## 「中囯」適宜現在就實行民主嗎？

-- 試論「教育加權選舉制」（EBVS)  之二

Please note: the crippled Chinese 「中囯」refers to he political PRC, as distinguished from the cultural imagined entity of China (中國). However, in this article, I'll use China/PRC interchangeably, as the imagined China does not exist and PRC is usually acknowledged to be representing China.

My simple answer is a resounding NO!

This is the conclusion I reached from the analysis using my proposed "Education-Based Weighted Voting System (EBVS)" which I posted here on 11/09/13.

http://forum.hkej.com/node/105453

I'll explain briefly how I arrived at my conclusion with a mathematical formuation. First of all, let us recap what I have postulated in my previous article.

I defined P as the average voting power of a voter in an electorate:

P = V / N

= Σ(ei x ni ) / Σni , where i =0,...,4

The value of P lies within the range 1 =< P =< 16, it follows that in the extreme cases:

Pmin = 1 when everyone is illiterate or

Pmax = 16 if everyone is a Noble Laureate.

P can also be regarded as a measure of the education level of a country. As such, it can be used as an indicator for a country's suitability to a democratic electoral system. The critical value, Pc , is the watershed point. A country with a P value less than Pc is not ready for a democratic system yet.

In order to determine the value of Pc, I'll make a further assumption that the average education level of a country's voter has to be at least secondary (12 years). This condition is required to make sure that the average voter has the intelligence to make an informed decision to select their government. Under this circumstance,

N = n1, as n0, n2, n3, n4 = 0; hence

Pc = (e1 x n1) / n1 = 2.

The criteria for a country to become a democracy is met only when its evaluated P is equal or greater than 2 (>= Pc ).

In summary, P is in the range [ 1, 16 ], and the critical value Pc is 2.

It is a common practice to normalise an indicator so its value lies within the range [ 0, 100 ] . Since a number from 0 to 100 is easier to comprehend.

Therefore I can now introduce the final form of this indicator, which I will call the Electoral Viability, E:

E = {(log2 P - log2 Pmin) / (log2 Pmax - log2 Pmin)} x 100; as

log2 Pmin = log2 1 = 0, and log2 Pmax = log2 16 = 4, then

E = (log2 P / 4 ) X 100 ,

so the range of E is [ 0, 100 ], whereas P's range is [ 1, 16 ].

It follows that the corresponding critical value of Electoral Viability Ec becomes:

Ec = 100 (log2 Pc / 4 ) = 100 (log2 2 / 4 ) = 100 (1/4), i.e.

Ec = 25.

Put it simply, a democracy is viable for a country only when its Electoral Viability E is greater or equal to Ec, i.e. E >= 25.

After this short mathematical exposition, we can now consider some real examples.

Example 1. A typical western country, say, Australia.

Assuming the distributions of the education attainment are as follows:

n0 (below Secondary)= 10%

n1 (Secondary)= 60%

n2 (Bachelors) = 20%

n3 (Postgraudates)= ~10%

n4 (Scholars)< 0.01%, negligible.

Then P = (1 x 10 + 2 x 60 + 4 x 20 + 8 x10 ) / 100 = 290/100 = 2.9 and

E = 100 (log2 2.9 / 4) = 38.40 > Ec .

Therefore, Australia is suitable for a democratic electoral system (preferable my proposed fairer EBVS! ). BTW, I would include HK in this category.

Example 2. China

Similarly, the distributions are estimates:

n0 = 40%

n1 = 50%

n2 = 8%

n3 = 2%

n4, negligible

Then P = (1 x 40 + 2 x 50 + 4 x 8 + 8 x 2 ) / 100 = 1.88 and

E = 100 (log2 1.88 / 4) = 22.77 < Ec .

Therefore, democracy is not a viable system for China yet.

The reality is, given the vast under-educated population of China, a popular vote will only return the CCP to power. The regime can then legitimise their totalitarian rule in the name of democracy. If the elected government reflects the increasingly belligerent view of the people, it would not only be a cause of concern for HK/Taiwan, but to the world peace as well.

