still make this place with instructions more convenient.

Respondents also indicated that there may be errors in filling in the ballot paper when voters circle the candidate’s number instead of entering it in the appropriate field.

Ф2_Ч: It also seems to me that the weakness of this ballot is that some people will circle the number…

Ballot layout No.7

Overall assessment. This layout of the ballot paper received mostly low scores from the respondents.

Remarks. A big number of respondents complained about information overload.

Ф1_Ч: And there is too much information.

Ф1_Ч2: Yes, the same, but they actually added the entire presidium there.

Ф1_Ж: This newsletter is overloaded of information. It’s excessive.

Also, there is a difficulty in distinguishing between the regional list and the national one.

Ф1_Ч2: Well, in this form, if there are candidates running for seats, it is excessive. Because I remember it well, I did not understand at first who to choose from. I had to review several times – who of them?

Ф1_Ч4: So. Either Dovzhenko or Klitschko. Who of them? That is, the people will emphasize something here, and here.

Ф1_Ч2: They will complain that there is no number next to their candidate.

Ф2_Ж4: Well, it’s confusing. Maybe it should be written in a header, in a table and in some other font.

Ф2_Ч2: These are the kind of nationwide candidates, right? Are they local?

The selection of the candidate from the party is done in a separate field, which poses the whole range of problems described in relation to the layout of the ballot No.5.

Ф1_Ч2: Yes, it’s excessive. And again, a tick at the bottom, this square at the bottom ... We start here again, but we are sent away. This reference norm, so to speak, is excessive. These are reference things, they are excessive in the bulletin.

Ф1_Ч: Moreover, if it is such a ballot, then this number will be at the bottom, right here. That is, the parties are here, and here I must not forget and come down there.

Ф1_Ж: No, no one will go down there.

Ф3_Ж5: Regarding the No.7, and, it seems, the previous one, which is very similar, there is a very high risk that people will simply forget to write below or above. We have already talked about this. And then this whole system will be useless.

Suggestions. Most respondents rated this ballot negatively because it collected negative aspects from others. It is problematic to improve this ballot without significant finetuning.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for improving ballots within the current electoral system

As part of the focus group discussion, respondents had some general comments and suggestions when developing ballot layouts. Below, find them structured.

• 1. The simpler, the better.

Most focus group respondents believe that the best option for ballots is where voters do not need to add anything, but simply put a “tick” or a “plus.” Complicating ballots, according to respondents, leads to a large number of errors. Another aspect is to simplify the information provided in the ballot. If possible, you should avoid legal terminology, and it is easier to enter the name of the political force and the candidates who represent it.

Ф4_С .: I have a suggestion. Most people are not highly educated and will not be reading the many words. Even more so, at polling stations people in general worry very often not to make mistakes. They mainly focus on reading the last name. It seems to me that where the explanation is, with the full name of a political organization or party, it seems to me that the text should be reduced. You need to have it simple – the surname or name of the party. Quite simple language, not legalese. It is not a legal document in terms of explanation, it is a reference, an explanation. It needs to be made simpler. The name of the candidate, their number included in the electoral list. Why? Here, it is clear that this is a ballot for the party, for example. Or a ballot paper about the party. It will be clear what kind of ballot paper it is. And then the text will be reduced. It is very difficult to read it carefully. It is clear what O.P. is, it is clear to anyone that these are the initials of the candidate. We can say that the candidate, their serial number, and you need to additionally duplicate what we have already said about the first ballot. It is necessary to simplify, to present this information in simpler language.

• 2. To have better highlighted guidelines for filling in the ballots.

The available instructions in the ballots are not clearly defined and a significant number of respondents did not notice it when filling out the ballots. In the experiment, some focus group participants did not notice the information unit with instructions when filling out the first few ballots. For example, respondents suggested highlighting it with a different color that would catch the eye. Also, it is necessary to test such an instruction on a separate sample as to whether such guidelines are interpreted unambiguously enough. Options for drawing attention to the unit with instructions can be implemented by the same pattern as in the preparation of visual materials: color, highlighting, font size, etc.

• 3. Avoid postal code style markup for cells to enter the numbers of candidates from political parties.

Most respondents do not remember the correct spelling of numbers using the coding used in the postal service. Even if such writing is not mandatory, it creates unnecessary doubts among respondents. If it is impossible to abandon such writing, it is worth at least printing the list of candidates in such a way that voters can copy it. On the other hand, numbers markup at the place of filling improves the understanding that you need to enter the number in a specific field, but such markup should still be done in some common style.

• 4. Entering the number of a party candidate at the end of the ballot will create additional difficulties for voters

Not all respondents saw a field for a single candidate, even in the ballot layouts. If the ballot is longer, it will cause additional difficulties. In general, entering the candidate’s number at the end of the ballot paper was assessed by respondents as the least convenient way to compile elements of the ballot paper layout. In such situations, voters are least likely to select specific candidates from a political party list.

• 5. Consider the feasibility of more explicit separation of political parties from each other on the ballot.

Some respondents would like to see a clearer demarcation of political parties in the ballot, as it is sometimes difficult to find the desirable political party when the text is overloaded. Also, it sometimes creates situations where respondents make a mistake in the field. You can differentiate political parties on the ballot with different colors, or by placing a small party logo: this will allow respondents to more quickly identify the party they would like to vote for. On the other hand, this issue is not so clear-cut, as the technology of twins can already be used at the party level elections.

Ф4_О.: And it would be nice if each party, such as “Ukrainian Artists,” “Actors” had their own color. It would be nice, too. It would be easier to identify that way.

