Record-low turnout for Fake Election in Hong Kong - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15203810
https://www.scmp.com/video/scmp-originals/3160360/pro-establishment-bloc-dominates-hong-kong-legislative-council-after

SCMP wrote:The pro-establishment bloc in Hong Kong nearly swept all seats in the city’s Legislative Council poll held on Sunday, December 19, 2021.

Only one centrist candidate won a seat in a revamped Legco, after traditional opposition parties stayed out of the race.

It was the first Legco poll since Beijing’s overhaul of Hong Kong’s electoral system to ensure that only “patriots” could run for office.

Voter turnout was the lowest since Britain handed the city back to China in 1997 at 30.2 per cent, compared to 58 per cent in the most recent Legco vote in 2016.



Actually, even the so-called centrist is seen as a CCP collaborator by us.
#15203812
Stephen Vines wrote:Opinion: Why did the Hong Kong government set itself up to be snubbed?

What were the Hong Kong government and its masters hoping to achieve with the farce described as an election under a “perfected” system?

Set aside for a moment the fact that despite inducements, threats, and avid attempts at promotion, an overwhelming majority of the Hong Kong public shunned this event. Let’s focus on why the government bothered to go to all this trouble to secure an outcome that was preordained from the outset.

Although China’s Communist Party does not waste time on mainland elections involving the public at large, the desire for pre-rigged polls is commonplace among authoritarian systems. And in Hong Kong, where an authoritarian system in diapers is still exercising its baby legs, the urge to mirror the actions of fully fledged authoritarians is ever-present.

At one level this reflects the nagging insecurities that afflict all governments seeking to rule without a public mandate. They want to be assured that they have public support but are not sufficiently confident to see it manifest without controls.

Thus an election with an assured outcome provides comfort, albeit of a quite illusory nature. But then again it is becoming increasingly unclear whether or not reality impinges on the people who rule Hong Kong.

Do they actually believe all the nonsense they spout? For example, did Xia Baolong, the head of China’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, really believe that the election was open to all candidates “whatever ideas, political stances, religions or demands?”

Did Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive in Name Only (CENO), really believe that the explanation for a low turnout would be that “the government is doing well and its credibility is high,” and therefore “the people do not have a strong demand to choose different lawmakers to supervise the government.”

Statements of this kind reflect the high levels of delusion in authoritarian ruling circles. This must certainly be the case in more developed autocracies, such as that which prevails in North Korea where elections always secure 99.9 per cent support for the ruling party, accompanied by severe penalties for citizens who fail to vote or dare to spoil their ballot papers.

It should be noted that Hong Kong has now trotted along behind the rulers in Pyongyang by criminalising advocacy of election boycotts and calls to spoil ballot papers. There was even a suggestion of jailing pollsters who asked people about their voting intentions – this, incidentally, may still happen.

Delusion is accompanied by the contempt of the rulers for the ruled. Thus we saw some rather pathetic attempts at bribing, sorry, encouraging voters to feel good by offering free transport on election day. The rulers always assume that their own cynicism and greed is universal and will therefore always work.

Another reason they like to hold elections is that authoritarians actually believe such polls enhance their credibility. In the parallel world of fear and fantasy that prevails these days in Hong Kong, the cyphers who run the government scramble to echo the narrative emanating from Beijing – which stresses the uselessness of democratic forms of government while, at the same time, insisting that their form of democracy is superior to all others.

Thus Carrie Lam was to be found tying herself up in knots explaining that Hong Kong no longer needed to engage in the “blind pursuit” of western-style democracy and asking: “What’s the point of having so-called democracy if people are suffering, as you can see in some western democracies in the course of fighting Covid-19?”

Maybe however it is the case that elections give the administration an opportunity to reject claims that the SAR is retreating from representative government. The apologists for the regime maintain that there are now more seats in the legislature. They celebrate the efficient way in which lawmakers now handle legislation without resort to laborious questioning and with a straight face maintain that universal suffrage is still part of the system. These claims would work even better If only the wretched Hong Kong people could be persuaded to play ball by coming out to vote.

However, as was seen on Sunday, Hongkongers have not suddenly become stupid, nor has the spirit of defiance been entirely extinguished. There is no longer any safe way of demonstrating support for the kind of One country, two systems concept originally promised to the SAR, so passive resistance has to be the order of the day.

