Kyiv City Council candidate V. worked even better.

Kyiv Mayor V. Maiboroda, congratulating the veterans on February 23, named all the “culprits” of our problems.

He wrote: “You created with your selfless labor and heroically defended in fierce battles with enemies our socialist Fatherland, now treacherously destroyed by the ruling elite and bourgeois lackeys: Medvedchuks, Yulia Tymoshenko,” sons-in-law “of the United States, Mr. Yushchenko, Tigipvo, Marmot, Marmot “In the March 31 election, these werewolves and National Democrats want to get into parliament again by deception and blackmail. We are sure that veterans are wise people and will not allow themselves to be deceived this time. “(Spelling saved).

You can simply greet the electorate with another postcard or newspaper, reminding yourself. And you can do it even better – talk about yourself in connection with a particular holiday. MP L. Chernovetsky, in particular, did a great job congratulating all women on March 8, 2003 (less than a month before the election) with a special newspaper in which he published his interview entitled “Women in the Life of People’s Deputy Leonid Chernovetsky . “

It is clear that it was about the most expensive (photos are included) women for the candidate in People’s Deputies – about mother, the wife, the daughter. He also singled out N. Vitrenko and Yulia Tymoshenko among women politicians, although he admitted that he “does not support Vitrenko’s ideology and does not feel it as a person” (?). In this political technology, the latter was clearly unnecessary, because it did not work in favor of Mr. Chernovetsky.

L. Chernovetsky did not miss the stronger sex. In the newspaper “Pravda Livoberezhzhya” (No. 1, 2002) he warmly congratulated the men on the occasion of the Defender of the Fatherland Day, correctly stating that this day “became a continuation of the traditions of the Day of the Soviet Army and Navy “and more (and this quite significantly) included a military photograph of his father (1945) and his own military photograph (1971). This dialectic of generations in general always works positively.

Electoral technologies such as: “I will do what no one can do.” Quite often, politicians who are just trying to get on the Olympus of power resort to technology – the belief that it is they who can do and will do what no one else has thought of or is unable to do. As a rule, citizens are sometimes offered fantastic (though not meaningless) proposals, events, projects. Thus, G. Balashov operated the same election technology for several years, although he changed the manner of its use.

He strongly advocates the abolition of value added tax. If this is done, then, according to Mr. Balashov, we will be able to reduce prices by 20%, increase the profits of citizens and businesses, create additional jobs, and thus solve many problems. Interestingly, G. Balashov in several special issues of “Komsomolskaya Pravda in Ukraine” in February 2002 published his “Tale of evil taxes, or how good Brod and the brave Ball saved the planet Happiness.” Quite an interesting children’s fantasy comic, which, incidentally, clearly shows the sympathies of https://123helpme.me/buy-compare-and-contrast-essay/ the author – Balashov’s policy to the electoral list of the political party “Apple”.

O. Chubatenko, a People’s Deputy and a member of the Unity election bloc, reminded of himself in a slightly different way, more constructively and with the hope of success in the 2002 election campaign. He published his “Report to the Voters” in a special issue of the Kyiv Economic and Political Foundation “Vidradny”. And not just reported what he did, but analyzed how many and what were the appeals of citizens from the district, set out his own vision of social processes in Ukraine.

Moreover, he included in the report approving opinions about himself people who can be really trusted – the rector of NTU “KPI” M. Zgurovsky, the then head of Solomyansk district state administration V. Tatarchuk, the director of the plant “Electron” M Kolotay, other dignitaries and even a candidate for People’s Deputies in the same constituency, No. 218 Kyiv, former head of the Zhovtnevy District State Administration M. Pidmohylny.

The PR election technology was therefore brilliantly executed on all sides. Reported (there is something). I apologized (not everything is done). He testified that he was able to do more. Here are his words: “… I see my parliamentary path with different eyes … it is clear what was done wrong, what failed, what could have been done better, more expediently … Not everything has succeeded. However, experience has been gained, and it will allow me to work much more efficiently in the future, whoever I am. “As you can see, there are almost no encroachments on deputies, and the words sound sincere.

An interesting pre-election technology of a similar nature was used by the candidate for Kyiv City Council in constituency No. 28 teacher D. Gordienko. He did not just talk about himself, outlined his program of action, promising, in particular, in 2003 a minimum pension in Kievand to raise to 400 hryvnias and to lay a metro line from Livoberezhnaya station to the Rainbow massif, but at the same time delivered to the mailbox of each voter the project of the agreement on responsibility and cooperation between him (if becomes the deputy) and the family which will sign this agreement.

