• According to the results of a study by the Rating Group, conducted at the end of December 2011, the level of political activity of Lviv residents remains at a relatively high level: 50% would definitely take part in parliamentary elections and 28% would rather take part than not.
  The highest level of voter mobilization is among Svoboda and Batkivshchyna.
• If elections to the Verkhovna Rada were held at the end of December 2011, 20.7% of Lviv residents would support the Batkivshchyna party (data are given among those who intend to take part in the elections).
  Somewhat fewer Lviv residents would support Svoboda (17.1%) and Front for Change (16%).
  The UDAR party would be supported by 6.2% of voters, Civic Position by 4.5%, the Party of Regions by 3.9%, Our Ukraine by 3.3%, the Communist Party and For Ukraine! by 1% each.
  Other parties would be supported by about 4.8% of voters.
  10% of voters would not support any party, 11.6% are undecided.
• Compared to November, the changes are minimal. Due to growth in support compared to September, Batkivshchyna continues to hold leadership in the rankings in Lviv. The ratings of Svoboda, Front for Change, and UDAR did not change in December. At the same time, the number of the “undecided” continued to grow (from 7% in September, 11% in November to 12% in December) and “against all” (from 6% in September, 8% in November to 10% in December).
• The signing in early December of the Law on the Election of People’s Deputies gave a formal start to election campaigns in single-member districts, including in Lviv. In this connection, during December four “signal” surveys were conducted in four electoral districts of Lviv in order to understand whom Lviv residents remember from previous elections, whom they trust among new politicians, etc.
• Key methodological points that were taken into account in preparing and conducting the study:
• When forming the list of potential candidates, primarily the experience of politicians running in the respective districts was taken into account. In isolated cases, information from experts and the media was used. In addition, the list ensured maximum representation of candidates from the main parties.
• In each district, both the rating and the electoral attractiveness of potential candidates were measured. The latter indicator was calculated using a separate scale, which made it possible to identify both “core” supporters and “potential” supporters who may vote for a candidate. This also made it possible to show the overall positive and negative attitudes toward local politicians.
• In each Lviv district, its own list of candidates was studied. At the same time, in order to more fully study public opinion, the electoral attractiveness of three “universal” candidates — opinion leaders representing different socio-political groups — was also measured in each district: the incumbent mayor Andriy Sadovyi, who conducts active political activity but is not clearly aligned with any party and has not declared any intention to run; the leader of Svoboda Oleh Tyahnybok, who conducts active political activity clearly aimed at parliamentary elections; and the rector of Lviv National University Ivan Vakarchuk, who is not actively involved in politics but enjoys a high level of public trust.

DISTRICT #1 (Sykhiv, part of Lychakiv district)

• Currently there are two leaders of electoral sympathy in the district: Yurii Mykhalchyshyn (Svoboda) – 15% and Andrii Shkil (Batkivshchyna) – 13%.
  Somewhat fewer voters are currently ready to vote for Taras Chornovil (7%), Oleksandr Sheika (6%), Andrii Parubii (6%), and Dmytro Dobrodomov (5%).
  Even fewer would support Volodymyr Hirniak (3%), Ihor Rudnytskyi (2%), Volodymyr Zahorskyi (2%), and Oleh Matsekh (2%).
  Other candidates would be supported by about 12% of district voters, 15% would not support anyone, and 15% are undecided.
• For Mykhalchyshyn, with a rating of 15%, 8% are firmly ready to vote and 14% could consider voting for him, meaning his total potential is 22%.
  For Shkil, with 13%, 8% are firm supporters and 19% are potential, giving him a total of 27%, meaning he may overtake Mykhalchyshyn.
• Several other politicians have high electoral attractiveness: Parubii can grow from 6% to 15%, Dobrodomov from 5% to 15%, and Sheika from 6% to 12%.
  The leader of the anti-rating is Taras Chornovil (almost 60% would not vote for him under any circumstances).
• In the 2002 parliamentary elections in this district, Chornovil won decisively with 66%.
  Recent electoral experience includes Sheika (Front for Change) who received 9% in 2010 regional elections, Zahorskyi (Party of Regions) with 7%, and Pavlo Sobol (Pora) with 4%, none of whom retained their results.

