Tuesday, March 23, 2010

真正相信民主的人,要有獨立思考,要懂查找真相,不會人云亦云。


真正相信民主的人,要有獨立思考,要懂查找真相,不會人云亦云。普選聯提議的方案是源自07年之泛民共識方案,絕無背棄民主!以下是普選聯的真普選方案:
(甲) 行政長官普選部份

2017年

 提名委員1200人,由現時選舉委員會800人加上所有民選區議員作成員。
 任何候選人只需獲得任何100名提名委員提名,即可進入普選階段。並不會要求候選人須在任何界別或界別分組取得提名。
 每名候選人不能拿超過150提名委員提名,而各提名委員不可重覆提名。沒有候選人總數目限制。
 特首普選採兩輪投票制。首輪投票如果有任何候選人拿得有效選票中之過半數,則當選特首,如無候選人過半數,則篩選剩最多票的兩名候選人進入第二輪,第二輪得票多者勝。
 撤除行政長官當選後要退黨的規定。

2012年

 原則上,2012年的選舉委員會應過渡至2017年的提名委員會。
 2012年選舉委員會約1200人,由原有800人加上所有民選區議員組成。投票制度維持不變。
 撤除行政長官當選後要退黨的規定。
 2011年取消區議會委任制。

(乙) 立法會普選部份

立法會普選路線圖

2020年

(1) 立法會總議席為100,全部由普選產生,取消功能組別。分區比例代表制與不分區比例代表制各佔一半,即各50席。
(2) 分區比例代表制佔50席,全香港選區重劃為約7區,每區平均約7-8席。以現行約150萬人投票作推算,每區大約8-10%得票率當選計,大約兩萬多票足以當選。
(3) 另外50席普選以全港不分區比例代表制進行,政黨及個人均可提名單參選。不會設置政黨或名單當選的最低門檻(threshold)。在此設計下,某候選名單拿得2%的選票即可穩得一席,即以150萬人投票推算,約3萬票可取得一席。

2016年

1. 2016年取消立法會分組點票。
2. 2016年立法會的普選議席,應增加至不少於總議席三份之二,換言之如果所有普選議員同意,2016年的立法會將可通過改革議案,在2020年邁向立法會全面普選。
3. 建議原有29個傳統功能界別議席(即除區議會界別外)在2012年及2016年保持不變,至2020年一次過取消。
4. 2016年總體議席為100席。其中29席為傳統功能界別,另外71席為直選,直選議席佔71%。直選中40席為分區比例代表制(沿用2012年方法),另外31席為不分區比例代表制,約3%可贏得一議席。即以150萬人投票,約4萬餘票可取得一席。

2012年

1. 立法會議席增至80 席,40席直選、40席功能。直選部份沿用現行分區比例代表制。
2. 40席功能中,29席傳統功能界別不變,另外11席為區議會功能界別。全港所有選民均有機會在某一功能界別中投票,達成「一人兩票」的效果。
區議會功能界別由區議員提名(10名區議員提名),被提名者須是區議員或與區議會有相當連繫者。所有非現功能界別選民的合資格普選選民,均可登記為區議會功能界別選民,所有選民只能登記作一功能組別選民。各候選人獲區議員提名後,交由區議會界別選民投票,選舉辦法以全港不分區比例代表制進行。

這是第一次有泛民提出整套普選方案和完整路線圖。如你認同,請聯署。

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

i am afraid the proposed roadmap is kinda complicated for me, maybe some others too.
wouldn't it be simpler just to make no changes to legco election in 2012 and to expand the seat number to 100 in 2016 as proposed?
It would be complicated to first add 11 new fc seats for currently non-fc voters to vote a second vote and then to wipe out these 11 fc seats and cut all fc seats back to 29 in 2016.
beijing has said no change would be allowed for 2012 elections, i don't see there's much public urge for change either, except they want real democracy at the end of the day.
the proposed changes for 2012 will add uncertainties to the reform package and the government will just make use of that excuse to attack the pan-democratic camp.
the government will not budge and they have said it many times that their hands are tied by the npc's ruling.
so instead of creating new issues for 2012, why dont we focus on making sure that the government and beijing would accept the proposed changes for 2016 and 2020 by threatening a veto of the reform package?
that may sound overly simplified, but i think the public is in no mood for anything that may create endless debates.

h said...

ronny,

i guess many would all appreciate your work.

the problem is that - as the tyranny (in the original sense, the illegitimate government) is quickly tightening their stranglehold, do we actually have time to talk?

and even if we can talk, would the hksar and ccp honour their words?

with what happend to the basic law in mind, what are the chances of your proposal to succeed?

regards,

Ronny Tong said...

we have no time. Chances are practically nil. But that will not stop us trying.

h said...

i see.

since it makes sense to try all other measures before we go on to something more drastic, i wish you good luck.

(however, i wouldn't call the resignation-relection-defacto referendum drastic. it is just a standard political tool with rich history and ample precedence.)