In “Please Vote For Me”, democracy is introduced to children who have never encountered it before, and so we get to see it play out in an interesting way, perhaps acting as a sort of microcosm for larger, more established democracies such as the United States. By removing the patriotic connotations that many Americans associate with democracy, it allows us to see the nuances of the system that make it more flawed than it might initially appear. Moreover, those flaws are inherent to democracy, as surely if they are present in this elementary school classroom, they are present at a larger scale in our own country. For example, the parents of the students can act as large-scale donors, providing the candidates with resources to bribe their constituents. Luo Lei was able to give his classmates treats, while the religious right in Iran was able to provide the poor in rural areas with food and sustenance in order to create a positive image as a “giver”. Similar to the Islamic Republic, however, Luo Lei rules over his classroom in a less-than-democratic fashion. His Machiavellian mindset allows him to maintain steady power, with the fear that he induces in his classmates. All of these demonstrate that the straightforward voting that we associate with democracy is not actually how it ever is. Democracy as a system is inherently vulnerable in all of the ways demonstrated in this Chinese classroom, and the unfairness that we observe can all be paralleled on a larger scale.

“Please vote for me” encapsulates a democratic accession to power by Luo Lei in a classroom election with some undemocratic conventions: Luo Lei buys his classmates votes with a field trip provided by his father, he also gets to run again despite the fact that he has been monitor for two years already. True this is an election where the people get to vote free of any voter fraud, but the actions leading up to the vote question the integrity of it.

A democracy is “by the people for the people”, but can the people of this third grade class really determine who is best suited to “rule” them when they’re constantly faces with bribery and propaganda (Xu Xiaofei being accused of eating too slow to further promote Cheng Cheng’s campaign).

In the end, the film has a fair vote and every classmate gets a vote, but what is this teaching them about democracy if the campaign is just an invitation to speak negatively about their classmates and allow their fathers to buy them votes?

In Please Vote for Me, it was interesting to watch how the children’s concepts of democracy naturally evolved. Originally, it seemed that, aside from Cheng Cheng, they thought of democracy as a system in which voters would simply choose the best candidate. However, the competitive climate that the election created forced them all to embrace techniques that involved bribing and slandering. In turn, this made the climate more competitive, to the point that all of the candidates saw it as a zero-sum game. By the end, one could see that many of the same kinds of appeals that are made in American Presidential debates were made in the classroom, specifically populist rhetoric as well as rhetoric concerning the inadequacies of the other candidates. In the end, the effect this had was devastating to the two candidates who lost, as well as some of their classmates, who were all crying uncontrollably. This highlights one of the most prominent issues with America’s democratic system–the candidate who comes in first place wins everything,  which creates a fractured, hostile electorate.

What is so chilling and heartbreaking about this documentary is that it literally is “democracy  in action.” Whereas we might think a third grade class monitor election would be an opportunity for an innocent, good faith run-through of an idealized democratic process with low stakes and ample chances for kids to develop their self-confidence, public speaking skills, and interest in leadership, what happens instead is a ruthless simulation of the unpleasant realities of electoral politics as they exist in practice, even in countries who could reasonably claim to be far more democratic than China. The election has it all: an instant gravitation toward negative advertising, the relentless necessity of opposition research, various methodologies of internal polling, strategic voting in a three way race where one candidate is largely written off, a presidential-style emphasis of personality over policy, corrupt patronage promises to win votes, and the influence of corporate money and lobbying (in the form of Luo Lei’s interfering parents) that only serves to reproduce systemic class inequalities already embedded in society in the political system.

Also reinforcing societal inequities: the vicious and organized intimidation Xu Xiaofei receives before she even begins to campaign, the way Cheng Cheng condescends to her in debate, and way her meaningless personal habits (eating slowly) are weaponized against her; in short, all of the barriers that face women who would participate in politics manifest here, and if this is how little girls with aspirations to leadership are treated, the lack of gender proportionality in government, both in China and throughout the world, comes as no surprise.

All of this taken together, and Luo Lei’s victory is not much of a surprise; the advantages of incumbency, his powerful backers, and a campaign of bribery and intimidation prove to be enough to for him to win in a landslide. As no less hallowed a democracy as the United States has shown, a democracy with a poisonous political culture is in no way immune to legitimizing a leader with violent and authoritarian impulses.

This documentary showed an interesting experiment of democracy in an otherwise undemocratic country. Surprisingly, I think the election for Class Monitor was pretty democratic in that everyone in the class participated in choosing the three candidates, everyone got a vote, and the losers Xiaofei and Cheng Cheng have a chance of trying again next year. Also, there were some elements that were unfair but still resembled elections in liberal democracies such as the US. Each candidate had different levels of parental support, or campaign funds. Luo Lei’s parents gave his classmates a field trip and gifts to get votes while Xiaofei and Cheng Cheng did not have these. In addition, there was an incumbency advantage as Luo Lei was apparently allowed to beat other kids as the current Class Monitor. This might have influenced how kids voted. I think Macchiavelli would have said that Luo Lei won because he effectively used both fear, through his use of force, and virtue, through his gifts, to win over his classmates.

In my opinion, the most disturbing part of the entire documentary is the involvement of the candidates’ parents. More specifically, it was Cheng Cheng’s mother and Luo Lei’s father who shocked me. Both of these parents instructed their children to fight dirty by using insults and negative campaign strategies. I particularly found it interesting that the parents were so blatant and open about the questionable methods they were instructing their sons to use. As disturbing as this was, it does not seem all that different from smear campaigns that are run in the US prior to elections. Many of the TV and internet ads for candidates recently seem to harp on the flaws of the opponent rather than highlight assets or positive changes the candidate who is running the ad wants to make. As far as this classroom election being democratic, I’m torn. I think it is important to note that the documentary does not explain how these 3 children were originally chosen to be candidates. In Luo Lei’s case, he can be seen as the incumbent, as he has previously been the class monitor, but there is no mention of how the other two were selected. If it was the case that the rest of the class had no say in who these candidates would be and it was just arbitrarily chosen by the teacher, then that seems undemocratic to me. On the other hand, there was no coercion as the children actually cast their ballots, so they were free to pick their top choice in that sense. It seems apparent, though, that the children did not fully understand “democracy” or the free voting process, and I wonder if the mob mentality played a role, as Luo Lei captured a landslide victory. The minds of the children seemed to be easily changed and their loyalty jumped from candidate to candidate, so it could be the case that they voted for the popular or familiar choice rather than the candidate they actually most strongly agreed with due to their young age and impressionable nature.

I thought this documentary was a great example of the different types of leaders we actually see in politics. Luo Lei uses his physical strength to assert his dominance. Furthermore, he uses his father’s position as a police officer to take his class on a field trip and win over their votes. Cheng Cheng on the other hand is a leader of charisma. He goes around the room after his speech telling his classmates that they have “good karma” and manipulates his classmates to vote him by promising them positions if they vote for him. With classic campaign drama, the 7 year olds point out everything that is wrong with the other candidates. Cheng Cheng accuses Luo Lei of being a dictator and a fascist because of his use of violence. He also accuses Xiaofei of having no confidence, and being too soft to be a good leader. However this wasn’t enough since Luo Lei still ended up winning the election. Clearly this is democracy in action as we’ve observed the typical political tools used by the 7 year olds.