The study seeks to improve our understanding of the institutional results of different models of mayor elections by critically questioning the existing dominant debate on the role and importance of local institutions – directly elected mayor – and their impact on democracy, effectiveness and public policies. First, I point out that the discussion suffers to some practical problems, i.e. neglect of appreciation of causal factors: from the development of a society to the choice of a suitable institutions, i.e. wish to see or understand the huge differences that exist in different types of society and consequently a large number of different electoral models in practice. In addition, the existence of different types of capitalism and democracy and, of course, the semantics of law and the public good in societies with different social values. It is social values (the philosophy of society) that are key in choosing an electoral system, and with them the values of local democracy. In other words, there is a big problem of subordinating of social values to politics, which arises as a result of inappropriate institutional choices. So, our key question is whether the new electoral system improved quality of democracy and the efficiency of the local state. The study shows how local units operate under the same framework of jurisdiction, but in very different conditions (population and space size). The study identifies very large differences between local units, their financial and administrative capacities in the new executive governance model. The analysis focuses on internal efficiency, which many see as a necessary condition for the high quality of participatory democracy. The study seeks to answer the question: Can the model of direct mayoral election simultaneously achieve: better local democracy and greater efficiency and where? The finding shows that electoral reform has not improved functioning in cities in any aspect of the survey: neither financial nor democratic. The analysis shows how political power has shifted from the representative body to the executive branch, consequently producing less oversight and control over its activities, but it did not lead to an increase in efficiency. In such circumstances, there was a substantive imbalance of power of the two branches of government at the local level: almost all political power passed into the hands of the executive, although by electoral legitimacy (result) this could not be said. The analysis of the actions of cities with decentralized functions shows no major differences compared to the initial results in efficiency, but shows a downward trend in the quality of democracy. The analysis shows: neither the smallest are the best in participation nor are the largest cities the most efficient. Some certain balance of these two elements was shown by cities between twenty and thirty thousand inhabitants. However, in large urban cities, the dynamics X of policy participation are higher than in smaller units. In smaller units (rural towns), fewer candidates appeared in elections, but there was a higher turnout. However, can and how these results be compared? Comparing different sizes of local units in any element of functioning is very demanding. Perhaps it would be better to propose and discuss election model that would successfully connected two factors of effective government: jurisdiction and size of local units – local democracy. Finally, I emphasize that the existing debate on local institutions and local development should be seen as a consequence of partial and incomplete institutional reform. The assumed fundamental objectives of electoral reform in the local state have not been achieved. The institutional framework does not correspond to the needs of the local government. Two things show that. The local state remains weak in capacity, and weakens trust in democratic processes. And while before every local elections the model of choice is refined, the key subjects of performance – local units – remain the same characteristics. Therefore, changes in only one segment – one part of the institutions of the local government – did not give or reached the expected results. Size does matter though: it enables the growth and development of the community, strengthening citizenship and the strengthening of democracy and civil society. If the assumed goals are to be achieved, a complete reform of the political system, whose soul is the electoral system, is necessary. The established model of direct mayoral election, which established the rule of one, does not raise hope for a better perspective of local democracy