Electoral profile after the local elections in Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna. Quick overview.

We publish snapshots of the demographic profiles from the local elections in Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna. More detailed graphs, tables and comments were already published on election night in partner media Nova, BNT, BNR and Bulgaria on Air.

Who voted for Vanya Grigorova

In Grigorova’s case, there is a strong majority element. 55% of those who voted for Vanya Grigorova voted for the BSP for Bulgaria list, almost half came from elsewhere. For example, a tenth came from those who voted for “Revival”, another about a tenth – from those who refused to vote for the municipal council or ticked the box “I do not support anyone”. Looking specifically at the latter, among them, it turns out, Grigorova gets the highest degree of support.

Sure, it could be considered a protest vote, but that’s hardly the whole explanation. One of the biggest overflows of votes for Vanya Grigorova came from those who voted for “Revival” in the lists for municipal councillors. Two-thirds of those who voted for the Revival list preferred Dejan Nikolov, but just over a fifth chose Grigorova. Over a tenth of those who voted for ITN preferred Grigorova over Ivaylo Valchev.

Homogeneity among the electorate

In Sofia, of those who voted for municipal lists, the supporters of PP-DB-SS and BSP seem to be the “tightest” in choosing their own candidates – about 90% each, practically unanimously, of the two electorates voted for Terziev and Grigorova respectively. However, of those who voted for the GERB-SDS list, those who supported Anton Hekimian were at slightly lower levels – close to 80%. However, 5% of those who voted for the GERB-SDS preferred Lilkov. By comparison, only about one percent of those who voted for the PP-DB supported Lilkov, Lilkov seems to have been slightly more dangerous for GERB than the PP-DB. This does not mean, of course, that in absolute terms the shares of supporters of Borissov’s party and of the Blues among the support for Lilkov differ significantly. The latter is evident when analysing the data compared to the vote on April 2. In short: Lilkov has proven to be a “middle ground” for migrating supporters of both parties.

In Plovdiv and Varna the electorates of the leading formations seem to be much more homogeneous than in Sofia. Interesting is the case with the candidate of United for Plovdiv. Among those who voted for Slavcho Atanasov, 72% supported the coalition that nominated him. 18% preferred smaller parties or chose “I do not support anyone” or did not vote for municipal councilors.

Demographic similarities and differences

Traditionally, it is curious to describe the picture that emerges among the voters of PP-DB and GERB on the basis of education and age in the three largest municipalities in the country. Vasil Terziev, Ivaylo Staribratov and Blahomir Kotsev, for example, receive larger shares of support among the young and among the more highly educated than their opponents in the top three. To some extent, Anton Hekimian, Kostadin Dimitrov and Ivan Portnikh receive more votes among older people, those with secondary education, etc. Apart from the typical support among older people, there is no clear demographic profile in Vanya Grigorova’s case, which also speaks for a prominent element of a protest vote.


Gallup International Association or its members are not related to Gallup Inc., headquartered in Washington D.C which is no longer a member of Gallup International Association.

Gallup International Association does not accept responsibility for opinion polling other than its own. We require that our surveys be credited fully as Gallup International (not Gallup or Gallup Poll). For further details see: http://www.gallup-international.com/.