“Please Vote for me” is an interesting look into Chinese culture. I think one of the most interesting points in the movie were the initial scenes where they asked these students if they knew what voting was and they had no idea. Growing up in obviously a very different environment I do not think that I can remember a time where I didn’t know what “voting” was. Moving on, this obviously was not a truly democratic process because, the class did not choose the nominees but instead the teacher did. I think Machiavelli would have agreed with the way Luo Lei acted. Luo Lie was the incumbent and definitely feared by the class but not to the extent of hate Machiavelli would agree that this is the best way maintain power. So, the class had no choice to vote for him. Xiaofei failed in Machiavelli’s eyes because she was loved rather than feared. In order to successfully consolidate power one should be feared, but not as much as the class fears Cheng Cheng. Considering all of these factors it would be obvious to Machiavelli that Luo Lei retained his position.

The documentary, “Please Vote For Me” presents an interesting perspective on a democratic experiment, and an in retrospect, my response to the film poses an equally interesting view on democracy in action, particularly to some of the more “unethical” realities of the democratic system. The election of class monitor for the Chinese students highlighted is, as it turns out, more intensely competitive than one might think. A product of this competition is the involvement of classmates and even parents in order to give certain candidates a leg up on the other students in the running. In the context of the class monitor election in the movie, this seems unethical, even a bit unfair, at times. However, when considered as a reflection of the reality of the implementation of the democratic system in a place like the United States, we take the outside efforts of interested parties (and those parties’ monetary power) as part and parcel of our governmental system.

An additional reality of democracy that this film exposes is the power of the incumbent: Luo Lei is denounced as overly strict and harsh in his last two years as a class monitor, but he wins the election regardless as a result of his ruthless campaign methods and the inertia that he capitalizes on as a candidate of the status quo.

Though many of Luo Lei’s and Cheng Cheng’s actions throughout the class monitor elections process were definitely not ethically sound, it was in no doubt a strong example of democracy. The documentary Please Vote for Me challenges many of our notions about democracy, especially as the best mode of governance. Even though many aspects of the democratic system is flawed, is it still a preferable alternative to a dictatorship? Most likely. Despite the high degree of involvement from all of the candidates’ parents and the boys’ collective use of their classmates to ridicule the other candidates and dissuade them from participating in the election, the democratic process has undoubtedly taught them all (especially Luo Lei as the winer) the importance of appealing to their base and maintaining a good rapport with their constituents. Being that another election will be held a year later, Luo Lei’s victory does not provide him with a blank check to do as he pleases with the reins of power. His next year as class monitor cannot possibly be the same as his last two, because the newly-instituted democratic process will serve as a check upon his familiar authoritarian tendencies. While many of the candidates’ actions may fall under the Machiavellian principle of using any means necessary to preserve the security of the state, the democratic process provides stringent parameters for the candidates’ actions and will do so in Luo Lei’s next term as class monitor. While democracy has not turned the kids into perfect people, it will definitely change them for the better.

While many of us probably disapproved of the candidates’ actions in Please Vote for Me, I think it safe to say that Machiavelli would condone the children’s behavior. Machiavelli is perhaps best known for his belief that “the ends justify the means,” condoning the use of morally questionable–and even outright immoral–methods to capture and/or maintain political success, and each of the three candidates exemplifies this ideal to some degree during their campaigns. Xiaofei exemplifies this when she briefly teams up with Cheng Cheng and asks other students to identify Luo Lei’ faults. In general, however, Xiaofei’s methods are not especially Machiavellian, most likely, I would argue, because she is not as invested in the campaign as Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng are. Luo Lei’s campaign adheres more to this Machiavellian ideal, particularly when buys the support of his classmates; the most obvious example of this is when he takes his class to ride on the monorail, but he also distributes gifts to the class right before voting begins! Luo Lei exhibits Machiavellian behavior more so in his actions as class monitor; he “beats” his classmates to keep them in line because, as he says, “If I am not strict, you kids will never obey me!” Though Luo Lei strongly exemplifies Machiavellian ideals as class monitor, I would argue that Cheng Cheng’s campaign methods are arguably the most Machiavellian, and this is evidenced by his manipulation of both his classmates and his opponents; he attempts to–and often succeeds at–getting his classmates to criticize his opponents, he tries to turn his opponents more against each other, and it is clear that he is willing to do pretty much whatever it takes to win.

As for whether the election depicted in this movie is democratic, I would argue that it isn’t, though it does bear some striking similarities to the practices of American democracy– which is considered perhaps one of the strongest democracies in the world; as in America, the students (the People) were given candidates to choose from, these candidates campaigned–by questionable methods similar to those used by American politicians today–and participated in debates, and the class finally voted freely. However, the primary reason that this election was nondemocratic was the fact that, as others have mentioned in there blogs, the students were not voting for a candidate to represent them, but were voting for a candidate who would ultimately enforce the unwavering authority of the teacher.

