Why Ukraine Can’t Hold Elections Like the US Did in WWII

Many nations prohibit voting during wartime. Even a strong democracy like the United Kingdom suspended elections during both World Wars. War imposes harsh restrictions on society and the economy—far beyond those of peacetime. That’s why many developed democracies embed election prohibitions in their constitutions.

Ukraine’s legal system includes such a prohibition. However, Ukrainian authorities have made it clear that as soon as hostilities cease, the government will initiate all necessary preparations for future elections. Moreover, discussions about upcoming elections are already taking place within Ukraine’s political sphere, with political parties and potential candidates becoming more active. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has confirmed that elections will be held after the war ends, in full compliance with Ukrainian law.

The situation in the US is fundamentally different, making it difficult for Americans to understand the realities of other countries. The US has a long-standing tradition of holding elections regardless of domestic or international circumstances. However, drawing parallels between the US during World War I and World War II and Ukraine today is misleading—those wars did not take place on American soil. 

Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities face daily bombardment. In the last week of January 2025 alone, Russia dropped 1,250 bombs. How can authorities ensure voter safety at polling stations? How can they protect large gatherings? Can the right to vote be guaranteed if polling stations shut down for hours due to air raid alerts? These are rhetorical questions.

But let’s return to the US: how did elections take place there during wartime?

US elections during war

The 1940 US presidential election, in which Franklin D. Roosevelt won, was influenced by the war narratives unfolding in Europe. However, at that time, the United States had not yet entered World War II.

The true “wartime election” was the presidential election of 1944. It took place amid the global conflict and was the first such election since 1864—and one of the few in US history to be conducted during a major war.

The Republican Party nominated 42-year-old New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey as its candidate. The Democratic Party’s candidate was, of course, the incumbent president, 62-year-old Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was seeking an unprecedented fourth term.

Even though the war never reached US soil, some Americans asked: should elections be postponed until it’s over? The reason—the sheer burden of war.

First, Democrats were on the defensive, facing tough questions about why America was unprepared for war. Second, wartime restrictions weighed heavily on daily life. Third, mobilization reshaped the electorate. Some Democrats argued they could lose not because of their policies, but because of the harsh realities of a global war. Meanwhile, Republicans had the advantage—they weren’t in power, so they could freely criticize and oppose the Democrats’ decisions.

Despite these challenges, the elections stayed on schedule. The US held its 1942 midterms and the 1944 presidential election. However, the biggest hurdle remained—getting soldiers to vote.

The first attempt at military voting in the 1942 midterms failed—out of 4 million US troops, only 28,000 participated. By 1944, voter turnout improved, but problems remained—of 11 million troops overseas, only 3.4 million (25%) voted.

Republicans also raised concerns about soldier voting patterns. Military personnel overwhelmingly supported the sitting commander-in-chief, Roosevelt, creating an imbalance. This was particularly evident as the tide of war shifted—after the Normandy landings, many soldiers believed the war was nearing its end and preferred to keep Roosevelt in office.

Another key issue was campaign outreach. With no war on US soil, traditional campaign rallies and gatherings continued. But Roosevelt, due to his health and wartime duties, had fewer chances to visit states in person. On the other hand, his frequent radio addresses to the nation gave him greater public exposure.

The incumbent administration faced various challenges—from military mobilization to economic hardship caused by the war. Historically, parties in power at the start of major wars rarely win elections, as seen in the 1942 midterms when Republicans gained seats. Simply put, the Democrats suffered politically because Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy had initiated the war.

Yet despite all this, Roosevelt won. His victory came down to a few key factors: 

• Many voters believed war was no time for a leadership change

• Others saw him as a seasoned wartime leader. 

Republicans also faced what political strategists call the “rally ‘round the flag” effect—when public opinion unites behind a war effort, voters see no reason to “change horses midstream.” By 1944, the Allies were advancing toward Berlin, overshadowing early setbacks and strengthening support for the incumbent president.

Elections in Ukraine

The case of elections makes one thing clear: holding a vote in Ukraine today is impossible. Nearly 1 million soldiers are on the front lines, with no way to ensure a fair and transparent voting process for them. Another 10 million Ukrainians are abroad—some European cities host hundreds of thousands—but embassies are nowhere near equipped to handle such massive crowds at the polls.

Conducting a fair and equal election campaign in Ukraine is also impossible. Some candidates can travel across the country, while others—due to their involvement in the war—cannot. Campaigning itself is unrealistic; with constant shelling, it is hard to imagine candidates holding rallies in Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, Kherson, Odesa, or Zaporizhzhia. Hundreds of frontline cities would be left without any candidate engagement.

Opposition candidates could also argue that they lack the same access to civilians and military personnel as the incumbent president, despite his claims of equal opportunities. For instance, how could members of the military with political ambitions effectively campaign while still serving?

Voting access is another problem. Even the US struggled when polling stations were too far from voters. In Ukraine, frontline towns under relentless shelling have no way to cast ballots. Meanwhile, Russian cruise and ballistic missiles—along with North Korean missiles and Iranian Shahed drones—pose a threat to every other region of Ukraine. What happens if Russia continues targeting polling stations?

A crucial concern is foreign interference. Russia has already attempted to buy votes in Moldova and has influenced elections in Romania. European officials have also warned about Russian meddling in their own elections. Ukraine would become the primary target of Russia’s entire propaganda machine—its “fake news factories,” troll farms, and cyberattacks. How do you counter that while fighting a war in the trenches?

Experience shows that elections during wartime cannot be conducted transparently or fairly, and political ambitions cannot be realized on equal terms. Ukraine is ready for elections—but only after the fighting stops, as outlined in its current constitution.