Perhaps it is better for a benign dictator, like KMT's Chiang, to overthrow the CCP and take over the regime. His main task would be to educate and regenerate the population in a few decades time. When the Chinese becomes a well-educated, civilised people, she would then be entitled to a democracy.

Is China ready for democracy now

My answer is simply NO !

But, the more importance is : Is China ready for studying democracy now ?

My answer goes to : It is always ready. Because nothing will succeed without starting attempt on doing anything.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 05:16

I think the author will come to the same result for USA if he has used the figures in 40s in last century.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 06:01

If you look at literacy rate of China, it is four times the improvement since Communist took over. The NO answer is only a self-disgrace act.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 08:22

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 08:30

PBrega hing, you have made a good point. The same conclusion could have been drawn for a 19th century USA. The basic difference is that the human knowledge has advanced exponentially since 200 years ago. The issues, say a National Broadband Network policy, are much more complex today. A proper assessment of the policies requires a more knowledgeable electorate which can only be achieved through education.

In caculating the threshold of Ec, the assumption of an average Secondary education (n1 = 100%) can be modified to an average of 75% Secondary and 25% under (i.e. n0 = 25%, n1 = 75%) to accomodate for the less demanding historical times. In this way, Ec = 20.18, a similar composition of electorate in those days could still get the US over the democracy line.

The literacy rate in China may be a huge improvement, but there is nothing impressive since they started from a very low base. Moreover, the capability to assess the policies and make an informed choice is a much bigger ask than the ability to read and write.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 08:39

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 09:50

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 09:58

My EBVS electoral system is all about fairness, not equality. The higher educated people should be given more say in the decision process. In a similar way, the high-income earners are paying more taxes; it's fairness, not equality.

My emphasis in on EDUCATION. The argument is very simple. A good government can only be elected by a decent knowledgeable electorate, a sensible voter in turn can only be achieved through education.

A country is fit for a democratic electoral system, if and one if its population has reached an average minimum standard of education. IMHO, China is found to be wanting in this respect. The country has yet to express itself as a civil society. The only solution is by lifting the standard of its people by education.

ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 10:12

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 10:13

I somehow disagree with the author that the knowledge and responsibility of the individual political conscience is not due to personal educational level or literacy. It is the way of the institutional behavior make people deviated and irresponsible. The obvious example is the USA and Mexico, both has similar starting point and similar culture but with extremely different end result. China is also the same as Japan and Taiwan culturally and on education level, but entirely different institutionally. No need to mention the end result.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 10:20

The higher education is not the condition to determine the privilege of participation of governance. It is always the government of people, by the people, for the people. NOT of some people.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 10:41

ray1129 兄，兩個答案都是肯定的。
1、我們這些「虛幻中國」的遺民，只是華裔，不是書殘文說廢語的「中囯人」。
2、如果那些「中囯人」自甘墮落，不求上進，自滿於生存在牢獄或醉生夢死之中，那便由他們去吧。但如果他們能覺悟求變而需要一些支持的話，我們是應施以援手的。

ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 10:58

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 11:32

My system does not deprive anyone of voting rights, it simply gives more weight to those with higher qualifications.  The rationale is that, in general, those with higher education are better equipped to make an informed choice, so their opinion should carry more weight.  Generally they are also in a minority and are disadvantaged in sheer numbers, which can be counteracted by giving them a weight.

Allow me to repeat:  it's about fairness, not equality (as the example of people paying different tax rates.)

Let us consider another example of electing board members in a company.  The shareholder with a larger holding has a bigger voting power.  Now imagine the country is the company, the government is the board and the stakeholders are the voters.  The relative holdings in this case are measured by the voters' intellectual wealth, not monetary wealth.  I would guess a better government (for the benefit of all people) could be selected by giving more voting power to the intellectually wealthy people.

ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 11:41

tigeri - 2013年09月14日 12:17

"倒底呢班人想要一個點樣既民主"?

