Íæż½ã½ã

fireroller wrote:

....
You can vote for persons at 3 levels: local constituency - district - whole Budapest
* a representative in your small constituency (only a few streets) sending the winner into the district assembly,
* a "mayor" for the district government - the winner is also part of the assembly of budapest (since this summer)
* a "major-mayor" , head of the Budapet government

From what I can see, Fidesz is going to win around here and there's no chance of anyone else at all.

Not quite. Locally, there is variety. Especially in Budapest, there are many local constituencies which were never won by Fidesz, the most extreme being the famous XIII.ker (which is incidentally where I grew up), which, as a whole, was always and will alyways be left ,-)

As a demonstration, check out these district parliaments (why do most district government websites not show party-association of the MPs???)


According to analysts, and I do agree, the need for reforming the Budapest assembly 4 months before the election arose precisely from the fear generated by the EU-Parliament-election results, namely that Fidesz majority in the old system was not certain. (Well, little did the Government know, how opposition would do miracles to NOT win the elections...).

There is also the emotional element : "Is there any hope to work for?" - so, even if the present  mayor (Independent/Fidesz backed) wins, which seems likely, but Bokros at least comes close, this would fuel future efforts.

Seriously, what sort of democracy is this?? After extensive net-search in Hungarian(my native), the only serious description of the election system I found is...  the text of the election law!
I did not have time to read and understand the non-Budapest system (relevant for the Megyegyűlés, county council), but if someone is interested I can make an effort to grasp and explain in English. Of course, you can do that too:)

Viva la  dicta... uh, didactics!

Sections II and IV seem relevant:

fireroller wrote:

Seriously, what sort of democracy is this??

It is a clan/family/group based bureaucracy organized around oral information transfer. Too little information is provided by design, which necessitates you to ask for help of someone else, and thus puts you into a position of "owing" a favor to someone else. This also acts to put pressure on any one individual to act according to a group view, even if that view is contrary to the persons individual interests, else that person will basically freeze and starve because they will not otherwise receive the information and help they need to survive in society. The group ends up owning the individual. Once the group is formed and consolidated, tyranny of the majority can be applied as a democratic methodology.

klsallee wrote:

It is a clan/family/group based bureaucracy organized around oral information transfer. ....

Wow! I thought they were just being difficult.

What you're describing is a kind of group think.  The design is much worse.

I think much of this is a legacy from the Communist time and by design. The system didn't work so knowing someone was a way of skirting around the bureaucracy to get things done practically.  The Communist government also discouraged information sharing in order to maintain divisions between groups and therefore stop people organising themselves into a coherent opposition to Communist rule. The controls were via overt and undecover policing.

There's a parallel here I guess with efficient markets which one could apply to elections. If politicians market themselves by advertising their policies, in order to have efficient markets, worthwhile information must be available to the electrorate in order to make an informed choice.  But what is the information required for the informed choice? It couldn't be based on manifesto alone since all politicians generally lie so what is it?   No idea.

In the aftermath of the election, someone will think of this quote.

"The people have spoken, the bastards."

Dick Tuck's concession speech following his loss in the 1966 California State Senate election.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I think much of this is a legacy from the Communist time and by design.

Communism is blamed for a lot. And it justly deserves that blame in most areas. But if you read "Relations" (Rokonok) by Zsigmond Móricz (published in 1932) you will see the family/clan based culture and the politics/problems it creates in Hungary predates Communism.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The Communist government also discouraged information sharing in order to maintain divisions between groups and therefore stop people organising themselves into a coherent opposition to Communist rule. The controls were via overt and undecover policing.

That I can agree with. Even today. You should see how a little gang of old ex-communists have been fighting dirty in my village local election for the past month**. When they were in power before they could not even deal with the garbage in the village, or get basic traffic control issues dealt with for public safety. But they sure "favored" their group members. For example, the last mayor from this group is still being tried in court (partial verdict so far fined him 100,000 HUF) for not properly accounting for over 1 Million Forint in "personal expenses" he received as mayor. Would be a sad day if they win again today. And a lot of people not in this little group, are intimidated and afraid to speak out except in private out of fear of reprisals. An "evil prospers while good does nothing" problem.

But I can't vote here. So I can but watch, and comment on, these things as they unfold.

** Just so happens to be the "ex"-communists here locally that are like this. I am not excluding a similar gang from a different party behaves similarly in other villages. Which is why, where I am actually registered to vote, I am declared as non-partisan. Washington's Farewell Address had a lot to say about parties that is still true today.

fluffy2560 wrote:

There's a parallel here I guess with efficient markets which one could apply to elections. If politicians market themselves by advertising their policies, in order to have efficient markets, worthwhile information must be available to the electrorate in order to make an informed choice.  But what is the information required for the informed choice? It couldn't be based on manifesto alone since all politicians generally lie so what is it?   No idea.

Problem is, there is "information" and then there is "complete and utter BS". And it takes an order of magnitude more work to clean up BS than it takes to produce it.

Democracy only works if the electorate is well informed. And there is actually a lot of information is available, but that does require researching it (and sometimes digging for it), and people tend to not do this. Too much work. Leaving it to the parties (or little local gangs), and their lobbyists and supporters to "swing" the information and color it in one way or another (gossip, half truth, or even outright lies). While "fact checking" helps (Hungary needs an independent "factcheck.org") it only works if the voter takes the time to review such fact based corrections. And many don't. Often because they are simply too busy earning a living. But they still vote.