G-number club is a natural creation as the world is advancing in economy and size. There was obvious needs for the biggest world economy to have a forum to dialog on issues related to economic development. Hence at the 200th anniversary year of the establishment of the United States, 1976, the U.S., Japan, the U.K. France, Germany, Italy and Canada formed the G7 with each nation's Chief Minister of Finance, and/or Economics Affairs or Treasurer or Head of National Central Bank participating. Being a club member is a honor representing the country's economic accomplishment and its implied obligation for helping maintaining the world's economy. G7 was functioning for 21 years until 1997 when the economic crisis occurred in Asia, collapsing its finances which drastically affected the world economy.
 
By the suggestions of the finance ministers and central bankers of G7, the Ministers forum was increased to 20 nations in December 1999, adding Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, (South) Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and EU (included the significant 5 Gold Bricks, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Nine years later, just before the 2008 global finance crisis occurred, the finance ministers, to their collective wisdom and credit, decided that their national leaders should be invited to the G20 meeting as well. Each country would take turn to host the meeting, last year the G20 was held in Belek, Serik, Antalya, Turkey.

This year 2016, China is hosting the G20 from September 4-5 in Hangzhou City, a city famous for its picturesque West Lake and rich Chinese literature and cultural heritage. Instead of selecting her biggest top four cities, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, famous for hosting international events, China has deliberately selected Hangzhou as the host for G20. Judging from the preparation that Hangzhou has put in for G20 and B20, a summit of business leaders of G20 nations with focus on industrial innovation, one can naturally appreciate why Hangzhou as a top ranking civilian industrial city full of enterprising and entrepreneurial spirit is selected as the G20 host. The world biggest online enterprise, Alibaba, is headquartered in Hangzhou, which is a testimony to Hangzhou's industrial power and innovation capability. Sure enough Hangzhou has not disappointed the G20 and B20 attendees.

Before the meeting begun on Monday, 9/4, there were already news-highlights hitting the world press. The arrival of G20 leaders and their meeting with the Chinese leader Xi Jinping were prominently featured not only on Chinese television but certainly on their own national TV. It is definitely a busy and tiring week for the host H.E. Xi Jinping, who attended a marathon of receptions and meetings with the leaders of the G20 nations and their business and industrial leaders. The host was addressed as H.E. Xi Jinping on his nameplate, many Chinese have wondered whether H.E. means anything other than His Excellency, an unusual title used in China.
By being physically in China visiting Beijing and Shanghai in the first half of September, the author had the opportunity of witnessing the continuous coverage of the G20 event by the visual media as well as hearing the sideline discussions off the mainstream media. Firstly, the TV coverage of the G20 event is extremely educational for the Chinese general public, especially for the young people who received a heavy dosage of international affairs. Rightly so, the news and discussions were more related to the bi-lateral encounters between the leaders of China and another country but there was also a significant focus on security issue in the world. For example, the placement of THAD anti ballistic missiles was bright on the media's radar screen. The exchanges of dialogs between Presidents Xi and Obama and Xi and Park would certainly make impacts on the future course of the event even though the parties stuck with their pre-meeting official positions. Perhaps, this is the significance of G20 and the value of having annual G20 meetings where courses of international events and relations could be modified by physical encounters of G20 leaders. The news media of course had a exciting field day at the G20, while they were anxious to grab the headlines resulting from G20's major resolution, plenty of gossiping report such as the missing red carpet for President Obama or hitter verbal exchange between security staff between the visiting party and the host.

Other than the political significance of the G20, exemplified above, other significance is in the impact on world economy and a side benefit of cultural interaction exhibited in its art performances. The impact on business and industrial development can be seen and projected into the future from the meeting agenda of the G20's companion B20 meeting. The continuity of B20 as an annual event will sure make positive influence on business and industrial cooperation across national boundaries. 

Of course, the main focus of G20 is on economy with twin emphasis on trade and investment which are the two main locomotives for propelling economic growth. 2016 G20 meeting have concluded the following solutions: 

The G20 shall provide clear direction and planning steps for world economy; Inject new energy into and create innovative method for economic growth; improve financial management and raise ability to resist financial crisis; reenergize international trade and investment and expand their impact to construct an open world economy; and promote inclusive and interactive economic development and let the fruits of G20 benefitting the entire world.

Under the above broad principles, the specific benefits to the global citizens expected are jobs creation, more pocket money, better and cheaper goods, economic growth for everyone and cooperative efforts for dealing with climate change.

