A round table titled “Elections and Popular Sovereignty” was held, discussing the electoral system and the representativeness of power – December 19, 2026.

On December 19, a discussion forum / round table titled “Elections and Popular Sovereignty” was held in the building of the National Library “St. Cyril and Methodius” (Национална библиотека „Кирил и Методий“). The event brought together civic organizations such as “Popular Sovereignty” (Народен суверенитет), “Doyran 2025” (Дойран 2025), and the National Association “Security” (Национална асоциация „Сигурност“), as well as lawyers, security experts, and public figures. The main goal of the conference was to analyze the flaws of the Bulgarian electoral system and to seek solutions for restoring statehood. The participants adopted a final document declaring the need to convene a National Round Table in February in order to institutionalize popular sovereignty and bypass the blocked party system.

Criticism of Legislation and Institutions

Professor Plamen Kirov (Пламен Киров) criticized the Electoral Code, which in his view is changed chaotically before every election to serve the ruling majorities. He challenged the practice of party leaders running in two electoral districts, as this allows them—not the voters—to determine the final composition of parliament. Sabrie Sapundzhieva (Сабрие Сапунджиева) called for the complete repeal of the code and a return to separate electoral laws. She emphasized the feudal dependence in small municipalities, where mayors control voter lists and exert pressure on citizens and election commissions. Anton Stankov (Антон Станков) raised the issue of the legitimacy of the 51st National Assembly and the possibility of convening a Grand National Assembly, although experts expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such a step under the current conditions.

Scale of Electoral Manipulation

Experts presented alarming data on the condition of voter lists. Georgi Krushkov (Георги Крушков) and cybersecurity expert Mitsikulev (Мицикулев) pointed to major discrepancies between the data of the National Statistical Institute and the registers of GRAO, stating the existence of hundreds of thousands of “phantom voters” and the theft of over one million votes. Rumyana Chenalova (Румяна Ченалова) presented concrete examples of fraud, including cases in mobile polling stations where 100 ballots were found for only five registered voters. She questioned the legitimacy of the government and parliament, arguing that once manipulated votes are removed, the ruling majority does not reach the constitutional minimum of 121 MPs. Rosen Rashkov (Росен Рашков) added that Article 1 of the Constitution is systematically violated, as citizens are not consulted on strategic decisions such as EU membership or currency change.

Reform Proposals

Participants formulated concrete measures to restore the integrity of the electoral process. Stoil Stoilov (Стоил Стоилов) defended the introduction of active voter registration as the only effective way to eliminate “dead souls” from the lists. Chavdar Petrov (Чавдар Петров) proposed direct election of members of the Central Election Commission by citizens and the introduction of term limits for MPs of no more than eight years. Rumyana Chenalova proposed a strategy for promoting independent candidates through local assemblies and organizing large-scale civic monitoring in all 12,000 polling stations. Opinions on technology were divided: some experts supported digitalization and machine voting with real oversight, while others, such as Prof. Kirov and Sapundzhieva, favored paper ballots due to lack of trust in software and the impossibility of verifying machine protocols.

Below we present an edited transcript based on video excerpts, arranged chronologically according to the logic of the event and available sources. The text has been cleared of redundant phrases for better readability.

PART 1: OPENING AND ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Moderator: We believe this is the most important conference: “Elections, Popular Sovereignty, and Electoral Reform.” The program has two modules. The first begins with Prof. Plamen Kirov, followed by statements from Anton Stankov and the prominent human rights advocate Rosen Rashkov.

Prof. Plamen Kirov: Dear colleagues, we have gathered here with honest intentions to discuss where the Bulgarian electoral system is heading amid the political mire in which the country finds itself. Through elections, citizens exercise their most important political right—the ability to influence power.

Our legal framework is extremely reactive, and this is not only a problem of the past 35 years. In Bulgaria, politicians have failed to understand that elections are won with votes, not technologies. This misunderstanding leads to constant manipulation of election rules, especially before elections, in order to benefit those in power.

The Electoral Code is a patchwork. Frankly speaking, it should be scrapped and rewritten calmly by experts, not politicians. Our codes even have nicknames—like hurricanes: the “Fidosova Code,” the “Maya Code.” The first was a mechanical compilation, the second, though well-intentioned, created new problems.

