In an essential sense, Evergreen’s classroom exhibits all the hallmarks of an electoral democracy. There is competition between the candidates, the candidates are responsive to the student “citizens”, and citizen’s votes directly determine the outcome of the election. However, watching the whole process play out elucidates the many ways in which a system that looks like a democracy from the outside may not be effective on the inside.

The voters seem poorly prepared in their understanding of what it means to “vote” and, although their teacher tries to explain the concept, they are still convinced by bribery to vote for Luo Lei, whose leadership style they clearly dislike. The social and economic standing of the children’s parents, their “political action committees” one might say, has a disproportionate effect on the children’s success in their tasks, and ultimately the most wealthy student prevails. Although it is unclear, Luo Lei is clearly threatening to the children, a factor that might also force them to vote in a biased manner. Finally, the reelection of a “dictator-like” leader, Luo Lei, makes us question whether the institution of democracy does indeed open society and the polity, as Karl and Schmitter propose, since we do not actually know if Luo Lei would have peacefully relinquished power. In certain ways, visible only through the close lens of the documentary, Evergreen school’s electoral democracy fits many of our positive definitions of democracy, while exhibiting significant normative issues in practice.