What exactly is democracy, as a foundational concept of modern society? Coincidentally, Old T recently encountered a case in his residential community where a vote was held to ban electric bicycles from entering. Taking a glimpse through this small window, I believe it can, to some extent, help explain this concept.

The Community Vote Case

A newly established residential community with several thousand residents recently conducted a homeowner vote on the proposal: "Do you support banning electric bicycles from entering the community?" The voting results showed that over two-thirds of the homeowners supported the ban, making the procedure legal and the outcome valid.

The votes in favor mainly came from homeowners who only owned cars, while those who relied on electric bicycles for transportation almost unanimously opposed the ban. For them, the ban would directly increase their commuting costs: they would have to park their bicycles on public roads outside the community, face inconvenience in charging, and walk several hundred meters from the main gate to their buildings.

After the vote, the property management implemented the resolution, banning electric bicycles from entering the community. Subsequently, homeowners who used electric bicycles began to resist spontaneously: a large number of electric bicycles were parked on public roads near the community entrances and garage exits, even blocking the roads during peak commuting hours, making it impossible for cars to enter or exit.

This situation was difficult for the local street office to handle. Eventually, after discussions among multiple parties, the property management issued a notice temporarily allowing electric bicycles to re-enter the community, effectively overturning the previous voting result.

The Uniqueness of the Case

This is not a typical property management dispute. In similar incidents Old T has witnessed in the past, the conflicts were mostly between homeowners and property management companies or homeowners' associations. In this case, however, the property management acted merely as an executor, while the real conflict occurred among the homeowners themselves.

More importantly, this was a resolution that was procedurally flawless but difficult to implement in practice. The required number of households and property ownership ratios were met, the rules were clear, and the voting process was transparent, yet implementation proved challenging.

The core issue lies in the fact that this resolution directly and continuously shifted the living costs of one group onto another, and the latter happened to possess practical "countermeasures." To put it bluntly, even if each electric bicycle rider spent an extra few dozen seconds at the garage exit during peak hours, it would be enough to cause significant inconvenience for car owners, ultimately leading to a "lose-lose" outcome.

Majority Agreement Does Not Equal the True Will of the Majority

Looking back at this vote, Old T finds it somewhat peculiar. After all, there are countless modern urban residential communities, but resolutions like "banning electric bicycles from entering" are exceedingly rare.

Upon reviewing the entire incident, it became clear that most homeowners who voted in favor did not originally have a strong aversion to electric bicycles, nor did they have any direct conflicts of interest. A significant portion of them were indifferent to the issue, neither supporting nor opposing it.

What truly drove the formation of the agenda was a small minority of homeowners who strongly disliked electric bicycles. They repeatedly shared short videos in the homeowners' group chat showing electric bicycles catching fire in other places and occasionally posted photos of poorly parked or dilapidated bicycles within the community to "condemn" them.

Admittedly, these phenomena do exist, especially during the period of unregulated management in previous years. However, in recent years, systematic governance has made concepts like "electric bicycles are not allowed in elevators" and "electric bicycle batteries should not be charged at home" widely accepted. In practice, most residential communities, including this one, have done a good job addressing these issues. For instance, this community was designed with such concerns in mind, providing designated areas for electric bicycle parking and charging.

So why did the majority of homeowners in this community still feel it was "not safe enough" and insist on "driving electric bicycles out of the community"?

I believe the root cause lies in the issue mentioned earlier. A small minority of homeowners continuously highlighted negative information related to electric bicycles in the group chat, stirring up emotions among other homeowners. Phrases like "unsafe," "prone to accidents," and "it’s always better to reduce risks" successfully transformed a management issue that was neither urgent nor universally harmful into a "black-and-white" agenda.

Ultimately, the majority of homeowners cast their "yes" votes. This "approval" was less an expression of clear will and more a passive choice—since it didn’t affect them, why not vote in favor?

Agenda-Setting Is the Real Power in Democracy

If we further analyze the decision-making process in this community, it essentially boils down to an issue of "agenda-setting."

According to classical theory, democracy often assumes that the public makes rational judgments on important issues based on sufficient information. However, it is clear that what the public first encounters is never "the issue itself" but rather issues preselected by others.

Whoever decides what is discussed has already won half the battle. This phenomenon is not limited to community votes; it is also evident in many international cases frequently reported in the media. Many agendas gain traction not because they significantly impact the majority but because they are emotionally provocative and easily disseminated.

Issues with extremely low probability and limited impact are amplified, monopolizing public attention, while genuine structural, long-term problems are ignored because they are "not stimulating enough."

Ultimately, the choices made by the majority may appear to be the result of free will, but in reality, they are made within a carefully curated range of issues.

The Fundamental Difference Between Democracy and People-Oriented Thought

Ultimately, why did this "democratic" process—from a carefully designed agenda to consensus-building and procedurally flawless decision-making—still fail to be implemented? I believe the root cause lies in the fact that Chinese culture lacks a strong "democratic procedural gene," or rather, there is a fundamental difference in mindset.

Compared to the imported concept of "democracy," traditional Chinese culture prefers the idea of "people-oriented thought." As the saying goes, "Water can carry a boat, but it can also capsize it." Whether a decision can be implemented does not depend on "who voted" but on whether the outcome is feasible. Procedural legality does not guarantee public acceptance.

Of course, this community incident does not prove that "democracy is wrong," but it does illustrate one thing: democracy is not a machine that automatically produces reasonable outcomes simply through voting. It heavily relies on how issues are framed and whether participants are capable of bearing the consequences of decisions.

When agenda-setting is dominated by a minority and the costs are primarily borne by a few, even the most perfect procedures can fail. Understanding this may bring us closer to the true workings of democracy than repeatedly reciting "the definition of democracy."