The organization of bought votes is a failed scheme with clear rules. The only condition for it to work is that those who pay must know well the people from whom they are buying the votes.
This is recounted to “For the Truth” by someone well-acquainted with the mechanics of bought votes.
The organization is not complex and resembles a pyramid structure.
At the top is a single person who has the money but does not operate with it directly. This person at the top instructs whom to deliver specific amounts of money.
In a medium-sized municipality, the money is typically distributed among five individuals. Each of them must guarantee around 150 votes. These are referred to as “hundreds.” From those 150, each individual has to provide ten votes, known as “tens.”
The “hundreds” are given 100 BGN per vote, but they do not distribute the entire sum. Typically, they pay around 70 BGN to the “tens.” “A loss is anticipated,” explains the source from “For the Truth,” as in the end, they must account for a precise sum against the number of votes. If the votes do not match, they must return part of the money. Therefore, they often give only 40-50 BGN to the “tens.”
The amount is not fixed and depends on the size of the family.
In larger families with more eligible voters, the sum is one amount, while in smaller families, it is another. In these elections, the “price” has dropped to 30 BGN per vote if only two family members are eligible to vote.
There is one detail: often, payment occurs after the elections, with the money only promised beforehand. This allows the buyers to hold the paid voters in their hands.
An important condition for the final result is that the “hundreds” must know the people they are paying. On October 27, in some places, the scheme did not work precisely for this reason, explains the source from “For the Truth.”
Since some of the “hundreds” hired for the process had been abroad for a long time, they lost contact with local residents, or they were brought to one municipality from another, they relied solely on the word of the “tens.” They distributed the money, but after the elections, it turned out that the votes did not match.
Knowing the “voting clients” proved to be crucial. In families where votes are usually bought, more people live, some of whom are registered at addresses in other municipalities. They do not have the right to vote where they have been paid, but the “tens” are not informed of this, as it is more important to collect the money than to be honest.
Thus, the “tens” agree with one family for five votes because they see that five eligible voters live there, but they cannot know that two of those five are registered elsewhere.
In this case, someone has to return the money, and this is the most unpleasant part for the vote buyers. It is also unpleasant for the bought voters because, as has been evident in many cases, the buyers settle their payments after the elections.
In the entire scheme, a very important detail is control. When the control over voting is weak, the scheme also falters. Here, again, the issue of knowing the local people comes into play, because when this is present, entire electoral commissions can be bought, explains the source from “For the Truth.”
The bought members of the electoral commissions turn a blind eye to certain actions of voters that aim to certify who they voted for and show it to those who need to see. The same is done by the police, claims the source.
On October 27, in many places, control had broken down, according to our source. In areas where the money had been distributed in advance, “people took it and did not go to vote,” while “where it was only promised, the search is now on for who will pay it out.”