This is why a record low 30.2 per cent of the electorate turned out to vote, way down on the turnout for LegCo elections in 2016 and less than half the number who cast their votes in the district councils poll in 2019 – the last time anything like a fair and transparent election was held and voters overwhelmingly backed candidates who believe in democracy.

The option of voting for a genuine opposition no longer exists. Nearly all those who succeeded in past polls have either been jailed, dismissed from office, or left the city of their own accord.

That leaves the field open for elections to be contested by the shamelessly ambitious, those who have no chance of being elected in an open contest and, let’s be blunt, the serried ranks of the useless. What a victory they have secured!


https://hongkongfp.com/2021/12/20/patri ... e-snubbed/


One thing this commentator was wrong, though. The authorities are not delusional. They are outright lying, because they know no one can punish them now.
#15203832
This is a standard occurrence in any non-democratic state to have a voter participation of around 30% or less. Actually this could be an easy benchmark for Authoritarian states and their phony elections since most of them, especially if they are the main election and voter participation doesn't reach 30% then your election has serious problems or you are living in an Autocracy/Dictatorship in reality which is only trying to pretend that it is a democracy.
#15203835
JohnRawls wrote:30%

I can see where you are coming from. In the 2012 UK police and crime commissioners' elections, turnout averaged just 15%.

"Turnout based on returns from 30 of the 41 police force areas averages just 15%, below even the most doom-laden predictions, ranging from 12% in the West Midlands to 19% in Humberside and Avon and Somerset. In Gwent, one Newport polling station had no voters at all."


:)
#15203837
ingliz wrote:I can see where you are coming from. In the 2012 UK police and crime commissioners' elections, turnout averaged just 15%.

"Turnout based on returns from 30 of the 41 police force areas averages just 15%, below even the most doom-laden predictions, ranging from 12% in the West Midlands to 19% in Humberside and Avon and Somerset. In Gwent, one Newport polling station had no voters at all."


:)


You missed the part where I said the most important(Main) election or something?
#15203839
ingliz wrote:@JohnRawls

Crime is not important?


:eh:


The election you put out for argument was for far less powerful or much more operational positions. Usually turn out varies proportional to how influential and decision-oriented the post in concern is.

District council election turnout in Hong Kong used to be low as well, as it was about electing locality representatives. 2019 was an exception and, sadly, CCP decided to deal with that with an iron fist.
#15203840
ingliz wrote:@JohnRawls

Crime is not important?


:eh:


In my opinion they are as important as any other election(Hence i vote in every election) but reality shows that people are only interested in main elections be it presidential elections or parliamentary election if parliament chooses the head of state. You get the point.

Just admit that you skimmed through the text and did a knee jerk reply ;)
#15203880
Delusion is accompanied by the contempt of the rulers for the ruled. Thus we saw some rather pathetic attempts at bribing, sorry, encouraging voters to feel good by offering free transport on election day. The rulers always assume that their own cynicism and greed is universal and will therefore always work.

There's a Tory candidate who does this during British elections and we all laugh about voting for someone else after he drives us to the polling station. Should I report him to amnesty international?
#15203886
People shouldn't bother to vote in Hong Kong given it's been taken over by a Chinese dictatorship. It's not a real election or a real democracy. It's just a sham. Why bother? They shouldn't even bother having elections because they are a waste of time given the new political system that China installed for them. The outcome has already been predetermined no matter what. Voting is just a waste of time in that case because everybody knows they will never be represented in their government and their government has no intention of doing so.
#15203887
AFAIK wrote:There's a Tory candidate who does this during British elections and we all laugh about voting for someone else after he drives us to the polling station. Should I report him to amnesty international?


"not participating" is the only political statement still possible. Hence offering free transport or other "participation goodies" has a completely different meaning. It's akin to that Tory candidate driving you to a polling station where you can only vote Tory.
#15203933
AFAIK wrote:There's a Tory candidate who does this during British elections and we all laugh about voting for someone else after he drives us to the polling station. Should I report him to amnesty international?


Yes.

In fact, DAB, the "ruling party" of Hong Kong (a.k.a. the chief group of pro-Beijing Lebensunwertes Leben in Hong Kong) is often accused of intentionally transporting rural, elderly, underinformed people to polling stations and secretly "instructing" these voters to vote for them.
#15204006
In the next election, they will just make up record high turn out numbers. Problem solved for the CCP. Perhaps counting each ballot more than once would boost the fake numbers for them. Pretty easy to do. They should have consulted other tin pot shitholes on how to conduct a shame election.

