Press releases

• According to the consolidated results of surveys conducted by the Rating Group during 2010–2012, most Ukrainians agree with the statement that the Holodomor of 1932–33 was a genocide of the Ukrainian people. In October 2012, 59% of respondents agreed with this statement, while 22% disagreed. Another 19% were undecided.
• Public opinion on this issue showed fluctuations over time. In March 2010, 61% agreed with the genocide thesis. In January 2011, this share decreased to 53%, but by April 2011 it increased again to 58%. Throughout 2011–2012, support for this thesis remained close to 60%.
• At the same time, the share of opponents of recognizing the Holodomor as genocide decreased by about one third during 2011–2012 — from 34% to 22%.
• Regionally, the genocide thesis is supported by around 80% of residents in the West, Center, and North, as well as more than half in the South, about one third in the East, and about one quarter in Donbas.
• All age groups show agreement with the thesis, although the largest share of undecided respondents is among young people (about one quarter). Rural residents are more likely to agree with the genocide thesis than urban residents (64% vs 57%).

• According to the exit poll “UKRAINE–2012” conducted by Rating Group on October 28, 2012, commissioned by Channel 5, the survey was carried out at the exit of 350 polling stations. A total of 23,800 respondents were interviewed
• . According to the exit poll results, the Party of Regions was supported by almost 29% of respondents, Batkivshchyna by about 24%, UDAR by about 14%, the Communist Party by about 13%, and Svoboda by more than 12%. Deviations above the statistical margin of error were recorded only for Svoboda (-2.2), which, according to the Central Election Commission, received less support than indicated by the exit poll (10.4% vs. 12.6%).
• At the same time, according to official CEC data, the results of the Party of Regions (+1.3%) and Batkivshchyna (+1.6%) were higher than those shown by the Rating Group exit poll. Notably, all exit polls conducted on October 28, 2012 showed higher results for Svoboda than the CEC data, while Batkivshchyna and the Communist Party showed lower results. Regarding the Party of Regions, exit polls demonstrated mixed trends. According to official CEC results, the gap between the Party of Regions and Batkivshchyna was 4.5%. The closest estimates were provided by Rating Group (4.8%), the National Exit Poll (Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Razumkov Centre, KIIS) at 3.7%, and TNS/SOCIS at 6.6%.
• Compared with the latest Rating Group pre-election surveys (after redistribution of undecided voters), the total support for coalition parties (Party of Regions and Communist Party) decreased slightly from 44.5% in September to 43.2% on election day, while the combined support for opposition parties (Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda) increased from 46.4% in September to 49.9% on election day. The data also confirmed demographic voting patterns, including lower turnout among younger voters and higher participation among older age groups, which slightly reduced UDAR’s final result compared to polling expectations.

• According to the exit poll conducted by Rating Group in Single-Member District No. 83 in Ivano-Frankivsk, Oleksandr Sychev of the All-Ukrainian Union “Svoboda” won a decisive victory, receiving 59.1% of the vote among all respondents. Oleksandr Shevchenko, running as an independent candidate, placed second with 22.6%, followed by Volodymyr Chornous of the UDAR party with 9.5%. Oleksandr Sychev, running as an independent candidate, received 3.3%, while Oleksandr Kohut of the Party of Regions was supported by 1.6% and Ihor Miglachov of the Communist Party of Ukraine by 1.3%. The remaining candidates each received less than 1%: Taras Bodnar 0.7%, Vasyl Humeniuk 0.5%, Volodymyr Titov 0.4%, and Valentyn Valentiiev 0.1%, while 1.0% of respondents did not indicate their choice.
• The exit poll was conducted at the exits of 25 polling stations, with more than 1,700 respondents interviewed. The sample was representative of the adult population of the district aged 18 and over. Polling stations were selected randomly with proportional coverage, and respondents at each station were chosen using a fixed step sampling procedure.

• According to the exit poll conducted by Rating Group in single-member electoral district No. 120 (Lviv region), Yaroslav Dubnevych, running as an independent candidate, received 42.0% of the vote, while Tetiana Chornovol from the All-Ukrainian Union Batkivshchyna received 40.6%. Andrii Tyndyk of the UDAR party led by Vitalii Klitschko was supported by 5.5% of respondents, Ivan Denkovych, running as an independent, received 2.7%, Ivan Bilak of the Party of Regions and Ivan Kupyak of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists each received 2.5%, Yosyp Halamai of the People’s Party received 1.5%, Leonid Aleksyuk of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 0.5%, and Andrii Petryshyn of the Civic Solidarity party received 0.4%. A total of 1.6% of respondents did not indicate their choice on the questionnaire.

According to the exit poll conducted by Rating Group in single-member electoral district No. 206 (Chernihiv region), the leading candidate was Vladyslav Atroshenko, running as an independent candidate, with 38.1% of the vote. Volodymyr Polishchuk from the All-Ukrainian Union Batkivshchyna received 19.7%, Stanislav Prokopenko from the Party of Regions received 16.8%, Raisa Yasochko from the Communist Party of Ukraine received 8.2%, and Olena Popova from the UDAR party led by Vitalii Klitschko received 6.7%. Other candidates received less than 3% each: Oleh Kupriienko (Radical Party of Oleh Liashko) – 2.2%, Andrii Atroshchenko (independent) – 1.8%, Iryna Eristova (Natalia Korolevska’s party Ukraine – Forward!) – 1.4%, Valerii Riabchenko (Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists) – 0.8%, Valentyna Suraieva (independent) – 0.6%, Oleksandr Kyrychenko (People’s Party) – 0.5%, Oleh Shevtsov (Ukraine of the Future party) – 0.5%, Vitalii Svyrydenko (independent) – 0.4%, Oleksandr Prokhorskyi (For Human Rights party) – 0.3%, Serhii Mykheievskyi (Fair Ukraine party) – 0.2%. A total of 2.1% of respondents did not indicate their choice in the questionnaire.

