Talk:Democratic Bulgaria

Neither DB nor the Bulgarian Greens has never been represented in the European Greens parliamentary group. The only representation ever is one MEP in EPP. The affiliation of members in the coalition is not representation. 89.25.21.237 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No longer exists as a separate coalition
DB is not a separate entity anymore, since all three parties are in another alliance. Shouldn't the page reflect this by using past tense everywhere and removing any mention for participation in 2023 and "national affiliation"? Maybe "succeeded by PP-DB" (the way it is on the pages for the Blue Coalition and Reformist Bloc) or "merged into PP-DB" reflects the situation better. Nikolay4101 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nikolay4101 Considering how little DB's relevance has become, it would seem to make sense to turn DB into a past tense article. Any thoughts @Braganza @Tnvsjk2013 @Semka7a @PLATEL Quinby  ( talk ) 18:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The DB exists to this day as its social media and leaders are actively promoting it as an existing alliance. Saying that is irrelevant because its national affiliation is PP-DB would make PP irrelevant too. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jorkdkskakaksjjsk There are politicians that still use the DB branding and logo, because it is recognisable and familiar and it's also part of the PP-DB logo (which appears to be a combination of PP and DB logos for similar reasons).
 * Please explain why DB exists when all its member parties have joined another alliance. The same logic applies to PP (the electoral alliance), it ceased to exist when all its member parties (PP, Volt, SEK) separately chose to join PP-DB. In the same way DB ceased to exist when all its member parties (DSB, DaB, ZD) separately deecided to join PP-DB, thus making PP-DB an electoral alliance consisting of PP (party), DSB, DaB and others. In fact this is how the alliance is listed by the Central Electoral Commission - as a list of parties and not as a list of the coalitions those parties formerly made up. Nikolay4101 (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an existing alliance an it functions perfectly as an alliance within another (PP-DB) alliance, just like it did prior to the Green Movement leaving. Hristo Ivanov and Atanas Atanasov still refer to themselves as the leaders of Democratic Bulgaria. Ivanov has even proposed the idea of a common DB leadership apparatus, consisting of DaB! and DSB members. https://m.dnevnik.bg/politika/2023/12/02/4561177_da_bulgariia_poema_kurs_kum_odesniavane_iska/ Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jorkdkskakaksjjsk Politicians may say and propose anything they want, however which coalitions contest in the election and who their member paries are is decided by the Central Electoral Commission.
 * An Electoral alliance is an association of political parties or individuals, not other electoral alliances. Nikolay4101 (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why didn’t you edit the page in April 2023, back when Democratic Bulgaria first joined PP-DB? DB is and remains an alliance of two parties. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jorkdkskakaksjjsk My original comment at the top of this thread is from April 2023 but I waited to see if people would object and get a discussion going. And again, an electoral alliance can't exist within another one, since an electoral alliance by definition consists of member parties, not "member alliances". Nikolay4101 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your argument about the Central Electoral Commission registration is valid. However, especially with European elections coming up, one finds it easier to make the distinction in PP-DB between the Renew-leaning PP party and the EPP-leaning DaB! and DSB, which made up DB and seem more consolidated and closer to each other. Therefore, I propose rebranding DB as a “political alliance”, which can be a part of an electoral one. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jorkdkskakaksjjsk Thank you for your good faith. There certainly are examples of "close" parties within broader alliances but I'm still uncertain of the idea of labeling DB as such for a couple of reasons. Firstly it seems difficult to quantify which parties are "closer" to each other, how would one measure how "consolidated" DaB and DSB are? Let's say for example
 * 1 - PP-DB change their name to "We Continue Together" or
 * 2 - DSB and DaB leave PP-DB (which retains its name) and join another alliance, lets say Blue Bulgaria
 * Would you say DB remains a "political alliance" in both examples? Also does the same logic apply to the Blue Coalition (SDS and DSB) being a political alliance as a part of the Reformist Bloc. How about the PF (VMRO and NFSB) being a part of the United Patriots and later the Bulgarian Patriots. In the listed examples these seem to be treated as separate electoral alliances which succeed one another, not political alliances that flow into and out of electoral ones.
 * All this isn't helped by the name "PP-DB" which does imply two distinctive parts of the alliance, despite them not being registered as such. Maybe we could ask for a third opinion again like @Quinnnnnby did earlier. Nikolay4101 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I define ‘closeness’ with the European affiliation, which in both DB parties is the EPP. Furthermore, there are still active social media accounts and a website of DB where the alliance posts frequently. In addition, as previously mentioned, DB is already an established brand so to say and is used by its leaders, political opponents and, most importantly, the people. In conclusion, while the alliance is no longer an electoral one, I believe the term political alliance best describes its current state. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jorkdkskakaksjjsk The only recent example I could find was UP which elected MEPs to both G/EFA and GUE/NGL and the parties in GUE/NGL don't appear to be considered "closer" to each other or in a separate alliance. So does that then mean that if PP-DB change their logo or name, DB would no longer be designated as a "political alliance"? If your logic applied regardless of branding, does the same apply to the Blue Coalition being an alliance in the Reformist Bloc? If not, then this designation exists as a result of branding, unofficial "closeness" and public opinion which, while problematic, I would agree currently seems to be used often enough to warrant at least some acknowledgement in the article, as long as it is also emphasized that this grouping is no longer an official electoral alliance. I would also suggest that whenever referenced in other pages "DB" should be followed by "(DSB and DaB)" or something similar. Nikolay4101 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is a good idea for DB to be followed by DSB and DaB. I would say that the Blue Coalition had dissolved prior to the 2013 election and then, in 2014, the Reformist Bloc was formed, regarding your thoughts on the matter. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)