Wise words. And interesting timeline.

Those who thought that the North Korean leadership was insane seem to be not too far from the mark...

[equipping schools with storm shelters]

We've heard from Sen. Jim Inhofe who will work with President Obama and Governor Fallin to provide the support we need.

Also,  one of our state legislators is going author a legislation that would put up a bond election for $500 million.  $400 million will go to equipping schools with storm shelters and another $100 million will go to equipping homeowners with storm shelters.

Schools in Oklahoma don't have storm shelters ?!

Why did the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union collapse?

Basically a loss of electorate, combined with a total inability to unify. Nowadays Bulgaria has less than 30% rural population, as opposed to over 80% in the 1940s and most of those prefer BSP or MRF (the Turkish population is disproportionately rural). And the BANU have always been plagued by fractionalism, even when they were strong before 1944.  Today a fraction of BANU is part of the BSP-led "Coalition for Bulgaria", while the main fraction was a long time UDF ally and then a part of a coalition of minor parties which lasted only one parliamentary term.
Also, the main BANU fraction completely abandoned the interests of their constituency and became essentially satellites of the UDF. Their support of the idiotic land reform of 1992 probably cost them half of their voters on its own.

The contrast between Croatia and Slovenia is interesting.

Slovenia is Central Europe - a Slavic version of Austria in many ways, Croatia is - mentally - the Balkans. If Serbia and Bosnia had been polled they would be about the same as Croatia, Serbia probably slightly worse.

What exactly is this Balkan mentality supposed to be?

The election results by municipality. Compare with previous Bulgarian election in this thread (the 2009 is on the last page).



The results are not surprising in general, though it's odd how many former BSP strongholds are now staunchly pro-GERB...

["Should Saarland remain a state on its own, or should it be merged with Rheinland-Pfalz ?"]

Also:

"Should Saarland remain a state on its own, or should it be merged with Rheinland-Pfalz ?"



by party:

Has someone seriously suggested this (apart from the Greens, obviously)?

The video of this incident is conspicuous in its absence.

But as popular as he is, he still can't push the The Greens to first place...

Is this is a test to see how many are careless enough to confuse Gosnell with Kermit the frog?

Problaby the first time where the winner of an election try to get it invalided.

The victory is worth squat if they can't form a government. And the last thing Borisov wants is for the opposition is to form a government (even if they're a greater failure) and investigate the archives of the interior ministry, because if half of the accusations against him are right, participating in the next elections would be the least of his problems.
Also, if there are new elections, GERB would probably make sure that any unauthorized ballots are not discovered until after the election (or most likely never)...

I've finally managed to make a more detailed map of the 2009 parliamentary elections, so I hope I'll be excused for reopening the thread after four years. As the deputies were elected by two systems, there are two maps.

First are results for the proportional vote, which elected 209 deputies on a nationwide basis:



And these are the results for 31 deputies elected in single member districts (the same as the 31 multi member districts) on a First-past-the-post basis:

To return to the subject of this thread, with the final results in (GERB 97, BSP 84, MRF 36, Ataka 23) the formation of a government seems an even harder task, as even the most likely coalition (BSP-MRF) is one deputy short. In light of this, both BSP and MRF are now proposing a non-party, technocratic government around the former financial minister, Plamen Oresharski (who is independent). The trick will be to get Ataka to support it. Of course, there is always the possibility that some deputy(es) of theirs might be "persuaded" to support the government, as happened in 2005.
GERB will still try to form a government, though they have no chance as long as the other parties refuse to make a coalition with them. They are widely suspected to be trying to peel off deputies of opposition parties, a rather difficult task as they need at least 24. But then again they have far more money than the other parties...
This might not matter if GERB's attempt to cancel the election succeeds. They are claiming that the day of reflection before the election was compromised by the media. This seems an attempt to distract the attention from why the media compromised the election - the discovery of 350 thousands unauthorized ballots made by a local GERB politician, packed and ready for delivery...

Wierd. I expected Turks to be near the Turkish border, not in the northeast near Romania.

Its Southern Dobruja, a border area that was repeatedly settled by various migrating or deposed groups (Tatars 1512-14, Gagausians etc.), especially during the Ottoman era. The first Turks came in 1280 and the Ottomans needed a loyal population to secure the area. Most of the Bulgarian population came as settlers in the 19th century.

