Prepared by: Gábor Tóka with input from András Bragyova, László Bruszt, Zsolt Enyedi and Ildikó Kaposi

Transcription

1 Prepared by: Gábor Tóka with input from András Bragyova, László Bruszt, Zsolt Enyedi and Ildikó Kaposi Date: June 2007 Date of Election: 9 & 23 April 2006 Comparative National Election Project Memo on Macro Information Country: Hungary Election Type (Presidential, Legislative- two chambers or one): Legislative (there is only one chamber) Part I: Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Survey was Administered 1. Political Parties (Receiving at least 3% of the vote, OR electing one MP): Party Name In English and Own Language and Party Label A. Hungarian Sociality Party / Magyar Szocialista Párt / MSZP Ideological Family Social democratic European Parliament Political Group (where applicable) PES International Organizational Membership Socialist International B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance / Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség / Fidesz- MPSZ Christian democratic EPP-ED Christian Democratic International C. Alliance of Free Democrats / Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége / SZDSZ Liberal ELDR Liberal International D. Hungarian Democratic Forum / Magyar Demokrata Fórum / MDF E. Christian Democratic People s Party / Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt / KDNP Christian democratic Christian democratic EPP-ED - (i.e. at the time of the 2006 election) Christian Democratic International - (i.e. in 2006) Ideological Party Families: (These are suggestions only. If a party does not fit well into this classification scheme, please provide an alternative and some explanation). (A) Ecology Parties (G) Liberal Parties (M) Agrarian Parties (B) Communist Parties (H) Right Liberal Parties (N) Ethnic Parties (C) Socialist Parties (I) Christian Democratic Parties (O) Regional Parties (D) Social Democratic Parties (J) National Parties (P) Other Parties (E) Conservative Parties (K) Independents (F) Left Liberal Parties (L) Single Issue Parties The following lists provide examples of political groups and organizations to which a particular party might belong. Please report any and all international affiliations for each party. European Parliament Political Groups: (1) European People s Party (2) European Democrats (3) Party of European Socialists (4) European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party (5) Confederal Group of European United Left (6) Nordic Green Left (7) Greens (8) European Free Alliance (9) Europe for the Nations

2 (10) Europe of Democracies and Diversities (00) Not Applicable (98) Don't Know International Party Organizations: (11) Asia Pacific Socialist Organization (12) Caribbean Democratic Union (13) Christian Democratic International (14) Christian Democratic Organization of America (15) Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (16) Democratic Union of Africa (17) Eastern European Social Democratic Forum (18) Green Movement (19) Humanist Party (20) International Communist Union (21) International Democrat Union (22) International League of Democratic Socialists (23) Liberal International (24) Natural Law Party (25) Pacific Democratic Union (26) Organization of African Liberal Parties (27) Socialist International (28) Socialist Inter-Africa (00) Not Applicable (98) Don't Know

3 2. Please place the parties that you have characterized according to the Gunther and Diamond 2001 typology. Please see the documents attached which include the article by Gunther and Diamond, as well as the tables, references and figure. Please note that in the figure, the lines connecting party species to their respective genus are missing. [Gunther, and Diamond, (2003), Species of Political Parties: A New Typology, in Party Politics, vol.9, no.2., pp ] Party Name in English and Own Language and Party Label A. Hungarian Sociality Party / Magyar Szocialista Párt / MSZP B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance / Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség / Fidesz- MPSZ C. Alliance of Free Democrats / Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége / SZDSZ D. Hungarian Democratic Forum / Magyar Demokrata Fórum / MDF E. Christian Democratic People s Party / Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt / KDNP Party Type Mix of clientelistic, catch-all and programmatic Mix of clientelistic, catch-all and programmatic Mix of clientelistic, catch-all and programmatic, with probably a bit stronger programmatic and weaker clientelistic components than in MSZP and Fidesz. Mix of catch-all and programmatic. Hard to tell; used to be a denominational party until around when the party, de facto, temporarily ceased to exist; its recent reemergence was due to a 2004 court decision annulling a 1996 leadership election and placing the party label in the hands of former party members who joined the Fidesz parliamentary caucus in the 1990s. Before the 2006 election the Fidesz leadership wanted to revive KDNP and took it to parliament as their junior partner in an electoral alliance in which only Fidesz had electoral support. Probably the best description is that the KDNP is not a separate party but a strategic tool of another political formation.