• On October 28, 2012, commissioned by Channel 5, Rating Group conducted the “UKRAINE-2012” exit poll. The survey was carried out at the exits of 350 polling stations. A total of 23,800 respondents were interviewed. The margin of error for values close to 10% does not exceed 1%, and for values close to 20–30% it does not exceed 1.5–2%.
• According to the exit poll results, the Party of Regions was supported by nearly 29% of respondents, Batkivshchyna by about 24%, UDAR by about 14%, the Communist Party by about 13%, and Svoboda by more than 12%.
• Deviations above the level of statistical margin of error were recorded only for Svoboda (-2.2), which, according to Central Election Commission data, received less support than indicated by the exit poll (10.4% vs 12.6%). At the same time, according to CEC data, the results of the Party of Regions (+1.3%) and Batkivshchyna (+1.6%) were higher than those recorded in the Rating Group exit poll. It is notable that all exit polls conducted on October 28, 2012, showed higher results for Svoboda than the CEC results, while Batkivshchyna and the Communist Party showed lower results. For the Party of Regions, exit polls showed mixed trends, with some companies reporting lower results than the CEC and others higher.
• According to official CEC data, the gap between the Party of Regions and Batkivshchyna was 4.5%. The closest figures to this were shown by the Rating Group exit poll (4.8%), the National Exit Poll (Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Razumkov Centre, KIIS) at 3.7%, and TNS / SOCIS at 6.6%.
• Comparing election results with the latest Rating Group surveys (after redistribution of undecided voters) allows the following conclusions. Since September, the combined support for ruling coalition parties (Party of Regions and Communist Party) decreased from 44.5% to 43.2%, and remained unchanged since early October (43.2% in the election results). At the same time, combined support for opposition parties (Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda) grew dynamically from 46.4% in September to 48.8% in early October and to 49.9% in the October 28 election. Party ratings recorded by Rating Group in September were largely consistent with the results recorded by the CEC on October 28, except for Svoboda, whose support doubled compared to September and increased by one third compared to early October. Support for the Party of Regions slightly decreased (-1.5%), similar to Batkivshchyna (-1.6%), while support for UDAR and the Communist Party remained largely unchanged. At the same time, at the beginning of October, support for UDAR increased sharply, bringing it to second place for the first time, overtaking Batkivshchyna. Support for the Communist Party also increased while support for the Party of Regions declined. However, the peak of emotional voting observed in early October was not confirmed by more pragmatic voting behavior on October 28, and party support returned to September levels.
• Demographic characteristics of voting behavior show that youth were active in these elections only in Western Ukraine, while in the rest of the country youth demonstrated the lowest activity. This had been predicted by most sociologists, including Rating Group, as these trends repeat from election to election. In the structure of the electorate, youth aged 18–29 make up about one quarter, but among those who actually voted, youth aged 18–29 accounted for only 18%. Similarly, the share of voters aged 30–39 decreased from 18% to 15%. At the same time, there was a shift toward older age groups: the share of voters aged 50–59 increased from 17% to 21%, and those aged 60 and older increased from 25% to 28%. More detailed analysis showed the largest shifts occurred in the 55–64 age group (increase) and the 18–24 age group (decrease).
• The youngest electorates were observed among supporters of UDAR (32% aged 18–29 or 18% aged 18–24), Ukraine – Forward! (29% aged 18–29 or 17% aged 18–24), and the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko (23% aged 18–29 or 15% aged 18–24). UDAR was the leader among the youngest age groups. Analysis of age differences between all voters and those who actually voted on October 28 indicates an age imbalance that resulted in UDAR receiving 1.5–2% less support in the election than indicated by general support levels. In addition, primarily young voters supported the Green Party of Ukraine, the Greens, Green Planet, and Ukraine of the Future, which together received more than 1% support.
• The oldest electorate was observed in the Communist Party (23% aged 50–59 and 44% aged 60 and older). Primarily older voters also supported the Party of Pensioners of Ukraine. A significant share of older voters was also present among supporters of the Party of Regions (21% aged 50–59 and 33% aged 60 and older) and Batkivshchyna (25% aged 50–59 and 28% aged 60 and older). Svoboda and Our Ukraine were more supported by middle-aged voters.
• Women dominated among supporters of the Party of Regions (59%), Ukraine – Forward! (58%), and Batkivshchyna (58%). Men dominated among supporters of Svoboda (56%), UDAR (53%), and the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko (53%). Our Ukraine and the Communist Party had relatively balanced gender structures.

• According to Rating Group, commissioned by Channel 5, the nationwide exit poll “UKRAINE–2012” was conducted on the day of the parliamentary elections in Ukraine on October 28, 2012. The survey was carried out at the exit of 350 polling stations, with more than 20,000 respondents interviewed. The sample was representative of the adult population of Ukraine aged 18 and over by region and type of settlement. Polling stations were selected randomly following the principle of equal distribution, and respondents at polling stations were selected according to a fixed interval applied consistently throughout election day.
• More than 700 interviewers were involved in conducting the “UKRAINE–2012” exit poll, with an additional 100 people responsible for organization, supervision, data collection, and data processing. The survey was anonymous: respondents completed the questionnaires themselves and placed them into specially prepared ballot boxes. The survey measured party choice, based on the question “Which party did you just vote for in the parliamentary elections of Ukraine?”, along with several socio-demographic characteristics of voters.

• According to a survey conducted by Rating Group in October 2012 in single-member constituency No. 126, Batkivshchyna was the clear leader in party support among voters who intended to take part in the election, who accounted for around 90% of all respondents in the district. Almost 40% said they would vote for Batkivshchyna, while 27.8% supported UDAR and 16.9% Svoboda. All other parties were supported by less than 1.5% each, and about one in ten voters remained undecided. Compared with two months earlier, support for Batkivshchyna declined by about five percentage points, with the sharpest drop recorded in Stryi district, while UDAR’s rating grew by nearly ten points, especially in Stryi and Zhydachiv districts. Support for Svoboda also increased, mainly due to a recovery in Stryi district. The share of undecided voters remained within the margin of error.
• The social profiles of party electorates differed markedly. UDAR had the youngest voter base, with about one third under the age of 30, while among Batkivshchyna supporters around one third were pensioners. Men were more prevalent among supporters of Svoboda and UDAR, while women dominated Batkivshchyna’s electorate. Among UDAR and Svoboda voters, the proportions of working and non-working respondents were similar, whereas Batkivshchyna supporters were more likely to be unemployed. Nearly two thirds of Batkivshchyna’s electorate lived in rural areas.
• In the majoritarian race, Oleh Kanivets was the frontrunner, supported by 40.5% of respondents, followed by Andriy Kota with 29.8%, Ihor Ostash with 7.8%, and Ihor Teniukh with 3.9%, while around 15% of voters were still undecided. Kanivets was backed by about two thirds of Batkivshchyna supporters and nearly half of Svoboda voters, but only a small share of UDAR’s electorate. In contrast, almost three quarters of UDAR supporters intended to vote for Kota. Mobilization of Batkivshchyna and UDAR voters in support of their respective candidates increased by about 15 percentage points compared with previous measurements.
• Kanivets remained the leading candidate in Stryi district, where his support was roughly double that of his closest rival, and in Zhydachiv district he had nearly caught up with Kota. Across the entire constituency, Kanivets’s personal rating rose by seven points despite the decline in Batkivshchyna’s party support, although in the city of Stryi his popularity fell. Kota’s rating also increased, though less than that of UDAR, with gains concentrated in Stryi and losses in Zhydachiv. Ostash experienced the largest decline, particularly in Stryi.
• Younger voters were most strongly represented among Kota’s supporters, while pensioners were more common among the electorates of Kanivets, Ostash, and Teniukh. Women were slightly more prevalent among Kanivets’s supporters, whereas men dominated Ostash’s electorate. Kanivets’s voters were more likely to live in rural areas, while Ostash’s and Teniukh’s supporters were predominantly urban.

• According to the results of a study conducted by the Rating Group, the leaders of electoral preferences among political parties in the constituency are Batkivshchyna, which 29.3% of respondents who intend to vote (88% in the constituency) are ready to support, and the UDAR party with 27.0%. Svoboda is supported by 23.9% of respondents. The ratings of other parties are much lower: the Party of Regions is supported by 2.8%, Nasha Ukraina by 1.4%, “Ukraine – Forward!” by 1.4%, and the Communist Party by 0.5%. Those who are still undecided amount to 1.1%.
• Compared to last month, the rating of Batkivshchyna has slightly decreased — by 3%. At the same time, UDAR has grown significantly — by 11%. The rating of Svoboda remains unchanged.
  The number of those who cannot decide has decreased by 6%.
• The largest share of young people is among UDAR supporters — 35%. Meanwhile, the largest share of older voters (50+) is among Batkivshchyna supporters — 47%. Among Party of Regions supporters, the largest share of people with higher education — 44%.
• There are more men among UDAR voters, while women significantly dominate the Batkivshchyna electorate.

ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL POLITICIANS

• B. Dubnevych is known to 88% of respondents, Yu. Mykhalchyshyn to 75%, and T. Mandziuk to only 39%.
• The leaders in the positive attitude rating are Yu. Mykhalchyshyn and B. Dubnevych. 35–36% of respondents have a positive opinion of them. Only 15% have a positive opinion of T. Mandziuk.
• A quarter of respondents have a negative opinion of B. Dubnevych. At the same time, only 6–9% have a negative opinion of his opponents.
• Yu. Mykhalchyshyn is the clear favorite in the positive-attitude ranking among Svoboda supporters — 72%. A third of UDAR and Batkivshchyna voters also view him positively, as well as one in five of the undecided.
• B. Dubnevych is viewed positively by half of Batkivshchyna supporters, 43% of Party of Regions supporters, and one third of UDAR, Svoboda, and the undecided.
• T. Mandziuk is viewed positively mainly by UDAR supporters.

CANDIDATE RATINGS

• The leaders of electoral support among candidates in the single-member district are B. Dubnevych (31.3%) and Yu. Mykhalchyshyn (30.2%).
  T. Mandziuk is supported by 12.9%. The ratings of other candidates do not exceed 1.5%. The share of those who are undecided is 22.5%.
• Compared to the previous survey, there are some changes in the candidates’ ratings. The rating of B. Dubnevych has remained virtually unchanged, Yu. Mykhalchyshyn has fallen by 5%, while T. Mandziuk’s popularity has increased (by almost 5%). There is also a slight decrease in the number of undecided voters.
• B. Dubnevych is supported by 46% of Batkivshchyna supporters, 35% of Party of Regions, 28% of UDAR, 18% of Svoboda, and one quarter of the undecided.
• Yu. Mykhalchyshyn is supported by two thirds of Svoboda supporters, one quarter of Batkivshchyna, 14% of UDAR, and 12% of the undecided.
• T. Mandziuk is supported by 40% of UDAR supporters. In other electorates, his support is low.
• The youngest electorate belongs to T. Mandziuk — 33% are young people. The largest share of older voters is among Yu. Mykhalchyshyn’s supporters — half are 50+.
• Among B. Dubnevych’s supporters, only one quarter have higher education, compared with 34% among Yu. Mykhalchyshyn’s supporters and 43% among T. Mandziuk’s.
• Women dominate among B. Dubnevych’s supporters, while men slightly dominate among T. Mandziuk’s electorate.

• According to the results of the study conducted by the Rating Group, the leaders in the ranking of political forces in single-member electoral district No. 115 of the city of Lviv are the UDAR party, which 29.6% of respondents intend to vote for, and Batkivshchyna, supported by 27.6%. The data are presented among those who stated that they intend to take part in the elections — such respondents make up 82% in the district. Svoboda also has significant support — 18.2%. The ratings of other parties are much lower — about 3% of respondents intend to vote for Nasha Ukraina, the Party of Regions, or the party “Ukraine – Forward!”. Other political forces are supported by no more than 1% of respondents. The share of those undecided is 14.1%.
• Over the past month, the popularity of the UDAR party has increased by almost 10%, allowing it to take the leading position in the ranking. The popularity of Batkivshchyna has fallen by 6%, and that of Svoboda by 3%. No significant changes are observed in the ratings of other parties or in the number of the undecided.
• The largest share of young people is among UDAR supporters. In contrast, more than half of Batkivshchyna supporters are over 50 years old. Among Svoboda voters, more than 40% are older.
• More than half of UDAR and Svoboda supporters have higher education. Among Batkivshchyna voters, this share is one third, while 40% of this party’s supporters have secondary specialized education. In Batkivshchyna’s electorate, two thirds are women. Among UDAR supporters, 56% are women, while among Svoboda supporters the gender balance is equal.
• ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL POLITICIANS
• The politicians whose names were included in the questionnaire are well known in the district: D. Dobrodomov is known by 78% of respondents, R. Fedyshyn by 71%, and M. Khmil by 68%.
• The highest positive rating belongs to D. Dobrodomov — 47% of respondents have a positive opinion of him (a quarter say their attitude is definitely positive).
• M. Khmil evokes positive emotions in 35% of respondents, and R. Fedyshyn in 27% (8% have a negative opinion of him).
• D. Dobrodomov is the favorite among UDAR supporters — three quarters of them have a positive attitude toward him. Among supporters of Batkivshchyna and Svoboda, 48% hold a positive opinion of him.
• M. Khmil is viewed positively by two thirds of Batkivshchyna supporters, half of Svoboda supporters, and only 28% of UDAR supporters.
• R. Fedyshyn is viewed positively by 35% of Batkivshchyna supporters, 29% of UDAR, and 28% of Svoboda supporters.
• CANDIDATE RATINGS
• Among the candidates in the district, two leaders of electoral support remain. Against the backdrop of the growing rating of UDAR, D. Dobrodomov, with 32.6%, has taken the leading position. M. Khmil, against the background of declining ratings of Batkivshchyna, with 27%, has fallen to second place. R. Fedyshyn is supported by 9.8%. Other candidates have virtually no chance of interfering in the fight for victory. One quarter of respondents remain undecided.
• D. Dobrodomov mobilizes 71% of UDAR supporters, 17–18% of Batkivshchyna and Svoboda supporters, and 15% of those undecided about their party choice.
• M. Khmil is supported by 58% of Batkivshchyna supporters, 44% of Svoboda, and only 4% of UDAR supporters.
• Almost every tenth supporter of the most popular parties intends to vote for R. Fedyshyn.
• Over the past month, Dobrodomov’s rating has increased by 4%; Khmil’s decline is within the statistical margin of error. Meanwhile, Fedyshyn’s popularity has tripled.
• There is a gradual decline in the share of those undecided about a candidate — from 33.3% to 24.1%.
• The youngest electorate is that of R. Fedyshyn — one third are under 30 years old. The largest share of older voters is among M. Khmil’s supporters — half are over 50.
• The highest share of people with higher education is among Dobrodomov’s supporters and among those undecided about candidates.
• Women dominate among supporters of R. Fedyshyn and D. Dobrodomov, while among M. Khmil’s supporters there is gender parity.

• According to the results of the study conducted by the Rating Group, if the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine were held in early October 2012, 50% of respondents would definitely take part in them and another 31% would probably take part. The highest level of mobilization is recorded in the Center, East, and West of the country. Among party supporters, the greatest willingness to vote is expressed by supporters of the Party of Regions and Svoboda. The lowest readiness is among the undecided and supporters of Natalia Korolevska’s party “Ukraine – Forward!”.

RESULTS:

• If the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine were held in early October 2012, the Party of Regions would win, supported by 23% of respondents who intend to vote. Approximately equal numbers of voters would support UDAR (17.9%) and Batkivshchyna (16.5%).
  12.8% would vote for the Communist Party, 6% for Svoboda.
  Another 3.1% would support Natalia Korolevska’s party “Ukraine – Forward!”.
  About 1% would support Nasha Ukraina.
  Other parties would receive over 2%, and 17.2% would be undecided.