We have mandatory voting, even though the Constitutional Court ruled sanctions unconstitutional. This led to the introduction of the “I do not support anyone” option, which misleads voters. These votes do not affect results and are counted as invalid. Mandatory voting distorts representation by forcing people to choose the “lesser evil.”

Another problem is unequal voting rights. Party leaders may run in two districts, win both, and then decide who enters parliament—an elite privilege.

Regarding technology, I support paper ballots. Many European countries abandoned voting machines. Our only full machine-voting experiment claimed success because there were no complaints—but how could there be, when no one knows what happens inside the “black box”? If machines were a solution, all advanced countries would use them.

PART 2: CRISIS OF STATEHOOD AND THE IDEA OF A GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Anton Stankov: Bulgaria is currently in its 51st parliament. If we count constitutions as republics, we are approaching our fourth or fifth. The idea of convening a Grand National Assembly (Велико народно събрание) is increasingly relevant.

The round table is a political mechanism without legal regulation, yet the Seventh Grand National Assembly was formed in this way. The question is: who can sit at such a table today? We see strong protest energy that must be politically channeled.

Can a Grand National Assembly exceed its authority? Can two parliaments coexist? Who governs while it works? These are real risks.

Change is inevitable. Institutions are blocked. If an employee fails, they are dismissed. What do we do when MPs fail to perform their duties? We must think strategically.

Prof. Plamen Kirov (reply): The Grand National Assembly was designed as a constitutional scarecrow. It can be convened but not easily dissolved. The Constitution does not provide solutions for all crises.

Rosen Rashkov: Popular sovereignty under Article 1 of the Constitution is sacred. Yet the people were never consulted—neither about EU nor NATO membership. Now we are told a referendum on the euro is impossible. That contradicts the Constitution. Sovereignty means the right to reclaim delegated power.

The 51st parliament is illegitimate. If all 12,000 polling stations had been reviewed, the results would differ. The same manipulated vote would elect a Grand National Assembly. Then what is the point?

PART 3: LEGITIMACY AND LOCAL PROBLEMS

Rumyana Chenalova: We filed a request to annul the elections based on analysis of 1,700 polling stations, revealing 47% violations. Had the court reviewed it fully, this parliament would not exist.

The government was formed with fewer than the required 121 votes. Once invalid mandates are removed, legitimacy collapses.

Popular sovereignty was violated again when the referendum on the lev was blocked. The European Court of Human Rights confirmed violations of free expression.

Sabrie Sapundzhieva: The Electoral Code must be abolished. Free elections and media are absent. Mayors control voter lists, turning local government into feudal systems. Fear and pressure dominate commissions.

I support paper ballots, but with civic oversight. Preference voting has become a tool for corporate and bought votes. We do not have democratic parties—we have negative selection.

PART 4: REFORM PROPOSALS (SECOND MODULE)

Col. (ret.) Chavdar Petrov: The electoral system resembles imposed “democratic socialism.” Key decisions—EU, NATO, energy—were made without public consent.

1. CEC elected directly by the people
2. Cleaning voter lists – discrepancies of 500,000–1,000,000 voters
3. Dual citizenship restrictions
4. Term limits: maximum 8 years in parliament

Rumyana Chenalova: “Doyran 2025” supports a National Round Table. We propose:

1. Civic oversight: 12,000 observers nationwide
2. Independent candidates: selected through local assemblies

PART 5: FINAL DISCUSSION AND RESOLUTION

Georgi Krushkov: Voter numbers differ from official data by up to 800,000. Phantom voters enable fraud. Without cleaning the lists, reform is impossible.

Assoc. Prof. Tihomir Stoychev: A National Round Table is unavoidable. Institutions are blocked. Accountability is required.

Plamen Krastev: Two urgent issues: polling station size and post-election law enforcement.

Stoil Stoilov: The voter list is fictional. One ballot costs 44 BGN. Active registration is the only solution.

Attorney Vladimir Sheytanov: On December 19, 2025, a round table on “Elections and Popular Sovereignty” was held. A National Round Table is imperative to restore sovereignty.

Cyber expert (Mitsikulev): Analysis of the 2024 elections shows 1.2 million stolen votes. The solution is a transparent digital registry accessible to citizens.