Hong Kong’s Democracy Dilemma

[Baba Booey]

This story is a couple days old but it's worth mention. I didn't see it discussed anywhere here so sorry if it's a re-post.

Our "democracy" isn't that much different in a lot of respects.

China has informed Hong Kong that they cannot hold open elections for a number of candidates - like 20 or so, but will be able to select a winner from 2 maybe 3 Chinese handpicked candidates. Yay democracy...

How is our system any different? We go through a nomination process, all party picked candidates. Who wins generally? The most popular candidate or the one with the largest campaign financing warchest?

Who are we, voters, selecting ad our leaders? Or are they being selected for us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/opinion/hong-kongs-democracy-dilemma.html?_r=0


HONG KONG — On Sunday the Standing Committee of China (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s National People’s Congress issued restrictive guidelines for the election of Hong Kong (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/hongkong/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s next chief executive in 2017. Shorn of its technical details, the proposal in effect gives Beijing the means to control who could run for the top office in Hong Kong: Voters would get to cast a ballot, but only for one of just a handful of candidates pre-selected by the Chinese government.

“By endorsing this framework,” Cheung Man-kwong, a veteran politician of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, wrote, “China has in truth and in substance reneged on her promise to give Hong Kong universal suffrage.”

Three decades ago, when Beijing and the British government, which was in charge of Hong Kong then, were negotiating the terms of the territory’s handover back to China, Mr. Cheung was among those who supported “reunification” on the understanding that Hong Kong would eventually acquire a fully democratic system.

[fj1200]

THow is our system any different? We go through a nomination process, all party picked candidates. Who wins generally? The most popular candidate or the one with the largest campaign financing warchest?

The people have a chance to make their choice via caucuses or primaries. Seemingly verboten in Hong Kong.

[Gunny]

The people have a chance to make their choice via caucuses or primaries. Seemingly verboten in Hong Kong.

Do we? It's a sham. Obama lost the 2008 Democratic primary. But two superdelegates voted against the will of their constituents and put Obama over Hillary. Is voting against the will of your constituents true and honest "representation" of them? The electoral college takes away any true representation of the people's wishes.

Caucusing amounts to nothing more than sore losers stealing votes after people that have lives and jobs go to bed.

[fj1200]

Do we? It's a sham. Obama lost the 2008 Democratic primary. But two superdelegates voted against the will of their constituents and put Obama over Hillary. Is voting against the will of your constituents true and honest "representation" of them? The electoral college takes away any true representation of the people's wishes.

Caucusing amounts to nothing more than sore losers stealing votes after people that have lives and jobs go to bed.

I'm not suggesting it's perfect but we're certainly not China. BO was not the establishment candidate IIRC and he ended up winning the pledged delegates anyway, the supers merely put him over the top. The supers by definition do not have constituents.



<tbody>
Delegate Count
(2,118 Needed to Win)

</tbody>

<tbody>
State
Date
Delegates

Obama
Clinton



Total
-


2229.5
1896.5





Super Delegates (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html)
-
823

463
257





Pledged Delegates (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html)
-
3434

1766.5
1639.5

</tbody>

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[Gunny]

I'm not suggesting it's perfect but we're certainly not China. BO was not the establishment candidate IIRC and he ended up winning the pledged delegates anyway, the supers merely put him over the top. The supers by definition do not have constituents.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

He did not win. He didn't even win here in Texas. He got crushed, as a matter of fact. And the loonies that stayed up late "caucusing" basically stole delegates from Hillary. The two superdelgates ARE what put her over the top. THAT much I DO remember because I was watching like a hawk. I knew Obama would be what he has shown himself to be.

I don't remember the particulars and I'm getting nauseous defending Hillary.:laugh:

The Brits turned Hong Kong over to China. China is not a democracy. They more or less leave Hong Kong "open" and leave it alone because of the money it brings in. The place is a sh*thole. And yes, I have been there.

Looking at the big picture, wouldn't you think we, as a Nation, have a LOT worse and more important issues to deal with than who is being chosen to run Hong Kong? They aren't going to change anything. Hong Kong is about money or it would have been shut down long ago.