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 12:23

For God sake, government is never a profit-seeking body. IIt only seeks the benefit for its own people, not shareholders. Minority by education? Would you like to choose being stupid majority? Or you were being educated fool? Education is the cause of rasism? It can only happen in Commy China.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 12:28

（1）Ec測試某一國家當時是否適合民主制。
（a) 若果不適合，那麼只有等待仁愛的獨裁者來統治，提倡教育。否則便只有革命一途。假如勉強民主，最壞的情況可以是由一羣暴民選出一個暴君來，這樣的暴君也不會去推行教育了。那民主作甚?
（b) 若民智到達某一程度，便可以進行民主普選。以下列方法行之。

（2）這便是我在上文提出的「教育加權選舉制」了。

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 12:29

tigeri - 2013年09月14日 12:33

"government is never a profit-seeking body"?

ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 12:34

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 12:38

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 13:26

"支持佔中既, 就係想要一個唔講法治既民主."

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 13:32

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 13:47

ray1129 君，多謝你的意見。

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 13:51

Liberphile 兄便是本壇最有學問的賢者，請兄賜教。

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 13:52

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 13:54

How can you image a fair society without equal right? Maybe, a racism with races? It is nothing about fairness, but everything about equality when come to politics. Because you will also complain unfair when treated
discriminately.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 14:08

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 14:13

fairdinkum兄太抬舉小弟了，實在唔敢當！

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 14:20

To be treated differently for something that you can't change, such as race, sex, is discrimination.  Someone is born with a silver spoon, but you are not and you can't do anything about it, then you are discriminated against if you are denied a position based on your material wealth,

On the other hand, knowlege is something that you can acquire with some effort.  if you are not offered the job because of your intellectual wealth, then it is not discrimination.

If the education system is open and equal, one cannot complain when he is treated differently because of his skills. This is fair, not equal.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 14:32

Thats why people never choose a smart educated ass for their leader, because people always has right to choose what they like, not some dumb ass saying what poeple should like. Clear enough?

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 14:36

fairdinkum兄可能係本科讀自然科學然後研究院改讀社會科學，所以擅長用數理模型解釋社會現象。我亦曾經鍾情於數理模型，特別對多變量(multivariate)嘅分析方法深感興趣，不過依家嘅想法已經有所改變，數理模型雖偶有涉臘，但並非主要興趣所在。

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 14:41

Honestly, everybody knows democracy is a stupid system, well, you dont like it? Thats the only game in town, and no alternative. Not my opinion, W. Churcher also.

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 14:55

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 15:05

Liberphile 兄，是的。不過我要諗下明唔明。如果能解釋一下就最好。

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 15:33

fairdinkum兄，你的觀點基本上與陳雲的想法相似，以大陸現時的情況，實行民主有可能選出一個對香港不利的領導人同政府。不過，這並非等同贊成大陸一定要由共產黨永無了期地繼續執政，共產黨必須訂立一個明確清晰的逐漸民主化時間表，沒有具體的時間表，一切都是空談。

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 16:07

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 16:18

Liberphile兄，我知我的說法一出，便㑹受到萬箭所指。

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:19

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:28

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:34

Article started metaphor for China's political for the disabled is wrong.

In imagination, there is no thought of the PRC is on behalf of the Chinese? You can think about whether Hong Kong can now on behalf of China do you have in mind?

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:57

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 17:59

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 18:02

「中國人素質真的很低？包括香港人！」

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 18:47

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 18:52

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 20:07

「人民騎在政府頭上」是啊？這就是信壇五毛，日罵夜咒的民主自由人權。

“ 也是斷句，全句是「包括香港人中的土炮！”

Full sentence, take it ：土炮吊金公，炮金炮炮金。

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 20:33

「一個國家的人民質素低劣」什麼民主都枉然？菲律賓是民主國家，人民質素有目共睹，它向另一個民主地區道歉。還未向「厠紙權」的金融中心和十三億強國說一聲「對不起」。枉然似乎是「民主專政」國家吧？

“「一個國家的人民質素低劣」什麼民主都枉然？”

“ 這就是信壇五毛，日罵夜咒的民主自由人權 ”

