【本章提要：代议制使得权力更新不再通过强力，但仍然是数量求和结构。权力意志可通过操纵代议制的数量求和扭曲社会意志；反之数量和的压力又会迫使代议制纵容消费主义和民族主义。】
Chapter synopsis: Representative democracy eliminates the need for force in power renewal but still operates within a structure based on the scalar summation. Power will can distort societal will by manipulating the scalar summation within the representative system. Conversely, the pressure of the scalar sum can compel the representative system to tolerate consumerism and nationalism.
作为人类政治文明的伟大进步，代议制解决了一个重大问题——权力更新从此以数人头代替砍人头，不再需要强力。选举为社会的无权元提供了对有权元的沟通，使得解决权力意志脱离社会意志只需以压力方式，从而避免以强力更新权力所造成的损失和破坏。
As a great advancement in human political civilization, representative democracy has addressed a significant issue–power renewal now involves counting heads rather than chopping heads, eliminating the need for force. Elections provide a means for the powerless in society to communicate with the power, allowing the resolution of the divergence between power will and societal will through pressure instead of the destructive consequences associated with forcefully renewing power.
迄今已发展为一整套国家政治制度的代议制，为无权元提供了如下若干对权力的沟通：
The representative system, which has developed into a complete set of national political systems to date, provides the following communications to the powerless:
表决：作为直接民主的方式，虽与代议制理念不同，却是代议制的基础。除了重大事项采用公投表决，代议制的选举本身亦是直接民主的表决。
Voting: As a form of direct democracy, although it differs from the principles of representative democracy, it serves as the foundation for representative democracy. In addition to using referendums for significant issues, the elections within the representative system are also a form of direct democratic decision-making.
竞争性选举：是候选人与选民之间的沟通。对于无法进行充分直接沟通的大规模人群，没有竞选便没有真正的选举。
Competitive elections: It is the communication between the candidates and the voters. For large-scale crowds that cannot have sufficient direct communication, there is no real election without campaigning.
言论自由：为民众监督权力提供了纵向沟通，为凝聚民意提供了信息与思想的横向沟通，是社会意志对权力意志施加压力的基本方式。
Freedom of speech: It provides vertical communication for the public to supervise power, and provides horizontal communication of information and ideas for the aggregation of public opinion. It is the basic way for the societal will to exert pressure on the will of power.
多党体制：在政权的沟通结构之外另立沟通结构，为不同政见和诉求提供立足之地，也为民众更新权力提供多种选择。
Multi-party system: Establishing a communication structure outside the power structure, providing a foothold for different political opinions and demands, and providing multiple choices for the public to renew power.
权力分立与制衡：把政权分割为数个独立的沟通结构，相互制衡，避免绝对的权力，同时也为民众增加沟通权力的管道。
Separation of powers and checks and balances: Divide the political power into several independent communication structures, check and balance each other, avoid absolute power, and at the same time increase the channels for the public to communicate with power.
正是这些沟通管道的存在，使得社会意志对权力意志的压力得以表达和传递。定期选举使权力意志对这种压力必须保持敏感，不再骄横，而需小心翼翼地逢迎化解。说到底，代议政治中的政党竞争、媒体造势、社会运动等，都是利用压力促使权力意志调整，或是通过选举更新权力。代议制的优点已经论述很多，无需重复。本文希望从另一面看代议制存在的问题，以及能否改善。这并不意味否定代议制是迄今最好的政治制度，而是希望寻求更多有助前行的启发。
It is the existence of these communication channels that allows the pressure of social will on the will of power to be expressed and transmitted. Regular elections make the will of power sensitive to this pressure, no longer arrogant, but need to carefully appease and resolve. In the final analysis, party competition in representative politics, media campaigning, social movements, etc., are all using pressure to prompt the adjustment of the will of power, or to renew power through elections. The advantages of the representative system have been discussed a lot, no need to repeat. This article hopes to look at the problems of the representative system from another perspective, and whether it can be improved. This does not mean denying that the representative system is the best political system to date, but hopes to seek more inspiration to help move forward.
理论上只要有选举，权力一定要对社会意志的压力让步，否则就会被选举更新。然而事实并非完全如此。虽然权力意志不会公开扭曲社会意志，所作所为皆符合法律和程序，但是其与社会意志仍有差距。一个典型例子是，在数年以来的盖洛普民意调查中，国会议员都被美国民众评为在道德与诚信方面最差，甚至是以职业排名的倒数第一(注)。然而国会议员正是民众选举出来为自己代议的。如果不是代议制存在问题，为什么会出现这种黑色幽默式的结果？
In theory, as long as there are elections, power must yield to the pressure of societal will, otherwise it will be updated by elections. However, this is not entirely the case. Although the will of power will not openly distort the societal will, and everything it does complies with laws and procedures, there is still a gap between it and the societal will. A typical example is that in the Gallup public opinion survey over the years, congressmen have been rated by the American public as the worst in terms of morality and integrity, even ranked last in terms of profession(Note). However, congressmen are elected by the people to represent themselves. If there is no problem with the representative system, why would such a black humor result occur?
