Bulgaria 2013

[GMantis]

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).

[politicus]

Its correct that the area in NE 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.

[GMantis]

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.

[batmacumba]

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.

[GMantis]

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.

[GMantis]

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...

[Senator MaxQue]

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

[GMantis]

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)...

[GMantis]

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...

[WillipsBrighton]

Why did the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union collapse?

[GMantis]

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.