Talk:Elections in China

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bucket287.
This article needs updating, since it was compiled in 2019. Sources are outdated too. Senolatzo (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: Shouldn't there only be 22 provinces?? With 23 then you're counting Taiwan, but I doubt they have deputees at the NCP?? (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_China#Administrative_divisions)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesxie (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On chapter "Indirect elections" 

message: It was presenting the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference as a political party or coalition of sorts. It is nothing like that: iti s a separate body from the NPC and the country's original legislature after 1949. The Communist Party and its coalition partners are known as "the Communist Party and the democratic parties". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  commented out election results template 

message: And if "state media" never reported corruption cases, then they're trying to maintain a facade of democracy over a fundamentally corrupt and nepotistic system. Seeing that the original BBC article has no source for this comment, and is really nothing more than an unsupported conjecture, how unbiased is this conclusion really? 184.64.92.227 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect the BBC to be biased (and its claims), it is essentially the whole UK state media. But it is reliability and verifiability that BBC sources are valued for. I think the statement is focusing on sentiment analysis and motivation behind the reports of corruption, not focusing on the existence of reports of corruption. Such an analysis would not have "a source" (it would have billions of data points) nor would such claims normally be supported (it is a news article, not an academic paper.) I find the BBC claim credible enough though: Please Vote for Me kind of fits this mold; it seems to say "Democracy is corruption." But you're right, the issue should be explored/discussed more in depth. Int21h (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "According to BBC News, state media regularly reports on vote buying and corruption during these elections to discredit wider implementation in higher levels of government." 

message: Substituted at 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elections in the People's Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112120601/http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-05/660012.html to http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-05/660012.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support It is China. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Though explained, this process is not described clearly at all.  What does it mean that a "group of electors" is given the published list of initial candidates for discussion?  Who is this "group of electors"?  And why would the committee meeting of these "group of electors" strike any names?  This is all very confusing.  In most democracies, party nominees are decided by party primaries or conventions of each party.  There are sometimes signature requirements to get on a primary ballot, or statements of support from party groups at a party convention.  Sometimes there is a nominal fee attached.  But what does it mean that "The views of different elector groups and the discussions at the committee meeting are then conveyed to voters, and their views are sought"?  And for all intents and purposes, since the CPC is the only game in town, why do these "group of electors/voters" have any say over whether an non-party/independent candidates get on the ballot?  Isn't this "group of electors" essentially a local CPC party conference?  Please, someone reword this section on local people's congresses to make this make sense. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, figured out one thing: For "Cities not divided into districts" the term district relates to the specific administrative city-governed district (市辖区). It would seem that the subdivision of county-level cities covers literally all but one other city not divided into districts. Perhaps that would be a better term to use. BTW, does ANYONE have any kind of answers or explanation to my first set of questions? The "three ups, three downs" process is not at all clear as currently written and it'd be nice to have sources for this process if even it's informal. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Figured it out for myself. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "three ups and three downs" 

message: Can we clearly state that elections in china as of 2022 are not Free and Fair? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that a completely subjective metric? Freedom and Fairness aren't real things, they're ideas, and when you claim China has less fair elections than, for example, the US, you do this based off your notion of freedom. Both the United States and China have indirect elections, and both have two main factions, the republican and democratic parties, while China has the two main factions of the cpc: the tsinghua and shanghai cliques, both have high levels of corruption, one big example in the US is Gerrymandering. What is freedom in an electoral/political sense? It seems to me like an arbitrary way to label someone as "the other", which isn't really the point of wikipedia, that strives to show an unbiased point of view. 2804:431:8B12:5801:490C:57B7:2A10:D8CF (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are not Free and Fair