TRENDS:

• Over the past month, support for the Party of Regions has slightly decreased (from 26% to 23%), while support for the Communist Party has increased (from 11% to 13%). The Party of Regions has the strongest support in Donbas (almost 50%) and in the South (almost 40%), while the Communist Party is strongest in the South and East. Interestingly, over the past month the presidential rating of Viktor Yanukovych has practically not changed (25%).
• The party that gained the most is UDAR (from 12% to 18%), while support for Batkivshchyna fell (from 23% to 17%).
• It should be noted that while UDAR increased its ratings in the West and Center, it also expanded support in the East, South, and Donbas. Batkivshchyna, despite significant losses, remains the leader in the West, but in the Center and North it has been caught up with and sometimes overtaken by UDAR.
• Svoboda has also increased its rating, crossing the electoral threshold with 6%. The party grew in the West and North, including Kyiv.
• It should be noted that UDAR, Batkivshchyna, and Svoboda together are supported by over 40% of voters, while the Party of Regions and the Communist Party together have 36%. Since all of these parties exceed the electoral threshold as of early October, the pro-opposition parties would receive 119 seats in the new Verkhovna Rada, while the current coalition parties would receive 106.
• It is also noteworthy that over the past several months the combined support for pro-government and pro-opposition parties has hardly changed; shifts occur within the groups. Thus, the decline in Batkivshchyna has been accompanied by growth of UDAR and Svoboda. Similarly, the decline of the Party of Regions has been accompanied by rising support for the Communists. At the same time, over a longer period, against the background of stable pro-opposition support (about 40%), the ratings of pro-government parties have strengthened (from 25–28% at the beginning of the year to 36% in October).
• More than 50% of respondents, when deciding which party to vote for in the 2012 parliamentary elections, are more likely to vote against the course of President Viktor Yanukovych; one quarter would vote in support of the President’s course, and another quarter are undecided. These indicators have remained stable throughout the past year. More than half of Communist Party supporters and almost 40% of the undecided intend to vote against the President’s course.
• Despite this, only 37% of respondents believe that after the 2012 elections a parliamentary majority will be formed by parties opposed to the President, while the same share (36%) believe the majority will be formed by pro-presidential parties.
• The share of the undecided remains stable (17%), with the highest concentration in the East, Center, North, and South. Donbas is gradually mobilizing, primarily in favor of the Party of Regions.
• About 13% of the undecided believe UDAR has the greatest chance to win their vote, 12% name the Party of Regions, 9% Batkivshchyna, and 7% the Communist Party. At the same time, half of the undecided do not yet see any party capable of winning their support.
• Meanwhile, 22% of the undecided would under no circumstances support the Party of Regions, 19% Nasha Ukraina, 18% the Communist Party, 17% Batkivshchyna, 13% each the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko and Svoboda, and 9% the party “Ukraine – Forward!”. Only 3% of the undecided would never support UDAR. Almost half of the undecided have no antipathy toward any party.
• Almost 40% of voters have already made their final choice, another 27% believe their choice is unlikely to change. Nearly one quarter admit it could change. Voters in Donbas, the East, and the South are the most confident in their choice.
• Among party supporters, the most confident are voters of the Party of Regions, Svoboda, Batkivshchyna, and the Communist Party. Supporters of UDAR and “Ukraine – Forward!” are less confident — nearly 30% of them admit they may change their preference.
• It was also interesting to examine the effect of Yuliya Tymoshenko’s absence from the Batkivshchyna list. One quarter of respondents would be more likely to vote for Batkivshchyna if Tymoshenko were free and headed the party list, which is significantly higher than the party’s current rating. Under such conditions, only about 3% of opposition supporters would abandon the party, while one third of Svoboda supporters, over a quarter of UDAR and “Ukraine – Forward!” supporters, and one in ten undecided would switch to Batkivshchyna.
• It should be added that one in ten of Tymoshenko’s voters supports UDAR in parliamentary elections, and only 2% of Vitali Klitschko’s voters support Batkivshchyna.
• 56% of respondents expect that the October 28, 2012 parliamentary elections will bring positive changes, while 34% do not. Two years earlier, 49% expected positive changes from the 2010 local elections.
• 52% expect that the new parliament will be significantly renewed, while 35% do not. Two years earlier, 41% expected similar renewal after the 2010 local elections.
• 37% expect MPs to become more accountable to voters, while 48% do not. In 2010, only 29% expected such changes.
• The highest hopes for the elections are in the North and West.
• At the same time, 36% expect major fraud that would significantly affect the results; another 29% expect minor fraud that would not affect the outcome. Only 17% do not expect fraud. In 2010, 31% expected major fraud and 29% minor fraud.
• Supporters of Batkivshchyna and Svoboda fear fraud the most, while Party of Regions supporters fear it the least. Accordingly, over half of those who expect fraud believe it will mainly be committed by the Party of Regions. Emotions play a large role: half of Party of Regions voters expect fraud from Batkivshchyna, while 84% of Batkivshchyna voters expect it from the Party of Regions.
• Only one quarter of respondents are ready to take part in protests if there is major fraud on October 28, 2012 (only 6% are definitely ready). Almost 70% are not ready.
• Almost half of Svoboda and Batkivshchyna supporters, about 40% of “Ukraine – Forward!”, and one third of UDAR supporters are ready to protest.

• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group, the leader of electoral preferences in district #121 (Drohobych) is the Batkivshchyna party, which would be supported by 41.5% of respondents who intend to take part in the elections (85% in total).
  UDAR is supported by 21.3%, and almost the same number support Svoboda (20.9%).
  The ratings of other parties are significantly lower. About 2% are ready to vote for Our Ukraine and the Party of Regions. Every tenth respondent has not yet decided on party preferences.
• VO Batkivshchyna enjoys greater support in villages (45%) than in cities (40%). Our Ukraine also has higher support in villages. Svoboda and UDAR, on the contrary, are more strongly supported in cities.
  UDAR is supported much more by young people, while Batkivshchyna is supported more by older voters. Svoboda has a fairly even age structure. There are also more older people among the undecided.
  Among supporters of UDAR and Svoboda there are more employed people and those with higher education. UDAR and Svoboda are supported more by men, while Batkivshchyna is supported more by women.

CANDIDATE RATINGS

• The leader of electoral preferences in the district among candidates is R. Ilyk. If elections were held in the near future, 31.5% of respondents who intend to vote would support him.
  12.6% would vote for M. Zadorozhnyi, 8.9% for O. Starovoit, 8.1% for I. Kurus. About 4% are ready to support V. Vozniak. More than 12% would support other candidates. About 22% remain undecided.
• R. Ilyk mobilizes 60% of Batkivshchyna supporters and almost 30% of Svoboda supporters.
  At the same time, almost a quarter of Svoboda supporters back M. Zadorozhnyi.
  Supporters of UDAR are largely uninterested in these candidates: almost 40% of them are ready to vote for O. Starovoit, one quarter are undecided, and only 7% each would vote for R. Ilyk or M. Zadorozhnyi.
• O. Starovoit and V. Vozniak are supported more by young people; one quarter of voters aged under 29 are also found among the undecided. R. Ilyk and M. Zadorozhnyi are supported more by older people.
  Men support O. Starovoit and V. Vozniak more, while women more often support the Batkivshchyna candidate R. Ilyk.
  Among R. Ilyk’s supporters, the non-employed dominate, as well as among O. Starovoit’s supporters — in the first case due to a high share of older people and women, and in the second due to a large share of youth.
  Among supporters of I. Kurus and V. Vozniak, the employed predominate.

• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group, the clear leader of electoral preferences in the multi-member constituency No. 125 is Batkivshchyna. If elections were held in the near future, 42.2% of respondents who intend to vote (88% overall) would support this political force.
• Svoboda is supported by 18.8%, UDAR – 17.8%. The ratings of other parties are significantly lower. Thus, Our Ukraine would receive 2.8%, the party “Ukraine – Forward!” – 2.1%, the Party of Regions – 1.5%, and the Communist Party (CPU) – 0.6%. Other parties together receive 3.2%. Every ninth respondent has not yet decided on a party preference.
• Among all respondents / Among those who intend to vote
  
  • Batkivshchyna – 38.1 / 42.2
  • Svoboda – 17.0 / 18.8
  • UDAR – 16.4 / 17.8
  • Our Ukraine – 2.6 / 2.8
  • Ukraine – Forward! – 2.0 / 2.1
  • Party of Regions – 1.4 / 1.5
  • CPU – 0.7 / 0.6
  • Other party – 2.8 / 3.2
  • Will not vote – 7.2 / –
  • Hard to say – 11.9 / 11.0
• In terms of districts, Batkivshchyna is the leader in all parts of the constituency. Its highest support is in Starosambir district (49%), and the lowest in Skole and Turka districts (37–38%). Svoboda’s rating is highest in Sambir and Skole district, slightly lower in the other two districts (17–18%). UDAR is supported by 19–20% in Sambir, Skole district, and Turka district (where it ranks second). In Starosambir district, however, support for V. Klychko’s party is somewhat lower – 15.0%.
• In Skole and Turka districts, 5–6% support Our Ukraine.
• No significant territorial differences are observed in the level of respondents’ certainty.
• One-third of UDAR’s electorate consists of young people under 30. In contrast, supporters of Batkivshchyna and Svoboda are mostly over 50 years old.
• The largest share of respondents with higher education is again among UDAR’s supporters, while the smallest is among Batkivshchyna’s. In Batkivshchyna’s electorate, women clearly outnumber men, while in other parties there is gender parity.
• 42% of UDAR’s supporters live in cities. The electorates of the other viable parties are at least two-thirds rural.
• CANDIDATE RATINGS
• The leader of electoral preferences in the constituency among single-mandate candidates is A. Lopushanskyi. 31.2% of respondents who intend to vote would support him.
• M. Hychka would receive 17.9%, A. Tyahnybok – 15.4%, I. Pukshyn – 13.9%. Other candidates are far behind: D. Shchykitka – 4.8%, A. Deineka – 3.3%, the rest – below 1%.
  11.0% remain undecided.
• A. Lopushanskyi mobilizes 38% of Batkivshchyna supporters, one-third of Svoboda supporters, one-quarter of UDAR supporters, and 16% of those undecided about parties.
• M. Hychka is supported by one-fifth of Batkivshchyna and UDAR voters, 17% of the party-undecided, and only 8% of Svoboda supporters.
  A. Tyahnybok is mainly supported by Svoboda voters (49%) and every tenth Batkivshchyna supporter. Among UDAR supporters, he has little support.
• I. Pukshyn mobilizes 17% of Batkivshchyna voters, 16% of the undecided, and 13% of UDAR supporters. Among Svoboda voters, his support is negligible.
• D. Shchykitka is supported only by one-fifth of UDAR supporters.
• The highest support for A. Lopushanskyi is in Starosambir district (36%), and the lowest in Skole district (25%).
• M. Hychka’s rating is high only in Starosambir district (31%). In Sambir it is 13%, and in Skole and Turka districts – 9% each.
• A. Tyahnybok is most supported in Sambir (26%) and Skole district (21%). In the other districts his support is lower (10–11%).
• I. Pukshyn has a high rating only in Turka district (32%). In other areas, his support ranges from 5% (Sambir) to 13% (Skole district).
• In A. Lopushanskyi’s electorate, almost one-third are under 30, while one-quarter are pensioners.
  A. Tyahnybok has the oldest electorate – one-third are pensioners.
• Men are most numerous among A. Tyahnybok’s voters, while women dominate among M. Hychka’s.
• Among Svoboda’s candidate, the share of employed voters is the highest (48%). In contrast, I. Pukshyn has the largest share of unemployed voters (two-thirds).
• The electorates of A. Tyahnybok and D. Shchykitka are half urban, while for the other candidates they are predominantly rural (for I. Pukshyn – 80%).

• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group, the clear leader of electoral preferences in the multi-member constituency No. 126 (Stryi) is Batkivshchyna. If elections were held, 44.4% of respondents who intend to vote (89% in the constituency) would support this political force.
• UDAR would receive 18.6%, Svoboda – 13.1%. Our Ukraine would gain 2.9%, the Party of Regions – 2.8%, and “Ukraine – Forward!” – 2.1%. The ratings of other parties are below 2%. 13.4% of respondents remain undecided.
• Batkivshchyna leads the party ratings in all territories of the constituency. However, the share of its supporters differs significantly by district. Thus, in Stryi district it is supported by 52%, in Zhydachiv district – 42%, and in the city of Stryi – only 39%. In Stryi city, the highest share of undecided voters is recorded (20%).
• UDAR is most strongly supported in Zhydachiv district – 24% of respondents. In Stryi district, 17% would vote for this party, and in Stryi city – 14%. In the city of Stryi, UDAR ranks third, behind Svoboda, which here is supported by 15%. A high level of support for Svoboda is also observed in Zhydachiv district (15%), while in Stryi district its popularity is noticeably lower (9%).
• In Zhydachiv district, Our Ukraine also enjoys relatively higher support (5%).
• The youngest electorate traditionally belongs to UDAR (one-third of its voters are under 30). In contrast, one-third of Batkivshchyna’s and Svoboda’s supporters are pensioners. Svoboda has the largest share of voters with higher education. Men are most numerous among Svoboda’s supporters, while women dominate among Batkivshchyna’s supporters. The latter’s electorate mostly lives in rural areas. Half of UDAR’s voters are concentrated in Zhydachiv district.
• A high concentration of Svoboda supporters is also observed there. Meanwhile, Batkivshchyna has noticeably more supporters in Stryi district.
• CANDIDATE RATINGS.
  O. Kanivets is the leader in the single-member district. 32.8% of respondents who intend to vote would support him.
  A. Kit would receive 24.0%, I. Ostash – 13.2%, I. Teniukh – 4.6%, S. Kanivets – 3.7%. The ratings of other candidates are below 2%. 17.7% remain undecided.
• A. Kit is supported by nearly two-thirds of UDAR’s supporters in the district. In turn, O. Kanivets is supported by slightly less than half of Batkivshchyna’s supporters. 15% of Batkivshchyna voters would vote for A. Kit, and 13% for I. Ostash. It is I. Ostash who may most strongly split Batkivshchyna’s vote.
• At the same time, O. Kanivets has a solid reserve of support among Svoboda’s voters – every third of them is ready to vote for him. Every fifth Svoboda supporter would vote for one of the other two candidates. Among the undecided, one quarter support O. Kanivets, and one in ten support I. Ostash or A. Kit.
• By territory, O. Kanivets has the highest rating in Stryi city (42%) and Stryi district (34%). In Zhydachiv district, his support is somewhat lower (25%).
• A. Kit is the clear leader in Zhydachiv district (45%). In Stryi district, his support is much lower: 15% in the district and only 7% in Stryi city.
• I. Ostash is best supported in Stryi city (21%). In Stryi district, 15% would vote for him, while in Zhydachiv district – only 6%.
• The largest share of undecided voters is in Stryi district – 18–21%. In Zhydachiv district, their share is slightly lower (15%).
• One quarter of the electorates of O. Kanivets and A. Kit are young people under 30. At the same time, among A. Kit’s supporters, one quarter are pensioners, while for O. Kanivets this group accounts for one in five.
• Among supporters of I. Teniukh and I. Ostash, men prevail, while among O. Kanivets’ supporters, women dominate.
• Among O. Kanivets’ supporters, the share of employed people is the highest (65%), while it is the lowest among A. Kit’s electorate (41%).
• The largest share of urban residents is found among I. Ostash’s supporters, and the smallest among A. Kit’s. Three-quarters of A. Kit’s supporters live in Zhydachiv district.

• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group, the clear leader of electoral preferences in the multi-member constituency #122 is VO Batkivshchyna. If elections were held, 43.3% of respondents who intend to take part in them (more than 90% of the district) would vote for this political formation.
• UDAR would receive 20.8% of the vote, VO Svoboda – 18.0%. Nasha Ukraina would gain 3.3%, “Ukraine – Forward!” – 1.3%, and the Party of Regions – 1.2%. The ratings of other parties are below 1%. 10.4% of respondents have not yet decided.
• There are certain territorial differences in party popularity. Thus, the rating of Batkivshchyna is higher in Yavoriv district (48%) than in Zhovkva district (38%).
• For VO Svoboda, the rating is one third higher in Zhovkva district (21%) than in Yavoriv district (14%). In contrast, UDAR is more popular in Yavoriv (23% vs. 19%). There are no significant differences in the ratings of other political forces by district.
• The level of indecision is higher in Zhovkva district (14% vs. 7%).
• The largest share of young voters is among UDAR supporters (40% aged under 30). Accordingly, people with higher education are also more numerous in this electoral group (35%). Women dominate among supporters of Batkivshchyna, while men dominate among supporters of UDAR. In the electorates of all the most popular parties, rural residents prevail, especially among supporters of Batkivshchyna.
• CANDIDATE RATINGS
• The leader of electoral preferences in the single-member constituency is T. Kozak. If elections were held in the near future, 47% of voters would be ready to vote for him. V. Pazyniak would be supported by 26.8%. The ratings of other candidates are significantly lower: I. Samardak – 3.4%, H. Babii – 1.7%, I. Kozak – 1.4%. 17% of respondents have not yet decided.
• T. Kozak mobilizes 58% of UDAR supporters, 47% of VO Batkivshchyna supporters, 37% of VO Svoboda voters, and 39% of those undecided about party choice.
• V. Pazyniak is supported by 40% of Svoboda supporters and 35% of Batkivshchyna supporters. Among UDAR voters, only 10% support this candidate.
• I. Samardak is supported only by 15% of UDAR voters.
• By district, candidate popularity differs somewhat from the overall district ranking. Thus, T. Kozak’s popularity is higher in Zhovkva district (55%), while in Yavoriv district 40% of respondents are ready to support him. There, his main competitor is V. Pazyniak, whose rating is 34%. In Zhovkva district, however, V. Pazyniak has significantly fewer supporters – 19%.
• I. Samardak is supported equally in both districts at 3–4% (with 3–5% potential reserve).
• The share of undecided voters does not differ greatly across locations and amounts to 16–18%.
• The highest share of young people is among I. Samardak supporters (39%). One quarter of V. Pazyniak’s voters and every fifth voter of T. Kozak are pensioners.
• Among supporters of the UDAR candidate, men prevail. Among supporters of T. Kozak and V. Pazyniak, the gender distribution does not differ from the overall demographics – 45% men and 55% women.

• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group, the leader of electoral preferences in multi-member electoral district #124 is VO Batkivshchyna. This political alliance would be supported, if elections were held in the near future, by 47.0% of respondents who intend to participate in the elections (84% in the district).
  20.3% would vote for UDAR, 19.0% for VO Svoboda. The ratings of other parties are much lower: the Party of Regions – 2.1%, Our Ukraine – 2.0%, “Ukraine – Forward!” – 1.7%, CPU – 0.7%. Other parties would be supported by 1.1% of respondents. 6.2% have not decided on their party preference.
• In the territorial breakdown, although the top three remain unchanged, some differences are visible. In particular, the rating of VO Batkivshchyna in the districts is one-fifth higher than in Chervonohrad (52% vs. 39%).
  In addition, UDAR enjoys significantly stronger support in Chervonohrad — here a quarter of respondents would vote for it, while in the districts UDAR’s rating is 17%.
  The rating of Svoboda is almost independent of territory and fluctuates between 18–20%. About 4% of respondents in Chervonohrad support the Party of Regions, while in villages this figure is much lower (1%). The share of the undecided does not depend on the area.
• The youngest electorate belongs to UDAR — half are under 40. Among the United Opposition, almost half are over 50.
  There are more men among supporters of Klychko’s party, more women among supporters of Batkivshchyna. UDAR also has more respondents who are employed. Two-thirds of Batkivshchyna supporters do not work.
  70% of UDAR supporters and 62% of Svoboda supporters live in cities, while Batkivshchyna has approximately equal numbers of urban and rural voters.

CANDIDATE RATINGS

• The leader of electoral preferences in the single-member district is S. Kurpil, whom 30.4% of respondents who intend to vote would support if elections were held in the near future.
  21.0% would vote for M. Kryshtopa, 12.5% for V. Viazivskyi, 7.0% for A. Seniuk. Other candidates have ratings below 2%. 22.7% remain undecided.
• S. Kurpil mobilizes almost half of Batkivshchyna supporters and a quarter of Svoboda supporters.
  However, UDAR supporters back him much less — only 9%.
• The closest competitor of S. Kurpil, M. Kryshtopa, mobilizes a quarter of UDAR supporters, every fifth undecided voter, and 16% of Svoboda supporters.
  A. Seniuk is popular mainly among one third of UDAR supporters.
• By territory, the candidate ratings look as follows. Support for S. Kurpil is slightly higher in the districts (33%), while in Chervonohrad 26% would vote for him.
  M. Kryshtopa is supported more in the city (25%), and less in the districts (18%).
  V. Viazivskyi is supported by 12–13% equally across territories.
  A. Seniuk is supported by 10% of respondents in Chervonohrad and only 5% in the districts.
• The youngest electorate is that of A. Seniuk — one third under 30. The oldest electorates belong to S. Kurpil and M. Kryshtopa — about 40% aged over 50.
  One third of UDAR’s candidate supporters have higher education, while among M. Kryshtopa’s supporters those with general or vocational secondary education clearly dominate.
  There are more men among A. Seniuk’s electorate, while women dominate among S. Kurpil’s supporters.
  Half of Kurpil’s electorate lives in villages, while among the other leading candidates two thirds of supporters live mainly in cities.