4 3. Please give the complete election results for the most recent election and the previous election of the type you are analyzing. Percentage distribution of list votes in Hungarian parliamentary elections, MSZP SZDSZ MDF * 5.04 Fidesz * KDNP FKgP MIÉP ** Others *joint list **: MIÉP-Jobbik joint list. Source: Reports of the National Election Committee. Distribution of seats in Hungarian parliamentary elections, MSZP 33 ( 8.5%) 209 (54.1%) 134 (34.7%) 178 (46.1%) 190 (49.2%) SZDSZ 94 (24.4%) 70 (18.1%) 24 ( 6.2%) 20 ( 5.2%) 20 ( 5.2%) FIDESZ 22 ( 5.7%) 20 ( 5.2%) 148 (38.3%) 164 (42.5%) 141 (36.5%) FKGP 44 (11.4%) 26 ( 6.7%) 48 (12.4%) 0 0 KDNP 21 ( 5.4%) 22 ( 5.7%) ( 6.0%) MDF 164 (42.5%) 38 ( 9.8%) 17 ( 4.4%) 24 ( 6.2%) 11 ( 2.8%) MIÉP ( 3.6%) 0 0 independents 6 ( 1.6%) 0 1 ( 0.3%) 0 0 Others 2 ( 0.5%) 1 ( 0.3%) ( 0.3%) Note: Deputies elected in single-member districts as joint candidates of more than one party are counted according to the parliamentary party they joined at the first session of the respective parliament, including two ASZ (Agrarian Alliance) candidates (one each in 1990 and 1994, respectively) who joined SZDSZ in exchange for receiving SZDSZ endorsement in the second round of the election.

5 Distribution of seats and votes in most recent election Party Name Percentage of List Votes A. Hungarian Sociality Party / Magyar Szocialista Párt / MSZP Parliamentary Seats B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance-Christian Democratic People s Party /Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség és Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt / Fidesz-MPSZ-KDNP* C. Alliance of Free Democrats / Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége / SZDSZ (141 Fidesz- MPSZ; 23 KDNP) D. Hungarian Democratic Forum / Magyar Demokrata Fórum / MDF *: joint list. Distribution of seats and votes in previous election of the same type Party Name Percentage of List Votes A. Hungarian Sociality Party / Magyar Szocialista Párt / MSZP Parliamentary Seats B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Party-Hungarian Democratic Forum / Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Párt és Magyar Demokrata Fórum/ Fidesz- MPSZ-MDF* C. Alliance of Free Democrats / Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége / SZDSZ (Fidesz- MPP:164; MDF: 24) *: joint list. 4. Ideological Positions of Parties: Please indicate Parties A-F's positions on a left-right dimension (in the expert judgment of the CNEP Principal Investigator. Party Name in English /Label Left Right A. Hungarian Sociality Party / Magyar Szocialista X Párt / MSZP B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance / Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség / Fidesz-MPSZ X C. Alliance of Free Democrats / Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége / SZDSZ x D. Hungarian Democratic Forum / Magyar Demokrata Fórum / MDF x E. Christian Democratic People s Party / Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt / KDNP X 4.1. Do you believe there would be general consensus on these placements among informed observers in your country? By and large, yes

6 4.2. Would you agree that the Left-Right cleavage is a meaningful concept in your country? Yes, though the content is mostly socio-cultural (attitudes towards long-established churches, nationhood, social liberalism, various periods in Hungarian history including above all the late communist period between 1963 and 1989) 4.3. Are there any other relevant cleavages in your country? Where would you place each party regarding that/ those cleavages? (For each cleavage fill out a table below, indicate the cleavage name, and what values 0 and 10 represent as well as each party s position along the cleavage) CLEAVAGE NAME: Government control of economy in terms of ownership, regulation, and price controls 0 =significant control 10 =minimal control Party Name in English /Label A. Hungarian Sociality Party / Magyar Szocialista X Párt / MSZP B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance / Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség / Fidesz-MPSZ X C. Alliance of Free Democrats / Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége / SZDSZ X D. Hungarian Democratic Forum / Magyar Demokrata Fórum / MDF X E. Christian Democratic People s Party / Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt / KDNP X

