[greggoB]

In a country with a one-party authoritarian politicial system, the only conceivable way they'd be allowed to not be so is if a non-predetermined outcome was not considered to be a threat to the CCP.

So in a country of 1.4 billion people, literally it might not be the case, but it 100% effectively is so.

[jajuuka]

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything. It still has all the nuances of any other political party. There are different factions, ideas and plans and that's what party members run on to get elected. It's pretty much identical to any other democracy with a majority across the government. Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.

Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials. That's why they get elected. I think a good portion of the west likes to pretend that they have parties and elected officials who want to overthrow the government in their government. But that's just not true. The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country. So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?

[greggoB]

> I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything.

I am aware of this, and that the USSR had elections which allowed the people to express themselves to some extent, though never in any major way.

> It still has all the nuances of any other political party

This simply cannot be true on a very fundamental level, which is the lack of competition that other parties bring. Multi-party systems have both inter and intra party dynamics; by definition single-party systems can only have the latter. Saying "it's pretty much identical" shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

> Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

> Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials

Well, no, not at all. History is replete with examples of officials of all political, cultural and ethnic persuasions being far more interested with enriching themselves than the betterment of society. This statement comes across as rather naive.

> who want to overthrow the government in their government.

If you're talking about a ruling party losing an election to another party, we don't call that a government overthrow, we call that a transition of power. It is a feature of the system, and there is a lot of concern that it is done fairly and peacefully.

> The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country

This just reads like outright propaganda, I'm not going to bother addressing it on the merits.

> So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?

This is predicated on your previous propagandized statement having any real substantive factual bearing, which I don't believe it does, so my answer is no, they aren't. In fact, there are many, many examples of surprise results (see JFK, Obama, Trump, Brexit, Ukraine, etc.). So if there is some kind of global suppression operation at play, it doesn't have a very good track record of success.