Sorry for the late reply. I think your description is not really right.
The system was partway between first-past-the-post per districts and nationally proportional representation, both before and after Orban’s 2011 reforms. It is true that Orban moved the system closer to first-past-the-post, but it’s not true that the old system achieved fully proportional representation: in 2010, under the old system, Orban got 68% of the seats with 52% of the vote.
It’s also not true that the new system actively unbalances the outcomes from the districts. It still brings the results closer to proportional, just not as much as it used to. For example, in 2022, Orban got 68% of the seats while winning 82% of the districts.
I also don’t think that moving a system closer to first-past-the-post by districts is inherently anti-democratic: the US and the UK are democracies.
It is true that the districts aren’t equally sized: in 2022, they ranged from 58 000 to 92 000 voters. However, it is not true that rural votes had 2x the weight. I looked at the relevant Wikipedia article and made Claude calculate the averages: the average size among all districts in 2022 was 73,207 voters; the average size in Budapest was 70,815; and the average size of districts won by Orban’s party was 73,615. So votes in Budapest actually had higher weight than average, and Orban’s party was very slightly disadvantaged by district sizes. This was already 12 years in Orban’s rule, and Western media has already been accusing him of of heavy gerrymandering at the time.
There was a redistricting before the 2026 election, which brought the average size of Budapest districts to 81,301, higher than the 71,872 national average. This change was plausibly politically motivated, but it’s far from rural voters mattering 2x more.
Overall, I think there are many things to criticize in Orban’s rule, but I think the electoral system was pretty fair.
Sorry for the late reply. I think your description is not really right.
The system was partway between first-past-the-post per districts and nationally proportional representation, both before and after Orban’s 2011 reforms. It is true that Orban moved the system closer to first-past-the-post, but it’s not true that the old system achieved fully proportional representation: in 2010, under the old system, Orban got 68% of the seats with 52% of the vote.
It’s also not true that the new system actively unbalances the outcomes from the districts. It still brings the results closer to proportional, just not as much as it used to. For example, in 2022, Orban got 68% of the seats while winning 82% of the districts.
I also don’t think that moving a system closer to first-past-the-post by districts is inherently anti-democratic: the US and the UK are democracies.
It is true that the districts aren’t equally sized: in 2022, they ranged from 58 000 to 92 000 voters. However, it is not true that rural votes had 2x the weight. I looked at the relevant Wikipedia article and made Claude calculate the averages: the average size among all districts in 2022 was 73,207 voters; the average size in Budapest was 70,815; and the average size of districts won by Orban’s party was 73,615. So votes in Budapest actually had higher weight than average, and Orban’s party was very slightly disadvantaged by district sizes. This was already 12 years in Orban’s rule, and Western media has already been accusing him of of heavy gerrymandering at the time.
There was a redistricting before the 2026 election, which brought the average size of Budapest districts to 81,301, higher than the 71,872 national average. This change was plausibly politically motivated, but it’s far from rural voters mattering 2x more.
Overall, I think there are many things to criticize in Orban’s rule, but I think the electoral system was pretty fair.