Will we need a scalpel for redistricting?

When a protagonist of "The Matrix" saw the same black cat twice in the same perspective and with a slight shift in time – he thought it’s a usual déjà vu. Instead, experienced colleagues explained him that it’s not a mystical accident, but regular failure in the system. Neo learned very soon about unpleasant consequences of such surprise. Ukrainian electors will also see consequences of using parallel (mixed) electoral system very soon, which unexpected appearance in 2012 was definitely not a déjà vu. It’s deliberately initiated failure in electoral system which allows manipulating it. In particular, coming back to 225 majoritarian districts creates more favorable conditions for violations in comparison to those with voting procedure in one nationwide district by list of 450 people. It’s maximally comprehensible for everyone – those who manipulate and who are manipulated.

However it’s not so obvious that the more system is applicable to different abuses, the more difficult is to hide these abuses. We already know about "weaknesses” of majoritarian voting in single-mandate districts[1].

After the law “On Elections of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” of 17 November 2011 came into force, the most problematic is the issue of setting boundaries of single-mandate districts, which amount should be determined by the CEC before 10 April 2012. Mass media is spreading news about prepared in regions “correct” schemes of redistricting which are to be passed to the CEC for “approval” Civic organizations, making one step forward, are initiating public discussions on model regional district maps. Everybody are in anticipation of surprises and try to forecast the most terrible and/or the most probable of all possible variants. Starting with creation of counties on territories which don’t adjoin one another (a part of unified electoral district is situated apart from the rest of the district) or, which have obviously unnatural form (too lengthened, elongated), and ending with manipulations with a number of voters in election districts and ignoring already established administrative-territorial structure of the country.

Thus, supposedly, each of these variants may work in Ukraine. Moreover, after an egregious incident with parallel servers of the CEC in 2004, there left little doubt that guys in power are able go for victory at all costs. However, using one or another set of manipulations within districts’ boundaries requires serious grounds (objective preconditions). No one will risk and do “random” redistricting without thorough calculations which show that such manipulations are reasonable. For example, none manipulations with districts’ boundaries will allow a candidate from the Party of Regions win elections in Lviv, as well as a candidate from “Freedom” – in Donetsk. There exist more effective and less risky mechanisms for reaching the necessary result.

Most voters successfully managed to forget surnames of previously elected deputies in their election district

It’s not so easy to do the mass redistricting aimed at concentration of supporters’ votes and diffusion of opponents' votes today. The thing is that last parliamentary elections in 225 electoral districts were held 10 years ago. Therefore, duration of existing electoral cycle was successfully destroyed by new rules of conducting 2006 and 2007.electoral campaigns. Since than there have been radical changes in national political elites and in social mood on district level. Some parties appeared, some disappeared. Most voters successfully managed to forget surnames of previously elected deputies in their election districts. In case of stable electoral tendencies on the level of majoritarian district, only some quantitative and qualitative data will be needed for manipulative redistricting. Having information about voting traditions in Ukraine (Center and West vs. East and South) is obviously not enough for creation of a majoritarian district for the benefit of a certain candidate of against a possible opponent. Same as last local election results give a very vague idea about the list of possible candidates and priorities of the electorate on parliamentary elections. Therefore, there are more chances to miss then to achieve “accurate” redistricting.

A number of voters in Ukraine decreased by 1,5 m

The only serious reason for redistricting "advantage for yourself”, is a tendency for decreasing the total number of voters in Ukraine.Thus, in comparison to 2002, a number of voters in Ukraine decreased by 1,5 m – from 38,265,300 to 37,763,367 voters. Thus, the average number of voters in every electoral district also decreased [3]. In 2002 the average number of voters was 170,075 people [4], and it was 163,393 of voters on 31 January 2012. Ideally, a number of voters in every of 225 majoritarian districts should be 163 thousand people.  But the law [5] provides possible deviation of 12% that is 19607 voters. The law also provides that districts should be formed within regions, ARC, cities Kyiv and Sevastopil. Thus, the CEC should have determined a number of electoral districts in every region through dividing an average number of voters in oblast by an average number of voters in Ukraine (163,393)[6]. Having made this easy calculation, we may know which should have been an approximate number of electoral districts in every region on 2012 parliamentary elections already today. At the same time we may compare how a number of election districts in 2012 will differ from 2002, due to the above mentioned reduction of population.

In result, number of electoral districts should decrease in five regions of Ukraine: in AR Crimea, Luhansk, Cherkasy and Poltava regions – by one election district, in Donetsk – by two. On the other hand, number of election districts is to increase by one in three regions: Ivano-Frankivsk region, Kyiv and Kyiv region. Taking into consideration, that majoritarian election districts for 438 thousand of overseas voters will be created in Kyiv [7], a number of election districts in this region will increase approximately by 3 and in total will be 16 election districts.

Thus, if the CEC counts everything objectively, than results of redistricting will hardly satisfy a party, dominating in southern and eastern Ukraine. Such division of the number of voters will lead to guaranteed loose of one mandate in Crimea and Luhansk regions, and two mandates in Donetsk. Moreover, similar calculation gives additional seats in the parliament for opponents: one mandate in each Ivano-Frankivsk and Kyiv regions and four mandates (including overseas election districts) in Kyiv. Probably, the governing party will try to avoid becoming a hostage of demographic trends, and than a scalpel for “correct” redistricting. However, it will be difficult to hide such “operation” from the public. Manipulations give a necessary political effect only in case nobody knows about their application.

[1] About an effect of lost votes see: http://www.elect.in.ua/blog/item/anomalnist-rezultativ-mazhoritarnoi-skladovoi-parlamentskih-viboriv-v-ukraini-miljoni-zmarnovanih-golosiv

[2] Source – website of the CEC (data on the number of voters in 2002) and site of the State register of voters (data on the number of voters on 31 January 2012).

[3] An average number of voters in single-mandate election district is calculated through division of a total number of voters in Ukraine by 225 election districts.

[4] CEC Resolution “On approximate number of voters in single-mandate electoral districts and creation of single-mandate electoral districts on elections of people’s deputies of Ukraine on 31 March 2002” No.69 of 30 December 2001.

[5] Article 18 (2) the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” No.4061-VI of 10.10.2011.

[6] Undivided districts are joined to regions which received largest remainders in result of division (method of largest remainders).

[7] Article 22 (2) of the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” No.4061-VI of 17.11.2011.