7 5. In your view, what are the five most salient factors that affected the outcome of the election (e.g. major scandals; economic events; the presence of an independent actor; specific issues)? 1. In terms of policy preferences the MSZP was by and large more appealing to centrist voters than the Fidesz-MPSZ. 2. Widespread popular dissatisfaction with government performance and the economic situation reduced support for the government parties, but the Fidesz-MPSZ campaign picked the wrong economic issues (ignoring the ballooning budget deficit and stressing instead declining living standards, which only few people actually experienced) and suffered from credibility problems as a result 3. Replacement of socialist prime minister Peter Medgyessy at midterm (in 2004, following poor results at the European Parliament elections) with the more dynamic and appealing Ferenc Gyurcsány increased support for the government. 4. The near-total collapse of the extremist parties on both the left and right increased support for the two main parties without forcing them explicitly to appeal to extremist voters. 5. Divisions between Fidesz-MPSZ and MDF prevented effective electoral coordination on the right and created image problems for Fidesz-MPSZ.

8 6. Do you believe there would be general consensus about the importance of these factors among informed observers in your country? No. 7. Electoral Alliances: Documenting who is allied with whom, and how, in each constituency is a large task and we do not expect you to do more than make some general reference to the existence of constituency-level alliances. Sometimes, electoral alliances among parties are made at the national level -- these are the alliances that we would like you to identify. Information is sought on who is allied with whom and on the nature of the electoral alliance. a) Were electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign? No Yes If yes, please complete the following: Alliance Name Participant Parties (please indicate dominant members with an "*") Alliance 1: Fidesz-MPSZ* with KDNP (joint list, joint candidates everywhere) Alliance 2: MSZP* with SZDSZ (a few joint candidates in the first round, agreement on fully coordinated candidate withdrawals and joint campaigning for the second round) Alliance 3: Alliance 4: Alliance 5:

9 8. Party Leaders, Prime Ministerial and Presidential Candidates: In legislative elections, please report the leader of each party, as well as the PM candidate. In presidential elections, list presidential candidates and their parties. If candidates were endorsed by more than one party, please indicate this below. Party Name English and Label Name of Party Leader Presidential / PM Candidate A. Hungarian Sociality Party / MSZP István Hiller Ferenc Gyurcsány B. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Alliance / Fidesz-MPSZ Viktor Orbán Viktor Orbán C. Alliance of Free Democrats / SZDSZ Gábor Kuncze Gábor Kuncze D. Hungarian Democratic Forum / MDF Ibolya Dávid Ibolya Dávid E. Christian Democratic People s Party / KDNP Zsolt Semjén Viktor Orbán

10 Part II: The Media and Secondary Organisations In order to contextualise the information which is provided by the surveys on media use, as well as organizational memberships, we would like to ask you to provide some details concerning these intermediary organizations. TV 1. Please list the major TV networks in your country. Indicate whether these are private or publicly owned. 2. Please indicate whether you consider them to be politically neutral or politically biased. If they are biased, please indicate whether you consider them biased towards a specific party or generically left- or right-leaning. 3. Is the political information that the networks provide high or low quality information? The answers to the above questions are entered in the table below using the following codes: Public sector vs. private sector ownership 1. Public sector and functions as a government "mouthpiece" 2. Public sector and generally balanced or neutral in partisan matters 3. Private sector Partisan bias (i.e., is this media generally biased in favor of the governing party, biased against the governing party, or balanced and neutral) 1. Pro-government-party bias 2. Balanced and neutral 3. Anti-government-party bias Formal links with political party 1. Is officially linked to a political party 2. Is not officially linked, but favors a political party 3. Is not linked to or supportive of a political party Which party? (Skip if this media does not support and is not linked to any party) Party codes: 1 MSZP 5 MIÉP-Jobbik 2 Fidesz 6 KDNP 3 SZDSZ 7 Munkáspárt 4 MDF 8 other Information quality (in terms of amount of public-policy relevant information conveyed) 1. High quality 2. Medium quality 3. Tabloid (i.e., excessive trivialization and personalization of the news, with little accurate information included in average broadcast) Coding of television stations in the survey questionnaire 1: Private versus public 2.A: Partisan bias 2.B: Formal links with political party 2.C: Which party? 3: Information quality Language 1 - M , 3 2 Hungarian 2 - TV , 3 3 Hungarian 3 - Rtl Klub , 3 3 Hungarian 4 - Duna TV /2 Hungarian 5 - Hír TV Hungarian 6 - ATV , 3 2 Hungarian

