政治

再談普選定義/假才子

上星期寫過篇短文提到美國、德國、意大利、日本等地的選舉制度曾被法院判過違憲,按梁振英的理論應是假普選,今次就談談我對普選定義的看法。首先要釐清一些詞彙之間的關係。

民主、普選、直選、公提的關係

民主,是主權是否在人民,人民是否能夠影響政治決定,例如牛津字典說 democracy 是 a system of government by the whole population,屬一種概念上的東西。正因為是一種概念,有些人就會說「沒有標準」、「要看實際情況」、「每個國家不同」來試圖蒙混那些懶得思考的人。但對政治學者來說,民主的確有些基本的具體表現,例如全民有參政權和投票權、選舉是公平公開進行、言論自由等基本人權受保障等等。

普選,嚴格定義只是全民有參政權和投票權,牛津字典上 universal suffrage 是 the right of almost all adults to vote in elections,並沒提及選舉須是公平公開、基本人權受保障。再對比上段的民主要求,普選只是民主的其中一個條件,有普選不一定是民主,雖然沒普選的就一定不民主。所以即使新加坡、伊朗,甚至蘇聯、北韓,從法律條文上看,都是全人有參政權和投票權,但因為選舉運作和人權狀況,鮮會有政治學者形容他們為民主。現在香港常講的「真假普選」,可說是源於這個問題。後面會再詳述「一人一票」跟「民主普選」的關係。

直選,即直接選舉,指被選者是由投票者所投的一票直接選出,與之相反的是間接選舉,指被選者是隔了一層地由中間人選出。維基上直接選舉是 voters directly cast ballots for the person, persons, or political party that they desire to see elected,而間接選舉是 voters elect a body which in turn elects the officeholder in question。直選和間選是針對選舉程序作分類,兩者均可以是普選和民主。

例如德國總理,是由德國下議員議員選出,而下議員議員由全體德國選民選出。那總理和議員之間,是直接選舉關係,議員和選民之間,是直接選舉關係,而總理和選民之間,則是間接選舉關係。雖然是間接選舉,因為中間隔了的那一層國會議員仍是由民主普選產生,一般政治學者會認為德國總理也算是民主普選產生。同樣的道理可以套用在英國首相上。英國首相由下議院多數派產生,下議院由民主普選產生,故英國首相是民主普選產生。

事實上,除了德國總理和英國首相,意大利總理、西班牙首相、荷蘭、比利時、盧森堡、丹麥、挪威、芬蘭、瑞典、奧地利、加拿大、澳洲、紐西蘭……等的政府領導人,都是由議會選出,甚至美國總統,嚴格來說也是由「選舉人團」選出,跟一般選民是間接選舉關係。只是無論議會還是選舉人團,都是由民主普選產生,故這一堆國家的領導人都可說是民主普選產生。

有些香港人會產生「直選才是民主」的想法,可能因為香港現時政制中,小圈子的行政長官和商界功能組別都是間接選舉 (選委會/公司票/團體票),只有立法會地區直選是全民選出。但其實只要中間人一層的選民基礎夠闊,也反映一般選民的意願,領導人由間接選舉產生,也可以是民主普選。

然後是公民提名。公民提名,就是參選者收集一定數量選民簽名就可以成為候選人的程序,相對政黨提名和議員提名等。有些國家甚至無明確提名程序。

公民提名也並非民主普選的必須條件。在英國和德國等首相/總理是由國會議員選出的地方,一般選民自然也不會直接提名首相/總理人選。(倒是如果首相/總理要參選國會議員,可能須經過公民提名。) 美國總統的報名程序則是50個州不盡相同,有些有公民提名,有些有其他提名方法。

法國總統是直選產生,由全法選民直接選出,但並無公民提名。有意參選法國總統者,需要收集500個民意代表的簽名 (國會議員、區議員、市長等),可是全法有提名權的民意代表有約4萬人,500個簽名只是1%左右,其實不難收集。連以政見偏激聞名的「勒龐」Le Pen 父女都可以每屆總統選舉都成功參選了。