Prospects for improving the proposed layouts of ballots

The evaluation of the ballots by the respondents of the focus group study shows that they liked the No.3 option the most. It received maximum score, in terms of clarity. Also, high scores were assigned to the layout of ballot No.6, and “good” for ballot No.1. These versions of ballots No.3 and No.6 hardly had any errors that would made it impossible to establish the vote in the experiment.

In terms of convenience, the layouts of ballots No.6 and No.3 received the highest score. Thus, the No.6 ballot received a slightly higher number of “very convenient” ratings, but it is more polarized – at the same time, a higher number of “absolutely inconvenient” ratings.

Other ballots were less clear and convenient for respondents, but in general, they have prospects for improvement in the future. The most common mistake of filling out ballots during the experiment was to select candidates from several or all parties at the same time.

Regarding the informativeness of the proposed ballots, each of the proposed ballots had its remarks. In version No.7, there was too much information. But the ballots No.1, No.3, No.4, No.5, and No.6 received almost the same scores in terms of informativeness.

As part of the experiment and evaluation of ballots, three options can be considered for the long-term improvement and reformatting of ballots.

• Based on version No.3

This option was called optimal by the majority of respondents. It seemed the simplest, without the need to enter additional numbers and was less confusing for respondents.

Remark: the fields to be filled in for candidates are extremely small and respondents expressed a desire to increase their size, while better placing the structure of candidates from the party. Also, when choosing such a version of the ballot, voters will need to have additional emphasis that you need to put only one mark for only one party and only one mark for a candidate from the same party.

Options for improvement: you can compose the ballot in two parts, where the left unit will be to choose parties, and the right unit – for the candidate. According to the respondents, this way of composing the ballot paper will be clearer and simpler: first the party is elected, and then the procedure of electing a candidate follows. For more clarity, this process can be depicted schematically with arrows and pointers.

Also, you can consider an alternative layout of the ballot, where the ballot box will be in front of the party, as well as in front of the candidates.

• Based on version No.6

Respondents also liked this option more, but slightly less than option No.3. Also, the first and subsequent perception of this option was excellent. At first it seemed strange and inconvenient to the respondents, but after a short discussion the attitude changed. The generation of a unique digital combination, according to respondents, will reduce the number of errors when filling. Also, such options will be convenient for candidates from political parties to be used during the campaign.

Remark: the respondents noted that in real conditions the number of parties and candidates will be much higher than in the proposed layouts. Accordingly, the unique digital combination will be already 4-digit. Also, the need to enter the candidate’s number in a separate window is a more complicated procedure than the ability to mark an individual candidate or party. When using such a layout, it is unclear how one can vote specifically for a party without supporting one of the candidates.

Options for improvement: placing candidates from the party in this version of the ballots can be more structured, in the tables. Respondents pointed out that this would take up less space and make it easier to find the right candidate. 

• Based on versions No.1, No.2, No.4

Also, it is possible to finatune the ballots on the basis of the proposed options, which were less liked by the respondents, but can still be considered as promising.

Remark: Respondents generally do not like the need to enter a candidate number while choosing a party. This led to certain misunderstandings and a situation when respondents do not choose candidates from the party they were marking. Placing one cell next to the party and candidates created some discomfort when choosing a particular candidate from the party, as it was difficult for some respondents to understand the principle of voting: whether to mark the candidate separately or to enter his number in the cell. In the case of the two ballot boxes, such as in version No.4, some respondents did not see that voting for a particular party did not allow for the selection of a candidate from another party, as the two parts were often perceived as parallel. Also, within the FGD, some respondents reported the existence of such situations in the recent local elections where identical ballot layouts were used.

Options for improvement: respondents suggested changing the layout of the units when using such a ballot layout. It was suggested that it be clear in the ballot that the party is elected first in the ballot, and then the candidate in it. Also, it is appropriate to separate the field to fill in the candidate’s selection so that it is clear that it is necessary to enter a number in this place, but this should not be done in the “stencil” postal style, the reasons for which were described earlier. A key aspect to consider when choosing such a ballot is the need to inform voters that the right and left of the document are not parallel or unrelated, but actually related.

Critical remarks and shortcomings of the methodology

To the experimental part of the study:

• Since the ballots were distributed and filled in turn, it can be assumed that with each subsequent ballot the respondents better understood how to express their will in it. Accordingly, ballots with larger serial numbers, in theory, could be filled better. Making random ballots and shuffling them in the process was problematic in the context of tracking the voting of specific people according to the ToR, and random voting could not be adequately applied with such a small scale experiment. In general, this remark was confirmed in practice: the ballots of later serial numbers were indeed filled with fewer errors.
• Ballot layouts may not match the actual size of genuine ballots. In some cases, this could affect the outcome of the experiment (especially in cases where the ballot box was placed at the bottom of the sheet). Also, ballot layouts may not match actual ballot papers in terms of size, contrast, and background color.
• The specifics of conducting a focus group among people with disabilities (online format) did not allow for a voting experiment. Accordingly, the study was limited to a general discussion of the ballots and their evaluation.

Before testing ballots and test questionnaires:

• The small quantitative scale of the study does not allow us to talk about the representative nature of the study, but certain trends can still be identified. It is impractical to compare the perception of ballots by different groups of respondents due to the small sample size.

 

Report Prepared by:

Andriy Sukharina, political analyst of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation

 

This study was supported by the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The opinions and statements expressed in the study may not coincide with the position of USAID and the US Government.