• According to the results of a study conducted by the Rating Group, Ukrainians are satisfied that EURO-2012 took place in Ukraine, they highly evaluated the quality of the Championship’s organization and primarily see image and reputational gains for the country. At the same time, Ukrainians acknowledge that EURO was “too expensive” for Ukraine, and that massive misappropriation of public funds occurred during its organization.
• Thus, 21% of respondents believe that the organization and hosting of EURO-2012 in Ukraine were carried out at a high level, another 54% say it was at a normal level, although it could have been better. Only 8% of respondents assessed the organization and hosting of EURO in the country as low.
• 77% of respondents believe that foreign fans must have been satisfied with their stay in Ukraine during EURO-2012. Only 8% hold the opposite view.
• The most positive assessments of the quality of organization and hosting of EURO came from residents of the East, from younger people, and more often men. Less positive assessments were given in the West and South.
• 78% of respondents are convinced that EURO gave Ukraine an opportunity to show itself in a better light to Europe; only 10% think otherwise. This statement is supported equally by residents of both the West and the East.
• At the same time, almost as many (75%) agree that hosting the Championship was too expensive a pleasure for the country. Interestingly, this thesis is also supported almost equally by residents of both the West and the East, and most strongly by supporters of Batkivshchyna and the Communist Party.
• Almost 60% of respondents believe that hosting EURO-2012 in Ukraine gave a boost to the country’s development; a quarter disagree. This opinion is more common among supporters of the Party of Regions and among the undecided. However, it is interesting that in the West more respondents share this view than in the East and especially in the South.
• At the same time, almost 70% of respondents believe that during preparations for the Championship there was large-scale embezzlement of public funds, and only 7% disagree. This view is most common in the West, Center and South of the country, and least common in the East. About half of supporters of the Party of Regions, around 70% of supporters of the Communist Party, Svoboda and UDAR, and over 80% of Batkivshchyna supporters share this opinion.
• Despite all this, 73% of respondents (especially in the West and among UDAR supporters) are convinced that it is very good that the Championship took place in Ukraine. Only 16% agree with the statement that Ukraine should have отказed to host the Championship, most of them in the Center and among supporters of Svoboda and the Communist Party.
• EURO ASSESSMENTS FROM THE FOOTBALL ITSELF
• Almost 30% of respondents followed most matches of the Championship, from the group stage through the final; another 20% followed only the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final, and every tenth watched only the final. Thus, in one way or another, almost 60% of Ukrainians followed EURO-2012.
• It is worth adding that according to a Sociological Group “Rating” survey conducted before EURO (in May), almost half of Ukrainians intended to follow the matches of the Championship — already more than World Cup-2010, which attracted less than 40%. During the Championship itself, interest in EURO increased further (from 50% to 60%), mainly due to the growth of the audience for the final matches. Audience growth occurred across all age groups, and women also joined the audience in large numbers. A certain “EURO fashion” emerged.
• Almost half (48%) are satisfied with the performance of the Ukrainian national team at EURO-2012, although only 12% are definitely satisfied. Among active fans, two-thirds are satisfied with the team’s performance, and a quarter are definitely satisfied.
• There are also clear emotional effects here, since more than half of respondents who watched only the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final (where the Ukrainian team no longer played) also expressed satisfaction with Ukraine’s performance. This suggests that these assessments were influenced by the general positive mood created by EURO-2012 as an event.
• About one quarter are dissatisfied with the team’s performance (among active fans — almost 30%).
• The Championship significantly increased interest in football: compared to 2009, the share of respondents who consider themselves football fans rose from 33% to 48%. This phenomenon is likely situational, since the number of hard-core fans did not change (6%), the number of active fans increased slightly (from 10% to 14%), and the number of so-called inactive fans rose sharply (from 18% to 29%).
• Every fifth woman classified herself as an inactive fan (only 7% as active). Among men, one-third consider themselves active fans, and almost 40% — inactive fans.
• The most active fans remain young people and city residents. In the West, football attracts significantly more interest than in the South. A direct relationship is observed: regions that did not host EURO matches increased their football fan base the least.
• The fewest football fans are found among supporters of the Communist Party (mostly older people), the party “Ukraine – Forward!” (mostly women), and among the undecided. Interest in football is higher among supporters of UDAR, the Party of Regions, and Batkivshchyna.

• According to the majority of Ukrainians, the image of a “REAL MAN” is best embodied by the Klitschko brothers and Vladimir Putin, and to a lesser extent by Viktor Yanukovych, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and footballer Andriy Shevchenko.
  At the same time, the image of a “REAL WOMAN,” in the opinion of respondents, is best embodied by Yulia Tymoshenko and Sofia Rotaru, and to a lesser extent by Ani Lorak, Angela Merkel, Alla Pugacheva, and Margaret Thatcher.
• The Sociological Group “Rating” continues its special project “People’s TOP,” which consists of a series of studies identifying the best of the best. The special feature of the methodology is that respondents do not receive any lists or prompts — people express their opinions exclusively through open-ended questions, naming three of their own choices. In October, we present the issue “Real Men and Women.”
• Thus, according to the study results, the majority of surveyed Ukrainians would name Vitalii Klitschko (30.1%) as a “real man” among famous people in Ukraine or abroad, as well as his brother Wladimir Klitschko (9.9%) and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin (9.5%).
  Somewhat fewer named the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych (6.3%), opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk (5.3%), and footballer Andriy Shevchenko (5.1%).
• The top ten also included Ukrainian politicians Serhiy Tihipko (2.9%) and Oleh Tyahnybok (2.6%), as well as the presidents of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (2.5%) and the United States Barack Obama (2.4%).
• The TOP-25 also included: Anatolii Hrytsenko (2%), Petro Symonenko (2%), Mykola Katerynchuk (1.9%), Yurii Lutsenko (1.7%), Mykhailo Poplavskyi (1.7%), Dmitry Medvedev (1.7%), Vasyl Virastyuk (1.6%), Petro Poroshenko (1.6%), Bohdan Stupka (1.4%), Mykola Azarov (1.3%), Rinat Akhmetov (1.3%), Volodymyr Lytvyn (1.1%), Iosif Kobzon (1%), Oleh Blokhin (1%), Viktor Yushchenko (1%).
• The Top-50 (with results between 0.4–0.9%) also included Savik Shuster, Yuri Gagarin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Taras Shevchenko, Serhii Bubka, Viacheslav Chornovil, Viktor Pinchuk, Vlad Yama, Oleksandr Ponomaryov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Serhii Sobolev, Nikolai Baskov, Ihor Kondratiuk, Stas Mikhailov, Sviatoslav Vakarchuk, Lev Leshchenko, Valerii Meladze, Pavlo Zibrov, Georgy Zhukov, Maksim Galkin, Bruce Willis, Grigory Leps, Brad Pitt, Nicolas Sarkozy.
• In total, 323 men were named by respondents. At the same time, about 32% of respondents were unable to answer the question.
• According to the study results, the majority of surveyed Ukrainians would name former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko (24%) as a “real woman” among famous people in Ukraine or abroad, as well as singer Sofia Rotaru (10.4%).
  Somewhat fewer named singer Ani Lorak (6.2%), German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel (5.2%), singer Alla Pugacheva (4.2%), and former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (4.2%).
• The top ten also included Ukrainian public figures Natalia Korolevska (3.4%), Taisia Povaliy (3.2%), Anna Herman (2.5%), and Oksana Marchenko (2.3%).
• The TOP-25 also included: Inna Bohoslovska (1.9%), Yana Klochkova (1.7%), Ruslana Lyzhychko (1.7%), Valentina Tereshkova (1.6%), Natalia Mohylevska (1.6%), Angelina Jolie (1.5%), Oleksandra Kuzhel (1.5%), Iryna Herashchenko (1.4%), Tina Karol (1.4%), Nina Matviienko (1.2%), Natalia Vitrenko (1.1%), Iryna Bilyk (1.1%), Olha Sumska (1%), Oksana Bilozir (0.9%), Raisa Bohatyriova (0.9%).
• The Top-50 (with results between 0.3–0.9%) also included Liliya Podkopayeva, Alla Mazur, Irina Allegrova, Madonna, Elizabeth II, Hillary Clinton, Svitlana Loboda, Iryna Akimova, Edita Piekha, Lina Kostenko, Ada Rohovtseva, Nina Karpachova, Vera Brezhneva, Ruslana Pysanka, Natalia Koroleva, Whitney Houston, Lolita Milyavskaya, Lyudmila Zykina, Lesya Ukrainka, Nadiya Kadyshova, Nastya Kamenskikh, Yevheniya Tymoshenko, Valeriya, Tamara Gverdtsiteli, Nadiya Babkina.