No, Southern Dobruja is a much smaller region and only the western part of it has a high Turkish population. Also there is no reliable evidence of Turkish settlement in the 13th century. The first Turkish settlers arrived in the 14th century, after the Ottoman conquest.
You are right that the region has such a high Turkish population due to strategic settlement during the Ottoman era. Also, due to the proximity to the northern border of the Ottoman Empire, many Bulgarians emigrated over the centuries to Romania and Russia. Most of those who remained were either absorbed by the Turkish settlers or at least became Turkish speaking (which is the most likely origin of the Gagauz).

There are some oddities in their dialect that doesn't fit southwest turk languages, and are believed to be related to northwest turkic. Many linguists link this to the cumans/kipchaks or even to the original bulgars (in this version, they would be bulgars (or cumans) who didn't adopt the slavic language and, later, started to adopt the southwestern turk dialect but preserving some features of their ancestral northwest turkic languages.

That's interesting, though it's the first I've heard of it. But even if it's so, these theories don't seem very convincing. The Cumans had been settled for over two centuries when the Ottomans conquered Bulgaria, so it's very likely they would have been assimilated at this point. Additionally, they were probably settled further south and west of this region.
Regarding the Protobulgars, not only is it more likely that they would be completely assimilated at this point (and there is no evidence of their language surviving so long) but there are doubts whether their language was Turkic at all. And ancient Bulgar is not considered a Northwest Turkic language by those who do consider it Turkic.
It seems more likely that their dialect had been influenced by the Crimean Tatars who were settled in the same region, starting from 16th century.

Its correct that the area in NW Bulgaria with a high Turkish population is larger than Southern Dobruja proper, but the history is the same.

I don't want to derail an election thread with a history discussion, but when it comes to the history of Balkan countries there is always a local, nationalist version and a more neutral, unbiased one reflecting the views of outside historians, and your view clearly reflects the Bulgarian nationalist tradition.

What exactly is the problem with my explanation? And using personal attacks is probably the best way to derail a discussion, especially when there are no arguments to accompany them.

Wierd. I expected Turks to be near the Turkish border, not in the northeast near Romania.

Its Southern Dobruja, a border area that was repeatedly settled by various migrating or deposed groups (Tatars 1512-14, Gagausians etc.), especially during the Ottoman era. The first Turks came in 1280 and the Ottomans needed a loyal population to secure the area. Most of the Bulgarian population came as settlers in the 19th century.

No, Southern Dobruja is a much smaller region and only the western part of it has a high Turkish population. Also there is no reliable evidence of Turkish settlement in the 13th century. The first Turkish settlers arrived in the 14th century, after the Ottoman conquest.
You are right that the region has such a high Turkish population due to strategic settlement during the Ottoman era. Also, due to the proximity to the northern border of the Ottoman Empire, many Bulgarians emigrated over the centuries to Romania and Russia. Most of those who remained were either absorbed by the Turkish settlers or at least became Turkish speaking (which is the most likely origin of the Gagauz).

The results from inside the country are now complete, though there are still outstanding votes from abroad.

The election results by province:



Actually by electoral district, but they're nearly the same.

What about a Socialist government supported by MRF and Attack?

That's the only remaining possibility. But it's difficult to see what "program government" could be supported by both MRF and Ataka.

Oh, they abolished the parallel voting system?

Yes. I doubt that GERB wanted to repeat BSP's experience.

A grand coalition seems the only way to go since there's no chance a new election would produce a more workable legislature.

Or perhaps they could try to have the current technocratic government government try to stay on indefinitely. I'm unsure about the legality of that under the Bulgarian constitution.

A grand coalition is out of the question. BSP, MRF and Ataka have all announced that they won't ally with GERB and while the later has now reversed its position and wants a coalition at any cost (they even claim they would discuss forming a coalition with MRF), none of them are likely to change their positions. Of course that doesn't mean that a government relying on the support of both Ataka and MRF is much more likelier. So it seems that regardless of whether it will produce a more workable legislature, a new election seems very likely at the moment.

And no, they can't have the current government stay on indefinitely (and a good thing too, considering to what extent it's controlled by GERB). Once a parliament is elected, a new parliamentary supported government must be formed and if this is impossible, parliament is dissolved and new elections must be held no later than months after this date. Of course if this parliament can't form a government, then the current caretaker government will presumably stay until the next elections (and the one after that and so on, if the current political landscape doesn't change...)

Is there any way to see the results for the FPTP seats?

