Electoral moods of the population of Lviv: October 2010

Press

Download report (UKR)

13.10.2010

Electoral moods of the population of Lviv: October 2010

In the run-up to the mayoral election, 44% of city residents believe it would be better if the incumbent mayor remains in office. This view is held primarily by supporters of the Republican Christian Party, which officially nominated Andriy Sadovyi, as well as by voters of Batkivshchyna, Front for Change, Our Ukraine, Svoboda and PORA. At the same time, 29% believe it would be better if the city is led by a new person, most notably supporters of the People’s Movement of Ukraine, the Party of Regions and Ukraine United. For 16% it makes no difference who becomes mayor after the election, and 11% are undecided. Fifty-seven percent of respondents say they will definitely participate in the local elections on 31 October, while another 16% assess the likelihood of their participation as high.
The most mobilized groups in the Lviv mayoral election are voters of Stepan Kubiv and Andriy Sadovyi, while the least mobilized are voters of Oleh Lutsiv. As of early October, Andriy Sadovyi is the clear leader in electoral preferences in the mayoral race, with 46.9% among those who intend to vote. Petro Pisarchuk is supported by 11.2%, Yurii Mykhalchyshyn by 5.7%, Stepan Kubiv by 3.6%, Oleh Lutsiv by 3.3% and Vitalii Hirniak by 3.0%. Other candidates together are supported by 4.5%, 4.0% would not support any candidate, and 15.8% remain undecided.
The high share of undecided respondents is explained by several factors. First, at least half of voters who previously supported Vasyl Kuibida have still not decided whom they will vote for, including many supporters of the People’s Movement of Ukraine. Second, a large number of candidates have registered for the election, and voters have limited awareness of many of them and do not yet perceive them as key actors in the electoral process. Third, some supporters of Petro Pisarchuk have begun to doubt their choice: whereas previously Pisarchuk effectively boosted the Party of Regions’ position in the city, the current context of growing disappointment with the central authorities is producing the opposite effect, with the Party of Regions now pulling Pisarchuk’s rating down.
In the city council election, the most mobilized voters are supporters of the Party of Regions, Batkivshchyna, Strong Ukraine and Svoboda, while the least mobilized are voters of PORA. Three weeks before the election, Svoboda leads voting intentions for the Lviv City Council at 22.2% among those who plan to vote, followed by Batkivshchyna at 13.8%. Next come Front for Change at 7.1%, Our Ukraine at 6.4%, the Party of Regions at 6.2%, the Republican Christian Party at 5.9% and PORA at 5.5%, with both parties’ results largely explained by their association with Andriy Sadovyi. Three parties are close to passing the 3% threshold: Strong Ukraine at 2.9%, the People’s Movement of Ukraine at 2.2% and Ukraine United at 2.2%. While the People’s Movement and Ukraine United have gained support during the campaign, Strong Ukraine has been losing voters, with its support over the past six months halving primarily in favor of the Party of Regions and, to a lesser extent, PORA. Over the past six months, Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine have also slightly declined compared to Svoboda and Front for Change, which is linked to the activation of smaller political forces. Other parties together account for 6.4%, 2.8% support no party, and 14.6% are undecided.
Only 28% of respondents say they are aware of the conflict surrounding the registration of Batkivshchyna for the local elections in Lviv region, and only about half of them are potential voters of the party. At the same time, 59% say they know nothing about the situation. Respondents were asked to imagine that shortly before the city council election Yulia Tymoshenko appeals to voters not to support Batkivshchyna in Lviv on the grounds that the candidate lists are not legitimate and were formed by the previous party leadership, allegedly cooperating with the Party of Regions, and they were then asked to reconsider their city council choice under these assumptions. As a result, Batkivshchyna’s support would decrease from 13.8% to 4.7%, while Svoboda would rise to 24.7%, Front for Change to 7.4%, Our Ukraine would remain at 6.4%, the Republican Christian Party would rise to 6.2%, the Party of Regions would remain at 6.2%, PORA would rise to 5.9%, Strong Ukraine would remain at 2.9%, the People’s Movement would rise to 2.8% and Ukraine United to 2.4%. Other parties would receive 10.8%, 3.3% would support no party, and 16.4% would remain undecided.
This scenario suggests that a boycott would primarily harm Batkivshchyna itself, while most other parties, except the Party of Regions and Strong Ukraine, would increase their support more or less proportionally, with Svoboda benefiting most. It could also affect the composition of the future city council by increasing the chances of Ukraine United and, in particular, the People’s Movement of Ukraine to pass the 3% threshold.
As an experimental component, Rating Group asked respondents to assess both awareness and trust toward the leaders heading party lists in the Lviv City Council election, using 13 names for analysis. In general, voters have limited knowledge of the individuals included in party lists, as the first-ranked candidates are known to no more than half of Lviv voters. However, supporters of the parties that nominated these candidates tend to know them better, with awareness ranging from 40% to 90%. Among their own electorates, the best known are Vitalii Hirniak, Taras Diakiv, Ihor Rudnytskyi, Volodymyr Veremchuk and Petro Tkachuk, while the least known are Yaroslav Hinka, Mykhailo Khmil and Oleksandr Blashchuk. The highest levels of trust among their own electorates are recorded for Ihor Rudnytskyi, Taras Diakiv, Yurii Mykhalchyshyn, Petro Tkachuk and Andrii Dziuban, while Petro Adamyk has the lowest level of trust.
When asked whether they choose a party mainly by its name or by who is included in the top five candidates on its list, 40% said they decide primarily based on the people heading the list and 32% based on the party name. Voting mainly by party name is more typical for supporters of the Party of Regions, Svoboda, Front for Change, Strong Ukraine, PORA, Our Ukraine and Batkivshchyna, while voting mainly based on the first five candidates is more typical for supporters of the Republican Christian Party, Ukraine United and the People’s Movement of Ukraine.
If parliamentary elections were held the following week, 20.1% of Lviv residents would vote for Svoboda, 18.2% for Batkivshchyna, 7.8% for Our Ukraine, 7.8% for Front for Change, 6.0% for the Party of Regions and 4.3% for Strong Ukraine. In addition, 3.6% would support PORA, 3.2% For Ukraine! led by Viacheslav Kyrylenko and 1.6% UDAR led by Vitalii Klitschko. Other parties together would receive 9.6%, 3.6% would support none, and 13.6% would be undecided. These results indicate that Batkivshchyna, Front for Change, Our Ukraine and Strong Ukraine would perform better in parliamentary elections than in local elections, whereas Svoboda would perform relatively better at the local level.
If a presidential election were held the following week, 20.7% of Lviv residents would vote for Yulia Tymoshenko, 14.9% for Arseniy Yatsenyuk, 14.4% for Oleh Tyahnybok, 7.9% for Viktor Yushchenko, 6.6% for Serhiy Tihipko, 6.3% for Viktor Yanukovych and 3.5% for Anatolii Hrytsenko. Other candidates together would receive 11.9%, 3.6% would support none, and 10% would be undecided. Based on previous research experience, voters disappointed in politicians used to choose the “against all” option, but after the presidential election they more often choose the “other” category even when they cannot name an alternative.

Methodology

Survey organization: Rating Group.
Survey population: residents of the city aged 18 and older.
Sample size: 800 respondents.
Method: face-to-face formalized interview using a structured questionnaire.
Sampling error: no more than 2.8% for values close to 50%, no more than 2.4% for values close to 30%, and no more than 1.7% for values close to 10%.
Fieldwork dates: 5–11 October 2010.