―九一一年辛亥革命,孫中山未有考慮或考慮未足「清帝退位誰能控制得住軍隊?」的情況下下了一着「棄子入局」的妙棋,清帝退位,軍閥混戰,宋教仁妄圖用選票控制軍隊,落得被刺下場。内戰導致軍事強人的出現,更無民主可言。

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 21:23

「民選政府真能控制軍隊嗎?」

不必「從歷史上尋找答案」，人家美國政府就能，難道中國人比美國人差勁？

「我赦免他們」，好大口氣！

tigeri - 2013年09月14日 21:55

"有民主做基礎嘅法治先至係真正嘅法治，否則法治只不過係牛二嘅老細標榜嗰種『依法辦事』嘅冒牌法治"

"經濟無知？貪官無限搜括，霸權魚肉人民，政府永不缺錢，人民永遠水火。這種政府只有中國才有"

"我曾經引述美國南伊利諾大學學者嘅實證研究結果，指出民主制度對法治嘅正面影響，但係牛二置若罔聞，顧左而他，唔敢回應"

"我估計樓主並未深切了解，到底民主政治是怎麽回事？"

tigeri - 2013年09月14日 21:57

"用民主制度與選票來建立公平社會"?

(大笑)  又係度做寶藥黨用民主教科書理論去呃人.

tigeri - 2013年09月14日 22:07

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 22:17

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 22:24

“ 愛字幫？哈哈哈！”

“ 同為中國人社會，中華民國在臺灣能做到的，大陸也應該能做到。”

1946年周恩來代表國共兩黨及民主同盟在重慶召開的政治協商會議，又如何解釋？

1946年重慶政治協商會議沒有成功的真正原因又是什麼？

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 22:58

“ 五毛狗當然明白，不過，為了主人手上的骨頭，亦要說謊耍賴 ”

PB，袁新華兩位對號入座，看錯泛民當婊子！哈哈哈。

PB，袁新華兩位對號入座。看錯兩位泛民當婊子！哈哈哈。

Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 23:47

fairdinkum兄說出一些爭議性頗大的想法，雖然我並不完全認同，但他的誠懇態度和勇氣與及彬彬君子的文風，着實令人佩服。另一方面， PCYK兄提出共產黨亦能在民主選舉中獲得人民授權執政的說法，我相信是極有可能發生的，這大概便是fairdinkum兄和陳雲教授所憂慮之處。

「純番書仔」？恐怕是為了顯示還識兩字英文吧？

(網站編輯已删除此違反版規留言。)

(網站編輯已删除此違反版規留言。)

(網站編輯已删除此違反版規留言。)

(網站編輯已删除此違反版規留言。)

Liberphile - 2013年09月15日 00:13

「人身攻擊」的人反映自己技窮、理虧和人格有問題。

1940年中國不適合民主,毛澤東所説的,我認為在理論上是對的,在當時情況下實踐是錯的。毛澤東可能是出於統戰需要才作此論。

k.f.suen - 2013年09月15日 05:55

***中國中共需要[專制]對付腫面貪官奴/烏漆辦公室

***中國中共需要[開明]胸襟接納中國人民 :

[經濟基礎決定上層建築的演變,並不一定需要暴力革命]---生駿麟壇友言

[若現時中共下台,誰能控制軍隊?]---唉! 都六十幾年啦! 唔喺軍隊一直掌控中共嗎??? 鎗/核子出極權呀!!!

sandy's rock

"To be treated differently for something that you can't change, such as race, sex, is discrimination.  Someone is born with a silver spoon, but you are not and you can't do anything about it, then you are discriminated against if you are denied a position based on your material wealth,

On the other hand, knowlege is something that you can acquire with some effort.  if you are not offered the job because of your intellectual wealth, then it is not discrimination."

I don't really agree.  knowlege is something that one can acquire but men were not really born equal and despite same education received and efforts put,  some men/women are less equal than the others.  Some people were simply born imbecile or disabled though I won't called this discrimination but the fact is they are "natually discriminated".

"If the education system is open and equal, one cannot complain when he is treated differently because of his skills. This is fair, not equal."

