Marcin Bogdan: Hungarian lesson

In our consciousness, only the first verse of the last verse of Jan Kochanowski's Song V is written, and it is worth to thin over the full phrase, including the final verse. It seems to me that any voters inactive do not realize the causes of the failure of the right in the October 2023 parliamentary elections. Many people neglect to realize that it was right-wing voters who voted for PJJ's group Rafał Piech who contributed to winning the coalition under Tusk's leadership. If we do not draw conclusions from the fresh elections, if we do not look closely at the electoral ordination, if – as quoted by Jan Kochanowski – and after the injury we are stupid, we are facing a repeat in subsequent elections. but this time, Braun was cast as Piech.

If we cannot be wise after our injury, let us look at the results of the elections in Hungary that took place only a fewer days ago. The proverb says that Polish and Hungarian are 2 nephews. possibly the experience of Hungarian voters will teach us something. I will begin by pointing out that in this column I do not measure either the programme or the credibility of both Hungarian leaders, Viktor Orbán and Péter Magyar, or their groups. I will focus exclusively on the method side of the Hungarian electoral code and the results of the elections themselves. And the distribution of 199 mandates was as follows:

TISZA (Péter Magyar) – 141 mandates

Fidesz-KDNP (Viktor Orbán) – 52 seats

Mi Hazánk (extreme right) – 6 seats

Anyone who looks at these results will find that Orbán lost to the moles, that it was a real pogrom. If we add that in the erstwhile word Fidesz had 135 MPs, that is, the alleged constitutional majority, which is at least 133 mandates (2/3 of 199), and now only 52, the size of the disaster is huge.

Let us now look at the Hungarian electoral code. all voter has the right to 2 votes. 1 vote for the national organization list. There is simply a proportional division of mandates according to the d’Hondt method with a 5% electoral threshold, as in elections to the Polish parliament. This is how 93 Members are elected. But all voter has a second vote to quit as a candidate in the single-mandate district. This is called majority ordination. This is how 106 Members are elected in 106 districts. In each district, 1 MP shall be elected according to the rules of who is the first. Whoever gets the most votes in a given territory wins. The winner is simply a peculiar candidate, not a organization as such. Whether he gets the advantage of 1 vote or respective 1000 votes, he gets 1 mandate from a given district. There is simply a similarity to the elections to the Polish Senate.

As you can see in Hungary, we have a parallel election according to 2 methods, proportional and majority. The results of both parts are yet summed up and give the final result. So let's see what the election results were for both parts, before they were yet summed up. In the proportional part, by voting on national organization lists, the results were as follows:

TISZA (Péter Magyar) – 45 seats

Fidesz-KDNP (Viktor Orbán) – 42 seats

Mi Hazánk (extreme right) – 6 seats

Here, Tisha's win was minimal, only 3 seats of difference. Given the possible Fidesz coalition with Mi Hazánk (total of 48 mandates), it should be assumed that if elections were limited to this part only, to proportional elections, Orbán would regulation another term.

Now let's look at the results in the majority, in the vote in the single-mandate districts:

TISZA (Péter Magyar) – 96 mandates

Fidesz-KDNP (Viktor Orbán) – 10 seats

Mi Hazánk (extreme right) – 0 seats

This is where, in this part of the election, there was a real pogrom of Fidesz candidates. In his erstwhile word in the single-mandate districts, Fidesz won 87 seats, now only 10. How is that possible? Have voters changed their minds that much? No, in erstwhile elections Fidesz was united with smaller groups, while the opposition was divided into smaller parties. Now the opposition was united under 1 name, and Fidesz had a competitor on his side of the political scene in the form of the Mi Hazánk party, My Homeland. I will give a concrete example from Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén territory 2, where 62,000 votes were cast. For the sake of clarity, the figures are rounded to make the example readable:

Candidate TISHI – 27 400 votes

Fidesz-KDNP candidate – 24 900 votes

Candidate Mi Hazánk – 5 300 votes

Other candidates – 4,400 votes

In this district, of course, Tisha's candidate won, but only due to the fact that the votes were dispersed between Fidesz and Mi Hazánk, for which a full of more votes (30,200) were given than for Tisha. Analysts estimation that if Mi Hazánk had not competed in the election, about 65% of his voters would have voted for Fidesz and 35% would not have gone to the election. That would give Fidesz a score of 28,345, i.e. a 945-vote win against Tisha.

By dispersing the voices on the same side of the political scene Fidesz lost several, possibly even respective mandates, which gave Tisha a constitutional majority. The remaining mandates were lost due to the flow of the electorate straight from Fidesz to Tisha, as well as due to very advanced attendance.