从本文角度分析，问题根源就在代议制是数量求和结构，而社会意志是向量求和的结果。数量求和结构无法完成向量求和，因此社会意志便无法在数量求和结构中真正体现。
From the perspective presented in the chapter, the root of the problem lies in the fact that representative democracy operates as a scalar summation structure, whereas societal will is the result of summing vectors. The scalar summation structure is unable to capture the complexity of vector summation, and consequently, societal will cannot truly be reflected within this framework.
正是数量求和与向量求和之间的差别，造成了代议制的现实与理想之距离。一方面代议制权力的确会在民众压力下让步，那却不是向量和的压力，而是数量和的压力；另一方面，代议制权力又可以在相当程度上利用乃至操纵数量求和的过程与结果，才导致上述黑色幽默。
It is precisely the difference between scalar summation and vector summation that creates the gap between the reality and ideal of representative democracy. On the one hand, the power of representative democracy does yield to public pressure, but it is not the pressure of vector summation; rather, it is the pressure of scalar sum. On the other hand, the power in representative democracy can, to a considerable extent, manipulate and exploit the process and outcomes of scalar summation, leading to the aforementioned dark humor.
前美国副总统戈尔(Al Gore)回忆其在1984年竞选参议员时，当民意测验显示他的领先优势消失时，竞选顾问提出了在广告方面的投入与策略，并保证按其计划操作可在3周内让戈尔的支持率提高 8.5%。3 周后，支持率不多不少正好提高 8.5%( Al Gore: The Assault on Reason)。这固然可能存在巧合因素，但也一定程度上能说明代议制政治对数量求和的操纵。
Former Vice President Al Gore recalls his 1984 Senate campaign, where, facing a decline in lead according to polls, his campaign advisors proposed an investment in advertising and strategy. They assured that, following their plan, Gore's support could increase by 8.5% within three weeks. True to their prediction, three weeks later, the support had indeed increased by exactly 8.5% (Al Gore: The Assault on Reason). While coincidental factors might play a role, this example to some extent illustrates the manipulation of scalar summation in representative democracy politics.
代议制选举将“是”或“否”的投票相加成彼此对立的数量，决定最终结果。如何利用数量求和达到目标，既是精确的学科，也是可观的产业。花在竞选和立法游说上的钱爆炸增长，代议政治的结果与钱的投入密不可分。这种过程的主导权掌握在权力元手中。无权元虽然握有票权，但调侃的说法是“无权者可以自由地投票，金钱和权力可以自由地操纵，无权者也可以自由地被操纵”。这虽有以偏概全，在相当程度上也是现实的反映。
Representative democracy elections aggregate "yes" or "no" votes into opposing quantities, determining the final outcome. The art of utilizing scalar summation to achieve goals is not only a precise discipline but also a substantial industry. The explosive growth of money spent on campaigns and lobbying is intricately tied to the outcomes of representative politics. The dominance in this process lies in the hands of those who hold power. While the powerless may possess the right to vote, a cynical saying goes, "The powerless can freely cast their votes, the money and power can freely manipulate, and the powerless can also be freely manipulated." While this statement may generalize, to some extent, it reflects the reality.
有太多故事描述政客在代议政治游戏场上玩的花样，以致他们在民众中丧失信用，同时又挡不住他们继续拿到足够的选票。代议制的各种投票制都无法改变这种荒谬，原因就是囿于数量求和的结构。
There are too many stories describing the tactics politicians employ in the game of representative politics, leading to a loss of credibility among the public. However, they still manage to secure enough votes to stay in power. Various voting systems within representative democracy fail to change this absurdity, mainly because they are confined by the structure of scalar summation.
