[greggoB]

In a country with a one-party authoritarian politicial system, the only conceivable way they'd be allowed to not be so is if a non-predetermined outcome was not considered to be a threat to the CCP.

So in a country of 1.4 billion people, literally it might not be the case, but it 100% effectively is so.

[jajuuka]

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything. It still has all the nuances of any other political party. There are different factions, ideas and plans and that's what party members run on to get elected. It's pretty much identical to any other democracy with a majority across the government. Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.

Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials. That's why they get elected. I think a good portion of the west likes to pretend that they have parties and elected officials who want to overthrow the government in their government. But that's just not true. The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country. So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?

[greggoB]

> I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything.

I am aware of this, and that the USSR had elections which allowed the people to express themselves to some extent, though never in any major way.

> It still has all the nuances of any other political party

This simply cannot be true on a very fundamental level, which is the lack of competition that other parties bring. Multi-party systems have both inter and intra party dynamics; by definition single-party systems can only have the latter. Saying "it's pretty much identical" shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

> Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

> Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials

Well, no, not at all. History is replete with examples of officials of all political, cultural and ethnic persuasions being far more interested with enriching themselves than the betterment of society. This statement comes across as rather naive.

> who want to overthrow the government in their government.

If you're talking about a ruling party losing an election to another party, we don't call that a government overthrow, we call that a transition of power. It is a feature of the system, and there is a lot of concern that it is done fairly and peacefully.

> The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country

This just reads like outright propaganda, I'm not going to bother addressing it on the merits.

> So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?

This is predicated on your previous propagandized statement having any real substantive factual bearing, which I don't believe it does, so my answer is no, they aren't. In fact, there are many, many examples of surprise results (see JFK, Obama, Trump, Brexit, Ukraine, etc.). So if there is some kind of global suppression operation at play, it doesn't have a very good track record of success.

[jajuuka]

Not sure what the USSR has to do with Chinese elections. Which is the topic.

The "lack of competition because other parties don't exist" is simply a naive view. Single party system DO have those same dynamics. The difference is purely aesthetic. If you think they don't then you're the one repeating propaganda.

It's relevant because it is an effective one party system when one party gains full control of the government. But because another party exists it's okay then?

Saying bad people existed in history doesn't mean everyone today is bad too. It's a bit reductionist. The point I was making is that one party systems eliminate the dynamics of "the other". Multiparty systems inevitably lead to tribalist behavior of "we're the good ones and the other groups are the bad ones". It's not productive and prevents progress for political theater.

No, I wasn't talking about one party winning over another. I'm talking about actual revolutions against the current government of any country.

I think you're continuing the misunderstanding. I am talking about actual revolutionary action. Regardless of political flavor revolutionary actors are suppressed by the state. The US didn't welcome the communist party and the UK didn't invite ISIS to form their own party.

Your last paragraph just continues this misunderstanding further. My point still stands that democracy can absolutely exist under a single party system and it's purely a cosmetic difference from a multiparty one. That doesn't mean it is ALWAYS the case or that one party systems are the best and flawless. Way too much anti-soviet era propaganda still shapes our views on politics and what is and isn't good. If we fail to honestly engage with our own and other political systems then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past.