“Please Vote for Me” illustrates the many facets of democracy we have discussed in class, including the negative ones. The documentary demonstrates that in a system in which “the people” have power, any outcome is possible–even the one that we least expect. During the film, you can observe and hear the complaints the students have over Luo Lei’s position. Despite this, he is the one that ultimately wins. Furthermore, it’s clear to us by the film that the young students are under extreme pressure as they prepare themselves for events and speeches that can help them acquire more votes for the class monitor position. The students obviously work hard and care quite a lot about the work they’re doing. However, they also occasionally break down or show hesitation about their own qualifications. The need for votes becomes an experience of itself, separate from becoming a candidate that will best help the class. Promises are made and competition becomes the ultimate theme for the film.

“Please Vote for Me,” I think, demonstrates the consequences democracy brings. To me, the film shows how voting is sometimes not so much about the people having a voice but also about how individuals can create an image of themselves in order to acquire popularity and recognition. This goes back to the idea of democracy being the second best option. It’s really not the best; it’s clear that while students had the best intentions, elections become a competition over who can appeal to the masses the best. This can also lead to unexpected and extreme consequences.

“Please Vote for Me” illustrates a system that is flawed, but still unequivocally democratic. The system encapsulates the key tenets of democracy—candidates are chosen by popular support, and votes are cast by secret ballot. The election may not have been “fair”, but it was still democratic. The candidates received different levels of parental advice and influence, and Luo Lei’s father allows his son to give gifts and a field trip to the class. This is reflective of a real world democracy where candidates come from different socioeconomic backgrounds; candidates with more money are able to run more extensive campaigns. The election potentially veers from pure democracy when Cheng Cheng promises positions to his classmates in exchange for a vote. However, the ballot was still secret, so Cheng Cheng had no way to verify who voted for him. In a way, this is comparable to candidates in the United States who make promises to their voter bases like targeted subsidies or more lenient regulations. Because Luo Lei was the incumbent, he had power and force (ability to beat children) up until the election. However, the election appeared to make Luo Lei less forceful rather than more forceful; he appeals to the class by saying “I can change,” and his classmates testify to his decreased use of force. Again, the ballot was secret so Luo Lei had no way to correlate force with voting outcome. The election also demonstrates Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority.” When Cheng Cheng starts insulting Xiaofei, the entire class jumps on the bandwagon and starts insulting Xiaofei (the minority in this case). It undermines Xiaofei’s campaign and it also temporarily helps Cheng Cheng’s campaign. Although Cheng Cheng didn’t ultimately win, this scene demonstrates democracy’s susceptibility to electing a demagogue.

I find it interesting that both Illing and Zakaria both point to an expansion of voting power and the selection of candidates as being threatening to liberal democracy. The concept of direct election of Senators and the opening of primaries to any candidate are typically heralded as expanding the rights of the general populace and expanding democratic principles. It is interesting to then see Zakaria and Illing identify these changes such as these as being part of the problem for liberal democracies. It was also interesting the discussion between Illling and Zakaria about the need for party strength in order to have a well functioning by mediating popular passions and public policy. The current state of the Republican Party indicates the fractious nature of the current system and the movement away from the strong party. The recent arguments between Trump and congressional Republicans indicate a troubling state of affairs for the United States, many completely opposing themselves to him and giving up reelection as a way to avoid political repercussions. The next presidential and congressional elections, however, will be telling as to the current state of affairs for the United States democracy. If there is a rejection of Trump and his type of politics, and a shift back towards the more bipartisan and mainstream politics of the past things could potentially shift back towards a more stable state of democratic affairs. This, however, seems unlikely given the increasing polarization and the rise of outsider candidates on both sides as seen in the popularity of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side of the previous presidential election and in the significant portion of the United States populace that rejected mainstream politicians such as Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. This all and all spells worry for the current democratic system within the United States and the for the survival of U.S. democratic society as we know it.

Sean Illing and Fareed Zakaria bring up some interesting points on the state of democracy in the United States, most of which center on the idea that democracy and liberalism are two separate concepts that have different impacts on the political structure of a country. By defining democracy as “a process for choosing leaders” and liberalism as “norms and practices that shapes political life,” more specifically those that prioritize individual right, the authors better outline how corruption and restrictions can occur even in a democracy. Given this model, democracy does not appear to be in peril–at least not in the United States. What does seem to be in danger–which Illing and Zakaria correctly identify–is how constitutional our leaders remain. I do not think our votes/voices are in danger of being silenced; unfortunately, though, I do see the structure of American politics taking a shape that values polarized decisions over agreement and concession. In practice, politicians on both sides prioritize action over regulation. Which, if you’re a proponent for the person in power, you’re happy to see happening because it means that something is happening. A politician is taking a stand. But for anyone who disagrees with you, it is just a violation of law and practice. This means that when someone else is in power, someone completely opposite from the prior incumbent, a political structure is already set in place that makes their ruling easier and further unregulated. If democracy is in danger, it is in danger because we keep leaving doors open for political corruption and chaos. Our Constitution and laws are fallible, as they are in every country. But when we start dismissing them, we start dismissing them all.