11 7 - Echo TV , 6 2 Hungarian 8 - local tv station Hungarian 9 - any other DK

12 RADIO 4. Please list the major Radio channels in your country. Indicate whether these are private or publicly owned. 5. Please indicate whether you consider them to be politically neutral or politically biased. If they are biased, please indicate whether you consider them biased towards a specific party or generically left- or right-leaning. 6. Is the political information that the radio channels provide high or low quality information? The answers to the above questions are entered in the table below using the following codes: Public sector vs. private sector ownership 1. Public sector and functions as a government "mouthpiece" 2. Public sector and generally balanced or neutral in partisan matters 3. Private sector Partisan bias (i.e., is this media generally biased in favor of the governing party, biased against the governing party, or balanced and neutral) 1. Pro-government-party bias 2. Balanced and neutral 3. Anti-government-party bias Formal links with political party 1. Is officially linked to a political party 2. Is not officially linked, but favors a political party 3. Is not linked to or supportive of a political party Which party? (Skip if this media does not support and is not linked to any party) Party codes: 1 MSZP 5 MIÉP-Jobbik 2 Fidesz 6 KDNP 3 SZDSZ 7 Munkáspárt 4 MDF 8 other Information quality (in terms of amount of public-policy relevant information conveyed) 1. High quality 2. Medium quality 3. Tabloid (i.e., excessive trivialization and personalization of the news, with little accurate information included in average broadcast) Coding of radio stations in the survey questionnaire 4: Private versus public 5.A: Partisan bias 5.B: Formal links with political party 5.C: Which party? 6: Information quality Language 1 Local station Hungarian 2 - Sláger Rádió Hungarian 3 - Danubius Rádió Hungarian 4 - Kossuth Rádió , 3 2 Hungarian 5 - Info Rádió Hungarian 6 - Klub Rádió Hungarian 7 - Petőfi Rádió Hungarian 8 - Juventus Rádió Hungarian 9 any other or DK DK

13 NEWSPAPERS 7. Please list the major Newspapers in your country. Indicate whether these are private or publicly owned. 8. Please indicate whether you consider them to be politically neutral or politically biased. If they are biased, please indicate whether you consider them biased towards a specific party or generically left- or right-leaning. 9. Is the political information that the newspapers provide high or low quality information? The answers to the above questions are entered in the table below using the following codes: Public sector vs. private sector ownership 1. Public sector and functions as a government "mouthpiece" 2. Public sector and generally balanced or neutral in partisan matters 3. Private sector Partisan bias (i.e., is this media generally biased in favor of the governing party, biased against the governing party, or balanced and neutral) 1. Pro-government-party bias 2. Balanced and neutral 3. Anti-government-party bias Formal links with political party 1. Is officially linked to a political party 2. Is not officially linked, but favors a political party 3. Is not linked to or supportive of a political party Which party? (Skip if this media does not support and is not linked to any party) Party codes: 1 MSZP 5 MIÉP-Jobbik 2 Fidesz 6 KDNP 3 SZDSZ 7 Munkáspárt 4 MDF 8 other Information quality (in terms of amount of public-policy relevant information conveyed) 1. High quality 2. Medium quality 3. Tabloid (i.e., excessive trivialization and personalization of the news, with little accurate information included in average broadcast) Coding of radio stations in the survey questionnaire 4: Private versus public 5.A: Partisan bias 5.B: Formal links with political party 5.C: Which party? 6: Information quality Language 1 Blikk Hungarian 2 Magyar Hírlap , 6 2 Hungarian 3 Magyar Nemzet Hungarian 4 Metró , 3 2 Hungarian 5 Népszabadság Hungarian 6 Népszava Hungarian 7 regional dailies Hungarian 8 any other daily DK

