Talk:Elections in China

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bucket287.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article needs updating, since it was compiled in 2019. Sources are outdated too. Senolatzo (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

On chapter "Indirect elections"
Shouldn't there only be 22 provinces?? With 23 then you're counting Taiwan, but I doubt they have deputees at the NCP?? (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_China#Administrative_divisions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesxie (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

commented out election results template
It was presenting the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference as a political party or coalition of sorts. It is nothing like that: iti s a separate body from the NPC and the country's original legislature after 1949. The Communist Party and its coalition partners are known as "the Communist Party and the democratic parties". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs sources 131.156.247.82 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"According to BBC News, state media regularly reports on vote buying and corruption during these elections to discredit wider implementation in higher levels of government."
And if "state media" never reported corruption cases, then they're trying to maintain a facade of democracy over a fundamentally corrupt and nepotistic system. Seeing that the original BBC article has no source for this comment, and is really nothing more than an unsupported conjecture, how unbiased is this conclusion really? 184.64.92.227 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would expect the BBC to be biased (and its claims), it is essentially the whole UK state media. But it is reliability and verifiability that BBC sources are valued for. I think the statement is focusing on sentiment analysis and motivation behind the reports of corruption, not focusing on the existence of reports of corruption. Such an analysis would not have "a source" (it would have billions of data points) nor would such claims normally be supported (it is a news article, not an academic paper.) I find the BBC claim credible enough though: Please Vote for Me kind of fits this mold; it seems to say "Democracy is corruption." But you're right, the issue should be explored/discussed more in depth. Int21h (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Elections in the People's Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112120601/http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-05/660012.html to http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-05/660012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Sky  Warrior  03:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections in the People's Republic of China → Elections in China – With the failed attempt to move pages, I propose this page to move with the corresponding Wikipedia article "China" 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:E5A9:7A49:1374:ED03 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support It is China. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move. As of now, the country's article is titled China; also, the common name for the country is China. It makes no sense to use the full form in the title unless necessary.  ONR  (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; articles should match the country article name. Timrollpickering 09:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per China. Number   5  7  12:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The country is called China. It is almost unanimously recognised as China. Our article is titled China. WP:COMMONNAME. AusLondonder (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"three ups and three downs"
Though explained, this process is not described clearly at all. What does it mean that a "group of electors" is given the published list of initial candidates for discussion? Who is this "group of electors"? And why would the committee meeting of these "group of electors" strike any names? This is all very confusing. In most democracies, party nominees are decided by party primaries or conventions of each party. There are sometimes signature requirements to get on a primary ballot, or statements of support from party groups at a party convention. Sometimes there is a nominal fee attached. But what does it mean that "The views of different elector groups and the discussions at the committee meeting are then conveyed to voters, and their views are sought"? And for all intents and purposes, since the CPC is the only game in town, why do these "group of electors/voters" have any say over whether an non-party/independent candidates get on the ballot? Isn't this "group of electors" essentially a local CPC party conference? Please, someone reword this section on local people's congresses to make this make sense. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, figured out one thing: For "Cities not divided into districts" the term district relates to the specific administrative city-governed district (市辖区). It would seem that the subdivision of county-level cities covers literally all but one other city not divided into districts. Perhaps that would be a better term to use. BTW, does ANYONE have any kind of answers or explanation to my first set of questions? The "three ups, three downs" process is not at all clear as currently written and it'd be nice to have sources for this process if even it's informal. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Another question I have is what system of election is used for the local people's congresses? Is it done by plurality-at-large/block voting? Is it proportional representation? First-past-the-post? Providing an real-life example of a direct election in China would do a lot to clear up what is generally unclear about this article.--Criticalthinker (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Figured it out for myself. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Are not Free and Fair
Can we clearly state that elections in china as of 2022 are not Free and Fair? AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 12:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a completely subjective metric? Freedom and Fairness aren't real things, they're ideas, and when you claim China has less fair elections than, for example, the US, you do this based off your notion of freedom. Both the United States and China have indirect elections, and both have two main factions, the republican and democratic parties, while China has the two main factions of the cpc: the tsinghua and shanghai cliques, both have high levels of corruption, one big example in the US is Gerrymandering. What is freedom in an electoral/political sense? It seems to me like an arbitrary way to label someone as "the other", which isn't really the point of wikipedia, that strives to show an unbiased point of view. 2804:431:8B12:5801:490C:57B7:2A10:D8CF (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)