Chief Secretary Eric Chan shrugs off concerns about a low turnout at Hong Kong’s forthcoming District Council elections…
Although he appealed to people to vote as it is their civil right and responsibility, Chan argued that a turnout rate depends on many factors and does not necessarily reflect the efficacy of the electoral system.
“Some people believe a high turnout rate is good, while a low voting rate means the system is bad. I don’t agree,” he said.
“For example, the turnout rate in the 2019 elections exceeded 71 percent, which was very high, but it led to chaos as no one would agree that the persons elected made up a successful district council.”
He defends the nomination system that prevents democrats and even many establishment loyalists from getting on the ballot on the grounds that the various committees concerned have to ‘review candidates’ stances and political achievements’.
It might seem he doesn’t care whether people come out to vote. But perhaps he is just resigned to the fact that it is all out of his hands.
A good HKFP explainer on the ‘improved’ election system here. Only a fifth of seats will be filled by direct election, and all candidates will be screened and nominated, or (for the other four fifths) simply chosen, by appointed ‘committees’. Pollsters can forecast a landslide for the small range of people permitted to take part.
“Chan insisted the district councils elected in 2019 had many problems because most councillors won seats through direct election…”
Maybe Chan, if he’s not yet sanctioned(?), can travel to the U.S. to study more about the electoral college, then?
I suggest that the HKSAR becomes a little more democratic and adopts the compulsory voting scheme that jurisdictions such as Australia and Belgium use. In both, turnout is typically greater than 90%. Actually, the perfectly labelled Democratic People’s Republic of Korea achieves the best results with >99% participation.
“as no one would agree that the persons elected made up a successful district council”
Really??? In my hood residents were delighted to finally have a young, committed representative who was there when he was needed instead of popping up just for foto-ops, often to take credit for the achievements of others.
Hardly anyone will vote – if the reaction (or lack thereof) to the various canvassers that are daily out on the streets is anything to go by. Some of the canvassers do a repetitive show of chanting and waving (and recording themselves doing it) to…. no audience at all or at best a disinterested one. I’ve seen the DAB do this buy a busy traffic crossing so it looks like they have a lot people with them. Another group made their charade to…a road rather than any passing pedestrians.
If turnout is low the authorities will say that clearly the voters are satisfied with their representatives and see no reason to change; therefore the system is working.
@ Reactor #4,
I would have no problem with compulsory voting as long as one was allowed to vote for ‘None of the Above’ or simply spoil the paper.
Ah… that Wreckless Eric, the punk era balladeer. Wonder what he’s doing now? Bet he doesn’t have to flip over the cretinous spew that the wet fart Rectumforeskin knocks out.
Fixing Eric’s nonsense for accuracy and sense:
“as no one in the unelected government would agree that the persons elected made up a
successfulobedient and corruptible district council, they disqualified them.”@Reactor #4 – Australian and Belgian elections also feature a diverse range of candidates to choose from.
“but it led to chaos as no one would agree that the persons elected made up a successful district council.”
These fucking hate magnet muppets always say the most irritating shit?
No one? More like the majority of voters felt their elected representatives served their needs in the council better than the “I will try my breast” DAB retards who are only good at being unhelpful opportunist garbage DESPITE the HK governments determined efforts to completely undermine and DQ post election non establishment representative because they aren’t happy how HKers voted. (See Also @Mary Melville’s comment above)
And @Red Dragon I replied to your comment yesterday from two days ago regarding my ICCPR and BL26 comments. You likely missed it. I would love to hear your thoughts if you have a moment.
I can add it here for convenience since this post covers elections:
“I also thought that I might pull up the saintly Mark Bradley on the various and obviously inadvertent inaccuracies in his well-intentioned and entirely justified counterblast.”
I can’t help but be curious where you think I was inaccurate as now I am wondering myself what it could be?
Perhaps my pre-2020 nomination procedures opinion was too rose coloured? After all only the District Council and *half* the Legco seats had candidates that were nominated and elected in a mostly ICCPR compliant manner and even then there were issues like DQs though that was also a fairly recent CY era degeneration of HK’s democracy and pluralistic society. And there were irregularities such as vote planting too.
But HK still seemed so open and pluralistic back then. I sure miss it.
@sarcphagus#4
Of course, someone like you who has only limited and biased (brainwashed?) knowledge about how democracies and the West work would come to such an idea and a conclusion.
Low voter turnout in democracies mostly means that voters do not care about the outcome because they will accept either outcome because they are quite comfortable with the way things are.
Democrats and democracies can endlessly squabble but on matters that really count they will rally and make full use of their democratic rights.
See also how the European Democracies (save some guy that should not be there anyway) put many squabbles aside and rallied on the cause of Ukraine, something the two peddlers of a new world order, the criminal from Moscow and his new BFF very likely did not expect.
Capiche?
Let me get this straight: if the turnout is high, it means voters are happy with the “improved” electoral system. If it’s low, it means voters are satisfied, so don’t see the need to vote for change. Either way, the government claims victory.