14 SECONDARY ORGANISATIONS TRADE UNIONS 10. Please identify the major Trade Unions in your country. Describe their internal characteristics, including whether they function as closed/open shop; how the members are elected; their approximate size vis-à-vis the labour force, as well as other relevant information. ASzSz Autonomous Trade Union Confederation LIGA Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions MOSz National Federation of Workers Councils MSzOSz National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions SZEF Forum for the Co-operation of Trade Unions (Szakszervezetek Együttműködési Fóruma) ÉSZT Confederation of Unions of Professionals (Értelmiségi Szakszervezeti Tömörülés) 11. Please indicate for each Trade Union above whether it is linked to a specific party, and state its name. The answers to the above questions are entered in the table below using the following codes: Organizaton 1 1. Open shop 2. Closed shop 3. A mix of the two, hard to tell Organizaton 2 1. Federation of autonomous unions organized by branches of industry 2. Has no autonomous branches by industry Size vis-à-vis the labour force Enter percentage figure or membership in thousands Formal links to political parties 1. Is officially linked to a political party 2. The organization as a whole is not, but union leaders largely favor the same political party and some of them double as office-holders or parliamentary deputies in the same party 3. None of the above but the union cultivates better relations (more consultations etc.) with some parties than others 4. The organization and its leadership do not show any party sympathies Which party stands closest to this union? (Skip if this union does not support and is not linked to any party) Party codes: 1 MSZP 5 MIÉP-Jobbik 2 Fidesz 6 KDNP 3 SZDSZ 7 Munkáspárt 4 MDF 8 other Coding of trade unions in the survey questionnaire 10.A: Organization 1 10.B: Organization 2 10.C: Membership % 11.A: Formal links with political party 11.B: Which party? 1 MSZOSZ Liga and 3 3 Munkástanácsok and 6 4 SZEF Autonómok ÉSZT any other union Any other relevant information

15

16 RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS 12. Please identify the major Religious organizations /Churches in your country. Describe their approximate size vis-à-vis the population, as well as other relevant information. The religious landscape is dominated by Roman Catholics,55-60 percent, the Calvinists (Reformed church),16-20 percent, and the Lutherans (Evangelical church), 3-5 percent. Minor protestant churches (especially the charismatic Community of Faith and the Unitarians), the Greek Catholics and the Jewish community also play a culturally and politically relevant role, but all of them are smaller than the Lutherans. More than two thirds of the population claims to be religious, but less than one fifth attends church regularly. 13. Please indicate for each Religious organization/church above whether it is linked to a specific party, and state its name. The answers to the above questions are entered in the table below using the following codes: Size vis-à-vis the population Enter percentage figure Links to political parties 1. Several church leaders or a governing body of the church endorsed a political party in the 2006 national elections 2. Though church leaders fail to endorse a party in elections, church leaders often make statements that clarify their partisan preferences and some of them double as office-holders or parliamentary deputies in the same party 3. None of the above but the church cultivates better relations (more consultations etc.) with some parties than others 4. The organization and its leadership do not show any party sympathies Which party stands closest to this church? (Skip if this church does not support and is not linked to any party) Party codes: 1 MSZP 5 MIÉP-Jobbik 2 Fidesz 6 KDNP 3 SZDSZ 7 Munkáspárt 4 MDF 8 other Coding of religions in the survey questionnaire 12: Membership 13.A: Formal links with political party 13.B: Which party? 1 Roman Catholic , 6 2 Greek Catholic 2 2 2, 6 3 Hungarian Reformed (Calvinist) 4 Lutheran Greek Orthodox 0,1 4 6 Israelite 0,2 3 3, 1 7 Community of Faith 0,3 3 3 Any other relevant information