所以,直選和公提,都並非民主普選的必須條件,甚至兩者都沒有而仍然是民主普選的國家,大有人在。同時有直選+公提,筆者對其選制有認識的地方中,只有台灣和南韓總統。奧地利、芬蘭、葡萄牙、冰島等的總統有直選+公提,但他們跟美國、台灣、南韓總統不同,並無實權,屬「虛位元首」。

香港所謂「普選方案」的問題,不是在於沒有公民提名所以不民主,或者因為有得投票所以是民主,而是在於提名委員會有讓中共操控和篩走異見政客的可能,而且也有將選民分為兩個等級之嫌 (有權和沒權選提委的兩種選民)。

深入理解「一人一票」

上面為了解構幾個詞彙之間的關係,只簡單提及「一人一票」,這裡再詳細講。普選是全民有參政權和投票權,香港常將之簡化為「一人一票」。但要做到民主普選,不只是照字面講的「一人一票」,每個選民都可以到票站投一票,還要「票值」都相等或相近。所謂票值,就是每張選票對選舉結果的影響力。例如早前筆者有篇短文說過美國、德國、日本等地的選舉都被評為違憲,就是基於票值不均的問題。

在日本,票值不均被稱為「一票の格差」,法院可以基於部份選區的選民人數差距太大,票值過於不均,判選區劃分違憲。根據維基紀錄,現時差距最大的是「東京1区」49.2萬人和「宮城5区」23.1萬人,差了2.13倍。理論上,「東京1区」的選民投票時有49萬分之1機會影響選舉結果,「宮城5区」的選民則只有23萬分之1,後者對選舉結果的影響力是前者的2.13倍,所以存在「一票の格差」。

在美國,眾議院選區同樣有規定選民人數須是盡量均等,而即使選民人數均等,如法院認為選區劃分是過度地受到政黨操控 (gerrymandering),仍然可以判選區劃分違憲。筆者上次 quote 的一篇新聞就是 Virginia 法院判某選區硬將黑人聚居地組合而成,令該選區太多黑人,其他選區則太少黑人,是過度的政治操作。

在德國,其憲法法院認為,只有比例代表制才能確保每個政黨所獲得的議席跟其所獲得的票數成一致比例,票值相等,因此對下議院以往未能做到比例一致的選舉制度,下了違憲的指令。

同時,德國憲法法院亦認為政黨要有5%票才能進入議會的門檻,會令小黨無法進入議會,損害小黨支持者的票值,以及令政黨得票和議席不一致,有機會違憲。但政府指這是要考慮到太多小黨會對議會和政府運作造成負面影響,於是憲法法院未有撤去這個門檻。

可是對於歐洲議會選舉,憲法法院就認為沒有需要保留門檻,因為歐洲議會選舉並不影響德國國政,德國的議席只佔歐洲議會整體約一成,小黨進入了歐洲議會影響力也不大,所以判歐洲議會選舉不可設有門檻。結果上屆歐洲議會選舉德國選區,最低票當選者憑0.63%票 (實數則有18萬) 也能當選。

在意大利,其憲法法院亦認為選舉制度中,最高票的政黨不論得到多少票,都能自動獲得過半議席的部份,未能做到確保選民票值相等,因此下了違憲的指令。例如上屆選舉,現任總理「倫齊」 Matteo Renzi 的民主黨 PD 以25.4票取得47.3%議席,前總理「貝佬」 Silvio Berlusconi 的自民黨 PDL 有21.6%票卻只得15.7%議席。

以上的例子可見,單是全部選民都可以去票站投一票,在部份西方民主國家中並不足以被認可是民主,還要考慮選民的權利是否均等、選民有無選擇、候選人或政黨間的競爭是否公平等等。當然,並非每國的憲法法院對票值均等的理解都一樣,例如美國法院就沒像德國法院般要求採用比例代表制。但總括來說,認為選民都可以投一票就是民主,可說是對民主有著一種較膚淺的理解。

