Circumstance

Following my argument yesterday, there is an important consideration that may skip your eyes.

In short, when should we aim to make sure our favorite candidate wins, and when should we change the objective and try to get rid of the ones we are against?

It is, in fact, simple. In a democratic environment and when everyone could have their own opinion, we should go for the former. In that circumstances, we should try to make our special voice heard.

On the other hand, when we are struggling under the mercy of tyranny and are in the minority, we should do the opposite. In this case, it is logical to unite everyone to fight against Lord Voldemort.

NB. I shall do away with the steps of logical deduction that bring us to this conclusion. Nonetheless, if you could not see how it comes along, you could see nothing.

Scenario

Following my discussion on the strategy of voting in recent days, is there any scenario that we really would want to vote for one but not all two candidates?

Yes, there is one.

Consider this: Suppose there is one candidate that you support, another you are neutral to, and the other 8 you are strongly against; one of the 8 is way ahead and would certainly win, the neutral one is in the second place with a marginal lead over your favorite candidate, who is third in the list In that case, voting only for the candidate you support would push him to the second and win.

You may argue: Although this scenario is uncommon, it is the only one that your vote makes a difference. I consider that a subjective judgment: Do we want the one whom we support to win, or those we are against lose?

Difference

You may ask: What is the difference between voting for candidates after they declared their choice of CE and having a group of representatives who do a survey and choose the CE according to the result?

Substantial.

You may realize the latter system is that used by the United States for presidential election. Although appears to be fair, it is in fact a winner-takes-all policy, and opinion of the important minority is neglected. In other words, a marginal dominance becomes a complete victory in a sector (or, a state in USA). It is therefore possible to have a candidate winning an election but would have lost if it is a general election: They win by the skin of their teeth in many sectors and lose terribly in a few sectors.

Donald Trump is the most recent example.

Comment

I must say I am so impressed by the reply that I lose my nerve.

To begin with, there is little reason for members of the Election Committee to explain to their voters the policy of every candidate running for the Chief Executive - who should explain his plan to the constituency directly. With the Election Committee as the intermediate, all messages become second-hand and are subjected to bias and distortion.

But, above all, if they vote according to the survey, there is little point to choose a bright or capable candidate, because their only task is to conduct the survey. In this case, the only criteria of choosing Election Committee members is integrity - that is, the risk of them to cast a vote against the result of survey.

I shall not elaborate further.

Reply

When asked whom he would vote for in the coming Chief Executive election, a candidate who runs for the Election Committee makes a remarkable reply:

**************************

愚見以為選委有責任向選民分析每一位特首候選人如何認識香港面對的眾多問題，又有何應對方略。

因此，廣博的視野(包掊香港在世界發展的角色、全球走向的大勢以至歷史觀)、敏銳的洞察力、多方面的認識(包括政治、經濟、民生和本科專業發展)和強大的邏輯分析能力都是選委必須具備的條件。偏頗和歧見、自我中心和排他思維都妨礙上述條件的發揮。

在未曾深入分析了解每位特首候選人之前就先作比較甚至選擇，不是負責任的做法。我不認為口號式地「堅拒投某某的票」，香港便會好了。

上述的分析和闡述尤為重要，須於特首選舉民調前開展。

最後，我承諾依從整個業界的民調結果投票。

**************************

I shall save my comments for tomorrow.

Strategy

Scenario #5 (following the logic of #2): If we support 1 candidate, are neutral to 2 others, and are strongly against the remaining 7, we should vote for the one that we support and, amongst the two whom we are neutral to, the one who has a higher chance to win. Again, the objective is to minimize the chance of those we are against.

Is there any scenario that we should cast only one vote? Let's consider this:

Scenario #6: We support 1 candidate and are strongly against the remaining 9.

Yes, in theory, we should only vote for the one whom we support and leave the other vote blank.

However, in real life situation, it is almost always possible to, amongst the 9 whom we dislike, find one that is least repugnant. Even if there is none, there may well be other social reasons that you would like to vote for one of the abominable nine - for example, one of them is your classmate or old friend. In this case, your spare vote serves a social rather than political function.

Vote

(...cont'd)

Scenario #3: If we support 1 candidate, are neutral to another, and are strongly against the other 8, we should vote for the one that we support as well as the one whom we are neutral to - so as to minimize the chance of those we are against.

Scenario #4 (following the logic of #3): If we do not support any candidate, are neutral to two, and are strongly against the other 8, we should vote for the two whom we are neutral to. Again, we want to minimize the chance of those we are against.

The motto is: Even though we have no particular one in mind to support, we should always vote.

More scenarios to come tomorrow.