Slavi Trifonov's 7 points

On July 29, on his show, Slavi Trifonov, demonstrating deep sorrow and outrage at the decision of the deputies to reject the referendum proposed by President Rosen Plevneliev, announced that he would initiate a petition to hold a new referendum, which would include the following 7 questions:

1. Changing the electoral system to a majoritarian one;
2. Reducing the number of deputies from 240 to 120;
3. Term of office of members of parliament – up to two terms;
4. Introduction of compulsory voting;
5. Introduction of electronic voting;
6. Drastic reduction of state subsidies for parties;
7. Direct election by the people of judges, prosecutors and police chiefs.

Many people during the show expressed positive opinions and unreserved support for the host's democratic initiative, but analyzing these points more carefully, we see blatant leftist populism, combined with a deep misunderstanding of the problems in the country. Let's look at them one by one.

1. Changing the electoral system to a majoritarian one;
2. Reducing the number of deputies from 240 to 120;

It is appropriate to consider these two points together. Many people have been pushing the idea of a majoritarian system for some time, but it is not certain that they themselves know exactly what they mean. A majoritarian system does not simply mean “we vote for individuals, not for parties”, as many people think, including Mr. Trifonov’s scriptwriters. In a majoritarian electoral system, each individual member of parliament is elected on a majoritarian basis (that is, the one who wins the most votes is elected, and the other candidates are eliminated) from a single-mandate electoral district, with the number of districts equal to the number of deputies. Unlike the proportional system, where the total percentage that a given party has won in the entire country is important, in a majoritarian system it is important which party has won in a greater number of districts.

Such an electoral system exists in Great Britain and the United States. It has both advantages and disadvantages. From the experience of other countries, we can draw the following conclusions: the majoritarian system does not eliminate parties and their influence; on the contrary, it consolidates them (in Great Britain, the Conservatives and Labour are the leaders, while in the United States, the Democrats and Republicans are the only ones who are really leading). The majoritarian system leads to a loss of votes - all the votes of the losing candidates are actually discarded. There are even situations where more people actually voted for one party, and the other party wins the majority in parliament.

In Bulgaria, we elect a president and mayors using a majority mechanism, but as we see, party choice prevails again and it is not at all true that we vote simply for personalities.

Combining this with a situation where the number of deputies is half as small, we can quite reasonably assume that the representativeness of the vote will be distorted – many votes will not be counted, surprises are possible, many small parties will disappear, and given the current distribution of forces, GERB will most likely have an absolute majority. So it is not very certain whether the TV presenter himself, and many of the other citizens, understand what exactly they are proposing and what results this would lead to. One thing is certain – the majoritarian system can in no way solve the problems of the political class in our country by itself.

3. Up to two terms of office for a member of parliament

This measure aims to end the lifelong profession of a deputy. From a purely practical point of view, this would hardly change anything significant. Whether a person will actually be in the National Assembly or outside it (for example, as an “honorary chairman”) will not prevent him from influencing decision-making. And what would happen to MPs who conscientiously do their job, why should they also be punished? The expectation that turnover will somehow automatically give rise to quality is quite unfounded. There is another point here - even if such a proposal were to come into force, the parties could always simply change their representatives. Which would not lead to a colossal change in the political scene per se.

4. Compulsory voting

An absolutely counterproductive proposal. We have written before about whether using force to get people into the polling stations will lead to anything good.

5. Electronic voting

This is one of the proposals that also has its positive aspects. First, it is important to clarify that electronic voting has two aspects – machine voting in polling stations (for example, in the USA there is such a practice) or remote voting (online). Both options have pros and cons. The pros consist mainly in facilitating the electoral process and reducing the risk of human errors in counting and reporting the results, as well as making it easier for Bulgarian citizens who do not live in Bulgaria. Remote voting would attract a lot of votes from abroad, but it also hides the risks of abuse. It was recently demonstrated that even the electronic system of a car can be hacked. Years ago, computer specialists showed that any voting machine can be infected with a virus and the results compromised. Ultimately, electronic voting is certainly a double-edged sword, but one thing is clear anyway – malicious forces can always find a way to falsify election results, regardless of whether they are electronic or not. Much more useful would be, for example, electronic active registration for the elections, which would actually make it easier for Bulgarians abroad and would not compromise the security and credibility of the vote.

6. Reducing party subsidies

This proposal is undoubtedly positive. We would reformulate it as follows: “Total elimination of party subsidies”. There is nothing right or positive about the fact that party organizations absorb 11 leva per vote per year from taxpayers’ money. The arguments in favor of the subsidy are that in this way the parties will not need to receive money from companies or private individuals and will remain independent on the one hand, and on the other – small parties get a chance to develop. These arguments are completely untenable, because the party subsidy has not made any politician less corrupt (proof of this is the fact that Bulgaria, along with Romania and Italy, continue to be among the most corrupt countries in the EU, or at least that is the perception of their citizens). In addition, large and established parties receive proportionally much more money and thus strengthen their positions.

7. Direct election by the people of judges, prosecutors and police chiefs

An extremely dangerous proposition. The idea that the abstract concept of “the people” will make reasonable decisions regarding the administration of justice and the preservation of order is extremely left-wing, even totalitarian. Will we have a people’s court if the people elect the judges? And would the police become a “people’s militia” in this case? What would happen if the residents of Germen elected their police chief through elections? And would the judges have to be guided by public opinion or by the laws? What would happen if the people wanted one thing and the law said another – is the people always right? Taking this idea to its extreme form, in which the decisions of the “people” in the spheres of energy, economics, education, etc. (i.e. in those areas that are monopolized by the state or regulated by it) are always correct, why not apply the wisdom of this abstract majority to other areas? For example, would Mr. X like “the people” to vote on the best way to perform hernia surgery?

This last point actually reveals a very left-wing view of politics. It is the idea that elections (and “the people”) can and should solve all problems – the view that if given the chance, the majority will somehow make the right decision, appoint the right people, fight corporate democracy and end the “status quo”; the thesis that the people are always right, the idea that they are the supreme sovereign, the supreme master and must be listened to on everything and on every occasion. This may sound good in one of Marx’s works, but not in real life. The majority should not have the right to dispose of the lives and property of others. The judiciary and the police (and all other institutions – state or otherwise) should not be instruments of popular discontent, to be directed at the enemies of the day from election to election. Any other free writings lead down the inclined plane to socialism.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!