17.12.2013
Explanation on the results of the exit poll of the Rating Group
- On December 15, 2013, on the day of the repeat elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Rating Group conducted an exit poll at four constituencies: 132, 194, 197 and 223. The survey was conducted at the exits of 125 polling stations and lasted from 8:00 to 17:00 (in rural areas) and until 18:30 (in cities). The total number of respondents exceeded 7,300. Polling stations were selected randomly in accordance with the principle of uniform coverage. Respondents at polling stations were selected according to a fixed sampling interval. The survey was anonymous: respondents filled out questionnaires (ballots) themselves and placed them into specially prepared boxes.
- Several important observations were recorded. On December 15, 2013, a record number of refusals to participate in the exit poll was observed compared to previous elections in these constituencies, despite the methodology remaining unchanged. In constituencies 132, 194 and 223, the number of refusals was several times higher than in constituency 197. According to interviewers’ observations, older respondents and groups of people entering and leaving polling stations together were more likely to refuse participation. It was also noted that refusals were more frequent in the first half of the day than in the second, and many respondents refused without providing any explanation.
- As a result, the exit poll may not have captured the voting behavior of a portion of voters, primarily those who, for various reasons, did not want to re-report their voting choice. This may be the main reason why exit poll results differed from Central Election Commission results beyond the statistical margin of error (2.5–3%).
- Exit polls do not cover special polling stations (such as prisons, detention centers, or medical institutions). At the same time, in special polling stations within constituencies 132, 194 and 223, voter turnout was significantly higher and voting results differed substantially from overall constituency results. In addition, exit polls cannot capture results from home voting, as this information is not available to sociologists.
- For example, in constituency 132, candidate M. Kruglov received at special polling stations about 0.8 thousand votes (more than 1% of voters) more than A. Kornatskyi, while the total official margin between the candidates was 1.7 thousand votes. In constituency 194, candidate M. Poplavskyi received at special polling stations 2.8 thousand votes (almost 4% of voters) more than M. Bulatetskyi. In constituency 223, candidate V. Pylypyshyn received at special polling stations 1.6 thousand votes (more than 2% of voters) more than Yu. Levchenko, while the total official margin between the candidates was 3.3 thousand votes.
- Unfortunately, in some polling stations interviewers were directly obstructed by third parties. For example, at one polling station in Pervomaisk (constituency 132), unidentified individuals attempted to confiscate questionnaires and disrupted vote counting. At one polling station in Kyiv (constituency 223), the exit poll was temporarily suspended due to a provocation and a false police call. At several polling stations in Kyiv (constituency 223), interviewers’ work was obstructed by representatives of candidates, including representatives of Yu. Levchenko, who attempted to gain access to results, as well as by unidentified individuals of a “sports-type” appearance.
- Exit poll results changed throughout the day following similar trends: voters supported opposition candidates more actively in the second half of the day, which is partly explained by demographic voting patterns that will be analyzed and published after processing all original questionnaires. If the hypothesis is confirmed that older voters were more likely to support “independent” candidates and were also more likely to refuse participation in the exit poll, then the record level of refusals could be the main explanation for deviations between exit poll results and official Central Election Commission results. The underlying reasons for refusals, however, remain a separate topic for discussion beyond sociology.
Methodology
