This is Tisza-style democracy!!
I’ve been wondering whether there has ever been a more disgusting opposition than the current one. Many of you have probably seen that they started spreading on Facebook and social media that Fidesz voters should mark two Xs on the ballot—choose a second party they would want to vote for as well—because Fidesz supposedly won’t be able to form a government on its own, so they should mark another one next to it.
Obviously, 99.99% of Fidesz voters are not stupid enough to fall for this. But there may be some people who only deal with politics once every four years, and it’s entirely possible that some might be misled by this.
It’s quite frightening—disgusting, a vile bunch.
The only good news is that there are 25 days left. And they will be defeated.
And of course, a vote is only valid if, on both the party-list ballot and the individual candidate ballot, a voter marks exactly one party or party alliance—Fidesz–KDNP—and exactly one individual candidate—the Fidesz–KDNP candidate. Two intersecting lines, inside the circle, where required.
🔍 Main Narrative
👉 “The opposition manipulates, cheats, and poses a threat to the integrity of the election”
👉 “Our side is rational, the opponent is disgusting and stupid”
👉 “There is only one correct choice: voting for Fidesz”
This is a moralizing + fear-based + exclusionary electoral framing.
1️⃣ “This is Tisza-style democracy!!” – framing in the opening sentence
(framing + prejudice planting)
Technique:
➡️ Negative label already in the opening sentence
➡️ Does not prove a claim, but provides an interpretive frame
➡️ Ironic / condescending tone
Goal:
➡️ The reader interprets the entire story negatively from the start
➡️ Prevent questioning whether the claim is true
Effect:
➡️ The entire text functions as “evidence” for a pre-decided conclusion
2️⃣ “Has there ever been a more disgusting opposition?” – moral hysteria
(moral outrage amplification)
Technique:
➡️ Strong emotional word: disgusting
➡️ Exaggerated comparison (“ever”)
➡️ No specifics → generalization
Goal:
➡️ Trigger disgust (disgust framing)
➡️ Build moral superiority
Effect:
➡️ The opponent becomes not a political actor, but a “moral problem”
3️⃣ “They are spreading that you should mark twice” – accusation of manipulation
(deception framing)
Technique:
➡️ Claim: the opponent intentionally misleads voters
➡️ Concrete example (ballot paper)
➡️ No evidence / source
Goal:
➡️ Build distrust toward the opposition
➡️ Mobilize own voters (“be careful, they’re tricking you”)
Effect:
➡️ The election situation is framed as a threat
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ It is unclear whether this is widespread or marginal
➡️ Possible generalization from isolated cases
4️⃣ “99.99% are not that stupid” – double messaging
(ingroup superiority + implicit insult)
Technique:
➡️ Praises own group (“not stupid”)
➡️ Implicitly suggests some might still be “stupid”
Goal:
➡️ Strengthen group identity
➡️ At the same time create concern (“someone might still fall for it”)
Effect:
➡️ “We are smart, but we must stay alert”
5️⃣ “Someone might fall for it” – speculation without evidence
(speculative threat framing)
Technique:
➡️ Assumption (“there might be”)
➡️ No concrete data
➡️ Presented as a real risk
Goal:
➡️ Maintain tension
➡️ Encourage vigilance and mobilization
Effect:
➡️ The reader feels there is a real problem → even without evidence
6️⃣ “Disgusting, worm-like group” – dehumanization
(dehumanization + verbal aggression)
Technique:
➡️ Animal/biological metaphor (“worms”)
➡️ Collective labeling of an entire group
Goal:
➡️ Reduce the opponent’s human status
➡️ Legitimize hostility
Effect:
➡️ Not a debate → enemy image
➡️ Easier to reject everything they say
7️⃣ “25 days… they’ll get hit” – implicit threat / countdown
(countdown pressure + implied punishment)
Technique:
➡️ Time pressure (“25 days”)
➡️ Suggestion of punishment (“they’ll get hit”)
Goal:
➡️ Increase tension
➡️ Create a combative mindset
Effect:
➡️ Election = conflict, not a decision
8️⃣ “Only this way is the vote valid” – authoritative closure
(instruction framing + authority claim)
Technique:
➡️ Explains a technical rule
➡️ But ties it to a political recommendation
➡️ “only this way” → exclusionary framing
Goal:
➡️ Influence behavior in a concrete way
➡️ Narrow the choice to a single “correct” option
Effect:
➡️ Voting is framed not as a choice, but as a “correct procedure”
⚠️ Overall picture – what kind of propaganda is this?
This text is a classic case of:
👉 Enemy construction + emotional mobilization + simplification
Main elements:
- disgust triggering (“disgusting”, “worms”)
- accusations of manipulation (without evidence)
- glorification of the in-group
- fear induction (“someone might fall for it”)
- simplification of choice (“only one correct decision”)
🧠 Short core summary
👉 It does not prove — it activates emotions
👉 It does not debate — it labels and constructs enemies
👉 It does not inform — it tries to control behavior