You've entirely missed the point that I'm making - which is that elections are in themselves not sufficient to address a minority concern (In the US[1], because

You've entirely missed the point that I'm making - which is that elections are in themselves not sufficient to address a minority concern (In the US[1], because of the particularly perverse mechanism for districting, the electoral college, and disproportionate regional representation, they often aren't even sufficient to address a majority concern[2]!). By definition, a minority is going to be marginalized in a representative system. Mindshare of the majority is the real battleground, and mindshare is just as relevant in China as it is here, and it's why mindshare is fought over so bitterly across the world. You ask how politically weak minorities in China can get what they want, I point an answer that, for contrast, provides a litany of ways for how politically weak minorities in the US can't get what they want, and you accuse me of being biased and political. I can only assume that the problems of how minority rights can be asserted in practice in the two systems wasn't actually what we were interested in discussing? 'We have elections' isn't a conversation-terminator. It's a conversation-opener, because it isn't actually the trump card that you think it is. [1] And in other countries, but usually for other reasons. [2] And I'm not talking about normal parliamentary checks and balances that allow a minority to hold legislature in stasis. That's to be expected from any political system that requires a more-than-50% consensus in order to deviate from the status quo. [3] I'm talking about a minority actually managing to impose its will, through new legislature, against a majority. [3] Which is often a desirable requirement.