Learn Hardcore Greek: Ο πατέρας μου λέει ότι θα πάει σίγουρα να ψηφίσει, γιατί θέλει δήμαρχο που να είναι ειλικρινής. - My father says that he will definitely go to vote, because he wants a mayor who is honest.

Ο πατέρας μου literally is the father of-me, i.e. my father.
In Greek, these weak possessive pronouns usually go after the noun:
- το σπίτι μου = my house
- η μητέρα σου = your mother

You could also say ο δικός μου πατέρας, but that adds emphasis (my father in particular, as opposed to someone else’s father). In neutral speech, ο πατέρας μου is the normal form.

What is the difference between ότι here and ό,τι or πως?

In this sentence, λέει ότι θα πάει..., the word ότι is a conjunction meaning that, introducing a reported statement.

ότι (without comma) = that (he says that he will go).
πως can often replace ότι in this use:
- λέει ότι θα πάει ≈ λέει πως θα πάει.
  They are usually interchangeable in modern spoken Greek, with only small stylistic differences.
ό,τι (with comma) is completely different: it means whatever / anything that.
- Κάνε ό,τι θέλεις = Do whatever you want.

So here it must be ότι = that, not ό,τι.

Why is it θα πάει and not just πάει or πηγαίνει?

Θα πάει is the future tense: he will go.

πάει (without θα) can be present (he goes / is going) or part of some idioms, but here we’re talking about the future.
πηγαίνει is the present tense (he goes / he is going) and can suggest a repeated or habitual action:
- Πηγαίνει να ψηφίσει κάθε φορά. = He goes to vote every time.

In this sentence, the idea is a single future event (he will go to vote in this election), so θα πάει is the natural form.

What exactly is ψηφίσει? Is it an infinitive?

Ψηφίσει is not an infinitive (modern Greek doesn’t have a true infinitive). It is:

Aorist subjunctive, 3rd person singular of ψηφίζω (to vote).
The dictionary form is ψηφίζω (present). The aorist stem is ψηφίσω, and the 3rd person subjunctive is ψηφίσει.

With να in front (να ψηφίσει), it corresponds to English to vote in this context:

να ψηφίσει ≈ (in order) to vote / to go and vote.

Why do we say θα πάει σίγουρα να ψηφίσει with να ψηφίσει? Why not just θα πάει να ψηφίζει or θα πάει ψηφίσει?

You need να plus the subjunctive after πάω when it’s followed by another verb:

Pattern: πάω να + subjunctive = go to do something / go and do something.
- Θα πάει να ψηφίσει. = He will go (in order) to vote.

About the form:

να ψηφίσει (aorist subj.) = go and vote once / complete the action.
That fits voting, which is a single completed act.
να ψηφίζει (present subj.) would suggest an ongoing or repeated process (as if he will go and be in the process of voting repeatedly), which doesn’t fit normal “go vote” meaning.

You also must have να here; θα πάει ψηφίσει is ungrammatical in standard Greek.

Could we say για να ψηφίσει instead of να ψηφίσει after θα πάει?

Yes, you could say:

Ο πατέρας μου λέει ότι θα πάει σίγουρα για να ψηφίσει...

Για να explicitly means in order to, emphasizing purpose.
In many everyday contexts, πάω να + verb already implies purpose, so να ψηφίσει alone is fine and very natural. The meaning difference here is small:

θα πάει να ψηφίσει = he’ll go and vote.
θα πάει για να ψηφίσει = he’ll go in order to vote (slightly more explicit/formal about purpose).

Why is there no article before δήμαρχο? Why not τον δήμαρχο or έναν δήμαρχο?

Δήμαρχο here is the direct object of θέλει and is used in a general/indefinite sense:

θέλει δήμαρχο που να είναι ειλικρινής
= he wants a mayor who is honest (not a specific known person).

Article choices:

δήμαρχο (no article) – common when talking about a role/type in a general way:
- Θέλω δουλειά. = I want (a) job.
- Θέλει φίλους. = He wants friends.
έναν δήμαρχο – also possible; it still means a mayor, with the indefinite article explicitly present.
τον δήμαρχο – would mean the mayor (a specific one), e.g. the one currently in office.

Here, we are talking about whoever will be mayor, with the required quality of honesty, so the bare δήμαρχο or έναν δήμαρχο makes sense; τον δήμαρχο would change the meaning.