There are no FPTP seats.

96.1% of the votes counted:

30.7% GERB
27.0% Socialists
10.6% Turk Party
  7.4% Ataka
24.3% Others (but none above 4% threshold)

http://results.cik.bg/pi2013/rezultati/index.html

Now the almost complete results are available (99.563% counted):
30.74% (97) GERB
27.06% (86) Socialists
10.46% (33)Turk Party
7.394% (24) Ataka

Is it just me or are there no vote totals shown ?

No, they'll probably show them when they're finished counting.

"Stanishev, who at the end of 2011 had the political fillip of being elected acting leader of the Party of European Socialists, has said that a return to the BSP being led by Purvanov would drag the party backwards. Bulgarian media reports quoted polls indicating that a slim majority of socialist supporters agreed with Stanishev, giving the current leader a slight advantage over Purvanov. The congress at which the leadership question will be decided is quite a number of weeks away, in May."

http://www.sofiaecho.com/2012/03/13/1786372_the-long-long-road-to-bulgarias-2013-parliamentary-elections

Probably nothing to it. I'm just asking a lot of questions because I hardly ever get the chance to talk to a Bulgarian about politics. I actually have met a couple Bulgarians while hosteling in America but bringing up politics always kills the conservation dead. That's actually the case with Eastern Europeans in general.

I don't really think he meant anything like Parvanov being pro-Communist, it's probably just political talk.
I suppose that Eastern Europeans prefer not to be reminded of such unpleasant subject abroad.

I was going to ask why a party unambiguously to the left of the BSP (on both economics AND cultural issues) has been unable to emerge. Then I remembered the party from the 90s called the Bulgarian Euroleft. Wouldn't they have fit that bill? The name suggested socially liberal, Green-ish types. What ever happened to them?

Actually that was intended to be a social democratic party (by the European model, of course), at a time when BSP was a far more left-wing party. The reason that party collapsed rather quickly was because it was trying to become a satellite of the right-wing ruling party, which of course alienated most of their supporters.
Regarding cultural issues, their importance is so minor here, that it's difficult to tell who is to the right and who is to the left on them.

Wikipedia says there was infighting between Stanishev and former president Georgi Purvanov. Is that why they appointed an independent third person as their candidate? Also, what was the nature of the rivalry between Stanishev and Purvanov? Purely personal or was one more left-wing than the other?

I agree that the infighting played a role why the popular Parvanov was not appointed. Unlike the non-party Oresharski, Parvanov was a member of BSP and could certainly undermine Stanishev from within if he became Prime Minister.
As for the reasons for the rivalry, obviously both think that they're the best possible leaders of BSP. As for whether he was more left-wing, it's difficult to say. Parvanov is more opportunistic, while Stanishev is generally more straightforward when defending his positions (though he's also been capable of compromises with right-wing forces). All in all, I wouldn't say that ideology was the main reason for the conflict between them.

In the news article cited on Wikipedia, Stanishev said that Purvanov would "take the party backwards". That seemed like me to be an illusion to Communism. So I thought maybe Puranov was more left-wing based on that.

Could you give me a link to the article, so that I can see what exactly he meant?

The leaders of both MRF and Ataka have announced that they will not form a coalition with GERB. BSP will probably attempt a so called "program government", where they ask for support for a political program, without formal agreements. Both they and MRF are suggesting that the choice of those who voted for a non-parliamentary party (which are very high, perhaps over 25%) must in some way be represented though it's unclear how this will be carried out.

Wikipedia says there was infighting between Stanishev and former president Georgi Purvanov. Is that why they appointed an independent third person as their candidate? Also, what was the nature of the rivalry between Stanishev and Purvanov? Purely personal or was one more left-wing than the other?

I agree that the infighting played a role why the popular Parvanov was not appointed. Unlike the non-party Oresharski, Parvanov was a member of BSP and could certainly undermine Stanishev from within if he became Prime Minister.
As for the reasons for the rivalry, obviously both think that they're the best possible leaders of BSP. As for whether he was more left-wing, it's difficult to say. Parvanov is more opportunistic, while Stanishev is generally more straightforward when defending his positions (though he's also been capable of compromises with right-wing forces). All in all, I wouldn't say that ideology was the main reason for the conflict between them.

While his model of secularism is vastly superior to either the Ottoman or Neo-Ottoman model, he's still responsible for terrible war crimes and massacres. So HP.