[xwolfi]

It's another discussion on the HK election reforms, which probably would not have happened without all the media hysteria 2 years ago. We'll see, I predict people either wont vote or vote blank and the gov'll have to do a crazy dance to explain it - or people will vote and it'll be brushed away by the media.

The communists are ruthless when we complain, and we're brainwashed if we don't - there's no way we'd approach this as a complex multi factor and multi opinion problem.

[nyokodo]

> there's no way we'd approach this as a complex multi factor and multi opinion problem.

No country I’m aware of really nails free and fair elections. There’s always some kind of third party acting as gatekeeper that makes it difficult or impossible for absolutely any candidate to win who the electorate might want. But, countries fall on a spectrum of how well they approximate this ideal. It’s pretty clear that an electoral system like in HK where all the candidates are chosen by the one party allowed to rule is way to one extreme of the spectrum; the opposite side to free and fair! There’s no hand waving this away with calls for inappropriate nuance.

[xwolfi]

The key difference between China and the rest of the elective systems is: do they even consider voting as a positive feedback loop?

As long as we dont convince (and as a "small" city, we cant force, only convince) them that it s in their own interest to let us support, or midly criticize them by voting, they'll go backward and decide for us. And they may not even take bad decisions, just remove ownership from the local population which for me is key to buy into the policies.

Most democracies manage well the dance between "we ll only propose policies that make sense" and "people can vote freely". We have to learn that too.

[mdp2021]

> do they even consider voting as a positive feedback loop

To some material I have read (probably a TED talk), value is given to feedback, but it is top-down in evaluation (strong reliance on performance reports of/on officials) and made through surveys (instead of voting) in the bottom-up side.

I think it could have been: Eric X. Li, "A tale of two political systems" (Jul 2013), https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_... : «[...] Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China's one-party system [...]»

The TED website has a categorization of topics, so there exist a collection: https://www.ted.com/talks?topics[]=china

[xwolfi]

Yeah it's funny because while I would agree the communists have shown adaptability (hey we still kinda vote in HK and they just today told us to "cast our sacred ballot", impressive gymnastics), I think meritocracy and legitimacy need more work.

Meritocracy is difficult because it means you d have to tolerate a certain amount of conflict from the competent bottom towards the rotting top like everything and that's difficult when you're built so top down as the communist party. They tend to prioritize loyalty to truth and just like a Church, suffer dire consequence when the odd loyal corrupt is discovered.

As for legitimacy, I really dont see it until an alternative, even virtual like in the US, is presented and a choice made. We would have very diff problems with Beijing in HK if they had a believable legitimacy: we d have a lot more people defending the country against the localists instead of what we have now: localists, people defending the country against the localists AND the communists, and people defending the communists OVER the country.

Or to give a US example people in HN could understand: if you have separatists in Texas asking why they even need a federation, people wouldnt pinpoint the democrats or the republicans as stealing the true meaning of the country and join the texan localists in trying to split away to find something more legitimate. Which is what split families in HK currently.

[gentleman11]

Calling them reforms is unfair. They removed free elections and replaced them with a “pick whoever you want as long as it’s one of these people we choose” system

[xwolfi]

I agree to some extent (bit sad since I got the right to vote in HK just this year and bleh) but I cant argue against the principle they put forth on the face of it: yes only patriot should ever be elected, yes calling for foreign sanction was treason, and yes there are candidates who are not aligned even if the traditional pandem refused to show.

Im a lot more disappointed by the pandem whole fucktard strategy than I am by the predictable DAB sycophancy. Maybe always calling for disruption, insulting and blocking debate doesn't work and they could try something more subtle and more patient.

They were elected in big number since forever and I feel they shot themselves in the foot and it's hard to defend them even if the DAB is asinine. So I guess, blank.

[thuccess129]

The problem with a pick whoever you want approach is that inside players game the system and you end up with a table top sized voting form. Pick one above the line from out of seven or number all your choice from 1 to 49 below the line is a workable approach. Owners of the media, religiocults and background radiation vantablack money tilt the playing field on West's Democracies.

[mdp2021]

What are you trying to express? Because if the idea is "Interested entity I can influence administrator A", the possibility could be stronger "without mechanisms of control from P, the public".