Aug 2, 2025
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has made a serious allegation about the electoral system. Speaking at the
seen from France
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from Netherlands
seen from Russia
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Pakistan
seen from Philippines
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has made a serious allegation about the electoral system. Speaking at the
Voting Rights Explained: How Population Shapes Representation
Explore the complexities of U.S. voting representation as we compare Texas and Alaska. Discover how population affects the number of delegates and what that means for each state’s voting power in Congress. Why are some votes more impactful? Find out now! #VotingRights #Representation #TexasVsAlaska #PopulationImpact #USCongress #PoliticalRepresentation #CivicEducation #ElectoralSystem #VoteSmart…
Hong Kong’s recent election saw a record low turnout, with only 30% of eligible voters participating. This comes after China revamped the city’s electoral system to increase its control over the territory. The new system allows Beijing to vet candidates before they can run for office, leading many opposition groups to boycott the election. The […]
Hong Kong Election: China's Control Sparks Low Turnout and Opposition Boycott #Chinascontrol #electoralsystem #HongKongelection #lowturnout #oppositiongroups
Hong Kong’s recent election saw a record low turnout, with only 30% of eligible voters participating. This comes after China revamped the city’s electoral system to increase its control over the territory. The new system allows Beijing to vet candidates before they can run for office, leading many opposition groups to boycott the election. The […]
Hong Kong Election: China's Control Sparks Low Turnout and Opposition Boycott #Chinascontrol #electoralsystem #HongKongelection #lowturnout #oppositiongroups
Breaking News : Government Removes Chief Justice from Committee Selecting Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner
In a move that has stirred significant debate and speculation, the government has announced its decision to remove the Chief Justice from the committee responsible for the selection of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Election Commissioner (EC). This decision, which alters the composition of the committee responsible for these crucial appointments, has raised questions about the separation of powers and the implications for the independence of the electoral process. The committee, which traditionally included the Chief Justice of India, played a vital role in ensuring a balanced and unbiased selection process for the top electoral posts in the country. By removing the Chief Justice from this committee, the government has triggered concerns about potential political influence in the appointment of officials who oversee the integrity of the democratic process.
Breaking News : Government Removes Chief Justice from Committee Selecting Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner While the exact rationale behind this decision has not been publicly disclosed, government representatives have indicated that the move is aimed at streamlining the appointment process and ensuring a more efficient decision-making mechanism. Critics, however, argue that this change could erode the checks and balances that have been in place to maintain the impartiality and autonomy of the Election Commission. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a constitutional body responsible for administering election processes in the country. It plays a critical role in ensuring free and fair elections and upholding the principles of democracy. The CEC and EC are key figures within the commission, and the transparency and credibility of their selection process are essential to maintain public trust in the electoral system. The decision to alter the composition of the committee has sparked reactions from various quarters. Opposition parties, civil society organizations, and legal experts have expressed concerns about the potential consequences of this move on the independence of the Election Commission. They argue that the presence of the Chief Justice in the committee provided a necessary safeguard against undue political influence in the selection of election officials. Proponents of the government's decision, on the other hand, suggest that this change could expedite the appointment process and bring in more diverse perspectives to the committee, thereby strengthening the selection process.
As the news of this decision spreads, it has become a topic of intense discussion, with many urging a careful review of the implications for the democratic process and the independence of the Election Commission. The government's commitment to transparency and the integrity of the electoral system will be closely monitored as this change takes effect. The impact of this decision on the upcoming elections and the functioning of the Election Commission remains to be seen. It is essential for all stakeholders, including the government, opposition, and civil society, to engage in a constructive dialogue to ensure that the electoral process continues to uphold the democratic ideals and principles upon which the nation is founded. Click for more updates and latest Trending news along with Entertainment updates. Also get latest news and top headlines from India and around the world at The Like News. Read the full article
A Member of Parliament Full-Time
Hungary’s New Electoral System, Part 8
According to Hungary’s new electoral system, starting with the term that begins in 2014, members of the Parliament will be strictly limited in undertaking tasks other than representing their district or party list. Legislators, when voting on the conflict of interest rules of the new Hungarian electoral system, chose a stricter system over the short-term interests of many MPs. Why?