One other significant impact brought on by 2016 G20, perhaps not deliberately intended in its initial intent, is culture. Although culture was not specifically included in the agenda of the G20 meeting, but through the G20 entertaining event, culture had always been prominently highlighted. The water theatric show presented on the famous West Lake in Hangzhou for entertaining the visiting dignitaries of G20 and B20 was a spectacular performance. The show was created and conducted by the world-known movie and theater director, Zhang Yi-mou, with hundreds of talented Chinese artists participated presenting a variety of art shows full of western and eastern culture elements. The daring, rich and impressive innovation of arts, music and technology shown through the theatric presentation on water set a great milestone in art performance and integration of Eastern and Western culture. Such an event not only highlighted the intended focus on the theme to push new economic growth through innovation and creativity but also sets example exhibiting mutual cultural impact from multiple nationalities. No doubt this impressive Hangzhow G20 show inherited and inspired from previous G20 cultural shows and expanded by incorporating more creativity, innovation and cultural elements will have lasting impact to future G20 cultural performances and making a significant contribution to creating a boundary less world culture.

Similar to other international fora such as APEC, G20 Hangzhow offers a great platform  for dialog among world leaders to gain understanding of global issues and to reach consensus for solving problems and promoting international cooperation. For the 2016 G20, one can cite a number of meaningful initiatives: First, the development issue has been prominently placed under the global policy framework. Second, concrete action plan has been put in place to realize the UN 2030 sustainable economic development. And third, a new growth has been articulated as an important agenda to define a new growth blue print and specific action plans for achieving new world economic growth through innovation. These new emphases were remarked by the host leader Xi Jinping in the closing session of G20. Indeed, this new focus on innovation is expected to be the key for new economic growth.

David Chen and Thomas Fann

​The US presidential election is only two months away and according to all kinds of polls, the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton leads Republican Donald Trump by four to six percentage points. The gap doesn't mean much at this time even though some political pundits and the media talk show hosts have predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat come November.  I do not know in which crystal balls these “experts” see, but definitely I do not agree.  As a famous quote goes: "The opera is not over until the fat lady sings," similarly no one can foresee the winner of an election until final results come in. Therefore the prediction about Mrs. Clinton’s so-called landslide victory over Trump does not hold water.
   
It is worth mentioning, however, that quite a few American voters believe that the electoral system is a selection of the lesser of two evils.  The 2016 US presidential election so far proves to be no different.  The two candidates seem to enjoy the same unfavorable rating of 50 percent each.  Like it or not, this is a recurring phenomenon facing the American electorates every four years.  
 
Let's talk about Donald Trump.  He may be a megalomaniac, a loud mouth, an unethical businessman and so on and so forth. You may even conclude that he is not a moral person.  But, as history shows repeatedly, good character does not automatically make a good leader.  For instance,  Liu Bang, the first emperor of the Han Dynasty (206 B.C. -220 A.D.), was a two-bit hood while young but ended up being widely recognized as one of the best Chinese emperors by historians.  Good character makes a good man, but vision and guts make a great leader.  I believe Donald Trump is that kind of a leader.  His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" emphasizes homeland-building as the first step; he believes the United States is not capable of solving the world’s problems; he vows to do his utmost to resolve the illegal immigration issue, which Hillary Clinton doesn’t dare to touch with a ten-foot pole; he wants to fight for US interests, even to the point of breaching existing contracts; he pledges to work with our competitors instead of destroying them with nuclear weapons...  Yes, Donald Trump sounds a little crazy sometimes, but he does have charisma and can inspire a multitude of fans and followers in a very short time.  He is indeed a different kind of Presidential candidate.  This is why the 2016 race is so hard to predict.   
 
As for the crooked Hillary, she may be one tough cookie to have weathered her husband’s sexual escapades, but she hasn’t demonstrated a bit of vision in her life.  While a US Senator, she went along with sending troops to Iraq; while as Secretary of State, her policies toward Libya and Syria was catastrophic.  And don’t forget her Email-gate that is still very much in the news today.  To top it all, what about the appearances of quid pro quo in her messy involvement with the Clinton Foundation?  Hillary maybe currently leading in the polls, but her way to the White House still faces many roadblocks: 1) Her Email scandal may get her indicted by the federal court.  2) Even democrats may get tired of watching reruns of a TV soap opera starring an uninspiring prima donna. 3) Hillary’s health may very well be a problem.   
 
Currently, the Republican Party is in disarray.  Quite a few party elites still hold grudges against Trump for a number of perceived slights against them.  It is believed that most of them will sooner or later return to the Republican fold.  There are also signs showing the African-Americans and the Hispanics may re-think which way to cast their votes that have long been taken for granted by the Democratic Party.  They may answer to the poll one way and vote the other.  This is why the poll results can be misleading.
 
All in all, though the 2016 Presidential election looks like an evenly matched game, I am betting on the can-do Trump to be the eventual winner.

Christine Mei

​The American public is facing an agonizing decision of whom to vote for as the president in the November election. The nominees from the two major parties – Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party and Donald Trump of the Republican Party – both have very high negative ratings, more so than any other nominees in the past 10 elections at this point of the campaign.
 