[fj1200]

He did not win. He didn't even win here in Texas. He got crushed, as a matter of fact. And the loonies that stayed up late "caucusing" basically stole delegates from Hillary. The two superdelgates ARE what put her over the top. THAT much I DO remember because I was watching like a hawk. I knew Obama would be what he has shown himself to be.

I don't remember the particulars and I'm getting nauseous defending Hillary.:laugh:

The Brits turned Hong Kong over to China. China is not a democracy. They more or less leave Hong Kong "open" and leave it alone because of the money it brings in. The place is a sh*thole. And yes, I have been there.

Looking at the big picture, wouldn't you think we, as a Nation, have a LOT worse and more important issues to deal with than who is being chosen to run Hong Kong? They aren't going to change anything. Hong Kong is about money or it would have been shut down long ago.

I don't understand what you're saying about TX. BO apparently got 5 more delegates than HC, it's not a winner take all state.


<tbody>
Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html)
03/04
193

99
94

</tbody>

But you're right, HC did win the vote in TX by 3.5 points. I just don't think it made a huge difference in the long run.

And I don't think anyone really cares about HK and their problems.

[Gunny]

I don't understand what you're saying about TX. BO apparently got 5 more delegates than HC, it's not a winner take all state.

But you're right, HC did win the vote in TX by 3.5 points. I just don't think it made a huge difference in the long run.

And I don't think anyone really cares about HK and their problems.

Dude, I live here? I am well aware it isn't a winner take all state.

The point is, your results reflect the final tally after caucusing. In the original tally when the polls actually closed to voters, she was WAY ahead. That is actually the last election I paid attention to. And when Obama won the primary by the slimmest of margins, yes, in the end, it DID matter.

But I'kk stick to my original statement. Caucusing is just a way for losers to steal votes.

[fj1200]

Dude, I live here? I am well aware it isn't a winner take all state.

The point is, your results reflect the final tally after caucusing. In the original tally when the polls actually closed to voters, she was WAY ahead. That is actually the last election I paid attention to. And when Obama won the primary by the slimmest of margins, yes, in the end, it DID matter.

But I'kk stick to my original statement. Caucusing is just a way for losers to steal votes.

OK, OK. But we're still not China. :poke:

[Gunny]

OK, OK. But we're still not China. :poke:

Literally, no. Technically?

What's the difference between the government of China telling you who you can vote for, and the two parties that lock everyone else out in the US deciding you get to vote for? The only difference I'm seeing is in how we whitewash our system of government.

[fj1200]

Literally, no. Technically?

What's the difference between the government of China telling you who you can vote for, and the two parties that lock everyone else out in the US deciding you get to vote for? The only difference I'm seeing is in how we whitewash our system of government.

Not technically either IMO. I think there are plenty of things that could be done to make things better but I believe our system of government encourages a two-party system.

[NightTrain]

Literally, no. Technically?

What's the difference between the government of China telling you who you can vote for, and the two parties that lock everyone else out in the US deciding you get to vote for? The only difference I'm seeing is in how we whitewash our system of government.

I see your point, and for the most part that's true. However, 3rd party candidates can and do win seats, both within and outside the usual major ticket.

Lisa Murkowski failed to win the R primary in 2012 here in AK, and instead of bowing out she mounted a Write-In campaign - no small feat with that name because of the challenges to misspellings on the ballots. She won and is the Republican Senator of Alaska right now.

There are a few Independents sitting in Congress now, admittedly very few comparatively.

Having the Gubbermint select candidates who will clearly be Hong Kong puppets for the Commies-In-Charge is a raw deal. Hopefully the citizens will revolt... I don't see China cracking down a la Tiananmen Square these days because they'd cripple their economy over the sanctions that would surely follow such an act of repression.

[Baba Booey]

I'm not suggesting it's perfect but we're certainly not China. BO was not the establishment candidate IIRC and he ended up winning the pledged delegates anyway, the supers merely put him over the top. The supers by definition do not have constituents.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

In our system you have to play the game in order to be successful.

ie: if you can't generate contributions, good fucking luck on your next gig.

Those with the biggest campaign war chests are often the winners, and in virtually ALL of the cases the winners and runners up.

This is what makes the concept of 3rd and more parties flawed, for the Libertarians of the world they have to climb in bed with the whores also to be successful. See Rand Paul.

