Display:
On the requirement for passage, I wrote:

a referendum is valid in Hungary if the majority constitutes more than 25% of all eligible voters (i.e. in theory, a 25% turnout with 100% Yes vote is a valid and successful referendum).

I don't understand your argument about low turnout. How would the failure an anti-reforms referendum on participation undermine the neolibs? Maybe you misread me on the polls, and thought the wide mayority for Yes is a wide majority for the reforms rather than for repealing them?

Sounds to me like Hungary needs its own Die Linke.

Would I wish a genuine hard-left party, also for the political youth to see another way to be radical than being fascist, and desperate pensioners seeing other saviours than the fascists or king Orbán. But the special circumstances of re-unified Germany (where the post-reformed-communists weren't regime changers [i.e. old cadre = new businessman] and were kept from corrupting power, and merged with Western new/old leftists) don't exist here.

Wasn't Erich Hoenicker's younger brother in Hungary?

Hinecker. Never heard of a younger brother. At any rate, this has to be a bad joke.

I note that there is a post-unreformed-communist party in Hungary, currently called Hungarian Communist Workers' Party. Unfortunately, it is an irrelevancy consisting of a couple of Kádár nostalgics around a would-be-Big-Brother who likes to cozy up to dictators, personally: he was first to greet the coup leaders against Gorbachev in Moscow, then came overtures to Milo and Saddam. (They are also the last holders to the regime propaganda on 1956, and thus as steadfast deniers of its leftist nature as the Right -- including the, heh, real existing communism of the Workers' Councils.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not much chance for a real left wing party in Poland either. There have been two serious attempts, both coopted and destroyed by the mutual aid society of corrupt ex-apparatchiks otherwise known as the SLD. To make matters worse, the group which has done worst under capitalism and which is most hostile to neo-liberalism are the peasants, and they're otherwise deeply conservative. So an anti-neoliberal party has to either be very nationalist and catholic or give up on that (huge) voting bloc. In urban areas they can compete for anti-neoliberal elderly and the working class but many of the former tend to either be nostalgic for communist times or share the peasant conservatism, the latter have often done quite well under capitalism, particularly the last couple years. The result is that the most successful anti-neoliberal parties have tended towards right wing populism or outright fascism.
by MarekNYC on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Long time no see!

Incidentally, I was thinking of you today due to a similar subject: I thought that with no one closer around, I should write a diary on the current government's flat tax plans. But would you be willing to write such a diary, or one on other new developments since the election?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 05:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm actually going off to London and Geneva for a couple weeks starting this Sunday so I don't know if I'll be able to get to that before I leave, but I'll see. It would be on something else than the flat tax since I haven't followed that closely.
by MarekNYC on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 06:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have any spare time to meet while you're in London?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 07:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I should though I'm only there for a few days, arriving Monday morning and leaving Thursday morning. I'll e-mail you the details.
by MarekNYC on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 07:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm extremely flexible these days, it's one of the advantages of unemployment.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, if it needs 25% approval of all eligible voters and you are against reform, than by not voting you are essentially voting against. Is that how it works? Which is, incidentally, how things work in Serbia but there the approval threshold is a more democratically credible 50%.

25% means better than 50% of 50%, that's a pretty easy threshold to pass,though most recent US Presidents (Bush 1, Clinton either time, or Bush 2) haven't passed it.

I dunno, I still wouldn't vote. It only encourages them. Anyhow, I'm sure the SNCF is hiring quality people, how is your French? Our President is also Hungarian, you know, and my wife is too (by half)...

And yes, I was joking about Honecker.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You still don't get it. The referendum questions ask, in essence, "do you want to abolish these neolib reforms?" If the majority votes Yes, that means a rejection of reforms, if the majority votes No, that means an approval. But regadless whether Yes or No gains majority, the vote is valid if that majority is more than 25% of the voting-age population.

Thus, if 70% vote Yes but turnout is just 35%, the majority voted against reforms but the vote is invalid (the majority, here the Yes side, is just 24.5% of all). And then the reformists can claim the support or toleration of the 'silent majority' (who stayed home).

I'm sure the SNCF is hiring quality people, how is your French? Our President is also Hungarian, you know, and my wife is too (by half)...

Mon français est mauvais... base level, I wanted to go on to medium level, but my company didn't support a course the next year. Your prez turned mud to shit, but maybe I can derail his ambitions?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 05:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I got how it worked, I just didn't understand that the no vote was actually for reform. I should have understood it but this doesn't make sense.

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

by redstar on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 05:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would vote "yes" myself on the grounds that the policy to be repealed is abhorrent.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Like in most countries with a validity limit (with Switzerland being the most notable without such a limit), Hungary originally prescribed a 50% turnout, which asumes the same minimum for a majority. The change came due to typically low turnouts. Incidentally, before the referendum on NATO accession (turnout ended up at 49%, though with an overwhelming 85% majority that included me, who regretted it since).

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.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 5th, 2008 at 06:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series