只要社会仍处于二元结构，无权元对有权元的沟通管道就总能被权力动手脚。比起专制，代议制权力是用软性方法。专制的蛮横一目了然，代议制却让结果看似是民众自己的选择。照搬代议制的转型社会，有的出现民主倒退乃至只剩形式，往往是当权者利用代议制的政治手段操纵选举、蛊惑民意、控制舆论，结果让民众自以为民主地再次被专制。新诞生的专制者可以获得足够的选票，完全无需作假，但那正是通过蛊惑和操纵形成的数量和，而不是社会意志的向量和。
As long as society remains in a dualistic structure, the communication channels from the powerless to the power in representative democracy can always be manipulated by those in power. Compared to authoritarianism, the exercise of power in representative democracy is more subtle. The brutish nature of authoritarianism is evident, while representative democracy makes the outcomes appear as if they are the people's own choices. In societies undergoing the transformation towards representative democracy, some experience democratic regression, and sometimes, democracy is reduced to mere formality. This often occurs when those in power exploit the political mechanisms of representative democracy, manipulating elections, influencing public opinion, and controlling the narrative. The result is that the public, thinking they are participating in democracy, unwittingly falls back into authoritarianism. Emerging authoritarians can garner sufficient votes without resorting to fraud, but it is achieved through the manipulation and seduction of scalar sum, rather than the vector sum of societal will.
注Note：http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx
超出充分沟通与协商的规模便无法进行向量求和，只能简化为数量求和，因此不会是真正的民主。历史上民主曾长期名声不好，问题正是出在数量求和。数量求和类似数学的提取公因式，忽略各自不同，只取共同，因共同的共振愈加共同，或因局限的叠加愈加局限，最终减掉少数，形成零和结果。名义上民主，实为多数专制。
Beyond the scope of sufficient communication and negotiation, it becomes impossible to engage in vector summation; instead, it is simplified into scalar summation, thus not truly constituting democracy. Throughout history, democracy has had a long-standing poor reputation, and the issue lies precisely in scalar summation. Scalar summation is akin to factoring in mathematics, where differences are overlooked, and only commonalities are considered. Because resonances among commonalities may become even more pronounced, or limitations may become increasingly restrictive, ultimately subtracting the minority and resulting in a zero-sum outcome. In nominal terms, it may be called democracy, but in reality, it resembles majority rule or even a form of majority dictatorship.
数量求和是出于解决民主所面对的规模难题，以“是”或“否”的表决把个人意志向量变成可批量处理的数量。但即便简化为数量表决，规模导致的繁复和成本也使其无法应用于日常，只能进一步简化为数量表决的选举，把权力交给当选者代为行使，即为代议制。
The scalar summation arises as a solution to the scalability challenge faced by democracy, transforming individual vectors of will into a manageable scalar through "yes" or "no" votes. However, even when simplified into a scalar vote, the complexity and costs resulting from scale make it impractical for daily use. This leads to further simplification into elections based on scalar voting, where power is delegated to elected representatives, giving rise to the system of representative democracy.
代议制一方面以批评直接民主为自身寻找合理性，一方面却用直接民主的方式进行选举。其指出的直接民主弊病，在直接选举中一样都不少——信息不充分，选民发言权微小，交流和辩论困难，缺乏相应知识，容易被主持人操纵等。问题根源仍然在规模导致的沟通障碍。使得代议制在理论上的选举自由，因为能当选的人需要具备特殊的沟通能力（知名度，政党支持，媒体报道和资金等）而局限于很小的圈子之中。圈子内的人竞争再激烈，大格局仍万变不离其宗。选民只能通过电视、报纸、集会认识竞选人，看到的是商业广告包装和公关技术创造的形象，竞选成功的往往是最善表演者。
Representative democracy, on the one hand, seeks legitimacy by criticizing direct democracy, yet on the other hand, it employs direct democratic means in elections. The shortcomings of direct democracy it highlights are also present in direct elections—insufficient information, minimal voter voice, communication and debate challenges, lack of corresponding knowledge, susceptibility to manipulation by moderators, and more. The root problem still lies in the communication barriers caused by scale. This leads to a theoretical freedom of elections in representative democracy, where those who can be elected need to possess specific communication abilities (popularity, party support, media coverage, and funding, among others) but are confined to a small circle. Even within this circle, competition may be fierce, but the overarching pattern remains largely unchanged. Voters can only get to know the candidates through television, newspapers, and gatherings, witnessing images created by commercial advertising and public relations techniques, often resulting in the most skilled performer winning the election.
当然，自由的选举可以更换当选者。不过这也使得代议制的选举往往变成与前任算账而不是放眼未来。代议制虽不再需要强力更新权力，分成有权和无权的二元状态却未改变。当选者的轮换也不会有本质变化。
Of course, free elections can bring about the replacement of elected officials. However, this often turns the elections within representative democracy into settling scores with predecessors rather than focusing on the future. Although representative democracy no longer requires the force to renew power, the dualistic state of having power and powerless remains unchanged. The rotation of elected officials also does not bring about fundamental changes.