現在香港立法會選舉,有些議席只有百幾個選民,有些議席則有幾萬個甚至幾十萬個選民,正正是票值不均或「一票の格差」。如果人人都可以去票站投票就叫「一人一票」和「真普選」,現在其實已經是人人都可以去票站投票選立法會議員啦,那豈不是立法會已經有「真普選」了?
至於行政長官「普選方案」,候選人是經提名委員會篩選過才開放給全體選民選,是否製造了一群有得選提委會的上等選民,和沒得選提委的下等選民?這個提委會是基於過往的選委會成立的,大家看看過往選委會的運作,候選人或政黨間的競爭是否公平?去到全體選民投票階段,大家又有無真正選擇?

 

左:哈薩克總統 Nursultan Nazarbayev
右:烏茲別克總統 Islam Karimov

順便提最近的兩宗選舉

烏茲別克在3月29日剛舉行了總統選舉。自蘇聯解體、烏茲別克獨立 (1991) 後一直出任總統至今的「卡里莫夫」Islam Karimov,以90%票高票順利連任,投票率亦達90%。其他三個候選人現時都是政府官員,三人都對 Islam Karimov 讚不絕口,說他政績彪炳云云。西方傳媒和人權組織就批這三個候選人明顯是陪跑,烏茲別克民眾根本沒真正選擇,不論得票率和投票率再高,都掩飾不了這是場假選舉,烏茲別克的所謂民主是虛有其表 (façade) 的實況。

哈薩克亦將於4月26日舉行總統選舉。同樣自蘇聯解體、哈薩克獨立 (1991) 後一直出任總統至今的「納扎爾巴耶夫」Nursultan Nazarbayev,預料會再次以高票連任。上次的選舉中,他取下95%得票,投票率則達90%。其中一位另外的候選人承認自己是陪跑,還說自己也投了 Nazarbayev 一票。西方傳媒和人權組織的意見,大家都應該猜到了。

網上看到有外媒這樣總結即將舉行的哈薩克選舉:「Why Is Kazakhstan Even Having an Election? An early presidential election is being held next Sunday and we already know how it will turn out.」

如果香港政改通過獲得通過,到2017年,可能就會有外媒這樣說:「Why Is Hong Kong Even Having an Election? An election is being held and we already know how it will turn out.」

分類:政治

25 replies »

  1. 「沒普選的就一定不民主」?有無攪錯!那麼佔領華爾街(Occupy Wall Street)誓死追求的「真接民主」(Direct Democracy)是甚麼?祇爭取「真普選」而毫不理會選舉間對當選者的制衡和公民的積極參與不過是在無知的爭取假民主!

    • 讚!
      真是令人感動!
      真的是有怎樣的人民,才有怎樣的政府。
      沒有你這樣優秀的人民,根本不可能發展出這麼先進,優越的黨政制度。

      中國之所以有光輝的六十多年,就是因為有這麼優秀的人民。

  2. 特府提出的行政長官「普選」方案, 規定候選人經過以不民主選舉方式組成的提名委員會篩選才由全體選民投票, 選民實質上成為橡皮圖章, 喪失真正的選擇權. 若你甘願成為橡皮圖章, 自欺欺人以為行使了自由選擇的政治權利, 恭喜你, 你成為徹頭徹尾的愚民.

  3. 我爭取的是「不只普選」的民主,不是「只有普選」的民主。世界各地有「真普選」仍被有錢有權之士操控的多不勝數,選舉祇不過是權貴換馬之時機。Princeton 教授多次發表論文指出美國政府各階層雖有普選,但絶大多數政策只對權貴有利。若政府推的政改是「假普選」,那麼政棍們推的「真普選」也祗不過是「假民主」!看深入㸃吧!

  4. 不知閣下到底看了甚麼。

    明明你 quote 的文中那句「沒普選的就一定不民主」前面已經講了「普選只是民主的其中一個條件,有普選不一定是民主」,那何來有說過要爭取「只有普選的民主」?

