Fractured poll coalition finally splits; DIF chair critical of rival pollsters
Days before the Nov. 21 run-off presidential election, bickering between exit polling groups has intensified, as have suspicions that some polls are being rigged in favor of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.
Polling groups have for months produced conflicting results and criticized each other’s work. After the first round of voting Oct. 31, some showed opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko leading by several points, while others indicated Yanukovych led. Now pollsters showing Yushchenko in the lead say polls calling the race for Yanukovych may have fallen under the influence of the prime minister’s camp.
Disagreements over methodology led to the breakup of the only Western-funded exit poll project, as two polling companies which showed Yanukovych ahead quit, leaving behind two which showed Yushchenko with more support.
Two polling companies – Socis and Ukrainian Monitoring – dropped out of a consortium coordinated by the Kyiv-based Democratic Initiatives Foundation, which spent about $100,000 for the first-round polls. That money came from Western governments and non-governmental organizations.
Both Socis and Ukrainian Monitoring conducted traditional face-to-face surveys during the first-round vote, asking voters whom they chose as they left polling stations. Their initial results, unveiled late on Oct. 31, showed Yushchenko holding a small lead over Yanukovych. Days later, however, both groups amended their results to show Yanukovych in the lead.
Their methodologies and final conclusions were similar to those of another exit poll project called Ukrainian-Exit Poll, coordinated by Oleksandr Yaremenko, chairman of the Ukrainian Institute for Sociological Studies and vice president of the Sociology Association of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the other two members of the DIF-led consortium – the Razumkov Ukrainian Center for Economic and Political Studies and the Kyiv International Institute for Sociology (KIIS) – conducted their own exit polls using a so-called secret ballot survey, which respondents fill out anonymously. Results using this methodology showed Yushchenko with a several-point lead.
The consortium’s exit polls surveyed nearly 50,000 respondents in total. Each of the two methods employed has a two percent margin of error.
The Democratic Initiatives consortium has earned the trust of many Western observers because its polls are funded by Western donors, including governments and non-profit foundations. Opposition figures have used this poll to back up their claim that Yushchenko earned more support from voters than the approximately 39 percent granted him by the Central Election Commission.
Both Razumkov and KIIS have remained in the consortium and promise to run exit polls on Nov. 21 using the same methodology. Socis and Social Monitoring have found new funding for exit polls they plan to perform on their own. The funding’s source is unknown.
Meanwhile, in press statements, DIF has in recent days openly expressed concern that Socis and Social Monitoring have lost their credibility.
DIF chastised the Nov. 15 appearance of Socis President Mykola Churylov and Social Monitoring Director Olha Balakireva on Ukraine’s First National Television Channel immediately after the Yanukovych-Yushchenko debate. Both appeared at a televised roundtable attended almost exclusively by Yanukovych supporters, and expressed admiration for Yanukovych’s performance. That triggered DIF’s research director Iryna Bekeshkina to issue a statement sharply critical of them.
“Their playing games in the ‘correct’ candidate’s camp explains a lot of things that we could previously only suspect,” the statement in part read.
In another statement, DIF Director Ilko Kucheriv called upon Yaremenko to quit his position as vice president of the Sociological Association of Ukraine. Kucheriv argued that Yaremenko recently presented “twisted” results prepared by Socis and Social Monitoring, as well as questionable polling data from other firms, which spuriously indicated that Yanukovych had more support than his opponent in an attempt to “misinform citizens.”
“Misleading citizens with the help of pseudo-polls…is intended to damage citizens’ trust in the idea that exit polls can be used as an effective instrument against election fraud,” the statement reads.
No proof of falsification
Kucheriv said DIF is not accusing Socis and Social Monitoring of deliberate falsification, since “definitive proof of this, such as proof that bribes were accepted, does not exist.”
“But I have suspicions that corruption could be involved,” Kucheriv added.
Yaremenko, Churylov and Balakireva remain strict critics of the secret-ballot survey methodology, arguing that it is “untested” and unnecessary.
DIF has defended the methodology, saying it is used in Western countries like the United States, and that it helps eliminate a unique factor of Ukrainian elections: respondents’ fear of admitting preferences for opposition candidates or parties. According to some accounts, as many as 25 percent of respondents are affected by this “fear factor.” Indeed, traditional face-to-face pre-election polls conducted ahead of the 2002 parliamentary elections indicated that the oppositionist Socialist and Fatherland parties had support below four percent. When the votes were tallied, however, they posted support of about six percent.
Yaremenko concedes that fear about poll respondents exists, while insisting it has reduced significantly in recent years, and currently affects less than two percent of respondents.
Churylov downplayed the criticism that Balakireva and Yaremenko and he have faced.
“I don’t consider it criticism, but more along the lines of baseless accusations,” Churylov said.
“I don’t plan on focusing attention on this and I don’t think the situation is as tense as many think. I think after the elections, when we all calm down, we will sit down and discuss this with our colleagues,” he added.
Churylov said Socis and Social Monitoring has received new funding from a Ukrainian charity organization called Ukrainsky Shlyakh (Ukrainian Way).
“They approached us,” Churylov said, adding that his firm and Social Monitoring would conduct parallel face-face exit poll surveys of 12,500 respondents during Election Day.
“We think this methodology will provide trustworthy results,” he added.
Representatives of Ukrainsky Shlyakh were unavailable for comment by press time.
Yaremenko cast doubt on Kucheriv’s professionalism. “I think he should learn how to do exit polls,” he said.
Yaremenko said Ukrainin-Exit Poll is conducting its survey’s with the help of donations from members of the Sociology Association of Ukraine, universities country wide and other sources.