The film ‘Please Vote For Me’ observes the evolution of a seemingly innocent third grade class monitor election into a cutthroat political battle. Two candidates, Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng transform from harmless young children into ruthless political masterminds in the blink of an eye, while a third candidate, Xu Xiaofei, maintains her innocence at the cost of becoming irrelevant in the final voting. The election becomes seemingly a microcosm of a modern presidential election, or even just election in general, in the United States.

Machiavelli would probably take a liking for both Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng. Cheng Cheng becomes a very devious young child in his quest to usurp the position of class monitor from Luo Lei, as well to suppress Xu Xiaofei. He employs his classmates to deride the performances of his opponents. He also promises to give positions to undecided classmates in attempts to sway voters. Luo Lei, on the other hand, matches Cheng Cheng’s deviousness and then some. Luo Lei’s use of force, while it may seem like a hinderance to his campaign, actually helps him in a few respects. As class monitor, his use of force keeps the students in line and affirms his position of power. In his campaign, his use of force helps in that students are too scared not to vote for him. Luo Lei’s best move however, is using his father’s connections to bring his class on a field trip on the monorail, effectively buying the votes of his classmates.

Xu Xiaofei is the one candidate who would not fall in the good graces of Machiavelli. However, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Xu Xiaofei does not resort to the conniving tactics employed by her opponents. She essentially acts as one would expect a normal third grader to act in that situation. However, her approach to the campaign is not effective in terms of garnering actual votes, and she quickly becomes an afterthought in the election.

As my classmates have pointed out, Please Vote for Me does not depict a full democracy as we understand it. The students did not get to pick the candidates up for a vote; if they didn’t like Cheng Cheng, Xu Xiaofei, or Luo Lei, they were basically out of luck. But even with its limited democratic scope, the class election in Please Vote for Me is instructive as to the applicability of Machiavelli’s concepts in electoral settings. In The Prince, Machiavelli wasn’t laying out the tricks by which one gains power in a democracy; he was running through how a prince kept his power once he had assumed it. The broader point was that politics is not an area for the virtuous; some degree of ruthlessness is required to obtain and consolidate power. Xu Xiaofei did not intuit this notion, and spent a campaign offering earnest pleas for support without undermining her opponents. She quickly fell behind. Cheng Cheng displayed an alarmingly natural grasp of subterfuge, plotting to undermine his foes from the moment his candidacy was announced. His dictatorial ambitions were similarly clear: he wanted to become class monitor because he liked to “order people around”. Luo Lei, while authoritarian – his previous tenure as class monitor was not free of shirt-tugging and shoving to the end of discipline – wanted to be class monitor to allow students to do what they pleased. When his campaign faltered, he promoted his cause with gifts to his fellow students. Cheng Cheng, by contrast, could only resort to further insults when his electoral prospects hit a downturn. It’s better to be feared than loved while ruling, perhaps, but to get elected one needs a mix of both; this is why Luo Lei won the privilege of harassing his fellow students to orderliness while Cheng Cheng remained a brooding back-row tyrant. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to have family that runs the police department, allowing one to curry favor with ones classmates by taking them on a monorail trip. Xiaofei, daughter of a single mother and seemingly unable to be mean, never had a chance.

“Please Vote For Me” falls within Machiavelli’s concept of Democracy. In The Prince, Machiavelli places emphasis on the notion that politics is not about morality. He believes that the principle of virtue, and striving to implement virtue in politics is an unfeasible ideal. Mansfield’s introduction to his translation of The Prince manifests Machiavelli’s precept that: “that no moral rules exist, not made by men, which men must abide by” (Mansfield XI). Later, Machiavelli denotes that the preservation of one’s power is synonymous with the preservation of society and “whatever is necessary may be called just and reasonable” (Mansfield XI). In the school election for class monitor, Luo Lei realizes what’s necessary to attain and preserve his power. While Luo Lei’s methods for winning the election may fall out of accordance with what many of us would consider moral, Machiavelli would contend that politics has never, nor ever will be virtuous. However, the class election is nonetheless a manifestation of democracy. Modern day American politics does not stray far from this classroom’s electoral microcosm. Politics today usually connote ‘unfair play’ in the sense that politicians will flex their influence to preserve or attain power; we most notably see this with bribery, coercion and ensuring unrealistic promises to their base. And yet, this is still democracy. What this documentary truly uncovers are the faults in the democratic system about how players who intend to manipulate politics through the preceding measures can do so.

– Ella Smit

“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.