“代议”（代表决议）和“民主”（民众做主）是矛盾的。二者组成一个词，表达的只是通过“代议”实现“民主”的愿景，不等于“代议”就是“民主”。真正的民主不能和民众参与分开。进行政治参与是人民自由的标志。尽管参与式民主常常遭人怀疑，精英内心更是宁愿以共和取代民主，然而民主是正义的体现，也是共和的合法性来源，因此什么都不能取代民主。以往民主暴露的问题，根源不在民主，在数量求和。数量求和貌似民主，却非民主，只有将其变为向量求和，才能成为真正的民主。
"Representation" (representative decision-making) and "Democracy" (rule by the people) are contradictory. Although they form a compound term, it only expresses the vision of achieving "democracy" through "representation," not equating "representation" with "democracy." True democracy cannot be separated from people's participation. Engaging in political participation is a hallmark of people's freedom. Despite the frequent skepticism towards participatory democracy, and the inclination of elites to prefer a republic over democracy, democracy is the embodiment of justice and the legitimate source of the republic. Therefore, nothing can replace democracy. The problems exposed in the past by democracy do not lie in democracy itself but in scalar summation. Scalar summation may appear to be democratic but is not truly democratic. Only by transforming it into vector summation can it become genuine democracy.
西方政治文化对集权强烈怀疑和警惕。代议制驯服权力主要靠分权制衡，期望把一个魔鬼分成三个后变成天使。虽然分权在本质上只是一种缺乏价值意义的政治技巧，民众并未因此得到权力和参与，但起到的制衡作用的确有效。阿伦特（Hannah Arendt ）认为杰佛逊（Thomas Jefferson）当年对代议制的担忧——或落入多数专制、或因人民不关心公共事务而让当权者以权谋私——主要是靠分权制衡才得以避免。然而，当分权制衡占的分量越来越重，却可能产生另一方面问题——即福山 (Francis Fukuyama)在其自造词 Vetocracy（否决政治）中所指的政治衰败。
Western political culture harbors a strong suspicion and wariness towards centralization of power. Representative democracy tames authority primarily through the balance of powers, aiming to turn one devil into three angels. Although the decentralization is essentially a politically expedient tactic devoid of inherent value meaning, it has indeed proven effective in the role of checks and balances. According to Hannah Arendt, Thomas Jefferson's concerns about representative democracy—either falling into majority rule or letting those in power exploit their positions due to public apathy towards public affairs—were primarily addressed through the mechanism of balancing powers. However, as the weight of the balance of powers becomes increasingly substantial, it may give rise to another set of problems—what Francis Fukuyama refers to as "Vetocracy" in his coined term, indicating political decay.
例如为了防止政府滥权，美国在总统和国会间分割权力；州和地方政府保留相当自治权；允许法庭以宪法为由推翻法律；鼓励政党竞争与轮替……仅从议会立法看，法案起草后要经议会规则委员会审查是否符合法律，决定送到哪个委员会；再由相应的委员会投票，决定要不要进一步处理；往下还要看是否涉及财政，送拨款委员会审查通过后才可交议会投票；参众两院中的一院通过后，另一院也须通过；两院通过的法案送交总统签署；总统可以否决；但两院三分之二多数又可以否定总统的否决。这中间的任何一个环节，都可以使立法夭折。
For example, to prevent government abuse, the United States divides power between the President and Congress. State and local governments retain considerable autonomy. Courts are allowed to overturn laws based on the constitution. Political party competition and rotation are encouraged. Just in terms of legislative procedures, after a bill is drafted, it undergoes scrutiny by the Rules Committee to ensure legal compliance and determine which committee it should be sent to. The corresponding committee then votes on whether to proceed further. It is then assessed for fiscal implications, and after approval by the Appropriations Committee, it can proceed to a vote in Congress. Once one chamber of the House passes it, the other chamber must also approve it. The bill is then sent to the President for signing, with the option of a veto. However, a two-thirds majority in both houses can override the President's veto. Any step in this process can lead to the demise of the legislation.
除了立法的层层关卡，司法也可施加各种干涉。诸多行为体对公共政策的制定施加影响，造成政出多头；而党派意识形态的对立和权争使之各自利用分权制衡，为反对而反对，导致行政效率低下，无法决策，内耗空转，甚至造成政府停摆……这种政治衰败被认为有继续加重的趋势。
In addition to the layers of checks in the legislative process, the judiciary can also exert various interventions. Numerous entities influence the formulation of public policies, resulting in a diffuse decision-making process. The opposition and power struggles rooted in partisan ideologies lead to the exploitation of the system of checks and balances, causing inefficiencies in administration, a lack of decision-making, internal strife, and even government shutdowns. This kind of political decay is believed to have a continuing tendency to intensify.
