DOCSLIB.ORG

GEORGIA This File Contains Election Results for the Georgian Parliament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GEORGIA This File Contains Election Results for the Georgian Parliament GEORGIA This file contains election results for the Georgian Parliament in 2012. Voters cast ballots in single- member plurality constituencies for candidates as well as for party lists in the single national proportional constituency. Candidate names are recorded in Kartuli (Georgian) script. Geography and Voters YEAR Election Year DISTNO Constituency Number DIST_KAR Constituency Name in Kartuli (Georgian) DIST_ENG Constituency Name in English ELEC Number of Electors Candidates and Votes in Single-Member Constituencies C_FRG1 Political Union “Kakha Kukava - Free Georgia” (Party#1) Candidate Name S_FRG1 Political Union “Kakha Kukava - Free Georgia” (Party#1) Votes C_NDP4 National Democratic Party (Party#4) Candidate Name S_NDP4 National Democratic Party (Party#4) Votes C_UNM5 United National Movement – More Benefits to People (Party #5) Candidate Name S_UNM5 United National Movement – More Benefits to People (Party #5) Votes C_JFG9 Justice for Georgia (Party #9) Candidate Name S_JFG9 Justice for Georgia (Party #9) Votes C_CDU10 Giorgi Targamadze - Christian Democratic Union (Bloc #10) Candidate Name S_CDU10 Giorgi Targamadze - Christian Democratic Union (Bloc #10) Votes C_F19 Freedom - The Way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Party #19) Candidate Name S_F19 Freedom - The Way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Party #19) Votes C_JB23 Political Union “Jondi Baghaturia – Georgian Group” (Party #23) Candidate Name S_JB23 Political Union “Jondi Baghaturia – Georgian Group” (Party #23) Votes C_NR24 Political Union “New Rights” (Party #24) Candidate Name S_NR24 Political Union “New Rights” (Party #24) Votes C_MKS30 Merab Kostava Society (Party #30) Candidate Name S_MKS30 Merab Kostava Society (Party #30) Votes C_FUG35 Future Georgia (Party #35) Candidate Name S_FUG35 Future Georgia (Party #35) Votes C_LC36 Labor Council of Georgia (Party #36) Candidate Name S_LC36 Labor Council of Georgia (Party #36) Votes C_LP38 Shalva Natelashvili - Labour Party of Georgia (Party #38) Candidate Name S_LP38 Shalva Natelashvili - Labour Party of Georgia (Party #38) Votes C_GSC40 Georgian Sportsmen’s Community (Party #40) Candidate Name S_GSC40 Georgian Sportsmen’s Community (Party #40) Votes C_GD41 Bidzina Ivanishvili – Georgian Dream (Bloc #41) Candidate Name S_GD41 Bidzina Ivanishvili – Georgian Dream (Bloc #41) Votes C_IND42 Independent Candidate Name S_IND42 Independent Candidate Votes Votes for Party Lists in the National Constituency PR_FRG1 Political Union “Kakha Kukava - Free Georgia” (Party#1) PR_NDP4 National Democratic Party (Party#4) PR_UNM5 United National Movement – More Benefits to People (Party #5) PR_JFG9 Justice for Georgia (Party #9) PR_CDU10 Giorgi Targamadze - Christian Democratic Union (Bloc #10) PR_PM17 Public Movement (Party #17) PR_F19 Freedom - The Way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Party #19) PR_JB23 Political Union “Jondi Baghaturia – Georgian Group” (Party #23) PR_NR24 Political Union “New Rights” (Party #24) PR_PP26 People’s Party (Party #26) PR_MKS30 Merab Kostava Society (Party #30) PR_FUG35 Future Georgia (Party #35) PR_LC36 Labor Council of Georgia (Party #36) PR_LP38 Shalva Natelashvili - Labour Party of Georgia (Party #38) PR_GSC40 Georgian Sportsmen’s Community (Party #40) PR_GD41 Bidzina Ivanishvili – Georgian Dream (Bloc #41) Giorgi Targamadze - Christian Democratic Union (Bloc #10) consisted of two parties: 1. Christian Democratic Movement 2. European Democrats of Georgia Bidzina Ivanishvili – Georgian Dream (Bloc #41) consisted of six parties: 1. Political Union “Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia” 2. Conservative Party of Georgia 3. Political Movement “Industry Will Save Georgia” 4. Republican Party of Georgia 5. Political Union “Our Georgia – Free Democrats” 6. Political Union “National Forum” Source: http://cesko.ge and http://results.cec.gov.ge/, Election Administration of Georgia (CEC). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Georgia Between Dominant-Power Politics, Feckless Pluralism, and Democracy Christofer Berglund Uppsala University
    GEORGIA BETWEEN DOMINANT-POWER POLITICS, FECKLESS PLURALISM, AND DEMOCRACY CHRISTOFER BERGLUND UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Abstract: This article charts the last decade of Georgian politics (2003-2013) through theories of semi- authoritarianism and democratization. It first dissects Saakashvili’s system of dominant-power politics, which enabled state-building reforms, yet atrophied political competition. It then analyzes the nested two-level game between incumbents and opposition in the run-up to the 2012 parliamentary elections. After detailing the verdict of Election Day, the article turns to the tense cohabitation that next pushed Georgia in the direction of feckless pluralism. The last section examines if the new ruling party is taking Georgia in the direction of democratic reforms or authoritarian closure. nder what conditions do elections in semi-authoritarian states spur Udemocratic breakthroughs?1 This is a conundrum relevant to many hybrid regimes in the region of the former Soviet Union. It is also a ques- tion of particular importance for the citizens of Georgia, who surprisingly voted out the United National Movement (UNM) and instead backed the Georgian Dream (GD), both in the October 2012 parliamentary elections and in the October 2013 presidential elections. This article aims to shed light on the dramatic, but not necessarily democratic, political changes unleashed by these events. It is, however, beneficial to first consult some of the concepts and insights that have been generated by earlier research on 1 The author is grateful to Sten Berglund, Ketevan Bolkvadze, Selt Hasön, and participants at the 5th East Asian Conference on Slavic-Eurasian Studies, as well as the anonymous re- viewers, for their useful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA (Acting Through the Ministry of Finance of Georgia) U.S.$500,000,000 2.750% Notes Due 2026 ISSUE PRICE: 99.422%