Yes,  there is no real equality and equqlitarian theory have already told that absolute equality is stupid.  Actaully,  I think all absolute things, if any, are stupid!

“幫助支援是有很多方法的，如傳統文化的推廣等等，不能一一盡錄。

（1）Ec測試某一國家當時是否適合民主制。
（a) 若果不適合，那麼只有等待仁愛的獨裁者來統治，提倡教育。否則便只有革命一途。假如勉強民主，最壞的情況可以是由一羣暴民選出一個暴君來，這樣的暴君也不會去推行教育了。那民主作甚?
（b) 若民智到達某一程度，便可以進行民主普選。以下列方法行之。

（2）這便是我在上文提出的「教育加權選舉制」了。”

fairdinkum - 2013年09月15日 20:29

That is exactly my point. Our electoral system should be based on FAIRNESS, not forced EQUALITY.

"Men are not born equal, but they are equal under the law."  -- Lincoln (?)

We are certainly not born as intelligent as Einstein, we should not claim credit for what he had achieved. However, you might be a successful businesswoman and made more money than him as a professor. So you had to pay more tax. This is fair, but not equal. Nevertheless, we have the same rights as he enjoys under the law.

"...不如推倒重來" ==> Revolution?

In your own words: If you don't want to wait for a benign dictactor, then start a revolution!

As I remember, you are very fond of mooncake. The festive season is getting close, there should be lots around, enjoy!

fairdinkum hing,

I'm not really pro-revolution but I don't think waiting for a benign "leader" is really wise as you never know how long it will take.  To me,  this is a "whim"only and,  I think system is more trustworthy them men.

Progress takes time but waiting for something that may not come at all is a waste of time.

Yes,  I love mooncake and Mid-Autum Festival is my favorite.  Happy Mid-Autum Festival.  Enjoy all the good food!

fairdinkum - 2013年09月15日 22:20

Dragon sis, we almost come to the same conclusion.

Let's say, we have two choices:

1. Wait for something to happen and

2. Do something.

Obviously no sensible person will sit and wait for something to happen, so we have to do something.  My preference for 'something' is education.  If that is not possible, then revolution should be the last resort.

My consistent view is:  education is the key to the success of democracy.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月15日 22:24

Here, I've posted a very simple question:

"Is China READY ( 適宜現在 ) for democracy?"

Most responses focused on "Is China suitable ( 適合 ) for democracy?" instead.

My argument is on the timing rather than the suitability for China to become a democracy.

I'll make a clarification in due course.

fairdinkum hing,  if that something is education, it should be something more than academic education.  Most people from Mainland China I met are not academically inferior and actually many of than are even better educated than many westerners. Their only problem is mentality & integrity and this is something molded by the society as a whole,  not simply education.

I don’t disagree that education is the key to democracy but it doesn’t mean that lacking this important “factor”,  we can’t or not ready to proceed with our path to democracy.  Yes,  your question is whether China is ready for democracy but my question is if China is not yet ready for democracy then when will it be ?   Progressive improvement is not quite the same as procrastination and I really doubt that the CCP could solve the corruption problem – it’s a very delicate balance of power game to play and the ultimate result is probably failure.

I don’t really think that revolution will bring a better China, it could be worse but I don’t believe that the procrastination strategy of the CCP works either.   There may be no real solution and the only solution may be act and see.

I love theoy but I don't believe in theory!

fairdinkum - 2013年09月22日 21:27

As a matter of fairness, the comments since  "2013年09月15日 14:45"  have been undeleted.  Please refer to the following post for the controversy caused:

http://forum.hkej.com/node/105793

Please feel free to make judgements yourself.  Thanks for visiting.

fairdinkum - 2013年10月27日 20:06

(1) education/democracy and

(2) China in general.

1. 網站編輯或網站作家開題，網友可回應。回應必須貼題，請勿重覆；勿發表誹謗，人身攻擊或不雅內容。
2. 網站編輯有權發表或不發表網友張貼的內容。(請參閱議論守則)
3. 開題之網友可編輯其在過去7天內發表之論題，或刪除相關回應。