In Serbia consitutional reform only passes if 50% of eligible voters vote for the reform. So if you don't vote, you are voting against. So in essense it is far easier to vote against - those who are simply apathetic stay home and watch basketball instead of bothering to vote and thus they vote no. And, the logical extension, most people who vote (90%+) vote yes because the only reason they would vote is to vote yes. Sounds like Hungary has the same mechanism but with a (thankfully if you are for the change) lower passage threshold.
Sounds like your "socialists" have gamed the referendum to make sure they get the advantage of the apathetic vote. Negative-option voting though is pretty undemocratic and I would think this vote will not pass the smell test for whomever actually wants to have Hungary have a modern healthcare delivery system some day.
I guess in view of this I'd go and vote yes. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
If Fidesz wins the next election and tries to pass the same policy they can be fought then. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
Sounds like your "socialists" have gamed the referendum
You again don't get it :-) You seem to be thinking in terms of constitution changing referendums only, when there is an obligation to put some big change up for vote before implementing it. (I am guessing France only has those and your US state has none.) But there are referenda only concerning changes in law not constitution, based on public initiatives. This referendum is such a referendum, they were the initiative of Fidesz, which collected 200,000 signatures for each.
Nothing MSzP could game to its advantage there. In fact, that 25% rule works to their advantage: all they need is to gather 25%+1 for voting Yes, they don't depend on another 25% turning up to vote No.
Negative-option voting though is pretty undemocratic
I don't understand the above at all. People just can't say no? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
