Like I said before. It isn't about the truth. It is more about which side you choose to be with. This article pretty much sums up what I see things.
The dust of the district council election is settled, and some pro-establishment voters have asked whether 1.6 million votes are missing. This is only a false consolation. In fact, if you lose, you lose.
An analysis of the election results should adopt a pragmatic spirit and find out the truth from the results. In the current district board election, the establishment voter obtained 42.3% of the total votes, while the opposition got 56.9%, which basically reflected the public opinion's four-six ratio. On the other hand, in the 2015 regional elections, the opposition obtained only 38.5% of the votes, while the pro-establishment votes were as high as 55.8%. The main reason was that the election at that time was not so political, and it did not reflect the large public opinion of the ratio of four to six.
The percentage voters voted for the pro-establishment was 42.3%, showing that the vast majority of people who support the pro-establishment have already voted. It can be said that even if they are not satisfied with the performance of the chief executive, they still vote in tears. Therefore, the key to the result of this ballot is not that the pro-establishment supporters did not vote, but that the opposition have more people came out to vote.
From another point of view, even after more than five months of violent demonstrations took place, causing great damage to the society,
but did not cause the 60% of the opposition supporters to change their mind, or the so-called "Peace, Rational, Non-violence, non-profanity" votes to be changed. The government or the pro-establishment thought that the repeated smashing and burning would cause the "Peace, Rational, Non-violence, non-profanity voters" vote to turn, or at least not to vote, but this situation did not occur, and it is the most unpredictable in this election.
I've talked to many young people and understand their views. The biggest blind spot of the pro-establishemnt was that they did not understand the problem of "police violence" (police violence) in the mind of the other party. If you ask some young people, will they accept that the 57-year-old construction worker in Ma'anshan was pull gasoline and set ablaze by people in black, the response of the young people will be one.
The whole thing is just a show, and it is false. ; 2.
Those in black are disguised as "black police officers"; 3. More rational would say, "I also oppose these things, but
The pro-establishment felt that young people were both deviated from reality and thoughts were naive. However, after you have discussed with the young people in depth, you will find that they believe that the police ’s abuse of violence is “founded” and killed at least six demonstrators at Prince Edward Station. In addition, the 15-year-old female student Chen Yanlin of IVE was also killed by police and dumped to the sea. Of course, the university student Zhou Zile was also pushed down by the police.
Since the police are so brutal, this regime is a tyranny. In the face of tyranny, the rebellious violence, even if it is not acceptable, is understandable. Some young people even feel that violence is a necessary means of resistance.
These perceptions are supported by poll data. A survey this month asked citizens whether they accepted the violent and destruction by the protesters, and the results showed that only 39.8% of the respondents did not accept it; 27.7% understood but did not accept it; 24% understood and accepted it; There are 7.1% totally support it. The proportion of people who of understanding to acceptance is 58.7%.
More importantly, these figures have not changed much compared to the polls in July. And the proportion of people who understand or accept violence (58.7%) is quite close to the 56.9% vote of the District Council in favor of the opposition.
Because so many people "understand or support" violence, even after a series of violent demonstrations, they have not been turned to oppose the opposition. In addition,
opinion polls show that 42.5% of people believe that the SAR government should bear the greatest responsibility for violence, while only 12.9% think that violent demonstrators should bear the biggest responsibility. This explains the logic of the people who voted for the opposition. Although the demonstrators are violent, the police's killings and corpses are far more brutal, and the SAR government is responsible for all kinds of violence. So they insisted on voting for the opposition.
The core view of the opposition is "police brutality", which is based on numerous false news. For example, opinion polls show that 48% of people believe that the police killed the demonstrators at Prince Edward Station. But the riots have continued to this day. The government has not set up a war room to fight public opinion. Letting opponents fabricate and disseminate news of police killings has caused many people to have a deep-rooted concept of hatred, coupled with extremely low popularity among the chief executive. It has become the core reason for the defeat of the establishment. (Lu Yongxiong)
Your highlighted phrase is misleading. The breakdown shows there is at least a roughly 20% swing vote whose minds change between elections. Both government supporters and the opposition only have a reliable 40% of the vote.
The logic of comparing the poll numbers in this article doesn't add up and the proposed correlation is not valid. 67.5% of respondents did not accept the violence while 31.1% of respondents accepted or supported it. This does not correlate with the votes favoring the opposition.
The question is biased to favor holding the government responsible as the vague and politically loaded polling question does not differentiate between responsibility for instigating, committing vs controlling the violence, nor does it get into reasons for resorting to violence and the degrees and contexts of the wide range of violence that happened. The logical conclusion from this poor quality data can only be that 42.5% of respondents held the government responsible for either failing to control or committing or instigating any violence, while 12.9% of respondents held the rioters/violent protesters responsible for committing or instigating any violence.
Of course a large volume and wide variety of fake news has an impact. The incompetence of the authorities in responding to this fake news is also to blame. There is also the pre-existing distrust, historical circumstances, and colonial subject legacy of HK society.
I didn't defect from examining this article. It is you who refused to even do a basic homework regarding Hong Kong politics, I just don't feel like doing the homework for you. In 2016 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 40.17% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 55.02% of the votes. In 2012 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 42.66% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 56.24% of the votes. In 2008 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 39.71% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 59.39% of the votes. In 2004 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 36.93% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 60.52% of the votes. In 2000 HK legislative elections, pro-establishment received 34.94% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 60.56% of the votes. In 1998 HK legislative elections , pro-establishment received 30.38% of the votes and the pan-Dems received 66.15% of the votes.
The author didn't go into lengthy details regarding 4-6 ratio because he expected that most Hong Kong readers and watchers know this basic fact. As I have already explained, the HK district elections were never this politicized before and the turnout for this district elections even exceeded all previous legislative elections so the 4-6 golden rule applied.
As for the other point, the author included the 27.7% of respondents who opposed violence but understood the reason of the violent protests into the pan-Dems camp. You on the other hand think differently. That is mere a difference in the interpretation of the meaning and the result of the poll. Here you claimed the facts are wrong, And I would reply the facts are sound, that you just don't like them.
Both you and the article are ignoring that 20% of the district council vote that flipped and what the reasons may be for flipping, none of which is explained by your precious 4-6 rule. You are changing what you/article are saying from 60% supported the violence (untrue) to 60% supported the pan-Dems (true). You are the one playing loose with the facts and ignoring critical questions to fit your narrative and you just can't stand being held up to scrutiny.
