https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections note: this is the City of London (~1 square mile) not the metropolis.
Edit: ninja'd by louthy and djcapelis
I think that can be true, but it's a difficult needle to thread. I don't know there's huge geopolitical benefit in holding onto a tiny outcrop of land that actively rebels against you on the regular and causes trouble. It's pretty insignificant these days in the bigger picture of the PRC except to your point the CPC's ego rests on it.
That's how it was designed by Beijing. Every single Chief Exec since handover has been Beijing's choice, and the legislature balance has always been in Beijing's majority. That's because the proportion of votes to each trade and whether an industry gets a vote at all was decided in proportion of how Beijing sympathetic they were. There's more - Wikipedia has the full absurdity.
That is how you create a show democracy, with show elections, and give the impression there is democracy to subvert.
Do you have a problem with someone writing a book about a presidential candidate?
If not, why would you have a problem with a movie being released?
Do you think newspapers and tv shows should endorse candidates? Or choose which ones to cover and how much to cover?
Citizens united is incredibly misunderstood.
If anything, the problem is that there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it.
> there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it.
The money spent by the federal government is people's money. Trying to get it is called stealing.
Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign contributions.
Money talks, but it isn’t everything and can’t buy elections in the USA right now.
Note: The City of London is not the same thing as London. It’s real weird.
Many US counties have a similarly-titled head of government.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...
It culminated in the ‘67 protests, where the British killed over 50 protesters.
It was only after the 80s, when decolonization was popular and the return of HK inevitable, did things change for the average Hong Kong citizen.
How can you (already?) forgot the massive protests against Mainland China? A country is made of civilians, not corporations.
And you said that the British had killed over 50 Hong Kong "protesters"? I don't know how many Chinese terrorists were killed, but I am sure that tens of Hongkongers had been murdered by the Chinese terrorists. Some were killed by the bombs planted by the terrorists. Some were killed by Chinese militants (equipped with firearms) near the border. A famous broadcaster, Lam Bun, who criticised the Chinese terrorists, was even burnt to death inside his car.
They even ignore the fact that for much of Hong Kong history, the people were treated as second class citizens.
That seems pretty smart to me. If your two choices are either assimilation or to make a separate state (with separate laws, etc.) out of your 8th or so largest city, I can see doing this.
Obviously, both sides will alter each other with the largest one doing most of the altering.
Not to mention this would vastly fuel the protests.
It caught my attention because I'm listening to Living the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon by Suzanne M. Desan on Audible.
Soon the course will cover the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille. Apparently it's common in history for societies facing extreme tension to have groups rise up and loot military garrisons (lest they starve). Thankfully, this doesn't happen as often because societies let their people participate in the future of their country by voting.
Backing up though, in last weeks audible lesson, I learned coffee shops were popular in pre-Enlightenment France for people to discuss their disapproval of the rulers and ideas for a new system (Voltaire loved coffee). During this time, plain clothes police would write dossiers on the speakers. The French had a name for them, "flies". This reminded me of claims on /r/hongkong spotting infiltrators blending in with protesters.
I hope HK protesters don't suffer unnecessarily for being targeted for political disagreements. From the news, protesters are interpreted as a national security / subversion concern, if this is true, doesn't that sort of contradict the 2 systems concept?
If HK can have their system, how can the law be improved if citizens can't communicate their feelings without harassment / surveillance? Wouldn't chilling of expression / speech spoil a system where the people rule?
The French Revolution had many differences, but the core of it is people were allowed to think, have self-rule, and wouldn't be bullied when they communicated displeasure it sucked they starved while aristocrats ate well (among a trove of other things).
In HK, wouldn't having more direct rule by the people result in new laws to ease the housing costs and make people feel pride, inclusion in their own region?
With this enthusiasm for liberty and democracy surging through HK, it's only a matter of time until they are granted universal suffrage forever, since PRC agreed that they are a separate system and always intended this level of freedom and flexibility for them.
Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.
Hong Kong’s economic relevance to the story of China has fallen to almost negligible levels, it doesn't make sense to identify it as separate from the 8 megacities that surround it which are economic marvels and productivity houses.
Our news should be populated by the numerous things occurring in the 8 larger, more populated, higher GDP outputting cities in the Guangzhou region. Shenzhen alone, bordering Hong Kong, is likely more interesting this decade and into the future.
Hong Kong functions as a mere administrative convenience for circumventing customs duties to the rest if the world.
Any nation in a similar situation would look at all avenues of integration, no matter how skeptical people were. Is that inaccurate?
I think this perspective isn't presented.