I don't understand.

1) Become part of Russia
2) Remain part of Ukraine
3) No



Isn't the second option basically a "no" response to joining Russia?

Sid

Or answers yes to both questions?

What do those ballots represent?

A Sovereignty Referendum ballot with 2 Yes/No questions means that there will be 4 categories of answers:

Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No/No

That methodology is bound to give an ambiguous result that can be debated and interpreted in almost any way to suit whatever agenda is being pushed. In short, it's a recipe for disaster.

Sid

1) become part of Russia
2) declare full independence

it is not possible to vote for the status quo

There is no status quo vote.

It's more like "Change is coming, what kind of change do you want it to be?"

But the poster I replied to was suggesting there should be yes/no answers to the two options being presented.

Sid

there were several versions of their Constitution in 1992. Basically, Crimea parliamet drew one up, it was passed in Crimea but not Ukraine, compromise was made and it passed. The second option on the ballot is probably going to be going back to the Constitution that wasn't approved by a referendum or the Rada.

It's strong arm tactics. Same as everything else that's been done there.

It is a vote for partial secession, is the best way I can put it.

A fair ballot would offer those two options, and then add an option to make no change in status: that would be the "no" vote.

But since the voter can't pick "no change", the election is rigged in Moscow's favor.

That looks like the "no" to joining Russia option.

It is a vote for partial secession, is the best best way I can put it.

A fair ballot would offer those two options, and then add an option to make no change in status: that would be the "no" vote.

But since the voter can't pick "no change", the election is rigged in Moscow's favor.

_________________
I'll add something as well. There was more than one Constitution passed in 1992. Only one was agreed to by both Cirmea and Ukraine, but I'll bet they try to go back to the one dated 5 May that didn't include being part of Ukraine. That line was added the next day, and before anything was ratified. From Wiki:

In February 1992 the Crimean parliament transformed Crimea into "Republic of Crimea" and the Ukrainian government offered them more self-government.[1] On 5 May 1992 parliament declared Crimea independent[1] (which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992[4]) and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.[4] On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.[4] On 13 May 1992 the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea's independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same.[4] In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]

The Russia choice seems unambiguous, so if they vote for that option we know what they want.

Basically, Crimea surrendered to Ukraine in 1992 when they inserted a clause into their constitution (under Ukrainian threats of war), declaring that Crimea was part of Ukraine, though autonomous and independent within it. A few weeks later the Ukrainian Rada abolished the 1992 constitution and declared that future constitutions had to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament. In 1994 the Crimean parliament voted to restore the 1992 constitution again, and then the Crimean President decided to work with the Crimean parliament to rewrite it to guarantee more autonomy. The Ukrainian Rada responded by not only abolishing the 1992 constitution a second time, but by eliminating the presidency in Crimea along with it and placing the Crimea under decree-based direct administration under the Ukrainian president himself. The Crimean parliament, now under the thumb of the President of Ukraine (the president of Ukraine was literally running Crimea by fiat), ended up rewriting the constitution in a way favorable to Ukraine, with major edits placed by the Ukrainian Rada. That constitution went into effect in 1998, and has governed Crimea ever since.

The differences between the two are huge. It's like the difference between Puerto Rico and Hawaii to the U.S. Hawaii is an integral U.S. state, and it's leadership is entirely subject to the U.S. government. Puerto Rico is a sovereign U.S. territory. Independent, but American. Its residents hold citizenship in both countries, but it's still generally regarded as "American soil". Most importantly, Puerto Rico has a LOT more legislative freedom than Hawaii does, and can vote to leave the U.S. at any time if it chooses.

Crimea wasn't historically part of Ukraine until Russia gave it to them in the 1950's. In January 1991 Crimea became an independent oblast again after 94% of its people voted for independence, and the USSR recognized them once again as an independent entity within Ukraine. Many months before the Ukrainian SSR declared independence, the Crimean SSR was recognized again as an independent entity within the Ukraine. The Ukrainians like to claim that the declaration was illegitimate because it was imposed by the Russians, but it was jut as legitimate as the Russian choice that added Crimea to the Ukrainian oblast only 40 years earlier.

In August 1991 the Ukrainian SSR declared itself itself to be the newly independent Republic of Ukraine. Five months later in January 1992 the Crimean SSR declared itself to be the newly independent Republic of Crimea, free of the USSR and Russia in every way. Ukraine immediately gave them seven days to rescind the declaration or face a full scale invasion. Ukraine didn't care about Crimea, but it didn't want to lose the naval facilities on the peninsula, and their half of the Black Sea fleet. The Crimean parliament only submitted to the Ukrainians under the threat of military occupation by a foreign power.

There were two Autonomous Soviet Republics contained within the borders of the Soviet Ukraine oblast, Crimea and Moldavia. Moldavia declared independence and became the nation we now know as Moldova. Crimea declared independence and was told to surrender or face annihilation.

Given that history, I think it's understandable why the Crimeans may not be interested in returning to subjugation. The 1992 constitution grants them full autonomy, but allows them to remain Ukrainian territory. It's a constitution designed to avert war and grant self-determination.

Option 2 clearly states:


Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and for the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine ?

Why would a yes or no be required on a referendum? Even US referendums and amendments to state constitutions succinctly state the whole option.

The least the OP could have done is use Google translate. There's a bunch of good one's out there. Memesource, memeQ, Trados....put a little effort into backing up your claims please.

option to keep the status quo. It would take a pretty pathetic person to not realize keeping the status quo should be an option.

as it keeps Crimea a part of Ukraine. How hard is that to figure out? Your post makes "no" sense.

And "Time" is an abstract, not a physical thing, there is no way for "Time" to know what "it" is doing as "Time" has no consciousness.

about 25 million. I wasn't referring to time as a concept, but Time the publisher of the article I posted. Did you even read the article? But I will give you this, even though Time is one of the more respected media sources, it is still a media source and therefore "has no consciousness." (But they might, I just read that readership was up but ad revenues were down, clearly they're doing something wrong. Lolz.)

Time and Newsweek are dying relics. They lost their credibility a couple of useless wars ago.

think Time has kept it's credibility with it's articles. They aren't cutting edge, but they're functional and accurate. I didn't specify Time magazine because it was the source of the article and you attacked the source of the article, hello!!

They held a meeting yesterday.

They're obviously trying to figure out who gets to look after that 1st billion dollars.

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 08:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Where a large crowd of Pro-Russia supporters have taken prisoner a group of what they say is the sniper patzan youth that killed our own people. Apparently the group of youth had come to east Ukraine to take control of portions of the country but the crowd overpowered them and marked them with green paint. Chaos now rules Ukraine. This video may portend what is possibly coming for East Ukraine. Possible separation as well, as they are overwhelmingly pro Russian and convinced these youth are the cause of all their problems.

the Pro Russia Ukranian crowd overwhelmed and captured the contingent who tried to take over the government building in East Ukraine.

#aid=P-siQcz94TQ