It does not matter that it is not known how many families will sign such an agreement, how Mr. Gordienko will collect those agreements, what control over their implementation is possible (if it is possible at all). The main thing is that such agreements have no legal force. Obviously, the calculation was made on the political, legal illiteracy of those who fall into such a trap. Although as a pre-election technology – the passage is quite original.

Kyiv City Council candidate V. Nepop (constituency) 80 in Kyiv) worked even better. He distributed a kind of “Agreement-order of the deputy to the Kyiv City Council Nepop VI.” under his own signature. Voters (with the support of V. Nepop) had to sign an agreement-order, the subject of which is “joint efforts and joint actions to provide the necessary assistance, legal protection to the Voter in matters of socio-political, legal and local significance. “

It does not matter that the responsibilities of the parties in the mentioned document are written in such a way that they actually repeat the responsibilities of the voters and the deputy, fixed in the current legislation. This version of the deputy’s accountability to his constituents cannot be a complete loss, as a significant part of the people’s deputies, unfortunately, forget about the same people on the day when the election results are announced.

Electoral technologies such as: “Cloning, or show of twins”. The electoral technology associated with appearing in lists and then in mandates of the same names is not new. And not only in world practice – in Ukraine it was tested, though cautiously, in 1994, then during the by-elections of people’s deputies, when in one of the constituencies where Yulia Tymoshenko was to run, four candidates with the same name were nominated … in addition, one of them was also named Julia.

However, all expectations were exceeded by the pre-election show cloning of 2002.

Oleksandr Oleksandrovych Moroz is the leader of the Socialist Party of Ukraine, and Oleksandr Fedorovych Moroz is the first number on the list of candidates from the All-Ukrainian Workers’ Party, born in 1967, special secondary education, lives in Kyiv, electrician of a small private military-industrial complex.

Another candidate for the mandate with the same name has appeared in the constituency of Taras Stetskiv (Lviv).

Taras Chornovil “has” a twin brother, Taras Chornovil. The press actively discussed this.

Oleksandr Chubatenko, a People’s Deputy in constituency No. 218 (Kyiv), has a namesake, Hennadiy Chubatenko, who lived in Mykolayiv at the time, was temporarily unemployed, and self-nominated.

Cloning is an electoral technology designed primarily for the inattentive, the clumsy. people. If it does not seriously mislead the voter, it will still take away at least part of the votes from those who deserve them.

Electoral technologies such as “Tele debate”. This type of political technology is the most common and perhaps the most powerful, as it allows you to reach the general public, quickly and quickly convey your point of view, position to everyone, even indifferent voters, to influence their preferences and even choices. It is clear that in many circumstances (everything in sight – and appearance, and language, and beliefs, and outlook on life) TV debates can be the last speech of a politician to voters.

The popularity and success of televised debates as a political technology depend on many components, but the main ones, in our opinion, are the following:

participants in the discussion should represent if not diametrically opposed parties (ideas, ideologies, programs, blocs, associations, parties), then at least in some ways incompatible (at least in tactical steps to achieve the declared programs); Debaters must not only have a high general and political culture, but also be able to participate in the discussion (not every professional, even a well-known politician, can be perceived as a participant in the discussion, only purely public politicians are able to do so).

There was virtually no high-level televised debate during which viewers would not be bored during the 2002 election campaign in Ukraine. Not only the spectators were bored, but also the disputants themselves. Let’s mention, for example, at least one TV interview – the leader of the New Force party M. Kushnirov and the leader of the All-Ukrainian Union of Christians V. Babych. Initially, the TV presenter questions addressed the participants in turn with several, the vast majority of which did not pose any difficulties for everyone.

Moreover, when V. Babich commented on the way in which the association he heads plans to create 300,000 jobs in Ukraine, and M. Kushnirov spoke about the mechanism of increasing the population in the country to 120 million people (almost 2.5 times!), the presenter herself couldn’t help but smile. Probably because voters have heard a lot of fantastic promises before, but such …

After the presenter, Mr. Babich and Mr. Kushnirov asked each other quite convenient questions. Who, if not V. Babich, for example, had the answer to the question of how to end the discord between religious denominations? He had and still has his vision of this problem as a Christian Democrat.

Both debaters did not criticize the government, but, on the contrary, supported it. And M. Kushnirov justified the right to have, store and carry weapons by the fact that in the country …