    然後你以 Direct Democracy 來反駁「沒普選的就一定不民主」。可是 Direct Democracy 同樣需要普選。普選我提供的定義是「全民有參政權和投票權」,難道 Direct Democracy 之下就不需要「全民有參政權和投票權」?

    看深入點吧!

  5. 我第一個回響是針對你的文章,第二個是回覆其他讀者。

    Direct Democracy 有普選?可能小弟真的要看深入㸃!Occupy Wall Street 參加者們一心反對Election Politics當然也需要看深入點吧!

    那麼多你自己說明這句的意思吧:「普選只是民主的其中一個條件,有普選不一定是民主,雖然沒普選的就一定不民主。」我正正就是挑戰普選為民主必然條件的説法。

  6. 在你讀書的年輕代,Direct Democracy可能真的祇代表如 plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, 等慣常和選舉街勾進行的工具。但在現代理解下,Direct Democracy 已發展成不同讓人民不必通過代議仕而能真接參與決策的民主方式。

  7. 「普選只是民主的其中一個條件,有普選不一定是民主,雖然沒普選的就一定不民主。」
    這一句的原理很簡單,意思我在文中已經解釋得很清楚,整篇文我都在說明,
    除非閣下不懂 necessary condition 和 sufficient condition 的簡單邏輯分別。

    我最後一次讀書的年代大約是3年前,莫非你口中「現代解釋的 Direct Democracy」只有不足3年時間。
    我看的學術書都是 quote 大學學者,可能你和 Occupy Wall Street 的人才是民主的專家吧!

    上街抗爭就是民主的決策方式,然後民主不需要全民有參政權和投票權,
    即使只有少部份人有參政權和投票權,能夠上街抗爭就是有真民主!

  8. You are saying that election process is a necessary but not sufficient condition for democracy. I am saying that it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Your entire article is devoted to what elements of election qualifies it to be “universal suffrage." But the entire focus is still on election process alone (look at your own title) – nomination process, constituents, electoral system, etc.

    For every point made by renowned academics, even those from the highest institutes like Cambridge, Berkeley, MIT, etc, there is a counter point made by another.

    If you really want to promote democracy to readers here, then stop talking only about elections. You should remind them that election politics has brought a lot of problems to democratic countries such as the US, and that check and balances, e.g. through direct democratic tools (your definition) of initiatives, recalls, plebiscites, etc, and some form of “horizontal democracy" (using another term to describe non-hierarchical democratic governance), are absolutely necessary BETWEEN elections to maintain the rule by the people.

  9. This guy is simply trying to muddy the water. His arguments, boiled down, is akin to “民主並非萬應靈丹 — see how many problems there are blah blah blah", except that he takes up the leftist guise by quoting “direct democracy (as related to Occupy Wall Street) “.

    OWS, while being a worthy cause, is Not a process or system to produce a government.

    “選舉只不過是權貴換馬的時機"嗎?Again, an obvious jab at the USA’s apparent two parties alternating rule phenomenon. So what? With 真普選,the voters at least have the power to 踢他下馬!

  10. Why does it always have to be one or the other?? Why is it that when anyone starts to question “true democratic elections," they are immediately painted as the enemy, leftards or worse?

    I am not against universal suffrage but just wanna ask for more democratic elements to be built-in so more people can participate directly in decision making – a system with popular elections to elect the Chief Executive and all Legco members combined with a mechanism to trigger plebiscites (to be introduced by the government or when endorsed by a certain minimum percentage of Legco members) and initiatives (when endorsed by a certain minimum percentage of citizens / residents) or even recalls (to put elected officials through a binding interim vote before his/her term expires).

    Promoting the view that “the voters at least have the power to vote him/her out" is exactly the problem – YOU allow the elected government / officials to inflict 4 to 5 years of damage before doing anything! We need additional means to participate in governance, directly or indirectly, to prevent such damages.