At the same time, I guess it doesn't matter, because all of the candidates were CCP dick suckers.

tomskunk wrote:People shouldn't bother to vote in Hong Kong given it's been taken over by a Chinese dictatorship. It's not a real election or a real democracy. It's just a sham. Why bother? They shouldn't even bother having elections because they are a waste of time given the new political system that China installed for them. The outcome has already been predetermined no matter what. Voting is just a waste of time in that case because everybody knows they will never be represented in their government and their government has no intention of doing so.


Sure, but this is solvable by faking the numbers and controlling the media as they are keen on doing.

Freedom of the press has been killed there already.
#15204011
Rancid wrote:In the next election, they will just make up record high turn out numbers. Problem solved for the CCP. Perhaps counting each ballot more than once would boost the fake numbers for them. Pretty easy to do. They should have consulted other tin pot shitholes on how to conduct a shame election.

At the same time, I guess it doesn't matter, because all of the candidates were CCP dick suckers.



Sure, but this is solvable by faking the numbers and controlling the media as they are keen on doing.

Freedom of the press has been killed there already.


Most people have a misconception about falsifying and rigging elections. You need to have some support to do this, you can't really do it with 10 or 15% support. Around 20-30% is minimal. Otherwise you have to become a dictatorship of old style and use military means to supress. But using military means kinda destroys the point of falsifying and trying to pretend that you are a "democracy".

As situation in Hong Kong shows, the real problem for the CCP is that the situation is borderline and they are on a brink of devolving in to an outright Dictatorship of old style like Kim bro in North Korea to maintain power. At least when things are concerned with HK.
#15204012
JohnRawls wrote:
Most people have a misconception about falsifying and rigging elections. You need to have some support to do this, you can't really do it with 10 or 15% support. Around 20-30% is minimal. Otherwise you have to become a dictatorship of old style and use military means to supress. But using military means kinda destroys the point of falsifying and trying to pretend that you are a "democracy".

As situation in Hong Kong shows, the real problem for the CCP is that the situation is borderline and they are on a brink of devolving in to an outright Dictatorship of old style like Kim bro in North Korea to maintain power. At least when things are concerned with HK.


Anything can be rigged at the barrel of a gun or imprisonment for "disturbing stability" in China.
#15204013
Rancid wrote:Anything can be rigged at the barrel of a gun or imprisonment for "disturbing stability" in China.


Sure but it has consequences for doing it at gunpoint. The price is far lower in MANY aspects when you sneakily falsify results when you have lets say 30% support and you put it to 66%. It is possible with these numbers. If your support goes down to 25-20-15-10 percent, the harder it becomes to falsify or use electoral tricks to get higher votes not to mention the people that are falsifying for you need to be your supporters or something and the less support you have, the more harder it is to get those people.

Putin regime is experiencing severe problems because their support is 30-35%. HK had massive uprising and the CCP support in HK is somewhere under 30%, perhaps even much lower at 20% or below meaning that simple election rigging is not going to help anymore and the only 2 alternatives is to change the system to something less democratic or force at gunpoint.
#15204014
JohnRawls wrote:
Sure but it has consequences for doing it at gunpoint. The price is far lower in MANY aspects when you sneakily falsify results when you have lets say 30% support and you put it to 66%. It is possible with these numbers. If your support goes down to 25-20-15-10 percent, the harder it becomes to falsify or use electoral tricks to get higher votes not to mention the people that are falsifying for you need to be your supporters or something and the less support you have, the more harder it is to get those people.

Putin regime is experiencing severe problems because their support is 30-35%. HK had massive uprising and the CCP support in HK is somewhere under 30%, perhaps even much lower at 20% or below meaning that simple election rigging is not going to help anymore and the only 2 alternatives is to change the system to something less democratic or force at gunpoint.


I get it, you are saying, in the long run, this doesn't work. I hope you are right. However, in the short term, it does work.
#15204061
JohnRawls wrote:30%

Using your methodology, the Conservatives only received 29.3% of votes from those eligible to vote in the 2019 UK general election.

43.6% 0f 67.3 = 29.34


:lol:

Perhaps... there are things you can do to mitigat[…]

In 2014, on February 14. Abe started again the &q[…]

The 9.5 million count is deceptive, since it inclu[…]

That might be ok and even good for a short period[…]