DISTRICT #2 (Zaliznychnyi, part of Shevchenkivskyi district)

• Currently there is one clear leader of electoral sympathies in the district: Iryna Farion (Svoboda) – 21%.
• Significantly fewer voters are currently ready to support Vasyl Kuibida (7%), Yurii Pidlisnyi (6%), Roman Ilyk (6%), and Yaroslav Hinka (5%).
• Even fewer are ready to vote for Petro Khobzei (3%), Mykola Kniazhytskyi (2%), Oleh Sorochkin (2%), and Petro Kachura (2%).
  Other candidates would be supported by about 6% of district voters, 11% would not support anyone, and 31% are undecided.For Farion, with a rating of 21%, 12% are firmly ready to vote and 14% may consider voting for her, meaning she has a potential of 26%.
• For Kuibida, with 7%, 4% are firm supporters and 12% are potential, giving him 16% total.
• The remaining politicians have much weaker chances: Ilyk and Pidlisnyi can increase from 6% to 9%, Hinka from 5% to 8%.Thus, Farion, who won the 2010 regional council elections in single-member district No. 2 with 31%, can currently confirm her leadership in parliamentary elections as well.
• Kuibida’s potential corresponds to his 16% result in the 2010 local elections.
• Pidlisnyi (Front for Change), who received 8% in 2010, and Khobzei (Our Ukraine), who received about 5%, have also confirmed their potential.At the same time, Petro Kachura, who won this district in the 2002 parliamentary elections with 41%, is currently supported by only 2%.
• Mykola Kniazhytskyi, who had 14% in 2002, now also has only 2%.
• Andrii Senyshyn, who had 13% in 2002, now has 1%.
• Since these politicians do not have either strong positive or strong negative images, voters have simply forgotten them.Among party supporters, the greatest chances to attract voters have Hinka (electorally attractive to 92% of UDAR supporters), Farion (77%), Pidlisnyi (47% among Front for Change) and Khobzei (47% among Our Ukraine).
• Farion and Kuibida can attract the largest share of undecided voters — 15% and 12% respectively.
• Kuibida can also attract about one quarter of Front for Change and Batkivshchyna supporters.
  ‍

DISTRICT #3 (Frankivskyi and Halytskyi districts)There is no clearly expressed leader here; instead, there is a tight group of contenders — a true “group of death.”Six candidates have roughly equal support:

• Stepan Kubiv (9%), Petro Pylypenko (8%), Stepan Kurpil (7%), Petro Pysarchuk (7%), Taras Stetskiv (7%), and Viktor Pynzenyk (6%).Less support goes to Vira Liaskovska (4%), Petro Adamyk (2%), and Yaroslav Kendzor (2%).
• About 10% support other candidates, 16% would support none, and 24% are undecided.Potential growth:It is notable that Pylypenko, who won the 2010 regional election with 27%, now has only 8%.
• Stetskiv (34% in 2002) and Kurpil (21% in 2002) are now both at 7%.
• Pynzenyk, who won the district in 1998 with 47%, now has 6%.
• Although Stetskiv and Pynzenyk have the highest positive image, voters say this is no longer enough to vote for them.Party transfer potential:
  • Pysarchuk is attractive to 70% of Party of Regions supporters
  • Kubiv to 56% of Front for Change
  • Pylypenko to 51% of Svoboda
  • Stetskiv and Pynzenyk attract many undecided voters
  ‍

DISTRICT #4 (Pustomyty district, parts of Lychakiv and Shevchenkivskyi)

• Two clear leaders:
  Bohdan Dubnevych – 21% and Oleh Hudyma – 13%.
  Then Yaroslav Mudryi (Svoboda) – 8%, Mykhailo Kadykalo (Front for Change) – 6%.Dubnevych has the strongest core: 17% firm + 14% potential = 31%.
  Hudyma: 13% → 21%,
  Mudryi: 8% → 16%,
  Kadykalo: 6% → 11%.

SINGLE OPPOSITION CANDIDATE

• 63% support the idea of a unified opposition candidate.
• Highest in District #2, lowest in #3.34% would vote for a candidate backed by Batkivshchyna + Front for Change + Svoboda.
• 37% would decide depending on the person.
• Support for a UDAR + Civic Position candidate is smaller but has growth potential.

PUBLIC FIGURE POTENTIAL

• Support potential:
  • Andriy Sadovyi – 31–37%
  • Oleh Tyahnybok – 23–35%
  • Ivan Vakarchuk – 28–32%
  Only Dubnevych, Farion, and Shkil approach these levels.

• Kubiv from 9% to 17%
• Pylypenko from 8% to 14%
• Kurpil from 7% to 13%
• Pysarchuk from 7% to 11%
• Stetskiv from 7% to 13%
• Pynzenyk from 6% to 14%
• Liaskovska from 4% to 13%