    The OWS reference is just a means to illustrate the issues people who are enjoying “true democratic elections" currently face. Yes, I acknowledge that the OWS horizontal democracy methods may not work at the government level but with a constituent in the low thousands for most District Council seats, they can definitely be employed at the local governance level.

    Democratic system cannot be reduced to just an election system.

  11. (by author)
    if you understand what means “having elections alone is not a sufficient condition for democracy",
    then where is the “reducing Democratic system to just an election system"?

    Of course I know there are other elements in democracy,
    I’ve read loads of papers on “consolidation" or “deepening" of democracy in university,
    about political change, social change, civil society, equality, social justice, elitism vs pluralism, sources of power etc.

    But having other elements does not mean universal suffrage is not important!

    The Hong Kong government’s electoral reform is a flawed one,
    it’s hardly universal suffrage, which they claim it is,
    that’s why my focus is on explaining why such an electoral system is flawed.

    If you want me to include this and that everytime in every article,
    then sorry I’m not writing for an academic journal or paper or book,
    I’ don’t have the time and energy to include everything I know each time
    I just write on what i think i should focus in each particular article.

    And since you’ve kept on saying universal suffrage is not a necessary condition for democracy,
    Could you just give one concrete example where democracy does not require universal suffrage ?
    no need to vote? no need to have the right to vote?
    In which country? in which expert’s theory?

    Thank you

  12. 我沒有讀過政治,也沒有怎麼看過政治書籍,在我看來,如果代議政制不可取,改行直接民主,北京又會容許嗎?我們一提起公投,中央就已經大動肝火,怎會讓我們擁有如此政治自由?況且,世界上似乎沒有地方完全以直接民主管治,就算是最先進的民主國家都一定有選舉組成的國會、由間接或直接方式選出的領袖。故此,以上Joe Wong的留言只屬學術層面的討論;今天香港面對的,是為保良知而緊守原則、還是為權宜而妥協屈膝之間的抉擇,個人認為,今次的政改方案〝〝不能〞〞通過。

  13. 「沒普選的就一定不民主」?有無攪錯!

    我正正就是挑戰普選為民主必然條件的説法。

    You are saying that election process is a necessary but not sufficient condition for democracy. I am saying that it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

    I think it’s pretty clear you’re proposing democracy does not require universal suffrage.

  14. Examples of the high-sounding “direct democracy " Joe Wong gives: plebiscites and recalls still rely on counting heads that support a certain cause, basically no different from universal suffrage. In fact they can be regarded as branches that sprout from the tree trunk of universal suffrage. So it is futile to try to use them to negate 普選。Do you ever expect to see a plebiscite in North Korea?

    And I trust Joe Wong is a supporter of 雨傘運動,as it resembles Occupy Wall Street in nearly every respect.

  15. 假才子,please don’t mix theory and practice. I am arguing in theory democracy does not necessary need to contain universal suffrage. But for the case in hand – Hong Kong – which requires election by law at the CE, Legco and DC levels, I proposed STRENGTHENING the public’s democratic participation through direct democracy methods. You are pointing out necessary conditions within the election system to make the ELECTION process legitimate. I am pointing out necessary measures outside the election system to make GOVERNANCE more democratic. I don’t see any conflict in it. My point was there is too much focus on election alone but not governance.

    訪客,how can you subsume direct democracy under represenrative democracy. Maybe the author should take one step back to give a class in Political Science 101 and write an article to introduce the various forms of democratic system and their relationships.

  16. (by author)
    to me it’s unthinkable to accuse someone of “mixing theory and practice" when discussing democracy.
    Democracy is something people practice! it happens in the real word!
    if we don’t look at the actual practice, how can we assess weither the theories are good or not good?

    By theory, some experts would say, there would be no existing country that can be called universal suffrage.
    for example, young people could not vote (in all countries).
    foreign residents could not vote (depending on citizenship rules)
    convicted criminals could not vote (in some countries)
    Since not eveyone affected by government policy can have the right to vote, its not universal suffrage nor democracy.