    GEORGIA (acting through the Ministry of Finance of Georgia) U.S.$500,000,000 2.750% Notes due 2026 ISSUE PRICE: 99.422% The U.S.$500,000,000 2.750% Notes due 2026 (the "Notes") to be issued by Georgia, acting through the Ministry of Finance of Georgia (the "Issuer" or "Georgia"), will mature on 22 April 2026 (the "Maturity Date") and, unless previously purchased and cancelled, will be redeemed at their principal amount on that date. The Notes will bear interest from, and including, 22 April 2021 at the rate of 2.750% per annum payable semi-annually in arear on 22 April and 22 October in each year, commencing on 22 October 2021. This Offering Circular comprises neither a prospectus for the purposes of Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) (the "FSMA"), a prospectus for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the "UK Prospectus Regulation"), nor listing particulars given in compliance with the listing rules made under Part VI of the FSMA by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") pursuant to the FSMA. Application has been made for the Notes to be admitted to the official list of the FCA (the "Official List") and to trading on the main market (the "Market") of the London Stock Exchange plc (the "London Stock Exchange"). The Notes are being offered (i) in offshore transactions in reliance on, and as defined in, Regulation S (the "Regulation S Notes") under the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’S Political Development
    1 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’s Political Development Tbilisi 2007 2 General editing Ghia Nodia English translation Kakhaber Dvalidze Language editing John Horan © CIPDD, November 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. CIPDD welcomes the utilization and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This book was published with the financial support of the regional Think Tank Fund, part of Open Society Institute Budapest. The opinions it con- tains are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the position of the OSI. ISBN 978-99928-37-08-5 1 M. Aleksidze St., Tbilisi 0193 Georgia Tel: 334081; Fax: 334163 www.cipdd.org 3 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................ 5 Archil Abashidze .................................................................................. 8 David Aprasidze .................................................................................21 David Darchiashvili............................................................................ 33 Levan Gigineishvili ............................................................................ 50 Kakha Katsitadze ...............................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them
    The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them Dr. Maia Urushadze1, Dr. Tamar Kiknadze2 1Caucasus International University 2Head of the Doctoral Program in Political Science, Caucasus International University Abstract The permanent ideological impact of the propaganda narratives of powerful political entities on the international community is perceived as one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. The international agenda is full of controversial interpretations, produced by powerful international political actors. As a result, the international media agenda is getting like the battlespace for the struggle of interpretations, where the ruthless kind of "frame-games" between the strongest global agenda-setting political entities takes place. The information field is open for all countries, including the small states, where political parties are not strong enough to have their propaganda to resist the ideological pressure from outside. Due to this, the societies of these countries are still easily influenced by the narratives of global political actors creating a suitable psychological environment for internal conflicts in societies. We consider Georgia among these states. Therefore, our research aimed to study the relevance of the actual values of local (Georgian) political actors with the ideologies declared by them. In this regard, our primary objective was to understand the specifics of strategic communication of local political actors, then, to compare their narratives with the rhetoric of international actors, and finally, to determine the strength of local society's resistance to these narratives. We hope that in this way we can assess the long-term impact of global actors’ propaganda communication could have on a small country.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Elections in Georgia: at Long Last, Stability?
