5 truths that political scientists kept silent

5 truths that political scientists kept silent
5 truths that political scientists kept silent

These days the political talking room worked around the clock. Tons of verbal products were produced, but not the ones that needed to be heard. Here are just 5 of the silent ones.

Silenced #1: Machines are a hacker’s dream

The abolition of the machine vote tainted the election, as it caused a huge number of invalid ballots – this was suggested from morning to night. Ergo, let’s ban paper. Only machines!

Apparently there is such an order for the garrison. But what is being kept silent? First and foremost, in the majority vote for mayors, there are almost no rejected ballots. The big rubbish is in the party-list vote.

And the avalanche of invalid ballots started with the introduction of the preferences, because they increased the already high complexity of the vote for party lists many times over. It became even more complicated when the preference number became different from the candidate’s number in the list. Some voters have not yet learned that Todor Zhivkov is gone – how can they deal with such complexity?

This greatly complicated the trading of votes. As long as one only bought a vote for the party, there were no problems. But

preference introduced an element of schizophrenia

the guy at the bottom of the list got to play against his own party! It’s like a dog biting its tail. Now imagine, for example, that one buys a vote for the party list as it is arranged, and another – so that one of the bottom of the list can rearrange the first ones. It is very clear that the two traders are enemies. But there is also a higher complexity, for example, the first one pays for both the party and the preference, and then the second one comes and pays only for the preference, but a different one. The voter takes both amounts but is confused. If he is honorable, he notes both. But due to mental strain, he forgets to mark the party.

Basically, whoever sells his vote is not the brightest bulb in the lamp. He is almost or completely illiterate, he parked for 5 years in the first class and then he got married and barely speaks Bulgarian. Can we be mad at him? He is a survivalist of a piece.

Thus, preferences and trade with them are the main reason for high marriage. But it is also added that there are still party activists in the sectional committees, and they are far more dangerous than the humble carters. Years ago, we saw a recording of a prominent regional leader instructing an entire hall of activists in the art of forgery.

They say that there were also courses with detachment from production. This time there was a noisy video again – a lady from the committee was seen going wild with the pen. However, both the media and commentators kept silent about which party this lady is from. Didn’t want to influence the vote?

But silence also lies. This lady

is from the party of programmers in Bulgaria

For them, the power of analog politicians is in the paper. And digital politicians will no longer trade in pieces, they will win elections with software. But no one will tell you that.

The media ignored Goebbels. For example, the most influential presenter on the national radio asked the lawyer Borislav Tsekov: “When will we finally enter the civilized world and introduce the machines?”. Tsekov has to explain to her something that she certainly knows – in Europe, voting is not done by machines. This happens mostly in the Third World. Guaranteed to know it, but when the facts get in the way of the props, fuck the facts.

Silenced #2: The Rise of the Regional Party

Vasil Terziev’s victory in Sofia is not so much due to PP/DB as to the “Save Sofia” project. If only PP/DB were behind him, Terziev would be guaranteed to lose, because his family affiliation automatically repels the so-called. blue helmets. But “Save Sofia” (SS) prepared the ground a long time ago, its activists are likeable young people who very strongly attract the youth. Their causes are also very sexy. Against their background, the old transition mold has no chance.

In fact, isn’t SS the new party in the PP/DB coalition? Parliamentary parties have alienated themselves from the people. So it’s time for local projects, from the local to the national. Tomorrow we may see chains of confederated local parties on the principle of “McDonalds” – “Save Plovdiv”, “Save Varna”, “Save Ugarchin”…

What is kept silent is whether “Save Sofia” is a project of “Continuing the change”, or are both projects?

And it is important, because tomorrow the SS and the PP may quarrel and where will the mayor of the capital end up then?

Of course, if the vote for municipal councils and for parliament were majoritarian, each party would be as much national as local. But this is taboo. No political scientist will say that, since they all eat the bread of the elite.

Silenced #3: Why do some mayoral candidates introduce them at the last minute?

Vasil Terziev was introduced a few months before the elections, so that the right could get used to him and, if they could, swallow him. But above all, to be remembered as his own person in “Save Sofia”. However, why did GERB present its candidate at the last moment? And this is not his first time!

Apparently, Borisov began to observe the rule that the leader must eliminate the danger of competition. Once he proposed for president Plevneliev, who had the highest rating in the country. He became proud, began to play independently and gravitated towards the circle “Capital”. And he continued to be more popular than Borisov. The leader of GERB learned his lesson and nominated Tsetska Tsacheva the next time.

She was both true and no threat

Since then, GERB has been doing everything possible to have no president. Last time he proposed an interesting candidate – Professor Gerdzhikov, but again only seconds before the bell rang. As long as he presented it, the elections passed. Now the same thing happened with Hekimyan. As long as they nominate him – and the elections have passed. If he had been given time to develop, who knows – maybe he would have gone to the runoff!

This is a basic principle of authoritarian leadership – do not allow a charismatic rival to develop within the party. It is better not to have a mayor in Sofia than to have a strong intra-party competitor. Just as Allah has no partners and associates, so the strong party leader is alone at the top.

And isn’t it the same with Vanya Grigorova? It was also introduced too late. And the difference between her and Terziev turned out to be some 4 thousand votes! Who knows if the campaign had started earlier…

But Ninova does not need a Sofia mayor, because he automatically becomes more influential in the BSP than she herself. I don’t know if it was female jealousy or wise Machiavellianism, but Ninova did not help at all. There was no such candidate for the Duma newspaper.

Silenced #4: Communalism is more dubious than the dubious past. According to genealogical rightists, Vili Lilkov was a supercandidate. Firstly, because of the pedigree, secondly – because he has experience in the municipality. And oh, surprise! The first one no longer helps! And the long internship in the municipality is just Tesla! Everyone knows that the scams in the municipal council are collective. There reigns complete understanding between the parties and a fair division. At the time, he was called the “Sofianski Model”, although this is also not fair – Sofianski himself was not a member of the municipal council.

Silenced #5: The right puts on a left facade

In this regard, the political scientist Ognyan Minchev announced that the right in the capital is already dead, and the new left is PP/DB. In fact, the PP/DB is the new right, and it is more right-wing than the deluded blue identities of the early transition. PP/DB neither tries nor proposes to change Bulgaria’s ultra-right economic system. The only difference is that with the victory of Vasil Terziev, she stops digging into the past to the second, third and seventh knee. This happened at one time with the BKP – 35 years after September 9, sometime in the late 1970s, it stopped glossing over the “enemies of the people”. And on “Horizon” the Beatles played.

But perhaps there are some indications of pseudo-leftism, since Soros also presents himself as a leftist. There is some kind of project from above that no grant-eating political scientist will admit to. It is no coincidence that Kiril Petkov once said: “We will make left-wing politics with right-wing tools!” The time for the classic joke “left hand – right pocket!” is over, from now on the right will be in the left. But no political scientist will tell you that.

The article is in bulgaria

Tags: truths political scientists silent


PREV Second goal and red card for Heber and CSKA 1948
NEXT The housing market is tired of the euphoria