A lengthy debate is coming to an end. Mayors were barred from being MPs between 1990 and 1994. The Parliament later abolished this form of conflict of interest, but the debate remained. Isn’t representing a district or simply making decisions on laws supposed to be a full-time job? Shouldn’t MPs remain impartial when making laws and not be influenced by the businesses they might be working for? Aren’t the elected offices of a mayor and a parliamentary district representative so different – and sometimes even conflicting – that the same person should not fill both roles?
This is still common practice in other European countries, by the way. In France, for example, they have many mayors who also serve as members of the National Assembly, in addition to other roles. But the Hungarian parliament has decided to change the rules.
From 2014, parliamentary representatives, due to conflict of interest, cannot hold positions in business organizations or in local governments. MPs will be banned from accepting remuneration for activities outside the parliament, except scientific, educational, artistic or intellectual activities under copyright protection. State positions will also be limited. Only the prime minister, ministers and the most senior leaders, who direct policy at the ministries will be able to take seats in the national assembly too.
That these conflict of interest rules are introduced as part of the new laws on elections in Hungary is a step forward in reinforcing the MP’s independence from narrow business or other interests. It is a strict rule but not unrealistic. Hopefully this rule change will also reinforce the idea that being an MP is not just one more paycheck among many for a career politician but membership in the highest lawmaking body of the land as a representative of the people. After all, lawmaking is a full-time job.
This is the eighth installment in a series of posts on the changes to Hungary’s electoral system. Previously I wrote about the reasons behind changing the old system (Part 1), the new, more evenly sized electoral districts (Part 2), how the new rules for political campaign advertising (Part 3) along with the changes in the rules for becoming a candidate (Part 4) help smaller parties and independent candidates, how the new system is more accommodating to voters with disabilities (Part 5), how voting rights are granted to all Hungarian citizens regardless of their location (Part 6), and the direct representation of minorities under the new system (Part 7).
A Voice for Minorities
Hungary’s New Electoral System, Part 7
When you hear talk of the recent changes to Hungary’s electoral system, chances are that the focus is on how voting rights have been extended or how the constituencies have been redrawn. I wrote about those changes in those previous posts.
Today, I am focusing on another detail of the changes that has received much less attention, one that even many of the critics think is a good initiative: the new system allows for direct representation of minorities in the parliament from 2014.
Ethnic Groups in Hungary, 2001 vs. 2011. Source:Wikipedia
Direct representation of ethnic and national minorities in Hungary was a hot topic among political scientists in the early nineties. The Hungarian Constitutional Court even ruled in 1992 (Decision 35/1992) that the old system drawn up at the roundtable talks is unconstitutional because it failed to ensure parliamentary representation for minorities. But despite the early court ruling and a consensus that something needed to be done about minority representation, for nearly 20 years until 2010 nobody took up the issue.
Under the old system, the only way a minority group could get into parliament was by entering into alliance with one of the major parties in exchange for a certain number of seats. That may have worked to some degree but it offered no guarantees that minorities would have a voice. Along with all the other changes, the new electoral law sought to change this by building ethnic and national minority representation into the new system. And with good reason. A survey carried out last April by the Századvég Foundation shows that 58.1 percent of Hungarian voters still think minority representation in the parliament is important.
Under the new system, representatives of minority groups enjoy positive discrimination, getting seats in the parliament based on votes received from voters who are listed on the registry as members of the minority group. Minority representation is awarded once a preferential quota is fulfilled with a specific and relatively small, number of votes. The preferential quota is determined by adding up the total number of votes for national party and national minority lists and dividing that number by 93 and again by 4. The result is then rounded to become the preferential quota. If the preferential quota is reached or exceeded during an election, the top candidate from the national minority list is given a preferential minority seat. If the preferential quota is not fulfilled, the top minority representative candidate can still be sent to the National Assembly as a “minority spokesperson.” This person can collaborate with other representatives in “committees representing national minorities.”