17 OTHER RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS 14. Please give details of any other relevant secondary organizations. Describe its internal characteristics, where relevant, as well as its size, and state its political links. The answers to the above questions are entered in the table below using the following codes: Size vis-à-vis the population Enter percentage figure Links to political parties 1. Several leaders or a governing body of the organization endorsed a political party in the 2006 national elections 2. Though the leaders fail to endorse a party in elections, they often make statements that clarify their partisan preferences and some of them double as office-holders or parliamentary deputies in the same party 3. None of the above but the organization cultivates better relations (more consultations etc.) with some parties than others 4. The organization and its leadership do not show any party sympathies Which party stands closest to this organization? (Skip if this organization does not support and is not linked to any party) Party codes: 1 MSZP 5 MIÉP-Jobbik 2 Fidesz 6 KDNP 3 SZDSZ 7 Munkáspárt 4 MDF 8 other 12: Membership 13.A: Formal links with political party Civic circles B: Which party? Any other relevant information

18 Part III: Data on Electoral Institutions Definitions: Whenever a country s electoral system includes only one electoral formula, it is said to have one segment. Increasingly, electoral systems around the world use more than one electoral formula. In these cases, the number of segments that exist depend on whether the formulas are related for the purposes of seat allocation or not. If they are, then there is still only one segment since the formulas are integrated to some extent. That is the case in Germany. If they are not related, then each electoral formula and the districts it is applied in counts as one segment. This is the case in Lithuania, for example: there are 71 single-member districts that operate under a majority runoff system, and also a single nationwide district that operates under proportional representation (the largest remainders method with the Hare quota). An electoral district is defined as a geographic area within which votes are counted and seats allocated. If a district cannot be partitioned into smaller districts within which votes are counted and seats allocated, it is called primary. If it can be partitioned into primary districts, and during the counting process there is some transfer of votes and/or seats from the primary districts to the larger district, then the larger district is called secondary. If a district can be partitioned into secondary districts (again with some transfer of votes and/or seats), it is called tertiary. 1. How many segments are there, as defined above, in your electoral system? 2 Please answer the following questions (questions 2 through 7) for each segment of each directly elected house of the legislature: 2. How many primary electoral districts are there? 176 single-member districts, and twenty multimember districts, which are all primary electoral districts and constitute the two segments of the electoral system. 3. For each primary electoral district, how many members are elected from each district? If district variation exists please state the average district dimension as well as its range. The 176 single-member districts elect one member each and are nested within multimember districts. The multimember districts elect 4 to 28 members depending on the size of their voting-age population in 1989, when the election law was adopted. For details. See table below. Name of multimember district Number of single-member districts Number of lists available Budapest Baranya 7 6 Bács-Kiskun 10 8 Békés 7 6 Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Csongrád 7 6 Fejér 7 6 Gyõr-Sopron-Moson 7 6 Hajdú-Bihar 9 8 Heves 6 5 Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok 8 6 Komárom-Esztergom 5 5 Nógrád 4 4