• According to the results of a study by the Rating Group, conducted in September 2012, two thirds of respondents are satisfied with the performance of Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi: 12% are completely satisfied and another 48% are rather satisfied than dissatisfied.
• Compared to May, the level of satisfaction with the Lviv mayor’s performance increased from 54% to 60%. Accordingly, the share of those dissatisfied with his work decreased from 38% in May to 29% in September.
• Dissatisfaction with the performance of the Head of the Lviv Regional State Administration, Mykhailo Kostiuk, is growing. Compared to the previous survey, the number of dissatisfied respondents increased from 47% to 51%. Only 13% are satisfied with his work.
• More than half of respondents were unable to give an assessment of the performance of the Head of the Lviv Regional Council. Compared to May, the level of dissatisfaction with his performance decreased from 41% to 34%. At the same time, the share of those who evaluate his work positively also declined — from 20% to 15%.
• In terms of party supporters, two thirds of supporters of the “passing” opposition parties and slightly more than half of Party of Regions sympathizers, as well as those who are undecided, are satisfied with the work of Mayor Andriy Sadovyi.
  The work of the Head of the Regional Council is positively assessed by one quarter of Svoboda supporters and the same share of Party of Regions supporters, every sixth Batkivshchyna supporter, every tenth UDAR supporter, and every tenth undecided voter.
• The work of the Head of the Lviv Regional State Administration, Mykhailo Kostiuk, is approved by one third of Party of Regions supporters, 12–13% of supporters of the “passing” opposition parties, and every tenth among the undecided.

• The results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group showed that since the beginning of the year, electoral preferences in electoral district No. 163 have been distributed among three political forces.
  The rating is led by VO Batkivshchyna with 27.6%. Almost the same number of supporters among those who intend to take part in the elections (87% in the district) is held by VO Svoboda – 26.0%.
  UDAR is supported by 20.1% of respondents.
  The rating of other parties is below 3%, including “Ukraine – Forward!” – 2.7%, Party of Regions – 2.6%, Our Ukraine and CPU – about 2% each.
  Those who have not yet decided – 14.9%.
• Despite Batkivshchyna being in first place, the dynamics of growth in the number of its supporters since the beginning of the year are negative.
  Thus, supporters of the parties that now make up this alliance at the end of 2011 accounted for about 50% of respondents (Batkivshchyna – 26%, Front for Change – 16%).
  Meanwhile, the rating of the current alliance has essentially remained at the level that Batkivshchyna alone had a year ago.
  At the same time, the rating of UDAR has increased significantly (from 5% to 20%), as well as VO Svoboda (from 19% to 26%).
• The youngest electorate belongs to UDAR – more than a third are under 30 years old.
  Among supporters of Batkivshchyna and Svoboda, more than a third are voters aged 50 and older.
  There are somewhat more supporters with higher education among UDAR’s electorate.
  Those with secondary education are more numerous among Svoboda’s supporters.
  There are more working people among supporters of V. Klitschko’s party.
  Also, among them there are noticeably more people with relatively high incomes.
  Among supporters of Svoboda and UDAR there is gender parity.
  At the same time, women dominate among supporters of Batkivshchyna.
• The leaders of the trust rating among respondents are V. Klitschko (trusted by 62%, not trusted by 31%), A. Yatseniuk (trusted by 58%, not trusted by 36%) and O. Tyahnybok (trusted by 57%, not trusted by 38%).
  O. Tyahnybok and V. Klitschko are the leaders of absolute trust — every fifth respondent fully trusts them.
  Y. Tymoshenko is trusted by 45%, and distrusted by the same share.
• The leaders of distrust are P. Symonenko, V. Yanukovych, M. Azarov and V. Lytvyn, whom about 90% of respondents do not trust.
  N. Korolevska is trusted by 11%, and distrusted by almost 80%.

RATINGS OF LOCAL POLITICIANS

• The leader of electoral sympathies among candidates in the single-member district is O. Kaida.
  45.0% of respondents who intend to vote are ready to give him their votes.
  The rating of his closest competitor V. Maksymov is twice as low – 21.2%.
  M. Ratushniak is supported by 6.5%, T. Pastukh by 4.2%, and Y. Oliinyk by 3.5%.
  The rating of other candidates is below 3%.
  Those undecided – 10.8%.
• O. Kaida mobilizes 91% of VO Svoboda supporters and half of those who support VO Batkivshchyna.
  V. Maksymov is supported by two thirds of UDAR voters and one third of the undecided.
• The youngest electorate belongs to T. Pastukh (almost half under 30) and V. Maksymov.
  Among supporters of M. Ratushniak and O. Kaida there are more older voters.
  Two thirds of supporters of the UDAR candidate are employed.
  Among supporters of O. Kaida and M. Ratushniak there is gender parity.
  Women are more likely to support T. Pastukh.

EXPECTATIONS FROM THE FUTURE VERKHOVNA RADA

• 96% of respondents believe that elections to the Verkhovna Rada should change the situation in the country for the better.
  At the same time, only half believe that this will actually happen after the October elections.
• The most disillusioned are among the undecided (52%) and supporters of T. Pastukh.
  The least disillusioned are among supporters of VO Svoboda and O. Kaida.
• 92% believe that the composition of the Ukrainian parliament must be renewed.
  However, only slightly more than half believe this will really happen.
• Belief in renewal is strongest among supporters of VO Svoboda and VO Batkivshchyna (two thirds of supporters), as well as O. Kaida.
  The lowest share is among the undecided.
• Ideological issues concern respondents no less than economic or social ones.
  Half of respondents primarily expect the future Verkhovna Rada to protect the Ukrainian language and culture.
  42–44% expect economic growth and higher wages and pensions.
  One third expect job creation and overcoming corruption.
  Every fifth expects impeachment of President Yanukovych, release of Yulia Tymoshenko and Y. Lutsenko, better health care, lower taxes, freedom of speech, and better relations with the EU.
  15% expect support for small and medium-sized businesses, 12% — better education.
  Only one in ten expects greater local self-government powers, unity of East and West, or support for sports.
  Only 2% expect better relations with Russia.
  10% expect nothing at all from the new Verkhovna Rada.
• 52% believe their single-member district MP should deal equally with local issues and national issues.
  36% think the MP should focus only on local problems.
  Only 6% think the MP should be primarily a national statesman.

DISTRICT PROBLEMS

• Two thirds of respondents are concerned about poor road conditions and employment problems — these are the key city problems in voters’ eyes.
  Half are concerned about high utility tariffs, and 42% about poor health care.
  One third see problems in drinking water quality, housing maintenance, and sanitation.
  Every fifth is worried about stray animals, chaotic construction, drug addiction and alcoholism.
  15% are concerned about lack of business conditions, 11–12% about shortages of schools and kindergartens, playgrounds, and environmental conditions.
  Only 5–6% worry about lack of public transport, sports facilities, street trading, parking, or crime.
  Only 3% are concerned about lack of greenery.

ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

• Two thirds of respondents are satisfied with the performance of Mayor S. Nadal and Regional Council Chairman O. Kaida; one quarter are dissatisfied.
  At the same time, 67% are dissatisfied with the performance of Regional State Administration Head V. Hoptyan, and only 18% are satisfied.