The new Hungarian system for direct representation of national minorities is exemplary when compared to other models internationally, and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has recognized that. After nearly twenty years without any real attempts to comply with the court decision and ensure parliamentary representation for minorities, a solution has finally been found.
This is the seventh installment in a series of posts on the changes to Hungary’s electoral system. Previously I wrote about the reasons behind changing the old system (Part 1), the new, more evenly sized electoral districts (Part 2), how the new rules for political campaign advertising (Part 3) along with the changes in the candidation process (Part 4) help smaller parties and independent candidates, how the new system is more accommodating to voters with disabilities (Part 5) and how voting rights are granted to all Hungarian citizens regardless of their location (Part 6).
Voting Rights to All Citizens – Regardless of Where They Live
Hungary’s New Electoral System, Part 6
Hungary’s new electoral system extends voting rights to all citizens regardless of where they live, unlike the former system, which required a permanent residency in Hungary to be eligible to vote. Why the change?
The first reason is that our government believes that the right to vote is an essential right of every citizen and not having a residency in the country should not cause a citizen to lose voting rights. Creating the new system, our goal was to make it more inclusive than the former one, similar to our efforts to advance voting rights for the disabled, this decision was also a step forward.
And by extending the right to vote to our citizens outside the borders, we’re by no means alone. Other countries, especially those with significant numbers of their people living outside their borders, have done the same. Croatia has 400,000 Croatian citizens living abroad who are registered on the electoral roll. Even the United States, where the issue of national minorities living outside the borders is not as important historically as it is in Europe, has voting provisions for citizens living abroad. In 21 states and the District of Columbia, even those who have never lived in the United States (but have voting rights derived from their parents) are allowed to cast ballots.
But of course, for Israel and many countries of Europe, where ethnic minorities have found themselves residing in a different country following a major conflict and changing borders, the issue has a special significance.
Hungarian population in Europe, outside Hungary. Source:Wikipedia
Hungary has some 10 million residents, but the number of people who identify themselves as Hungarian reaches approximately 15 million. Many of these live far away, fleeing Hungary during terrible periods of the 20th Century such as World War II and the quashing of the 1956 uprising, but even more Hungarians live in neighboring countries due to the Trianon Treaty of 1920. As a result of the treaty, millions of Hungarians found themselves suddenly living outside their country’s borders.
Trianon is a delicate topic, and I’m not going to get into it here (if interested, Wikipedia offers a useful background). The point is, the reason for extending voting rights is simple: many of these Hungarian citizens were stripped of their Hungarian citizenship after the treaty and their situation has been a hot topic of public discourse really only since people have been allowed to talk about it again, after 1990.
So, on May 26, 2011, the National Assembly passed an amendment on Hungarian citizenship (part of Act LV of 1993) that creates a simplified, fast-lane for people like this to regain citizenship. After citizenship, voting rights flow naturally to ensure there are no first- and second-class citizens.
Of course, it is technically impossible for citizens who do not have a residence in Hungary to vote for one of the constituency candidates, but from now on, they can cast a vote for a national list, after registering to be on the electoral role at least 15 days before the election, by mail or the Internet.
Critics say this is a ploy by the governing parties to shore up more votes to ensure re-election. But that’s flimsy. First of all, no one really knows who these voters will vote for. There is no opinion poll that measures their party preference. Secondly, it is impossible to predict the participation rate of these new voters.
In any case, in its opinion (no. 662/2012), the Venice Commission concurred, emphasizing that it is congruent with good practice and follows the recommendation made by the advisory body. Enough said.
By granting voting rights to all Hungarian citizens under the new law, the voting system in Hungary has become more inclusive, therefore, in our opinion, more democratic.
This is the sixth installment in a series of posts on the changes to Hungary’s electoral system.Previously I wrote about the reasons behind changing the old system (Part 1), the new, more evenly sized electoral districts (Part 2), how the new rules for political campaign advertising (Part 3) along with the changes in the candidation process (Part 4) help smaller parties and independent candidates and how the new system is more sensitive to voters with disabilities (Part 5).