19 Pest Somogy 6 5 Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg 10 9 Tolna 5 4 Vas 5 4 Veszprém 7 6 Zala 5 5 Total Please explain in detail how votes are cast by voters. First, indicate how many votes can be cast. If more than one vote can be cast, can they be cumulated? Are votes cast for candidates, lists, or both? Finally, state whether votes are transferable. In the first round, citizens can cast one vote for a closed party list in their multimember district, and another one for a candidate in their single-member district. Whether they can (or have to) vote in the second round either for a candidate or a list (or both) depends on results of the first round. If a fifty percent turnout was not reached in a single-member, or no candidate received an absolute majority, then a runoff election is held. A second round of voting has to be held in multimember districts too if the 50 percent turnout requirement was not satisfied in the first round. However, in 2006 the turnout requirement was satisfied in all multimember and single-member districts. Thus, two separate ballot sheets are given to each voter in the first round. Since the quorum requirement for the party list-based segment of the electoral system was satisfied in all multimember districts, the second round balloting only involved the choice between surviving candidates for the single-member seats (usually just the top two candidates in the first round, because most other candidates who qualified for the second round withdrew). The voter can in no way indicate a desired direction of vote transfers. However, votes cast for a particular candidate in a single-member district, or a particular list of candidates in a multimember district often turn into remainder votes that did not earn mandate in the primary district, and are instead cumulated at the national level where they benefit candidates who stand for election on the national list of their party. 5. We would like you to explain exactly how votes are converted into seats. Please state the electoral formula(s) which are used. Indicate whether there is a legally mandated threshold that a party must exceed before it is eligible to receive seats, and state what the threshold is. If there are lists, please explain their characteristics, namely whether they are open, closed or flexible. Definitions: A list is closed if the seats that are awarded to that list are always occupied by the candidates in order of their appearance on the list (i.e., if the list gets x seats then necessarily the top x names on the list get the seats). A list is open if the question of which candidates on the list get the seats that are awarded to the list is determined solely by the votes that each candidate receives. A list is flexible if parties place their candidates in the order they would like to see them elected, but voters can, with varying degrees of ease, change this order through votes they cast for individual candidates. In the single-member districts, an absolute majority is required in the first round. If there is no such candidate, but the 50 percent turnout requirement was satisfied, then a runoff is called between the candidates who received at least 15 percent of all valid votes, but at least the top three candidates. If the turnout requirement was not met in the first round, then all candidates who stood for election in the first round may run again in the second round. Candidates can withdraw from the race between the two rounds. In the second round the candidate with the greatest number of votes is elected - provided that the turnout was 25 percent or more. It may happen (but has never happened yet) that insufficient turnout in both rounds of the election leaves a single-member district without a representative in parliament. In this case, a by-election is called in the district. In the twenty multimember districts, the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota is used to allocate seats between those parties that received at least 5 percent of all votes cast for regional party lists nationally. If there are more seats to

20 be allocated than as many full quotas were obtained by these parties in the multimember-district in question, then less than a full quota - but at least 2/3 of the full quota - is also enough to earn a seat. Votes that do not earn mandates at the regional level, and seats that remain unallocated at the regional level are transferred to a second round of seat allocation that occurs at the national level. Votes cast for non-winning candidates in the single-member districts in the first round of voting (or in the runoff, if the turnout requirement was not met in the first round, but was satisfied in the second round of voting) are also added to these remainder votes that are cumulated by party at the national level. Only those parties can participate in this second round of seat allocation that (1) have a national party list - which presumes that they had a list in at least eight counties or in six counties and the capital city -; and (2) received at least 5 percent of all votes cast for regional party lists nationally. The d Hondt highest average method is used to allocate seats between national party lists. The number of seats allocated at the national level is 58 plus the number of seats that remained unallocated in the regional multimember districts. Please repeat questions 2 through 5 of this section for each segment of each directly elected house of the legislature.

