Click here to read at the article I am responding to.

In his letter to the editor XXX seems to mistake and distort a number of the issues involved in the recent election in Ukraine.
 
1) He says the political standoff is damaging to Ukraine's reputation and the "polls always indicated that the Presidential race was going to be close". What he does not mention is that the most recent polls indicated that Yushchenko was ahead, or that all credible international observers (OSCE, IRI, NDI, EU, ENEMO, etc...) found major election manipulation on the part of the government, or that this final election fraud was only the capstone on a massive campaign of slander, interference, and intimidation. The results of the election were not just a "risk and problem that could always occur with a direct Presidential election" they are the result of concerted attempts by corrupt political forces and businessmen to override the results of a direct Presidential election.
 
2) The comparison with the 2000 US Election is silly. George W did not "hijack" the political process last time around. The process was that in problematic situations like the one in Florida, the Supreme Court would decide. They did. Hijacking is when you get 114% of voters in some areas of Donetsk to vote for you. Hijacking is when you have a compliant Central Election Commission declare you the legitimate president despite objections by countless international observations missions. (The OSCE gave the US Election a nice little report card, thank you very much, and even the Belgians couldn't find anything the matter that mattered). Poor ballot process is when some voters in Florida mistakenly fill out their ballots. Kicking out observer and declaring 96% of votes for the incumbent candidate, after executing a complete takeover of all media sources is hijaking. The first is unfortunate, the second is undemocratic.
 
3) "Does Ukraine keep going to the ballot box until the US Executive is happy and the Our Ukrainian block manages to secure a majority?" They went to the ballot box twice. In the first they voted for Yushchenko, in the second they voted for Yushchenko. That's plenty enough trips to the ballot box, but the Central Election Committee refused to consider a 96% turnout in Eastern strongholds irregular. Perhaps they remembered that there was precedence: numbers almost as high as these were achieved in Ukraine before... during Stalinism.
 
4) Furthermore, the US is for the democratic process, which, read the OSCE's assessment, please, was violated in this election. It's the Russians who've made their candidate preference clear.
 
5) Election by the Ukrainian Parliament is a fine solution to a different problem. It was suggested back in January by a pro-presidential Parliamentary majority that had been created after the opposition Parliamentary majority dwindled away amid accusations of bribery and coercion. The opposition considered, and considers, this a ploy to take away all the power of the Presidency right before they achieve the office, so that all business can return to normal. (or Kuchma can become newly-empowered Prime Minister) The problem in this election is not a "hung jury" with the electorate, it is fraud.
 
In the end, it is not "the Parliament that should decide how and under what conditions Ukraine is to be governed" it is the Ukrainian people, and they did, and their choice should be honored.

Click here to read at the article I am responding to.