• On October 31, 2010, the Rating Group conducted the local exit poll “Halychyna-2010”. Voters were surveyed at polling station exits on election day in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil. Around 250 specialists worked on the exit poll on election day, including nearly 200 interviewers. In total, more than 7,700 voters were surveyed at 96 polling stations.
• It should be noted that during the “Halychyna-2010” exit poll, there were no recorded cases of polling station officials refusing to allow the survey. All teams started and finished their work according to the agreed schedule.
• A distinctive feature of this year’s exit poll, also noted by all sociological companies conducting surveys in Lviv, Ternopil, and Ivano-Frankivsk, was a high number of refusals from respondents to answer interviewers’ questions. At some polling stations, the refusal rate reached up to 40%, compared to the standard 15–20%. This situation was partly a result of the escalation of the political climate ahead of the elections, as well as citizens’ reactions to certain “information wars” conducted in some media outlets against exit polls.
• Despite this, all exit polls announced in Lviv, Ternopil, and Ivano-Frankivsk were conducted successfully and produced consistent results. The only minor exception was Ivano-Frankivsk, where according to Research & Branding Group candidate Yurii Solovey was leading, while according to the Rating Sociological Group Viktor Anushkevychus was leading. The latter ultimately won the mayoral election according to the official vote count.
• It is worth noting that the results of all exit polls conducted in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil were consistent with each other regarding party elections, although in some positions they differed from official results.
• In particular, this concerns VO Svoboda, which according to all exit polls in the city council elections in Lviv, Ternopil, and Ivano-Frankivsk received support from more than 30% of voters, while according to local election commissions the figure was about 6% lower.
• For most other positions, deviations between official data and exit polls were generally within the margin of statistical error. One exception was Ternopil, where the official result of the Party of Regions, as well as its mayoral candidate, exceeded exit poll results by 4–5%.

Demographic structure of party voters

• In these local elections, “against all” voting was more typical among men and young people (18–29 years old).
• Older and elderly voters were more active in these elections, while a significant share of young people (at least one quarter) did not vote, which affected overall turnout.
• According to exit poll results, men dominated among voters of VO Svoboda. Compared to previous studies, the share of older voters among Svoboda supporters increased significantly — largely former supporters of Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko.
• The highest share of men was also observed among voters of the People’s Movement (Narodnyi Rukh). In contrast, Our Ukraine and the “For Ukraine!” party (Ternopil) were oriented more toward women.
• The youngest electorate belonged to the PORA party and UDAR of Vitalii Klitschko.
• Among supporters of Front for Change, a large share were young voters, but middle-aged voters dominated overall. There was also a significant share of women. A similar electorate profile was observed for Third Force (Ivano-Frankivsk).
• The oldest electorate was observed among the Party of Regions, Our Ukraine, and the Republican Christian Party (Lviv).
• Interestingly, in Lviv and Ternopil, women primarily voted for the Party of Regions, while in Ivano-Frankivsk men did.

Demographic structure of voters for mayoral candidates

• Among leading mayoral candidates in Lviv, the youngest voters supported Andrii Sadovyi, while the oldest supported Yurii Mykhalchyshyn and Vasyl Hirniak. Women mainly supported Sadovyi and Hirniak, while men supported Mykhalchyshyn.
• In Ternopil, men most often supported Serhii Nadal and Volodymyr Lylo, while women supported Volodymyr Chubak, Petro Hocha, and Roman Zastavnyi. The oldest voters supported Nadal and Hocha, while youth supported Chubak.
• In Ivano-Frankivsk, men mainly supported Ruslan Martsinkiv, Vasyl Balagura, and Yurii Solovey. The highest share of women was among voters of Viktor Anushkevychus.
• Interestingly, according to real-time data from the Ivano-Frankivsk exit poll at 11:00 a.m., men were more active voters than women. As a result, Solovey was leading Anushkevychus by more than 3%. Around midday, the demographic structure of voters became more balanced, and so did the positions of the two competitors. However, after noon, women became more active, and by the evening Anushkevychus was leading. Thus, women’s turnout largely determined the election outcome in Ivano-Frankivsk.
• Youth primarily supported Balagura and Solovey. Older voters supported Martsinkiv and Boichuk, while middle-aged voters supported Prokopiv.
• It is worth noting that three weeks before the elections, the Rating Sociological Group conducted a study of electoral preferences among residents of Ivano-Frankivsk. According to that study, only 31% of residents were satisfied with the performance of the incumbent mayor Anushkevychus, while 64% believed it would be better if a new person led the city.
• At that time, Yurii Solovey was the clear leader in the race (over 30%).
• The key reason for Anushkevychus’ victory was the fragmentation of the opposition electorate. In particular, candidates Solovey, Martsinkiv, and Prokopiv together received almost twice as many votes as the winner (47% vs. 27%).
• Thus, the situation in Ivano-Frankivsk elections in many ways repeated the previous elections in Kyiv, where due to the absence of a single opposition candidate, Leonid Chernovetsky won the mayoral election.