21 Part III: Data on Regime Type Below are various questions about the type of regime--presidential, parliamentary, semi-presidential--in your country. There are two potential problems with these questions that should be noted at the outset. First, in some countries there may be a discrepancy between the de jure (or legal) situation and the de facto (or practical) situation. For example, in Great Britain the Queen still possesses a legal right to veto legislation, but this right has not been exercised since In the case of such obviously obsolete powers, please answer according to the de facto situation. Otherwise, describe the de jure situation. A second potential problem is that the questions may not be phrased optimally for the situation in your particular country. In such cases, please answer as best you can, providing some indication of the difficulties as you see them. Definitions: The Head of State is typically the highest ranking official in the executive branch of government. Often, this position is held by a president or a monarch, and may be more ceremonial than effective. The Head of Government is usually the highest ranking official in the legislative branch of government. In some systems, this may be someone other than the Head of State (i.e. the prime minister in the Westminster systems), while in other cases, the roles of the Head of State and Head of Government are combined (i.e. in the United States, the president serves as both the Head of State and the Head of Government). 1. Please indicate who the Head of State is and how s/he is selected. If the Head of State is elected, please indicate in detail the election system. Is it a direct or indirect election? If the election is direct, how many rounds of voting are there? If there is a second round of voting how are candidates chosen for this second round? If the Head of State is elected indirectly please state the procedure involved. How is the electoral college formed? Does it deliberate? What voting procedure is used by the electoral college? In some countries, the Head of Government is directly elected, in elections that may or may not occur concurrently with legislative elections. In these cases, the Head of Government is said to be elected independently of the legislature. In others, the Head of Government is the leader of the governing party or governing coalition in the legislature, and so, the selection of the Head of Government depends upon the distribution of seats in the legislature. In these cases, the Head of Government is not elected independently of the legislature. The Head of State is the President who is elected by the only house of the National Assembly (parliament). Legislators can make up to three attempts to elect president. In the first and second rounds, the threshold of victory is a two-thirds majority; in the third round an absolute majority is required. There is a new round of nomination for each round of voting. The President can introduce proposed legislation to the legislature but cannot request expedited action on specific pieces of legislation. The President cannot issue decrees with the power of law, and cannot veto a piece of legislation partially. However, the President can use a package veto against a whole piece of legislation. To override the presidential veto, the legislature has to deliberate once again and pass the legislation with the same majority as was required for the particular piece of legislation before the veto. The President has some emergency powers, is commander of the armed forces, and can refer legislation to the judicial branch for review of constitutionality and convene special legislative sessions. But the President cannot negotiate treaties and international agreements or initiate referenda. 2. Please indicate who the Head of Government is and how s/he is selected. If the Head of Government is elected independently of the legislature, please indicate in detail the election system. If the Head of Government is selected after legislative elections, please indicate how it happens. The Head of Government is called Prime Minister and is not elected independently of the legislature but nominated by the head of state and approved by the legislature. The Prime Minister names ministers and assigns portfolios alone between them; dismisses ministers and reassigns portfolios at his or her own discretion. (Formally it is the President who appoints and dismisses the ministers, but the substantive decision is that of the Prime Minister and the President is strongly expected to act merely as a rubber stamp.) 3. Indicate the way(s) in which the government can be dismissed, and the Legislature can be dissolved, if at all.

22 In some countries, the Legislature has two Chambers. We would like to obtain the following information regarding the organization of the Legislature in your country: The government can only be ousted by a constructive vote of non-confidence ; i.e., the dismissal by of the goverment (actually of the Prime Minister, since that is the only way Parliament can dismiss ministers) is valid only if at the same time a new Prime Minister is elected by parliament. The legislature be dissolved prior to regularly scheduled elections by majority vote of the legislature. In addition, the President can dissolve parliament if (1) parliament passes a vote of (constructive) non-confidence in the goverment four times within a 12-month period; or (2) if the mandate of a goverment ends prematurely (e.g. the Prime Minister passes away while in office) and the person proposed by the President as a replacement is not elected by Parliament within forty days. 4. Please indicate whether there is a second chamber in your country, and explain briefly the way it is formed, i.e. whether through direct or indirect election. There is no second chamber. 5. How would you describe the actual legislative powers of the Second Chamber: Equal to those of the first Chamber Less than those of the first Chamber but still substantial Unable to make substantial alterations in legislation, but some minor improvements in bills are often proposed Effectively powerless. There is no second chamber. 8. Please indicate if there is a constitutionally guaranteed division of power between the central government and regional and/or local governments? Does the central government have the power to remove elected officials of regional and/or local governments? The division of power between central and local governments is regulated in legislation that requires a qualified (2/3) majority in parliament, but is not enshrined in the constitution. The central government cannot remove any elected regional or local officials from office.

23 Part VI: References. Please list any resources that were consulted in the preparation of this report, or that the CNEP community may find especially helpful in understanding the political system described here. Macro report on the 2002 Hungarian election posted at the website of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project at Körösényi, András Government and Politics in Hungary. Budapest: CEU Press. Tóka, Gábor "Hungary." in Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, 2nd revised and updated edition, ed. by Sten Berglund, Joakim Ekman, and Frank H. Aarebrot. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, pp At the Kunming meeting we were asked to see if we found errors in CNEP macro reports for previous elections in the same country. There is one section in the otherwise fine 1998 Hungarian report that is embedded in an apparent conspiracy theory and makes disputable claims regarding some aspects of media bias and the fortunes of the socialist party in the runup to the 1998 election. I have not come across this theory before reading the CNEP macro report in Hungary and find it implausible, although it is correct in asserting that public television coverage has almost always been more or less biased towards the government parties in democratic Hungary, and faithfully reflects a very common allegation about television journalists political preferences.