“Please Vote For Me,” in trying to bring a democratic means of selection to pick the next monitor, addresses some of the large potential flaws in democracy. By using children as the subjects of the documentary the documentarian is able to witness a more complete account of the election and the way the vote is influenced. The campaigns throughout the documentary differed greatly from the initial views on democracy. Both the children and teacher frame the election process as the way to select the “best” candidate. The competitiveness that surrounds the election, however, creates a climate in which the children insult one another and seek to bribe their fellow classmates in order to gain their support. This to me in many ways had similarities to the last presidential election and has been something I’ve witnessed even in American politics. In the past presidential election the media and candidates specifically on one side leveled personal attacks at each other; and while not bribing the electorate directly, did so in the form of grandiose unrealistic promises. This climate in both American politics and the Chinese classroom election also illustrated the way in which while systems may be labeled as democratic the same individuals are seen in positions of power as seen by Luo Lei’s three-peat selection as monitor and the reappearing names in elections both in the United States and abroad.

I think it is interesting to analyze the different ways both Lerner and Tosun analyze and contextualize modernity in this small Turkish village that later becomes part of the city of Ankara. One important aspect when looking at modernity through the eyes of Lerner is to consider the cultural differences and definition of modernity that is present in American society. One flaw with American ideals of modernity and progress is that they are typically viewed in the context of societies becoming more like the United States and not developing to suit the needs of their own people and in the context of their own history. This seems to be illustrated in the vastly different accounts provided by Tosun and Lerner. Tosun has many personal issues with the grocer in his descriptions of the Grocer stands and the ideals for which the grocer stands.Lerner, however, does little to contextualize the time period in which Tosun writes. Lerner just claims that the people of the town were wrong and that they have now seen their mistake, the Grocer is even described as a prophet for the times that were awaiting the villagers. This portrayal of the villagers as seemingly ignorant to the potential progress and the subtle argument that the old ways of thinking were preventing modernity seems to fail to fully contextualize the situation in the town of Balgat. To many readers of Lerner’s argument, the logic of the Grocer’s thinking is clear, however not having ever witnessed the potential for growth and “progress” the people of Balgat reject the Grocer. This was not the villagers’ active attempts to prevent advancement only  a lack of knowledge as to what the thinking of the grocer could amount to; therefore any analysis both the villagers and Tosun must be placed in the context of the time and the conceivable possibilities available to the villagers not from a perspective of a Harper’s readers to whom modernity has clear path and definition.

I think this article seeks to examine the various means of conducting social science research and the pitfalls and benefits to both. Eberstadt employs a much more “typical” and “accepted” approach in categorizing the various factors which may have been causing the high death rate among Russians. By looking at a variety of different factors and seeking a qualitative means of explaining this increase in the death rate and the decrease in population he exhibits the ways in which a more qualitative approach can examine more factors in explaining a social phenomenon while also reaching, what many view as, a more defensible conclusion. This method, while being viewed as “more accurate” fails to reach any results and instead leaves the question as to why Russians are dying in higher numbers unanswered. Parsons, on the other hand, engages in what is typically viewed as a less accurate means of examining a social phenomenon and conducts interviews with Russians. The problematic nature of this approach, however, is the way in which Parsons tries to create a singular turning point in Russian history and attempts to gather evidence for this perspective through the interviews she conducts. The question then becomes what to do when the “typical” method does not yield a result and the “flawed” measure yields a result that is unconvincing. I believe the combination of both approaches can yield useful observations and seems to answer the problem while independently their explanations may be lacking. The way in which Eberstadt’s quantitative approach excludes any of the traditional causes to explain the decrease in the Russian population seems to be just as important as the answers provided by Parsons. By removing the scientific causes for this phenomenon Eberstadt validates Parsons claims that the Russians may be dying because of a broken heart and the absence of hope.