What order were the flows? A row of 3 to 5%, and there were districts where these flows were only 1 to 2 %. Fidesz continued to have advanced support, but even a tiny flow of electorate caused that where Fidesz had previously won a tiny difference of vote, he now lost minimally. The majority regulation in single-mandate constituency worked like a powerful amplifier. A numerically and percentagely low failure in individual districts translated into a harsh failure on a national scale. In his erstwhile tenure, Fidesz won 68% of the seats, now only 26%. This is the consequence of the current electoral ordination alternatively than the mass failure of voter support. This is simply a key conclusion from the Hungarian elections.

Let's go back to our Polish backyard. In elections to the Senate, the majority regulation in Poland applies. Senators are elected in single-mandate constituency, identical to the 106 districts described in Hungary. The mandate is given to the 1 who gets 1 vote more than the best competitor. There's no area to lose 1 vote. 1 vote may decide on the election result in a given district. The election to the legislature can only be won by this party, only this group that will not have a competitor on its side of the political scene. The majority rule, as we had in Hungary, rewards unity and severely punishes divisions.

There is simply a proportional regulation in the elections to the parliament, but the effects of dispersal of votes can besides be disastrous. The d’Hondt method besides rewards unity. In addition, the electoral thresholds that request to be reached nationwide mean that votes cast into smaller groups can simply be wasted. With a 75% turnout, the election threshold for the organization is about 1.1 million votes and for the coalition as much as 1.75 million. It is worth recalling that in 2015, a left-wing coalition centered around the SLD with 1,147,102 votes did not enter the parliament, so that the Law and Justice organization with only 5.7 million voters took power. A akin situation, but with the other effect, occurred in 2023, erstwhile PiS gained as much as 7.64 million votes, as part of its electorate voted for an allegedly right-wing PJJ, which did not exceed the electoral threshold.

What should be done to avoid situations where election results do not reflect the voters' real views are not a "political illusion" of society? Regulation should be amended. On many issues, this can be done by a simple bill, which is simply a simple majority in the parliament. Thus, single-mandate electoral districts were introduced to the Senate. The parliament, in which the PO had a simple majority, passed a bill in 2011, signed by president Komorowski. The Constitution simply states that the elections to the parliament are to be proportionate, but does not impose d’Hondt methods or electoral thresholds. These issues are governed by average laws. So we can ask why the right hand, having a majority in the parliament and its president for 8 years, did not change the electoral order? And here you can mention to the example of Hungary. During respective tenure, Orbán has benefited from defective ordination. He gained the constitutional majority, even though he did not have so much public support. Eventually, this mechanics turned against him. Losing a fewer percent of his support, he lost respective twelve percent of his tickets. He fell from his own weapon. In Poland, akin reasoning may have worked, since we are winning with faulty rules, let us not change these rules, due to the fact that they service us. Apparently, they're utilized to time.

In the present parliament, with the current ruling coalition, changes in the ordination are not possible. In the upcoming elections, in the upcoming competitions, you gotta play by the rules that apply today. Those who aspire to politics should be aware of this. This is not the time for divisions, this is the time for unity. Elections must be brought to the “plebiscite”, who for Poland strong and sovereign and who for Poland in debt and subordinate. The elections to the parliament must become akin to the 2nd circular of presidential elections, in which voters supporting the candidate must join, with those voters for whom this candidate is little evil than its competitor. It's an alliance of voters, not politicians. This is an election in which all vote counts, due to the fact that no vote crosses the d’Hondt method.

What if politicians don't meet the requirements of time? If, alternatively of taking a step backwards, for the sake of Poland, they will push to divisions, advance their groups, lead to a divided of votes? In this situation, voters must prove smarter than politicians, we must be smarter than politicians. We cannot waste a single vote, we cannot vote for a smaller group, due to the fact that the electoral order will work as in Hungary, it will strengthen the voice of those who unite and weaken the voice of the divided. Will we learn from the Hungarian lesson?

individual may say that this closes the way for new, emerging politicians, preserves old arrangements. I'm gonna ask you, does the footballer who wants to make a career start his own club? Or rather, he's reporting his accession to an already functioning, well-known club. While there it must break through old layouts and habits, it must gain the designation of the coach who got utilized to his iron composition. But if he's truly good, if he's talented, then his time will come and contribute to the triumph of the full team. If he starts his own club, he may become a star sooner, but his only success may be to take points from a friendly squad and deprive her of her chances of a championship title.

Mr Bogdan

***