According to the OPORA's observation results of 17 July 2016 parliamentary by-elections in Ukraine, there were significant issues with proper organization and conduct of elections in seven single-member districts.


The key issues were: various voter bribery schemes; “technical” candidates used by active candidates to get the majority in PECs; and violations committed by election commission members.

OPORA would like to emphasize that it's important to verify all violation reports received before or after the election day despite the election results have been already tabulated. Thus, when the data on each polling station is grouped, it may be used for further investigation of all the circumstances related to the course of campaigning or vote count at polling stations.

Aimed to draw public attention to the issues emerging during election process, OPORA is planning to conduct a comprehensive analysis of election results for 2016 parliamentary by-elections in Ukraine, including statistical analysis, data visualization, and monitoring of criminal proceedings. Besides that, we are planning to thoroughly study all the information about any illegitimate actions, which could have influenced the election results. By such information, we also mean the facts, which were ignored by law-enforcement bodies during the election process.

Before this analysis, OPORA is planning to publish interactive map for each of seven single-member districts containing information about the voting process at election precincts and its results.

Map of election results for district #114 (Luhansk oblast, center - city of Bilovodsk) will be published first. We mapped all polling stations (GPS coordinates were taken from website of the State Register of Voters), and added some indicators of the voting process and election results. Thus, a user may compare the indicators.

Similarly to the other districts in parliamentary by-election in Ukraine, observers detected in district #114 voter bribery incidents, violations committed by election commissions and their members, and reported activities of charitable funds.

Precinct data in the district may be compared by the following parameters:

  • voter turnout at each polling station (the higher percentage, the bigger and darker the circle is);
  • percentage of individuals who voted at the place of stay (voting from home);
  • percentage of invalid ballots;
  • results of three key candidates (results of other candidates will be constantly updated).

Try to turn on and off different layers to compare them:

  • red - voter turnout at an election precinct;
  • orange – voting at home;
  • pink – percentage of invalid ballots at polling stations;
  • blue – votes for candidate Serhii Shakhov;
  • green – votes for candidate Valerii Moshenskyi;
  • black – votes for candidate Borys Liebiediev;

You are welcome to use zoom and select separate polling stations to use the mapped data more effectively.

The data allow interested users to see peculiarities of the voting process at the certain polling stations in the district. For example, there the voter turnout at two closely sitting polling stations is significantly different: #440231 (Krasne Pole) – 48% and #440232 (Vysochynivka) – 78%. These two settlements are situated closely to the border in the northern east of oblast with only few kilometers between them. At the same time, voter turnout in Novopskiv reached around 35%, while village Makartetyne demonstrates much better discipline – 63% turnout. Another example is a group of villages: Danylivka (40%) and Novoderkul (46%) compared to Tretiakivka (74%), which is situated far from the main road.

These are only some examples of how to compare election results at different polling stations, which users may use for further research into the election process.

If you have noticed some peculiarities when using the map and can explain them, contact us at [email protected]

Don't hesitate to write us if you have any proofs or facts about illegal influence on the election results at a certain polling station.