“I’d rather lose with dignity than win like this,” said Martin Lee Chuming of the Hong Kong Democratic party after capturing a seat on Hong Kong Island in legislative elections last Sunday. To Mr. Lee’s regret, and the bitterness of many, his victory came at the expense of incumbent democrat Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of Frontier, another pro-democracy group.

In the wake of the election, there was plenty of contrition and blame to go around. The Democratic Party chairman, Yeung Sum, pledged to learn strategy from the main pro-Beijing party, and civic activist Christine Loh called the result on Hong Kong Island the “biggest political blunder” in Hong Kong history.

Apparently, the emotion from frustrated expectations has caused even Hong Kong’s democrats to lose sight of important truths. First, in an election that came after more than a year of sustained pressure from Beijing, pro-democracy candidates won approximately 60% of the popular vote. Second, the proportional representation system created by Beijing to put democrats at a disadvantage did just that, thwarting the intention of Hong Kong voters and leaving the democracy camp with well under 60% of the seats.

Mr. Lee’s constituency, Hong Kong Island, is a good example. Combined, the two leading pro-democracy tickets – Mr. Lee’s, led by Yeung Sum, and Ms. Ho’s, led by barrister Audrey Eu Yuetmee – polled 58% of the votes cast. Shutdowns at polling stations due to full ballot boxes might have reduced the tally.

Just days before, Mr. Lee seemed vulnerable, although just how vulnerable is a matter of dispute. In any case, his Democratic Party issued a plea for votes and on the morning of the election, a front-page article in the newspaper Apple Daily played up a dramatic showdown between him and a candidate from the largest pro-Beijing party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, or DAB.

Voters responded. Outside the St. Stephen’s Girls’ School polling station, one man, who declined to be identified by name, said he preferred to vote for the Eu-Ho ticket but knew Martin Lee was in trouble. Above all, he said, “I don’t want No. 1 to win,” referring to the DAB, which occupied the first slot on the ballot.

The surge for Mr. Lee drew votes away from Ms. Ho. Under Hong Kong’s “least remainder” system, his ticket’s wide margin of victory wasted votes. The pro-democracy camp had agreed on a “1 plus 1 equals 4” strategy where couples and families would distribute their votes evenly among democracy camps, enabling the democratic camp to win four seats. Instead, they were left with three.

This is exactly the kind of result that Beijing planned when, after taking control of Hong Kong in 1997, it set up a proportional representation system. Under the system, pro-democracy candidates compete for votes against each other.

The fact that that other jurisdictions use proportional representation systems is no justification for what happened. Electoral systems exist in a political context. They may be appropriate in a democracy, as for example, where they are chosen to guarantee minority representation. Hong Kong’s protected minority is pro-Beijing politicians.

That is also the case in the 30 functional constituency seats assigned to representatives of mainly business, trade, and professional groups. Democrats increased their standing in this group to seven, but the majority take Beijing’s side. Although several of these constituencies have fewer than 1,000 votes, and even more have uncontested races, their representatives in the legislature are just as powerful as a member elected by a geographical constituency where between 150,000 and 230,000 votes are cast. More so, actually. A procedural rule written by Beijing allows functional constituency members to vote down any legislation not initiated by the government.

Winning Ms. Ho’s seat, and another that failed to materialize in the New Territories East, would have fulfilled the highest hopes of the pro-democracy camp. However, the reason the democrats’ seats add up to a minority is due to the way the votes are allocated, not the way people voted.

Beijing can do the math, too. The results of Sunday’s elections show Hong Kong people want full democracy. Beijing is no doubt enjoying the recriminations over strategy and divisions that will deepen among democrats as a result.

Hong Kong’s democrats should deny Beijing the satisfaction. The only way to beat an unfair system is to press ahead with a democracy agenda. That is what Hong Kong’s democrats should be talking about in the week following the election.