FINAL MONITORING REPORT ON RESULTS OF 2012 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

administrative-territorial structure of individual regions. These peculiarities have led to the formation of the natural enclaves in some districts which also existed in 2002. For example, in 2001, due to the nature of its administrative-territorial division, into several parts were divided districts №№1 (Autonomous Republic of Crimea), 27, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37 (Dnipropetrivsk oblast), 48, 49, 51, 52 53, 57, 60 (Donetsk oblast), 95, 96 (Kyiv oblast), 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115 (Luhansk oblast), 117 (Lviv oblast), 184 (Kherson oblast), 203 (Chernivtsi oblast), 225 (Sevastopol city).In 2012, the peculiarities of the administrative-territorial structure have led to breaking the boundaries of the districts №№1, 2 (Autonomous Republic of Crimea), 26, 30, 31, 33, 40 (Dnipropetrivsk oblast), 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54 57, 60 (Donetsk oblast), 95, 96 (Kyiv oblast), 104, 105, 107, 110, 112 (Luhansk oblast), 116 (Lviv oblast), 183 (Kherson oblast), 195 (Cherkasy oblast), 225 (Sevastopol city).

Inadequate consideration of the boundaries of rayons and cities of oblast importance inthe formationof electoral districts Possibility of ignoring the boundaries of rayons, cities of oblast importance and rayons in citis in determining boundaries of the electoral districts was not provided by the current Law “On Elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine” or the Law on parliamentary elections, which was used during the 2002 elections. On the one hand, it seems quite logical, because during the formation of districts often must be considered not only the boundaries of administrative units, but other factors too - such as geographical, logistical (state of the roads and transport infrastructure, etc.), as well as the formation of districts with approximately equal number of voters, etc. On the other hand, comparison of the boundaries of the electoral districts formed for the elections of 2002 and 2012 suggests that the number of rayons and cities divided between districts slightly increased, compared with 2002. Partly, the reason for this is that the current Law “On Elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine” excludes the possibility of exceeding the maximum determined limits of deviation of the number of voters in the district from the estimated average number of voters in single mandate districts (whereas for the 2002 election districts could be formed with the excess of maximum limits of deviation). At the same time, the influence of political factors on the configuration of the districts’ boundaries should not be ruled out.In 2012, some of the cities were divided between districts so that none of the districts was formed solely from the urban area. And Vinnitsa is a striking example. In 2002, a part of the city formed a separate district, and for the 2012 elections Vinnitsa was divided between two districts, which included parts of the Vinnytsia oblast.

In 2002, during the formation of districts in big cities boundaries of these cities, in many cases, were taken into account. In other words, parts of these cities were not included in districts formed from the territories of the surrounding rayons. In particular, this applies to the cities such as Dnipropetrivsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, and Chernivtsi. However, in 2012, parts of these cities were included in the districts formed from the surrounding rayons. For example, a part of Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovsk rayon of Dnipropetrivsk was included in the district №29 formed mainly from Petrykivsky and Dnepropetrivsk rayons.

The significant part of Ivano-Frankivsk was included in the district №84, formed from the territories of Galytsky, Tlumatsky and Tysmenytsky rayons. The western part of Ternopil was included it he district №165, formed from the territories of five rayons of Ternopil oblast. A part of Chernivtsi was referred to the district №203. Not the smallest role in such a division of oblast centers played the fact that the Law does not provide the possibility of exceeding the deviation of voters in districts from 12% of the estimated average number of voters in the district.