    Recent Elections in Georgia: At long Last, Stability? DARRELL SLIDER G eorgia held its fourth contested parliamentary elections 31 October 1999 (the fifth, if one includes the 1918 multiparty elections that produced a Social Democratic government that was forced into exile by the Red Army in 1921) and its fourth presidential election on 9 April 2000. Press reports emphasized the endorsement the elections provided to President Eduard Shevardnadze and his party, the Citizens' Union of Georgia, which won a clear majority in the parlia- ment. At the same time, both the parliamentary and presidential elections were marred by heavy-handed manipulation of the political atmosphere preceding the balloting. The parliamentary elections also continued a troubling trend in Geor- gian politics: the exclusion of significant segments of the political spectrum from representation in the legislature. Perhaps more than any other former Soviet republic, Georgia has emphasized the development of political parties. Party list voting is the chief method for choosing members of parliament: lince 1992, 150 of 235 parliamentarians have been chosen by proportional voting.' The remainder, just over one-third, are cho- sen from single-member districts that correspond to Soviet-era administrative entities.2 Each election, however, has taken place under a different set of rules, which has had a major impact on the composition of the parliament. The party list system was also employed in November 1998 to choose local councils. In theory, a party list system should contribute to the formation of strong par- ties and a more stable party system. In practice, however, Georgian political par- ties remain highly personalized and organizationally weak.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse, Presidential Elections 2018
    Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse Presidential Elections 2018 Author: Tina Gogoladze Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili Monitoring by Tamar Gagniashvili, Khatia Lomidze, Mariam Tskhovrebashvili, Sopo Chkhaidze Designed by Mariam Tsutskiridze The report Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse has been prepared by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) within the USAID-funded Promoting Integration, Tolerance and Awareness Program in Georgia (PITA), implemented by the UN Association of Georgia (UNAG). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or UNAG. 1 Methodology The present report provides the results of monitoring conducted by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) ahead of the 2018 presidential elections. The monitoring was carried out on the cases of hate speech and discrimination on various grounds expressed by electoral subjects and political parties, as well as hate speech used against presidential candidates and political parties. The report involves only the cases of discrimination on ethnic, religious, racial and gender grounds, as well as the cases of encouraging violence; it does not provide insulting comments made by political opponents against each other. The monitoring covers the period from 1 August 2018 to 15 October 2018. The subjects of monitoring were selected from both mainstream and tabloid media. The monitored subjects were: ● News and analytical programs of five TV channels: Georgian Public Broadcaster (Moambe); Rustavi 2 (Kurieri; P.S.); Imedi (Kronika; Imedis Kvira); Maestro (news program) and Obieqtivi (news program). ● Talk-shows of five TV channels: Rustavi 2 (Archevani); Imedi (Pirispir); Iberia (Tavisupali Sivrtse); Obieqtivi (Gamis Studia, Okros Kveta); Kavkasia (Barieri, Spektri). ● Seven online media outlets: Sakinformi, Netgazeti, Interpressnews, Georgia and World, PIA, Kviris Palitra, Marshalpress.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report
    TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT International Republican Institute IRI.org @IRI_Polls © 2020 All Rights Reserved Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report Copyright © 2020 International Republican Institute. All rights reserved. Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the International Republican Institute. Requests for permission should include the following information: • The title of the document for which permission to copy material is desired. • A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired. • The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used. • Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mailing address. Please send all requests for permission to: Attn: Department of External Affairs International Republican Institute 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] IRI | Technical Electoral Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report 3 INTRODUCTION In June and July of 2020, the government of Georgia adopted significant constitutional and election reforms, including a modification of Georgia’s mixed electoral system and a reduction in the national proportional threshold from 5 percent to 1 percent of vote share — presenting an opportunity for citizens to pursue viable third-party options and the possibility of a new coalition government after decades of single-party domination.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia by Michael Hikari Cecire Capital: Tbilisi Population: 3.7 Million GNI/Capita, PPP: US$7,510
    Georgia By Michael Hikari Cecire Capital: Tbilisi Population: 3.7 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$7,510 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores NIT Edition 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 Electoral 4.75 5.25 5.25 5.00 5.00 4.75 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 Process Civil Society 3.50 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 Independent 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Media National Democratic 5.75 6.00 6.00 5.75 5.75 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Governance Local Democratic 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.25 5.25 5.25 Governance Judicial Framework and 4.75 4.75 4.75 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.75 4.75 Independence Corruption 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.75 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 Democracy 4.79 4.93 4.93 4.86 4.82 4.75 4.68 4.64 4.61 4.61 Score NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia's Political Development