福山认为利益集团在 Vetocracy 中扮演了重要角色。理论上，民主政治希望人民可以用抗衡权牵制权力，抗衡权归属多元的参与式群体。然而实际上拥有和掌控抗衡权的主要是利益集团。立法有那么多的环节和障碍，且大都关门进行，一般人很难介入。利益集团雇佣“院外游说集团”，只要花钱足够多，影响便能延伸到总统、两院、委员会主席，说服他们对某个方案进行推进或阻挠，使那法案通过或不通过。利益集团的这种抗衡权非但无益于人民，反而削弱了表达多数人意志的政治机制，扭曲了民主。要么是从各自本位出发通过的法令相互矛盾，损害公共行政质量；要么为保护集团利益利用法庭阻挠行政、扼杀改革，把分权制衡机制变成利益集团操纵的工具。
Francis Fukuyama believes that interest groups play a crucial role in "Vetocracy." In theory, democratic politics envisions people using the power of checks and balances to restrain authority, and this power of checks and balances should belong to diverse participatory groups. However, in reality, the primary entities possessing and controlling this power of checks and balances are interest groups. The legislative process involves numerous stages and barriers, often conducted behind closed doors, making it challenging for the general public to engage. Interest groups hire "lobbying firms," and with sufficient financial investment, their influence can extend to the President, both houses of Congress, and committee chairs. They can persuade these figures to advance or obstruct a particular proposal, ensuring the passage or rejection of a bill. This form of checks and balances by interest groups not only fails to benefit the people but also weakens the political mechanisms that express the will of the majority, distorting democracy. Either laws passed from their respective positions are mutually contradictory, damaging the quality of public administration, or interest groups use the courts to obstruct administration and stifle reforms, turning the system of checks and balances into a tool manipulated by interest groups.
从根源看，vetocracy是代议制与分权制衡的天然基因，与生俱来。多党竞争和分权结构中的每个行为体都要用反对和制衡体现自身价值或争取利益。分权既然是为了形成制衡，便一定要在结构上安置vetocracy环节。而否决也是权力，热爱权力的人类天性照样可能对其滥用。甚至利益集团也会打着防止滥用权力的旗号利用vetocracy，实际还是为了自身利益。每多出一个vetocracy 环节，就多一分牵制全局的能力，这种动力制造越来越多的vetocracy。
From its roots, vetocracy is inherent in the natural genes of representative democracy and the system of checks and balances, an innate characteristic. In a multiparty competition and decentralized structure, each entity must use opposition and balancing to demonstrate its own value or pursue interests. Since decentralization is intended to create a balance, vetocracy mechanisms must be structurally embedded. However, the power of veto is still a form of power, and individuals who are inherently drawn to power may still abuse it. Even interest groups, ostensibly using vetocracy to prevent the abuse of power, may, in reality, be pursuing their own interests. With each additional vetocracy mechanism, there is an increase in the ability to constrain the overall system, generating a growing incentive to create more vetocracy mechanisms.
在代议制中，权力除了对数量求和操纵和利用，也需要对来自数量和的压力让步。代议制社会处处可以看到权力迎合数量多数造成的短视政治、空头支票、过度福利等；在权力操纵、煽动、许诺下形成的数量和，反过来又会以压力挟持权力。
In representative democracy, in addition to manipulating and leveraging power through scalar summation, there is also a need for power to yield to the pressure coming from the sum of scalars. In a representative democracy, one can observe the prevalence of short-sighted politics, empty promises, and excessive welfare resulting from catering to the numerical majority. The sum of scalars formed under the manipulation, instigation, and promises of power, in turn, exerts pressure on power by holding it hostage.
虽然代议制已经发展出多种政治方法缓冲民粹主义的压力，但既然由选票数量决定输赢，归根结柢还是得给数量和让路。本来可以不必苛求代议制，至少相比眼下其他制度它是最不坏的。然而从展望未来的角度，有两种终将危及人类命运的数量和——消费主义与民族主义，代议制不但无法克服，且正是其机制所助长。代议制因此不能成为终点。
Although representative democracy has developed various political methods to buffer the pressure of populism, since the outcome is ultimately determined by the number of votes, it fundamentally has to yield to the scalar sum. One might not demand too much from representative democracy, as it is, at least compared to other systems currently in place, the least bad. However, from a future perspective, there are two sums of scalars that will ultimately endanger the fate of humanity—consumerism and nationalism, which representative democracy not only cannot overcome but is also fostered by its mechanisms. Therefore, representative democracy cannot be the ultimate solution.
