Duh... So? What has it got to do with True Democracy?
要講服一個聰明人挺困難。但要說服一個蠢人簡直不可能！
I’m a traditionalist. I think revolutionaries should have a nominal understanding of what they fight for. I have therefore enclosed two articles (excerpts and links at the end) for the information of Hong Kong’s Democracy Revolutionaries. There are plenty more information about their Cause, but I shouldn't overload.
The first article explains the super complicated phenomenon of “super delegates” or “unbound delegates” in the US. If you can’t fully understand the mechanism, don’t feel bad. Not even ordinary party fans (US political parties have mostly fans, not members) do. It’s designed to obfuscate. Suffice to say that each super delegate is equivalent to thousands of ordinary party members in terms of voting power — a condensed form of selective democracy I suppose.
The second article is a Harvard study which shows American election to be the most unfair among Western Democracies. If and when Hong Kong Revolutionaries have successfully discovered “True Democracy” between happy hours and weekend protests, they should export it to their sponsors to repay their generous support.
Since many Freedom Fighters a la Hong Kong are functional illiterates in English and modern Chinese, I’ve prepared a short summary in traditional script for their benefit.
在香港喊破喉嚨爭取「真普選」的民主鬥士們，懂英語的幾位可以自己閱讀以下鏈接的兩篇文章 ：第一篇有關「超級委託人」。第二篇是哈佛的專家調查報告：有系統地比較所有西方民主國家的選舉工程後，專家們認為美國選舉的公平性倒數第一。這類資料很多，港式「革命家」應該負荷不了。但能夠咬緊牙關略讀一兩篇，稍微認識民主偶像大美超級金主共和國的「真普選」實況，對他們的革命事業會有幫助。假如有朝一日他們在香港成功爭取到「真普選」的話，說不定可以輸出回灌通通沒有實現「真普選」的英美贊助國，也算投桃報李。
為了照顧英語有限，看不懂原文的港式革命家，我特別用繁體中文粗略歸納了一下，以供參考。
一個在香港眾所不知的普通民主常識，是美國總統乃 「間選」 而非 「直選」 的產品。英國首相，亦復如是，但程序不同。比起歐洲國家，美國的間選程序極之繁復。漫長複雜的程序，可以考驗參選人的班底和財力。美國選舉是沒有經費上限的，動不動要花過億美金。無錢學人選總統，理論上也可以，但實際上比跑馬用箭射蚊鬚要困難。但不少人覺得理論上可行便得咯，實際如何，需要思考研究，好麻煩滴，沒興趣。美國的 「民主」 過程便是精心為這類算不上過份聰明的人而設計的。
美國兵兵兩黨的黨員，想出線競逐總統虛銜，首先要經過黨篩選。嚇！篩選？幸而負責篩選的不是中國人，所以反中反共人士比較放心，甚至不覺得這是篩選。鬼佬選人，理所當然，公平正直，篩什麼選呢？反正想當總統候選人，先要按州郡爭取黨員支持，再按得票比例獲配「委託人票」，計算方法轉彎抹角，玄之又玄，普通人想了解是要下苦功的。更巧妙吊詭之處，是另有一批 「不受制委託人」 （或稱 「超級委託人」）。他們是何方神聖呢？如何才有資格當「超級委託人」呢？哎呀，反正都是些高檔元老。一般黨員與他們相距太遠，水平未夠，說穿了也不明白，所以都不清楚個中細節。
「不受制委託人」 或 「超級委託人」人數不多，但一個人就算一張「委託人票」，比三等黨員的權利份數大不止千倍。他們的總票數，佔出線所需票數的30%。對一批有財有勢有人脈的寡頭來說，30% 影響力不算過分吧。讓我們用「有美國特色虛假社會主義」的領頭人桑德斯與「天字第一號好戰婆娘」克林頓二世在經過艾奧瓦（Iowa）和新罕布夏州（New Hampshire）洗禮後的戰果例證一下吧。經過這兩州的民主黨三等黨員投票後，桑德斯取得36張委託人票，稍勝克林頓二世的32 張。但算進已經開了口說明靠哪一邊投的「超級委託人」票後，克林頓會以總票數 481 大勝桑德斯的 55 票。唷！壓倒性哦！你看人家美國的篩選過程多民主！香港革命家們要加油咯！
Excerpts from the FKD article between quotation marks, followed by my repetitious comments in italics:
“Unbound delegates,” “unpledged delegates,” “superdelegate” – these are the names by which certain players in the primary election process go. This group helps nominate the presidential candidates for the Republican and Democratic parties.
Unlike other delegates, these folks’ votes at the party conventions this summer are not necessarily based upon how the public voted in their states’ primary or caucuses.”
True Democracy?
“On the Democratic side, superdelegates help the established members of the party maintain some amount of control over who the nomination process.”
True Democracy?
“There are 712 unbound Democratic delegates known as superdelegates, according to the Associated Press. They make up about 15 percent of the total delegates allotted, and 30 percent of those needed to win (2,382). What VIPs get this special designation? Party big-wigs, essentially: past presidents and vice presidents, members of the Democratic National Committee, current Congresspeople, and Democratic governors.”
Uh, true Democracy?
“Part of the reason Sanders supporters are raging against the superdelegate machine is that, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders had a slight lead with delegates won from those two contests – 36 to 32. However, after factoring in superdelegates who’ve already expressed support for a candidate, Clinton was leading 481 to 55.”
Holy shit! Landslide victory!
Links to the articles:
Super delegates:
Harvard’s Study:
No comments:
Post a Comment