主题：美国精英对美国选票制度的批判。 -- dolong

Your article begs the question of what is "authoritarian," and what is "democracy." I always thought "democracy" meant "people-rule," from the Greek roots "demos" (people) and "kratos" (rule).

In China, there are dozens of protests and even riots on a regular basis which are not covered in the press. Manifestations of unrest like this frighten the Communist Party, and seem to convince it that to remain in power, it must promote economic prosperity for the broad majority of Chinese. In other words, in China, the people do make themselves heard, to a degree, and the government does listen, although it's not done through any formal structures like elections.

In the U.S., our two-party government faces elections, but elections where incumbents are almost always reelected and any candidate from a third party or without large amounts of money from wealthy donors is functionally excluded. The political class hence feels that it has little to fear from acting against the interests of the broad majority, but much to gain from favoring the interests of a wealthy minority.

America has elections but China does not - yet China pursues economic policies which benefit a majority while the U.S. does not. This is because elections are not democracy - they are a tool which can help achieve democracy, in the same way that a hammer can help build a house. But owning a hammer does mean a house has been created or still stands, and likewise U.S. elections are no evidence of a realized democracy. A Congress with a 20% approval rating is in no way "representative."

So, what exactly is it that makes the U.S. "non-authoritarian?" The only real difference from where I sit between the U.S. and Chinese governments is the relative malign or benign qualities of both nations authoritarian systems.