人的基本性质若是用消费满足，更好之上总有更好，有限的资源却不能支持无限的欲望，生态环境也不可无限透支。从这种逻辑看，消费主义发展下去，总有一天会毁灭人类自身。
If human nature is satisfied through consumption, the pursuit of something better will always exist. However, limited resources cannot support infinite desires, and the ecological environment cannot be endlessly overdrawn. From this perspective, if consumerism continues to develop, there will inevitably come a day when it destroys humanity itself.
以往少数富人再奢侈，社会消费总量是有限的。民主化给了普通民众平等权利，一方面前所未有地提高了生产力，一方面让多数人得以加入不断提高消费的行列。社会消费总量因此加速扩大，资源消耗和生态破坏随之剧增。
In the past, even if a few wealthy individuals indulged in extravagance, the overall societal consumption was limited. Democratization has granted equal rights to the ordinary people, significantly increasing productivity on one hand and allowing the majority to join the ranks of continuously rising consumption on the other. Consequently, the overall societal consumption has accelerated its expansion, leading to a significant increase in resource consumption and ecological damage.
全球性的消费潮似乎反映人类贪图享受不考虑整体，更不顾及子孙后代。但那是数量求和的结果。前面说过，社会意志的“判断”在数量求和结构中可以自发体现（因为满意与否可简化为数量），然而“判断”只能针对已经发生的现实，不具备预见未来的能力。当消费主义的危害尚未爆发为全面危机时，社会意志的“判断”主要还是感受消费的好处。当危害开始大于好处，每人都可以从吸进的污浊空气、漫天风沙、缺水、瘟疫中得到比较，“判断”也能精确地感知转折。问题在于，即使人们愿意在那时立刻停止无度消费，即使能把人们的转变马上付诸实行，也已为时太晚。二元结构的滞后仍将使恶果坠落。
The global wave of consumption seems to reflect humanity's desire for enjoyment without considering the overall picture, let alone the well-being of future generations. However, this is a result of scalar summation. As mentioned earlier, the "judgment" of societal will can spontaneously manifest in a scalar summation structure (because satisfaction can be simplified to scalar). However, "judgment" can only apply to the reality that has already occurred and lacks the ability to foresee the future. When the harm of consumerism has not yet erupted into a comprehensive crisis, the "judgment" of societal will primarily perceives the benefits of consumption. As the harm begins to outweigh the benefits, each person can compare the polluted air they breathe, the pervasive dust storms, water shortages, and epidemics, and the "judgment" can accurately perceive the turning point. The problem lies in the fact that even if people are willing to immediately cease excessive consumption at that time, and even if the transformation is promptly put into action, it will already be too late. The lag of the dualistic structure will still allow the consequences to take effect.
预见未来不应由社会意志的“判断”承担，而是由社会意志的“目标”和“决定”把握。在没有向量求和的结构时，社会意志的“目标”和“决定”只能靠权力意志的“吻合”才能体现。代议制是由热衷当下消费的大众以数量求和选举当权者，因此注定了权力意志不能忤逆社会意志的“判断”。对社会意志“判断”的迎合便成为对社会意志“目标”与“决定”的违背。
Foreseeing the future should not be borne by the "judgment" of societal will but rather grasped by the "goals" and "decisions" of societal will. In a structure without vector summation, the "goals" and "decisions" of societal will can only be reflected by the "alignment" of the will of power. Representative democracy is elected by the masses who are enthusiastic about immediate consumption through scalar summation, which inevitably means that the will of power cannot contradict the "judgment" of societal will. Catering to the "judgment" of societal will thus becomes a betrayal of the "goals" and "decisions" of societal will.
对于消灭贫困，代议制功不可没。但温饱不会让人满足，消费提升和欲望膨胀相互刺激，不断攀升。只要缺乏节制，消费一定变成贪婪。在经济至上的社会，以物为核心的文化使多数人把“更好的生活”与消费等同。地球生态对个人远在天边，挣钱发财、买房置地、享乐生活却是立竿见影，因此必定成为数量求和的主体。由热衷消费的大众直接选举当权者，迎合消费主义的政客一定比提倡节制的智者得票多，从而促使权力意志在数量和压力下对消费主义亦步亦趋。
Representative democracy deserves credit for efforts to eradicate poverty. However, meeting basic needs alone does not satisfy people; rather, the stimulation of consumption and the expansion of desires fuel each other, leading to continuous escalation. As long as there is a lack of restraint, consumption is bound to turn into greed. In a society where economic supremacy prevails, a culture centered around materialism leads the majority to equate a "better life" with consumption. The ecological state of the Earth may seem distant to individuals, but earning wealth, buying property, and indulging in a pleasurable lifestyle yield immediate results. Consequently, it becomes the primary focus of scalar summation. The masses, enthusiastic about consumption, directly elect those in power, and politicians catering to consumerism are bound to receive more votes than those advocating restraint. This dynamic prompts the will of power to align itself with consumerism under the pressure of scalar summation.
