【新唐人2011年11月15日讯】以独立参选人身份参加北京北邮选区人大选举的中国著名维权律师、北京公盟负责人许志永，在当局的重重阻扰下最终落选人大。北邮大校长、被称为“防火墙之父”的方滨兴高票当选。有网友质疑选举受到操控，表示许志永并没有输，输的是中国民主。
北京11月8号举行的县区、乡镇人大代表选举结果初步出台，据北邮校方公布，“防火墙之父”方滨兴以16000票当选。许志永本人没有被列入正式候选人的名单，仅获得3500多张选票。
网友对选举结果纷纷发表评论，认为方滨兴能够当选，体现中国基层选举根本是走过场，中共当局操控整个选举过程。也有网友表示，许志永PK方滨兴，并不是许志永输了，输掉的是中国民主。
署名为梅子2061的网友在微博评论表示：许志永不是正式候选人，要选他是在空栏目里写下他的名字，在被屡次以前途威胁下，选他是需要勇气的！ 3千多票是完胜!
早在选举前一个月，许志永就遭受来自北邮校方的重重压力。 10月14号，北邮召集紧急会议，对各学院明确通知，不得提名和为许志永投票；在北邮的官方论坛上，“许志永”三个字成了禁忌。网友lijia说：这与学校出现豆腐渣工程和有学生跳楼时的论坛状况，颇有异曲同工之妙。一个学校对自己的教师如此畏惧，真的可笑到了极致。
11月4号，许志永在北京邮电大学校园内举行竞选宣传，有学生在现场助选，但被学校领导强行阻止，也不允许记者靠近活动现场。校方并威胁助选学生会"影响前途"。一名北邮女生手举自制的海报，自发为许志永拉票，两次被人夺走，并被人喝问是哪个学院的。
与此同时，北邮校党委推荐的包括方滨兴在内的四位正式候选人的资料，却在校电视台密集播放。
许志永对这场刚刚经历过的人大选举点评说，中国式选举：助选同学被谈话以前途相威胁；胁迫选民撤销提名；党委推荐候选人电视轮番播放；公民候选人手拿海报也被驱赶；谣言和诽谤；选举日气氛诡异记者不准靠近；秘密写票处是摆设；选举结果保密。
据透露，由于当局的刁难和打压，北京30名独立参选人这次没有人当选，甚至失去列入候选人名单的资格。竞选权利也被剥夺，党委推的候选人可以在电视节目中大幅度的宣传，而独立候选人连张贴海报都会被驱赶；公民如果助选就会受到上级的前途威胁，许多参选人的网络微博都在投票之前被删除。
许志永在接受《德国之声》的采访中表示： “今年的选举压力更大，被操纵的地方更多，也更加不公正和不自由。”
《法兰克福评论报》评论说，如果有一天中国人真的使用自己的选举权会怎样呢？比如用潮水般的无效选票抗议党，或者自己作为独立候选人参选，因为这也是宪法第34条允许的。普通公民到底是否有机会获准参加选举呢？ “
新唐人记者许旻、柏妮综合报导。
Xu Zhiyong, a Chinese human rights lawyer
and an independent candidate of
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT),
from the district of People’s Congress, faced heavy opposition during a recent district election.
BUPT’s principal candidate, Fang Binxing, known as the
“Father of China’s Firewall” has been elected as the district representative.
Netizens questioned the election results, saying that Xu didn’t lose,
but what was lost was the opportunity for Chinese democracy.
The first election results that were announced
were from counties and townes of Beijing region.
BUPT made an official announcement declaring Fang Binxing
the winner of the election by 16,000 votes.
Xu Zhiyong, who was not included in the formal candidate list,
received only 3,500 votes.
Netizens are saying that the fact that Fang Binxing was elected,
simply shows that the election process is just a show and
is manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Some netizens said that although Xu lost the election to Fang,
he didn’t really lose.
Instead, what lost was the chance for democracy in China.
A microblog received 2,061 comments with
one netizen saying, “Xu isn’t a formal candidate;
if you want to vote for him, you need to fill his name
in the blank column on the vote card.
However, if you fill in his name, you’re risking your future
You need to have the courage!
In reality, more than three thousands votes is itself victory!”
One month before the election, Xu was pressured by BUPT.
BUPT called an emergency meeting, informing everyone that
no one should nominate Xu or vote for Xu.
On BUPT’s official website, Xu Zhiyong was censored.
A netizen, Lijia, used the phrase “tofu-dreg project,”
a phrase used in China to describe a poorly constructed building, to describe the organization’s behaviour.
It is ridicules for a school fear of a teacher like this.
Xu held an election campaign at BUPT’s headquarters,
which some students attended, however, university officials didn’t allow the media to cover the event.
Although university officials threatened any student
who helped Xu campaign, one student held a homemade poster in support of Xu.
As a result, she was taken away twice and was asked which
university she came from.
Meanwhile, BUPT TV gave high coverage on Fang’s campaign,
and said he was strongly recommended by the university.
Xu talked about the CCP-style election, saying:
“Students who assisted certain candidates
had their future careers threatened; forcing one candidate
to withdraw from the nomination.
The CCP’s recommended candidate was promoted on TV
while anyone holding posters was led away.
The CCP not only spread rumours and slandered their opposition
they also didn’t permit any reporters to cover the events.
The ballot station is just for show.
The election results were not publicized.
Another source revealed that under the CCP authorities’
pressure, 30 independent candidates hadn’t been elected,
while others were excluded from being listed on
the candidate list.
Their rights as candidates have been denied.
The CCP’s recommended candidate was promoted on TV,
but an independent candidate’s poster was taken away,
If people assist an independent candidate’s campaign,
their future is at risk.
Many candidates’ micro blogs were deleted
before the election.
Xu told Deutsche Welle: “There was more pressure
during this year’s election than previous elections,
due to the CCP’s manipulation and increased injustice,
as well as the growing lack of the freedom.”
Frankfurter Rundschau, a German daily newspaper,
commented on the elections by asking,
“What would happen if Chinese people were truly able
to vote in a democratic way?
Such as submit tons of the invalid votes to protest the CCP,
or preventing independent candidates from joining the election.
This is a citizen’s rights, according to article 34 of
the Chinese constitution.
But, do citizens have such rights in China?”
NTD reporters Xu Min and Bo Ni