Trumps kicked off his campaign in 2015 by announcing that he will build a wall along the US-Mexico border and have the Mexican government pay for it.   In the ensuing months, he added more insults to Muslim immigrants, minorities, women, journalists, and most recently, got into fights with the family of a slain Muslim U.S. soldier. His campaign tactics scared and offended many voters.
 
On the other hand, some voters especially those in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party dislike Clinton.  She is viewed as too close to Wall Street, too eager to wage wars overseas, too beholden to AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee, a pro-Israeli lobby group), and too opportunistic on issues such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to suit her political needs. Her email scandal makes her appear to be untrustworthy.
 
Because both candidates are equally unappealing to many voters, many resort to vote for the lesser of the two evils.  On the Democratic side, many voters will vote for Clinton because they are fearful that a Trump presidency will ruin the country. Likewise, many Republican voters will vote for Trump because their hatred or dislike of Clinton makes them feel that there is no other choice.
 
The Failing of the Two-Party System
 
The reason that voters are forced into choosing the lesser of the two evils is because we have a winner-take-all Electoral College system for our presidential elections in all states but Nebraska and Maine. Whoever wins the most popular votes in a state wins all of the state's electoral votes. This system favors a two-party system. It has been nearly impossible for third-party candidates to compete. In the 1992 election, Ross Perot won 19% popular vote but failed to get one single electoral vote.
 
Because of the dominance of the Democratic Party and the Republic Party in our politics, their candidates have the most media coverage and the financial resources to run a national campaign.  For the 2016 election, the only reporting and campaign ads that play out in the airwaves are for the Republican and Democratic candidates. There has been practically no mentioning of the third-party candidates in the mainstream media. As a result, most voters do not even know who those candidates are and what their political views entail.
 
Another obstacle the third party candidates face is to be included in the national debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) runs the presidential debates, a stage that provides the best opportunity for a candidate to highlight his or her vision for the country. In 2000, the CPD established a rule that a candidate must garner at least 15% support across five national polls to be included in the national debates. This is a rather high threshold for the third-party candidates.  In the 2016 election, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, is polling at approximately 10% while Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, gets around 5%.  Unless something drastically happened by September, neither candidate is expected to reach the 15% threshold to be included in the national debate.
 
It is worth noting that CDP is a non-profit organization controlled by Democratic Party and Republican Party. It is sponsored by private donations from foundations and corporations. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) found that 93 percent of the contributions to CPD came from just six donors whose names were not disclosed by CPD.
 
Therefore, under the current two-party system, when the candidates nominated by the two major parties are highly unpopular among the general public as in this election cycle, voters are left with no choice but to hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil. This is the failing of the two-party system and a sad commentary on the state of our democracy. We are not choosing the candidate to be our next president based on his or her leadership quality, inspirational personality, vision for the country, or concerns over the humanity but simply because he or she is the lesser of the two evils.
 
Possible Remedies
 
As a voter, I would like to vote for a candidate whose policies and vision for the country are close to what I believe in and my vote counts. Therefore, as a first step, we should change the electoral votes from winner-take-all to proportional allocation.  The result of the election would represent the will of the majority of the population. A repeat of the 2000 election in which Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush will not happen.
 
Secondly, we need to have a voting system enabling third-party candidates effectively to be included in the process. In the situation when neither major party nominee meets my expectation, I could vote for a third-party candidate whom I can support and not feeling my vote is a waste.
 
The following proposals provide that possibility:
 
 
(A) Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)/Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) 
It is a voting system to elect a single candidate from a field of more than two candidates. It works by having voters rank candidates in order of preference. Every ballot is tallied, and if no candidate gets over 50%, the least-voted for candidate is eliminated from the race. For those voters who picked the eliminated candidate as their first choice, their ballots are recounted without the loser and their votes will be added to the next-highest ranked choice. This process repeats until one candidate has over 50%, and is declared the winner.  This is also called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a process to ensure no vote is wasted.
 
Several countries such as Australia, India, Ireland or Papua New Guinea have used this system to elect either members of the legislature or head of state.
 
(B) Approval Voting
 
Approval voting is a single-winner voting method used for elections. Each voter may approve (i.e. select) of any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.
 
Proponents for this system consider this to be a fairer system for both major and minor parties. The spoiler effect as proclaimed by some in the 2000 election of Ralph Nader and the 1992 election of Ross Perot in 1992 will not happen here as Approval Voting allows casting votes for both alternative candidates and a more electable frontrunner.
 
There are merits and drawbacks in each of the systems proposed above, and it is a complicated process to revamp the current system.  But the dilemma voters face in this year’s election should serve as a wakeup call for a fair election process that will truly represent the will of the people.