从这一点看，可以说代议制是一种纵容物欲的制度。
From this perspective, it can be said that representative democracy is a system that indulges material desires.
作为当今另一个世界难题，民族主义与消费主义有连带关系。当资源不能满足时，往往以族群为阵营相互争夺。表面上的民族矛盾或国家冲突，追根溯源往往与资源（土地、水源、矿产等）争夺有关，且比其他因素更难化解。
As another contemporary global challenge, nationalism and consumerism are interconnected. When resources are insufficient, there is often competition among ethnic groups for access. Surface-level ethnic conflicts or national disputes, when traced back to their origins, are often related to the competition for resources such as land, water sources, minerals, etc., and are more challenging to resolve than other factors.
民族主义是当今世界冲突的主要根源。即使是成熟的代议制国家，民族、种族、族群问题也麻烦不断。向代议制转型的社会更可能发生民族仇杀、国土分裂的悲剧；国家之间则经常处于民族主义基础上的紧张对立。
Nationalism is the primary root cause of conflicts in the contemporary world. Even in mature representative democracies, issues related to ethnicity and race persist. Societies transitioning to representative democracy are more prone to tragic events such as ethnic violence and territorial fragmentation. Between nations, tensions often exist based on a foundation of nationalism.
专制统治一般对外搞民族主义，打压国内的民族主义。代议制却给国内的民族冲突和分裂开放了空间。尤其在转型之时，民主与族群开始交织，专制时期制造积累的民族仇恨被代议制开放的政党政治、竞争型选举和言论自由释放出来，可能会导致民族主义的爆发。打开专制黑箱呈现真相不见得带来和解，而是进一步激发仇恨。力图赢得多数选票的政客和政党少不了以民族划分阵营，把民族矛盾当作吸引选民的炒作主题；相互竞争的意见领袖和媒体也会用煽动民族情感的方式争夺公众。
Authoritarian regimes generally promote nationalism externally while suppressing internal nationalism. In contrast, representative democracy opens up space for domestic ethnic conflicts and divisions. Especially during transitions, the intertwining of democracy and ethnicity occurs, and the accumulated ethnic hatred from the authoritarian era is released through party politics, competitive elections, and freedom of speech facilitated by representative democracy, potentially leading to the eruption of nationalism. Opening the black box of authoritarianism to reveal the truth may not necessarily bring reconciliation but could further ignite hatred. Politicians and parties seeking to win the majority of votes often resort to ethnic division, using ethnic conflicts as sensationalist themes to attract voters. Opinion leaders and media competing with each other also employ ways to inflame ethnic sentiments in their quest for the public's attention.
民族主义表面是民众自己的选择，其实在普通百姓的个人意志中，民族问题只是其中的个别意志，占的比例并不大，主权归属则离得更远。他们关注的焦点是自身和家庭幸福平安，对此进行向量求和，本不会为了统独之争开战或仇杀。完整的个人意志中包含着针对不同问题的诸多取向，对单一问题的回答只是其中一个取向。如赞成民族独立的取向在总体意志中可能被不愿战乱的取向抵消。而数量求和只能针对单一问题，精英对民意的主导和操纵就在这里——只问是否赞成民族独立，不问是否愿意承受战乱，回避或隐藏追求独立必须要付的代价。那时，民众赞成独立的表态即使发自内心甚表现至狂热，也是对其个别意志的抽取和迭加，等于是被操纵。
Nationalism may appear as the people's own choice, but in the individual will of ordinary citizens, the issue of ethnicity represents only a small proportion, and sovereignty is even further removed. Their focus is on their own and their family's well-being and security. When they perform vector summation on these concerns, they would not go to war or engage in violence over issues related to the struggle for independence or unification. Complete individual will encompasses various orientations toward different issues, and the response to a single issue is just one orientation among many. For example, the orientation in favor of national independence in the overall will may be offset by the orientation against wanting conflict. Quantity summation can only address a single issue, and the manipulation and control of public opinion by elites occur here—only asking whether one supports national independence, without inquiring about the willingness to endure conflict, avoiding or concealing the costs that must be borne for independence. At that point, even if the public's expression of support for independence is heartfelt and fervent, it is an extraction and superimposition of their particular will, equivalent to being manipulated.
