“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.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
When you say that the elections veer from pure democracy when Cheng Cheng promises positions to classmates in exchange for a vote, I would argue that this is, in many ways, how democracy works. Those who get cabinet positions in the United States are often there because they had something to offer the president during elections, and this spoils system seems to be an unavoidable part of democracy, inherent to the system.
I completely agree with your comparison between the parental advice and resources in the documentary and real world candidates with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. While having the most money does not necessarily guarantee a win, take the case of the Republican primary before the 2016 presidential election, there is a monetary barrier to entry to running an effective and viable campaign. I also agree with your likening of Cheng Cheng’s behavior to US politicians who make promises and use buzzwords their constituents like to gain more votes. It is interesting, and somewhat alarming, that young children who have no living concept of democracy end up resorting to, in a simpler way, the same tactics practiced by career politicians in one of the most prominent governments in the world. Democracy as the “second best” or “least worst” option as a form of government seems more realistic when these points are considered.