Presidential elections are crucially important for the United States and Ukraine. While many Ukrainians see the American way to elect the president as a good example, they forget about possible flaws in that process. But will the same system work in Ukrainian reality? We decided to take a chance to put the retrospective of Ukrainian presidential elections to the American election method. This experiment helped us understand the best and worst features of both systems and their impact on modern Ukrainian history.
The election systems of Ukraine and the United States are drastically different. It can be proved by comparing them in different terms and contexts. If we talk about the presidential elections, there are some vast differences evident. For example, the Ukrainian way to elect the president is direct – it means that the winner is determined by the number of public votes each candidate got. However, the presidential elections in the US are indirect – people choose the electors that will give their votes to one of the candidates depending on each state’s results. Ballots in the United States are counted automatically by the particular software and hardware. In Ukraine, they are counted manually, by hand. These are the differences that are just on the surface of the issue.
Despite all of that, both systems are heavily criticized. While some Americans pay more attention to the urgency of changes in their election system, some Ukrainians adore the American one, calling it more democratic and wiser for the citizens. These talks can be neverending, so the only way to define and understand all pros and cons of both of these systems is to project the American one on the Ukrainian presidential election. It may help us detect the necessary details and see which approach is actually better for both countries. Also, it can provoke some thoughts about the improvements that have to be made for future elections.
The projection
Of course, in our project, we have to take the specifics of the Ukrainian parliament structure and territorial division into the account. These are the elements that shape the basics of the American Electoral College. In the US, the number of electors is counted regarding the states’ size and the number of Congress representatives. All of that equals 538 electors in total. If we try to do that for Ukraine, we have to count the active polling counties in each region (some of them are non-active because of the conflict on the east of Ukraine), multiply its amount by two, and add two. As a result, we get the number of Ukrainian MPs – 450. Here is the amount of electors by each Ukrainian region:
Vinnytsia – 18; Lutsk – 12; Dnipro – 36; Donetsk – 26; Zhytomyr – 14; Uzhhorod – 14; Zaporizghia – 20; Ivano-Frankivsk – 16; Kyiv (as the region) – 20; Kirovohrad – 12; Luhansk – 14; Lviv – 26; Mykolaiiv – 14; Odesa – 24; Poltava – 18; Rivne – 12; Sumy – 14; Ternopil – 12; Kharkiv – 30; Kherson – 12; Khmelnytskyi – 16; Cherkasy – 16; Chernivtsi – 11; Chernihiv – 14; Kyiv (as the capital city) – 29.
When we finally know how the particular regions would give out their electoral votes, we have to move directly to the results of the real Ukrainian presidential elections that happened sometime before. Also, we have to assume that the regions would you the ‘give it all’ system – the winning candidate gets all the votes of the region. Simultaneously, the Ukrainian projection will be different for one more reason – Ukrainian politics is not moving around just two main political parties, but much more of them. Furthermore, most of them have changed with each election. So, we will consider the results of the first stage of voting with more than two candidates. The winner has to cross the borderline of 225 votes to get a victory (this is half of all the votes). Also, we have to understand that the actual numbers of elections before 2014 would be different because of the bigger number of active polling stations in the east of Ukraine and Crimea, but the whole pattern would stay the same. We will project the cases of the most exciting and influential presidential elections of Ukraine: those that happened in 1999, 2004, 2010, 2014, and 2019.
The 1999 elections were important because it was a year when president Leonid Kuchma was reelected despite the huge controversies about his policies and almost non-existing public support. That is why the presidential campaign was intense and especially interesting. There were four main competitors in that race: Kuchma himself, Oleksandr Moroz of Socialist Party of Ukraine, Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine, and Nataliia Vitrenko of the Progressive Socialistic Party. Other candidates were not that popular, so the choice was limited in the ideological context. However, as the real results gave Kuchma victory, the same thing would happen in that scenario.
Kuchma – 286, Symonenko – 114, Moroz – 36, Vitrenko – 14.
As we can see, Kuchma would get more than 225 votes needed and stay the country’s president. The larger amount of controversy and even a try to change the country’s political system initiated by Kuchma would also remain even with the new system. The success can be explained by the professional job of the campaign staff and the whole pattern of Kuchma’s campaign that was heavily oriented on youth votes.
The 2004 elections were crucial for us because it was the first case of a massive and confirmed voting fraud in Ukrainian history. The leading two candidates represented the division in Ukrainian society – pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko was battling the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych. Would the new system help avoid the second circle of the voting and minimize the voting fraud effect? If we count the results, we can see the difference.
Yushchenko – 274, Yanukovych – 176.
As we can see, Yushchenko would win despite the voter fraud in the first voting circle. In that scenario, the Orange Revolution of 2004 would never happen because its’ main cause (the voting fraud) would not even exist. Despite the positive cultural and political reset that this process brought, Yushchenko would get more time for actual work without the revolution and focus on the reform process. Furthermore, the future political crises inside the Yushchenko’s team and the Ukrainian parliament could not occur. Also, Yushchenko could even be reelected later. In reality, it was not possible because the Orange Revolution built very high hopes among the Ukrainians. When Yushchenko was not able to make them real, the nation was disappointed.
