Translated by AI:

The U.S. presidential election features a unique "Electoral College" system, which has attracted significant global attention and scrutiny.

The "Electoral College" is well-known; it does not simply involve a straightforward majority vote from the American electorate. In this regard, Taiwan's presidential elections are arguably more democratic than those in the United States.

Furthermore, the presidential candidates of the two major U.S. parties are not chosen through "citizen nominations." Instead, they are determined by internal assessments of public opinion conducted by various interest groups within the parties.

The U.S. Congress is divided into two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Although elections are held every two years, the two chambers function like the upper and lower levels of a bus. After a bill passes the House, it must be submitted to the Senate, and both chambers must approve it. Some bills that pass both chambers are binding on the president, while others are not.

In contrast, the British Parliament consists of an upper house and a lower house, with some members of the upper house being hereditary peers and a significant portion appointed by the Prime Minister. For example, after leaving his political career, Chris Patten was appointed as a member of the House of Lords. Many bills that pass through the House of Commons can be amended or rejected by the House of Lords, and these modifications or rejections are not determined by public opinion.

From these examples, it’s clear that the electoral systems in the UK and the U.S. do not constitute "universal suffrage." Both countries have had their electoral methods in place for at least 200 years, but the question remains: are they functioning well? Can they guarantee the election of perfect leaders? The answer is no.

In the U.S., ballots can be mailed in advance or cast electronically. However, the media does not report on where these mailed ballots are stored or if they have been moved during that time, and there is no paparazzi following them around twenty-four hours a day. In contrast, in most democratic countries, voting occurs on a designated day, requiring voters to present identification in person, fill out their ballots in writing, and any errors in filling out the ballot render it invalid.

The model of "universal suffrage" proposed in Hong Kong aligns with the former pro-democracy camp's consistent stance: that the chief executive candidates must be nominated by citizens, and all Legislative Council seats should be directly elected. Some have questioned: if a candidate like "Long Hair" were to emerge during a time of severe economic hardship in China, leading to extreme wealth disparity in Hong Kong, and this candidate were to rally the populace by asking: why are the Li Ka-shing family members so extraordinarily wealthy? Why does Ho Kwan-yiu's grandson, who received an education at Oxford, monopolize the sports sector upon returning to Hong Kong and hold multiple public offices? Why is Cheng Chih-kang, as the grandson of Cheng Yu-tung, able to secure a loan of 140 billion from the bank?

Consider this: you are all human, born equal. Do you think this situation is equal?

If it is not equal, then should this structural inequality in Hong Kong be changed? If you elect me as chief executive, I promise that large corporations with profits exceeding 500 million will have to pay 70% in corporate taxes. The taxes collected will be redistributed to impoverished citizens living in subdivided flats.

If "universal suffrage" were implemented, I believe there would be more than a 50% chance that Mr. Leung Kwok-hung would become the chief executive of today's Hong Kong.

This hypothesis, of course, does not disrespect Mr. Leung. He has every right to his political views and expressions, and Benny Tai can propose the possibility of universal suffrage within academic circles. However, Mr. Leung is a follower of Trotsky, a figure from the extreme left of the former Soviet Union, and Mr. Tai is an idealist in law. The views and proposals of both do not exceed the Basic Law. If their proposals were to be implemented, many today believe it would lead to disaster.

Before 2019, Hong Kong enjoyed relative freedom of speech but never engaged in mature discussions about whether the electoral systems of the UK and the U.S. qualify as universal suffrage. Because once a rational and critical analysis is presented, it would be labeled by the pro-democracy side as having accepted the Chinese government's united front or as being disloyal to Beijing. In the prevailing atmosphere, if someone not involved in political organizations were to propose such ideas, "Western District" would undoubtedly try to recruit them to join the ranks of people like Ma Fung-kwok, Horace Cheung, and Leung Chun-ying, and publicly criticize the pro-democracy camp led by Jimmy Lai and Benny Tai.

As a result, those holding such views would refrain from speaking out, much like today in the U.S., where many reportedly believe that Trump is not as bad as Kamala Harris but dare not express this publicly for fear of social repercussions and potentially losing their jobs.

This reflects a structural problem in society. In any country, regardless of how democratic and free it is, democracy and freedom need to be practiced by free individuals. Just as in a communist utopia where wealth and food are to be distributed equally, the distribution process is not handled by divine beings or enlightened figures, but by humans.

On what basis can some individuals control the distribution of wealth and food? Where do these people derive their power? Is there any selfishness in the distribution process? Marx did not address any of this in his discourse.

This highlights that the quality of "humans" does not guarantee perfection, whether in the leaders elected or the voters casting ballots.

Today's electoral democracy in the U.S. is not merely a systemic issue but rather a problem with the quality and judgment of the broader populace. Human issues are shaped by education across generations: moral values, ways of thinking, and judgments of good and evil are all molded from kindergarten and elementary school onward. Who is responsible for education? Who decides the teachers and curriculum in the educational process? Is there any bias embedded in it? If the foundational education in primary and secondary schools is flawed, then what happens when knowledge elites from prestigious universities, who wield significant influence over public opinion and votes, become members of Congress or presidents? Where will that country end up?

Three days before the U.S. election, a law passed by the German parliament came into effect: German citizens can now freely change their official records regarding name and gender, once a year, without needing medical proof or a judicial ruling. Authorities have already received at least 1,200 applications. Biological males who identify as "women" can freely access women's restrooms, changing rooms, and showers in public facilities.

According to this law, a person's gender in Germany is no longer determined by physiological characteristics but by individual will. Adult Germans can choose from four genders: male, female, non-binary, and gender-neutral. Additionally, individuals can freely change their names to better reflect their gender identity.

Like the U.S., Germany is a parliamentary democracy. Of course, if a democratic decision is wrong, it can be corrected in the next election cycle as long as the president or prime minister can be replaced. However, given today’s trends, this is not guaranteed: when The Washington Post announced this year that it would not publicly endorse any candidate, multiple editors and reporters resigned, and twenty thousand subscribers canceled their subscriptions because the owner of The Washington Post does not have the freedom to remain silent in the marketplace.