    But why would most scholars not say so? Would rather use a looser definition of democracy and universal suffrage?
    Because we need a working theory, that goes with what is happening in the real world, to have a meaningful discussion and assessment.
    Otherwise it’s only “象牙塔" and “離地"
    Of course scholars know that the ideal form of democracy would include many things, but the world is not ideal, and we need to face the fact that the current situation is not ideal.
    We should first achieve the basic requirements, and then go on deepen democratic practices and social norms.

    Then one might say, if you support incremental change, why not support “袋住先"
    i said, we first achieve the basic requirements, but this government plan does not even fulfill the basic requirements!
    The thing i detest the most, is the government keeps on saying this is democratic, when it’s certainly not, and they’re forcing their lies on to the Hong Kong people.
    That why I’m writing things to rebuke this, and explain why their plans and arguments are not up to standard.

    Actually, to me, none of the pan democrats’ plans are good, but at least they may fulfill the basics.

    So, if you are not mixing theory and practice, and you say you’re arguing in theory democracy does not necessary need to contain universal suffrage.
    Which theory is that?
    I only saw you claims, not the arguments?
    Under what circumstances would universal suffrage be not necessary for democracy?
    When would democracy not require the right to vote, and a universal right to vote?
    I haven’t seen your explanation.

    Continue with the case of US. actually, in theory (since we should not mix up theory and practice, someone said), it’s checks and balances is already one of the best in the world.
    It requires both chambers of congress, the president’s approval, and the supreme court not struck it down, to approve a law.
    That’s 4 different stages to pass a law.
    Compare with UK, since the government equals the majority in parliament, and royal assent is just ceremonial, and there is no written constitution so it’s difficult to start a judicial review, once the government decided, the law is a done deal.
    Checks and balances in US is much stronger than in UK.
    And, the House of representatives in US is re-elected every 2 years, that’s the shortest term among western legislatures, and makes voters easy to hold their representatives to account.

    Also, in most states, there’re already systems of referendums/initiatives.
    But, they may not produce the desirable outcome for everyone.
    For example in many states, it’s the referendums that banned gay marriage by a clear majority, and it’s the courts (which are not elected and has no obligation to listen to public opinion, therefore some experts would say is undemocratic) who uphold gay marriage.
    Or the problem of black discrimination. Black people only constitute 10% of population, so if you use majority rule, which is democratic in most accounts, they may not win! then they need to refer to the “undemocratic" courts to uphold their rights.
    Gun laws. Gun advocates say carrying a gun is a human right!
    Business’s donations to politicians, and lobbying. The supreme court said it’s part of freedom of expression.
    So what is democratic and what is not, if one uses the “ideal" “theories", is actually sometimes hard to say.

    One must think about this.
    If a certain problem occurred in a democratic country.
    Does that mean democracy or not enough democracy is the cause of the problem?
    Does that mean “reforming" democracy in a certain way is the solution?
    Or are there other, better, ways to alleviate the problems?

    Democracy is not 靈丹妙藥, i actually agree, but at least it’s safer than not having democracy at all, better than arbitrary rule.
    And that’s why we need to have democracy first, even if it’s not “ideal" form under “some theory".

    I think maybe i can post this as another article lol

  17. Point(s) well taken. Maybe you really should edit this a bit and publish it so people can understand it’s not just about elections. I enjoy this more, and find it more useful, than the original article.

  18. 真假普選?真假民主?