    1 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’s Political Development Tbilisi 2007 2 General editing Ghia Nodia English translation Kakhaber Dvalidze Language editing John Horan © CIPDD, November 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. CIPDD welcomes the utilization and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This book was published with the financial support of the regional Think Tank Fund, part of Open Society Institute Budapest. The opinions it con- tains are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the position of the OSI. ISBN 978-99928-37-08-5 1 M. Aleksidze St., Tbilisi 0193 Georgia Tel: 334081; Fax: 334163 www.cipdd.org 3 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................ 5 Archil Abashidze .................................................................................. 8 David Aprasidze .................................................................................21 David Darchiashvili............................................................................ 33 Levan Gigineishvili ............................................................................ 50 Kakha Katsitadze ...............................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology
    Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology • The survey was conducted by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the International Republican Institute. The field work was carried out by IPM Research, Ltd. • Data was collected throughout Georgia (except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) between March 12 – April 2, 2016, through face-to-face interviews at respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia older than the age of 18 and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, education, region and size/type of settlement. • Multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions plus Tbilisi city. The survey was conducted throughout all regions of Georgia, except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. • Stage two: The territory of each region was split into settlements, and grouped according to subtype (i.e. cities, towns and villages). • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent. • Response rate was 72%. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology
    Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology • The fieldwork was carried out by the Institute of Polling & Marketing. The survey was coordinated by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the Center for Insights in Survey Research. • Data was collected across Georgia between August 4 and August 21, 2020 through face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia aged 18 and older and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, region and size of the settlement. • A multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent’s selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions. All regions of Georgia were surveyed (Tbilisi city – as separate region). • Stage two: selection of the settlements – cities and villages. • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent and the response rate was 75 percent. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. 2 Frequently Cited Disaggregates Disaggregate Disaggregation Category Base Male n=691 Gender Female n=809 Age 18-29 n=299 Age Groups Age 30-49 n=567 Age 50 and older n=635 Secondary/Incomplete secondary n=714 Education level Vocational n=223 Higher/Incomplete higher n=557 Rural n=634 Settlement type Urban (excluding Tbilisi) n=414 Tbilisi n=452 *Cited bases are weighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters During Pre-Elections
    Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters during Pre-Elections Subagreement # S-12-155 Report for: July 2 - November 11, 2012 Project Period: 11 June 2012 - 10 December 2012 Total Budget: 31 000$ Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters Results Summary/Impact Statement Main findings of monitoring: • Very few of the monitored subjects were dedicated airtime on regional TV channels; • Out of the monitored subjects the activities carried out by five political unions including United National Movement (UNM), Georgian Dream coalition, New Rights, Christian- Democratic Movement and Free Georgia were dedicated airtime; • Following the official announcement of the election campaign the amount of reporting on the UNM and the GD activities considerably went up; • In the aftermath of elections political parties were virtually provided with no TV coverage, apart from UNM and the Georgian Dream coalition; The amount of airtime devoted to the aforementioned two monitored subjects gradually decreased; • Most of the TV stories implied superficial information about the activities of the monitored subjects and failed to demonstrate dissenting or criticizing opinions over the issue; • In the aftermath of elections the extent of subjective coverage of events went down; • Following the elections some of the TV Companies mostly reported on social, cultural and economic issues ongoing in the region rather than political developments; • Prior to the elections the greater majority of regional TV channels dedicated a fair amount of airtime to reporting on the activities carried out by the local self-government. Reporting was almost always positive in tone. During the pre-election period reporting on the activities carried out by the local self-government considerably went up but this time reporting was not solely positive in tone; • The programs initiated by the authorities were covered in a superficial manner, without providing any additional arguments; • In the greater majority of TV Companies reporting was positive in tone.
    [Show full text]