The establishment breeds it's own.

[fj1200]

In our system you have to play the game in order to be successful.

ie: if you can't generate contributions, good fucking luck on your next gig.

Those with the biggest campaign war chests are often the winners, and in virtually ALL of the cases the winners and runners up.

This is what makes the concept of 3rd and more parties flawed, for the Libertarians of the world they have to climb in bed with the whores also to be successful. See Rand Paul.

The establishment breeds it's own.

If you can't generate contributions no one cares what you have to say and aren't going to be elected anyway. If you want to discuss how the powers that be make it more difficult for challengers to be successful, i.e. campaign finance "reform," then we can go that way but just to complain that nobodies don't have a voice doesn't really fly IMO.

The concept of third parties isn't flawed, it's that the system doesn't encourage them. If all Federal elections required a runoff if a plurality isn't reached then the third party voter isn't really disenfranchised, they'll have a chance to rectify that if runoffs are required. Whores. :rolleyes: Parties exist to get their candidates elected. I see the party as a bit more pure if Rand joins and is able to steer the discourse towards his views. Our system of government will never really skew towards multiple parties. If you want them to actually win then you'll have to advocate for a parliament. That's not a trade off I'm willing to make.

[Gunny]

Not technically either IMO. I think there are plenty of things that could be done to make things better but I believe our system of government encourages a two-party system.

Our system of government encourages a multi-party system. On paper. In real time, we have two parties that are firmly entrenched and will crush ANY other attempts by out-spending and propaganda.

[Gunny]

I see your point, and for the most part that's true. However, 3rd party candidates can and do win seats, both within and outside the usual major ticket.

Lisa Murkowski failed to win the R primary in 2012 here in AK, and instead of bowing out she mounted a Write-In campaign - no small feat with that name because of the challenges to misspellings on the ballots. She won and is the Republican Senator of Alaska right now.

There are a few Independents sitting in Congress now, admittedly very few comparatively.

Having the Gubbermint select candidates who will clearly be Hong Kong puppets for the Commies-In-Charge is a raw deal. Hopefully the citizens will revolt... I don't see China cracking down a la Tiananmen Square these days because they'd cripple their economy over the sanctions that would surely follow such an act of repression.

China is not a democracy, and Hong Kong belongs to China. They don't have free elections ANYWHERE in that country. China isn't worried about sanctions. The loss of revenue if they cracked down on or closed Hong Kong would be their main concern. This particular issue is feigned outrage by the media. Trying to create controversy where none really exists.

It is my opinion that we, as a Nation, have more things to worry about than China being China.

Third party candidates may win at lower levels of government, but they haven't won the Presidency since Lincoln. And using ANYTHING from AK as an example doesn't count. You people are whacky.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Our system of government encourages a multi-party system. On paper. In real time, we have two parties that are firmly entrenched and will crush ANY other attempts by out-spending and propaganda.

I disagree. For one part of the country to have any influence on the larger whole then they almost have to organize into a larger group. Even when there are some independents around they still glom onto a larger party or else they would be completely locked out. Not that the two parties haven't done their bit to make things harder.

[Gunny]

I disagree. For one part of the country to have any influence on the larger whole then they almost have to organize into a larger group. Even when there are some independents around they still glom onto a larger party or else they would be completely locked out. Not that the two parties haven't done their bit to make things harder.

That's what I just said. I just said it differently. ;)

[fj1200]

That's what I just said. I just said it differently. ;)

Sorry, still working on my gunny-ese. :poke:

[Gunny]

Sorry, still working on my gunny-ese. :poke:

Uh huh. Do you argue with yourself while shaving in the morning just to get warmed up?:laugh:

[fj1200]

Uh huh. Do you argue with yourself while shaving in the morning just to get warmed up?:laugh:

Sometimes. It's hard to get a word in edgewise with all the other voices in my head.

[Gunny]

Sometimes. It's hard to get a word in edgewise with all the other voices in my head.

I imagine arguing both sides of an issue with yourself IS pretty tough. :laugh:

[fj1200]

I imagine arguing both sides of an issue with yourself IS pretty tough. :laugh:

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2230707968/h4F38147A/