    實物有真假,例如,女人妖是假女人,女人就是女人,不必要前面加過真字,除非強調我不是女人妖,我是真女人。概念沒有真假,例如,我要做過真女人。女人不做真女人,是否便變成假女人?真女人概念是巧立名目的口號。女人就是女人,沒有所謂真女人,女人只有完善或不完善,沒有真假。

    「真民主」概念是巧立名目的口號。「民主」就是「民主」,沒有所謂「真民主」,「民主」只有「直接民主」和「代議民主」,没有真假。
    1. 直接民主:人民不需要選出或任命官員而直接參與國家或社區事務。例如:香港市民可以自發性參加保衛釣魚台。香港市民也可以自發性清潔香港街道。
    2. 代議民主:人民選出或任命官員,代人民作出處理國家或社區事務。例如:立法會選舉和2017香港特首普選,體現代議民主。

    所以,「選舉」不是全面體現「民主」,沒有「選舉」不代表沒有「民主」。原因是「選舉」只不過是衛護「領袖制度」的工具。若果每一人都有智慧解決問題,有能力做好每一事,行為能夠自律,尊重法治,尊重人權,尊重個人自由; 没有種族分別,没有國家思想,只有大同一體,只有共同利益; 遇到問題,通過全體投票解決(直接民主),這樣便不需要有「領袖制度」(代議民主),「選舉」也没有存在的價值。

    移動電話網絡普及,公民投票(直接民主)將會取代「領袖制度」(代議民主)。國家或社區問題,可通過公民投票解決(直接民主)。人民雇用國家首長,政府部門首長和公務員,代人民處理國家或社區事務。

    「真普選聯盟」提出的「真普選」概念是巧立名目的口號。「普選」就是「普選」,沒有所謂「真普選」,「普選」只有完善或不完善,只有公平公正或不公平不公正,没有真假。

    「真普選聯盟」提出的「真普選」概念是偏離「普選」的真正意義。「普選」意思是由一人一票投票選出領袖,投票及被選權是公平公正,不受「無理限制」。即是說,「普選」可以有「合理限制」,例如年齡和居住年期。候選人可能成為領袖,所以參選資格必須嚴格限制或要求,但要合理,例如,參選人要有大學程度,是管理階層,宣誓效忠國家,不會分裂國家。故「普選」不等於「無限制的普及並平等的選舉」。

    「真普選聯盟」認為無「篩選」或無「預選機制」的普選和「公民提名」是「真正的選擇」,是「真普選」。有「篩選」或有「預選機制」或沒有「真正的選擇」的普選就是「假普選」。根據「真普選聯盟」自己定義的「真假普選」,全世界民主國家的總統選舉不是「真普選」,是「假普選」。例如,英國政黨是由一人一票選出,但首相不是由一人一票選出,是當選政黨的黨魁自動當選。執政黨更換黨魁,首相便自動更換,故首相更換不需要選民參與。即是說,選民對英國首相沒有真正的選擇。

    例如,法國總統候選人至少必先獲民選官員500人簽名支持才能報名(預選機制)。法國總統候選人不是由選民「一人一票」選出,故未能夠有效反映法國人的意願。即是說,選民對法國總統最終沒有真正的選擇。

    例如,美國總統與副總統候選人的法定資格(合理限制或門檻)是年滿三十五歲,出生於美國或取得美國公民資格及曾在美國境內居住十四年以上。因此,美國總統選舉門檻剝奪三十五歲以下或在美國境內居住不足十四年的美國公民的被選舉權,也剝奪選民的選擇權,不能投他們一票。

    美國民主選舉是由民主、共和兩大政黨所壟斷,間接限制其他參選政黨或獨立人士出線。即是說,選民對美國總統沒有真正的選擇。「一國兩大政黨」架構正是做成普選不公平,不公正的罪魁禍首。我們反對大企業壟斷市場,為何不反對「一國兩大政黨」壟斷總統選舉?為何不反對「一國兩大政黨」選舉模式?

    美國總統候選人是由黨代表大會來進行「篩選」,「篩選」到最後,二至三名美國總統候選人(共和兩大政黨)由選民「一人一票」投票,但同時用「選舉人團制」記票。一人一票不能夠決定誰是美國總統,決定美國總統是誰是「選舉人票」,否則布殊便不會勝出。「選舉人票」是普選產生,但未能夠有效反映美國人的意願。即是說,選民對美國總統沒有真正的選擇。所以美國總統普選有公平公正的參與權,但是没有公平公正的選出總統權。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s