民族精英除了对民族有宏观关怀，也有个人和集团对权力的追求——主体民族的精英反对少数民族独立或自治是不愿放弃权力；少数民族精英要求独立是希望把权力拿到手中。民族精英往往会利用数量求和的取舍，把民众向“是”、“否”两端驱赶，而将中间领域的多元与建设因素弃而不谈，由此形成的“民族意志”更多的只是精英意志。
Ethnic elites not only have a macro-level concern for their ethnic group but also pursue power at the personal and group levels. The elites of the dominant ethnic group oppose the independence or autonomy of minority ethnic groups because they are unwilling to relinquish power. On the other hand, elite members of minority ethnic groups advocating for independence seek to gain control of power. Ethnic elites often manipulate the choices offered by scalar summation, driving the public towards the extremes of "yes" or "no" while neglecting the diversity and constructive factors in the middle ground. The resulting "ethnic will" is more a reflection of the will of the elites rather than a genuine representation of the diverse opinions in the population.
民族主义一旦被精英煽动起来，又会反过来绑架精英。尤其在代议制转型初期，制衡机制尚未形成，每个政治运转的环节几乎都取决于数量求和，或受制于数量求和的压力。当民众以数量形式存在时，如同雅典城邦的广场，喝彩或起哄成了决定因素。那是善于表演的政客如鱼得水的舞台。民众爱看英雄，喜听豪言，为煽情欢呼，把理性嘘下台。这种“广场效应”只能鞭策各方政治势力向极端赛跑，以免因落后而失去数量多数，结果会刺激民族矛盾不断升级，直至流血冲突甚至种族清洗（有的种族清洗正是为了在代议制表决中保证本族的数量多数）。在代议制转型可能发生的各种风险中，民族冲突首当其冲。忽略民族主义风险的转型会付出沉重代价。
Once nationalism is inflamed by elites, it can turn around and hijack the elites themselves. Especially in the early stages of transitioning to representative democracy, when the checks and balances mechanisms are not yet established, almost every political process is determined by scalar summation or is influenced by the pressure of scalar summation. When the public exists in numerical form, resembling the agora of ancient Athens, cheers or jeers become decisive factors. It is a stage where charismatic politicians, skilled in performance, feel at home. The public loves to see heroes, enjoys grand speeches, cheers for emotional appeals, and sidelines rationality. This "agora effect" only urges political forces to race towards extremes to avoid falling behind and losing the numerical majority. The result is a stimulation of escalating ethnic tensions, potentially leading to bloodshed and even ethnic cleansing (some instances of ethnic cleansing are aimed at ensuring the numerical majority of one's own ethnic group in representative democracy votes). Among the various risks that may occur during the transition to representative democracy, ethnic conflicts are at the forefront. Ignoring the risks of nationalism during the transition will come at a heavy cost.
对内奉行自由、平等、博爱原则的代议制国家，却可能在代议制的数量求和驱使下奉行对外霸权。“民主和平论”用统计数据宣称民主国家无战争，但是以往是民主阵营面对专制阵营，一致的意识形态可以超越民族主义。当专制阵营解体，实行代议制的各国之间陷入愈演愈烈的资源争夺时，“民主和平论”是否还能持续值得存疑。
A representative democracy that upholds principles of freedom, equality, and benevolence domestically may, however, be driven by the scalar summation in representative democracy to pursue hegemony externally. The "democratic peace theory" claims, based on statistical data, that democratic countries do not engage in wars. However, in the past, the unity of ideology within the democratic camp, facing authoritarian camps, could transcend nationalism. When the authoritarian camp disintegrates, and countries practicing representative democracy intensify their competition for resources, the sustainability of the "democratic peace theory" becomes questionable.
为何不同族群的个体以个人身份交往可以和平、友好，以族群身份面对却陷入隔阂与憎恨。导致变化的原因就在是向量还是数量的分别。面对具体个人，对方是完整向量，面对族群，对方是单一数量。对方作为向量，是与自己一样的人，对方作为数量，是与自己不一样的民族。向量之间可以折中求和，数量之间只能是非加即减。代议制的数量求和结构决定了代议制不是解决民族问题的方法，反是制造民族问题的原因。
Why individuals from different ethnic groups can interact peacefully and amicably on a personal level but encounter division and hatred on an ethnic level lies in the distinction between vectors and scalars. When facing specific individuals, the other person is a complete vector. When facing ethnic groups, the other person is a singular scalar. Dealing with vectors allows for compromise and summation, while dealing with scalars is either an addition or subtraction. The scalar summation structure of representative democracy determines that it is not a solution to ethnic issues but, rather, a cause of creating ethnic problems.