The 2010 elections were another milestone for Ukraine. The important for our future destiny choice had to be made – Viktor Yanukovych wanted to battle his failure in 2004. Yulia Tymoshenko would get her highest possible chance to become a president in her whole history of running for the presidency. Other candidates, including the incumbent at that time, Yushchenko, were not that popular. According to the real results, Yanukovych has won, and his cadency had abruptly ended in 2014 when he escaped to Rostov in Russia, avoiding the Euromaidan protests. His actions shaped the future of Ukraine in a particular negative pattern, but would it be possible to prevent it with another voting system?
Tymoshenko – 260, Yanukovych – 190.
As we can see, Yanukovych would lose the elections again. Tymoshenko would become the Ukrainian president. It is only left to guess how the Tymoshenko policy would look like, but it would stop her future endless tries to run for the presidency. The race was tight, and in reality, Yanukovych’s victory heavily relied on the votes from eastern Ukraine.
The 2014 elections happened during a time of frustration, uncertainty, and struggle for the European and independent future of Ukraine – Yanukovych’s actions led to the Crimea annexation and the start of the conflict in Donbas (Luhansk and Donetsk regions). This crisis is still haunting the current Ukrainian existence, and in 2014 Ukrainians had high hopes for a bright future after another resetting for the national revolution, which was even more defining and essential for the country. Despite all of that, the elections did not have any tension – Petro Poroshenko crashed these elections with a record-breaking turnout. But would the different system show that too?
Poroshenko – 450.
It seems insane, but in that case, Poroshenko would get all the electoral votes. So, everything would stay the same, and the winner would get even more confidence in his future actions with that amount of support.
Some of the expectations were not met, and Ukrainian society needed the change again. It was tired of the old political establishment, and when the new political figure with the popular background emerged, the 2019 race seemed to be called. Volodymyr Zelenskyi became the leading contender for the president’s title, but some regions were not sure about that. The other three candidates were less popular but had their share in a voting turnout too. The incumbent president Petro Poroshenko, well-known Yulia Tymoshenko, and popular in the east of Ukraine, Yurii Boiko were these other candidates who picked some votes.
Zelensky – 356, Boiko – 40, Poroshenko – 38, Tymoshenko – 16.
Obviously, Zelensky would win the whole thing, but Boiko would get second place instead of Poroshenko with the difference of just two electoral votes. However, the entire situation would not change.
What is on the surface?
We definitely can see that the American presidential elections model would help Ukraine avoid some turns in its history. At first glance, it seems that this system fits Ukraine very well. We can see the main advantage of that format here – a better representation of less-populated regions. The American system allows small areas to be active participants in the political process because their votes may be decisive. The Ukrainian presidential elections of 2004 and 2010 are great proofs for that statement – more populated eastern regions voted for Yanukovych both times. Still, votes from other less populated parts of Ukraine let Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, respectively, prevail.
However, when we look closer, we can find out why the American system is heavily criticized, and Ukrainian examples make a good case for that. If we take the American approach as a strict model, we also have to assume that the electors have a legal right not to follow the public vote results. In the US, this issue is called ‘faithless electors’ and occurs rarely, but it supports the claim that such a framework puts a barrier between the public vote and some higher institution that decides the vote. All of that makes the public vote less significant in a total turnout. Furthermore, the future situation of conflicts between local and central governments in Ukraine creates tension and a field for possible manipulations. But the most crucial part of all of that is a smaller role of a public vote in general. Yes, maybe the American model would be historically better for Ukraine, but it does not represent the full complexity and public opinion spectrum. The elections are not about hearing and counting a few votes, but all of them – this is a fundamental principle for the democratic process.
Of course, we can think that the Ukrainian system is somehow worse. Still, the examples show some other vital things where the current Ukrainian election system is better than the one in the United States. The model used in Ukraine supports the political system with multiple parties, giving political representation to more social groups. Besides that, it allows us to keep politics relatively fresh and always updated. Furthermore, people without the party behind their back can run for president, giving a better representation. If we talk about the organizational points, yes, the American elections use modern hardware to count the votes, but the voter registration process is a problem in the United States. In Ukraine, the government automatically registers voters, making them more engaged and active in the process.
Conclusion
Ukraine and the United States are two very different countries with different political systems. There are many small details where the projection falls apart, and it is true. Still, Ukrainians closely observe and watch the American presidential elections, chasing a dream to implement the same system here, not understanding all the differences. We tried to put that theory into practice, and it seems to work fine, but both Americans and Ukrainians have to understand – it is not only about the system. It is also about the candidates, their words, and actions. These things have to be the main ones in the election process. Yes, the system has to be changed, but it is more important to change politics itself. Only when this thing is corrected we can think about possible updates of both election systems.
Artur Koldomasov is a senior fellow and expert in U.S. politics with the ADASTRA think tank in Ukraine.