What is the difference between δήμαρχο που να είναι ειλικρινής and δήμαρχο που είναι ειλικρινής?

Both are grammatical, but the nuance changes:

δήμαρχο που να είναι ειλικρινής
- που + να + subjunctive often expresses a desired, hypothetical, or not-yet-specific person/thing.
- Here: “a mayor who should be / who would be honest” – the quality is a requirement or wish.
δήμαρχο που είναι ειλικρινής
- που + indicative describes someone known, real, or already identified.
- This sounds more like you have a specific mayor in mind, and he is honest.

So in the sentence, που να είναι ειλικρινής fits better, because the father is talking about the kind of mayor he wants, not about a particular person he already knows.

Why do we use να again in που να είναι ειλικρινής? What does να είναι express here?

Here να introduces the subjunctive of είμαι (to be): να είναι.

In relative clauses after που, Greek often uses να + subjunctive when:

The person/thing is indefinite, hypothetical, or desired, not a specific known one.
We are talking about a required or wished-for quality.

So:

δήμαρχο που να είναι ειλικρινής = “a mayor who would be / who should be honest” – expressing a wish/condition.
If you said δήμαρχο που είναι ειλικρινής, you’d be stating a factual description of some particular mayor.

So να είναι marks the clause as non-factual/desired, not just describing an existing fact.

What does σίγουρα mean exactly here, and where can it go in the sentence?

Σίγουρα is an adverb meaning surely / definitely / for sure.

In the sentence:

λέει ότι θα πάει σίγουρα να ψηφίσει
= he says that he will definitely go to vote.

Position is flexible, with only small changes in emphasis:

Σίγουρα θα πάει να ψηφίσει. – “He will definitely go vote.”
Θα πάει σίγουρα να ψηφίσει. – similar meaning; adverb closer to the verb “go”.
Θα πάει να ψηφίσει σίγουρα. – can sound like “he will go to vote, definitely”, sometimes emphasizing the whole action.

All are understandable; the most common neutral positions are Σίγουρα θα πάει... or Θα πάει σίγουρα....

How do I know that γιατί means because here and not why? And what about επειδή?

Γιατί has two main uses:

why – in questions:
- Γιατί δεν έρχεσαι; = Why aren’t you coming?
because – in answers/clausal explanations:
- Δεν έρχομαι γιατί είμαι κουρασμένος. = I’m not coming because I’m tired.

In this sentence, γιατί introduces the reason for going to vote:

... θα πάει σίγουρα να ψηφίσει, γιατί θέλει δήμαρχο...
= because he wants a mayor...

It’s not a question, so it can’t be why here.

Επειδή is another conjunction meaning because.
You could also say:

... θα πάει σίγουρα να ψηφίσει, επειδή θέλει δήμαρχο...

In most everyday contexts, γιατί and επειδή are interchangeable as because, though επειδή can sound a bit more formal or explicit.

What about ειλικρινής? It doesn’t end in -ος like a typical masculine adjective. How does it work?

Ειλικρινής is an adjective of a type that has the same form for masculine and feminine in the nominative singular:

Masculine: ειλικρινής
Feminine: ειλικρινής
Neuter: ειλικρινές

In this sentence, ειλικρινής agrees with δήμαρχο:

δήμαρχος (nominative masc.) → ειλικρινής (nominative masc.)

Other examples of this pattern:

ευγενής / ευγενές = polite
κοινός / κοινή / κοινό is the regular pattern, but ειλικρινής follows the -ής, -ής, -ές pattern.

So the form may look “unusual” compared to -ος/-η/-ο adjectives, but it’s a common declension type.

Why is there no explicit he (αυτός) before θέλει? How do we know who θέλει refers to?

Modern Greek is a pro-drop language: subject pronouns are often omitted when the subject is clear from context and from the verb ending.

θέλει is 3rd person singular (he/she/it wants).
The previous subject was Ο πατέρας μου λέει....
By default, the next 3rd person singular (θέλει) refers back to ο πατέρας μου.

You could say Αυτός θέλει δήμαρχο..., but:

It’s usually unnecessary.
Adding αυτός often adds emphasis or contrast: he (as opposed to others) wants a mayor who is honest.

So the pronoun is dropped because Greek prefers not to repeat it when the subject is already obvious.