According to Slavcho Atanasov, erroneous information on the day of polling confused his constituents
BSP: Danny advocates organized questionnaires in an organized way and distorts the results
My conscience is clear, if we conducted, we would not like to stop the studies, replied the mayor candidate
"We went to bed with Danny Kanazireva and married Slavcho Atanasov."
Thus, the people of Plovdiv commented on the turnaround that occurred during the small hours the night after the election. Even after the vote, interim sociological surveys were announced, which ranked 20.8% of the Union for Plovdiv's chairman, Danny Kanazireva, and sent her to a vote with GERB's Zdravko Dimitrov with 33.5%. This fact was presented as a surprise in Plovdiv.
"This is a miracle," rejoiced the ambitious lawyer who kept repeating throughout the campaign that she would be in the second round. A little later, on election night, however, he began to arrange for the final results to wait. But he declared himself a moral winner.
Kanazireva thought she was going into an entry with Zdravko Dimitrov and did not count Slavcho Atanasov from NFSB and VMRO in his accounts. Throughout the election day
since the morning
the intermediate ones
the leader of
Plovdiv ”is the other
In the headquarters of Slavcho Atanasov, they refused to believe. Political observers also expressed doubts when sociology ranked Kanazireva also in fourth place during the campaign.
"There is no way to be other," is repeated in the other party's headquarters. They began to doubt that Danny Kanazireva had a finger in the distorted information.
They were even more direct from BSP's headquarters. Early in the afternoon, they formally announced that advocates for the mayor's candidate had been involved in filling out questionnaires in an organized manner.
They attacked the "nest" of sociological agencies in the city and so deliberately distorted the information.
"The outcome of gender manipulation has a psychological effect on voters," the reds were adamant. According to them in recent years
terrain too bad
the one from october 27 is outstanding.
Slavcho Atanasov, who in the two previous votes reached the second round and lost to Ivan Totev, repeated on the night.
Even with the arrival of the first minutes of voting, the picture turned out to be different. Unnamed: Atanasov is second and Kanazireva is third.
"This outstanding manipulation of one of the candidates has seriously damaged all the participants in the vote. And to us from NFSB and VMRO we got the result with 3-4% and
to qualify for the runoff, "commented Slavcho Atanasov the next day.
Kanazireva's reaction was not delayed. She called a press conference on Monday at noon and said she was also a victim of exit investigations.
"As early as 13.38 on Sunday, we filed a complaint with the municipal electoral commission asking that the votes be stopped before the section committees in Plovdiv because they served one of the candidates," she explained.
According to her, the name of Slavcho Atanasov was written in the questionnaires in a darker font. The question "Who do you support in the second round – Dimitrov or Atanasov?" Also be misleading.
"Then they had the courage to accuse us of manipulating the investigations. If that is the case, we do not want their dismissal," Kanazireva explained. And she hinted that she was injured when counting the votes.
they were in one section
to delete our lead and go to another run-off. Well, Slavcho Atanasov got up to 16%. Halal to him, "she said.
Kanazireva explained that she was clean before conscience. "I played honestly, without any manipulation and without a single voice bought," said the lawyer. Remember that even a third is an achievement.
"Throughout the campaign, studies were published that didn't notice us at all. On the contrary, they declared another candidate as their favorite, which they barely got for the second round last night," Kanazireva added.
Asked who she would support in the second round, she replied: "This is not the conversation today."
According to her, a sail in Plovdiv was opened against her, including by a former mayor. Finally, she said that she congratulated Zdravko Dimitrov and Slavcho Atanasov for reaching the drain.
Dimitar Ganev, Trend: I think the voters helped her
Probably many are wondering why Plovdiv mayor candidate Danny Kanazireva came in second in almost all the excavations with a lead over the real second of the battle Slavcho Atanasov out of error. If the samples were wrong, a parallel census would not show the real result – that Slavo Atanasov would face Zdravko Dimitrov in the vote. There is no way that any of the candidates can monitor their sympathizers at intervals that coincide with the step of the sociological teams before the sections. In my opinion, the system is different. Hearing polls have people who do not have the right to vote, but they should. These invisible voters explain to PEC that they have been lost, but when they leave, they present themselves as already voted and ready to participate in the hearing surveys. The voting team can hardly distinguish between the voter and the voter, as according to the CEC decision it should be 3 meters outside the section. But Danny Kanazireva's logistics team, through a maximum of 40-50 people on Election Day, managed to manipulate the sociologists and lead to a 7-8% difference in exit surveys for the Plovdiv authorities from the real others.
Genoveva Petrova, Alpha Research: There was controlled participation in exit surveys in Plovdiv
When we do an exit survey, we, like other authorities, use the same method in all municipalities, including Plovdiv. It works flawlessly everywhere, with discrepancies within the boundaries. The only mistake he made on Election Day was in Plovdiv. That is, the problem is not methodical, but rather a reality problem in Plovdiv. In addition, three candidates, whom we have read in the media, have submitted complaints to the OEC for controlled participation in exit surveys. And we think the problem is that it is probably a seriously controlled vote in Plovdiv.
This vote can affect in two directions. One is increased participation in exit surveys, so that all candidates will receive a higher score. Another way to influence the outcome of an exit survey is if controlled groups are instructed not to participate in them. Then other candidates whose voters are not instructed to refuse to participate participate better.
We cannot say which of the two hypotheses happened yesterday in Plovdiv. But if we had made a methodological mistake, the mistake would have been prominent in all municipalities. And not just with us, but with all colleagues from other agencies.
Zhivko Georgiev, sociologist: Poor indicator of choice, not sociologists
The "mistake" with Danny Kanazireva's second place in Plovdiv is trivial, there have been similar times. Usually, 40% of voters refuse to attend hearings. With this type of drilling from the classic right, participation almost refuses, which is why they are over-represented.
The refusers are of a completely different type – for example, 3/4 of them avoid participating without any political logic.
In this group are also taken to the polls – corporate voting, controlled voting etc. In fact, they are among the frequent refusers, so they did not enter the exit polls, but fell into the parallel census. Most people in this group do not remember who they voted for.
When there are mistakes like with Kanazireva in Plovdiv and when you do not see political logic and there are no methodological gaps because all parameters are the same, look for a controlled vote.
It is a poor indicator of choice, not for sociologists working on the ground according to the standard methodology.