PDF(2.7mb) - 國家政策研究基金會

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 Taiwan Development Perspectives 2009 Kinmen and Lienchiang – have a population of less than 310,000 each, so each city and county is entitled to one legislator only. For the other four – the counties of Yilan and Hsinchu and the cities of Hsinchu and Keelung – although each has more than 310,000 voters, only one lawmaker can be elected from each city or county. Unfortunately it will be very hard for the DPP to win in these ten cities and counties which, most of them, traditionally were dominated by the KMT. Furthermore, the KMT also has an advantageous position in the six seats reserved for indigenous peoples. However, the total voter population of the indigenous groups and the two counties on the offshore islands- Kinmen and Lienchiang - is equal to that of the one single county of Yilan, where only one legislator could be elected. In other words, the KMT might win as many as eight seats to represent the same voter population as the one-lawmaker county of Yilan. The new election system heavily favored the KMT in these areas. In addition, the KMT enjoyed dominance in almost 42 of the remaining 63 single constituencies, against only 21 by the DPP. According to Lin Tsuo-shui, a former DPP legislator, the KMT controlled more than 70 percent of the townships and villages, where it was favored to win. His estimate was about the same as Professor Hu Fu. 2 Legislative elections based on the single constituency system in Japan and the United Kingdom proved that the largest party won more seats than the votes it won. In 1996, for instance, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won only 38.6 percent of the votes but 56.3 percent of the seats in the Diet. The Labor Party won 43.2 percent of the votes but 63 percent of seats in the Lower House of the United Kingdom in 1997. Candidates of smaller parties had almost no chance to win under the single constituency system. As for the party proportional representation, there are 34 seats, and only those parties that collect more than five percent of the total votes cast are entitled to seat. Under the strict confrontation between pan-blue and pan-green, it will be very hard for the small party to win in this proportional representation. As a result, the Kuomintang won 57 single constituencies for a total of 81 seats, including four reserved for indigenous peoples, or 53.478 percent of the votes for 78.08 percent of the seats for regional legislators. The DPP won only 13 single constituencies for a total of 27 seats. Although it won 38.654 percent of the votes, it won only 16.44 percent of the seats. The Non-Partisan Solidarity Alliance (NPSA) won two seats. An independent won in one single constituency, while the NPSA and the PFP each won a seat reserved for indigenous peoples. As a matter of fact, they won because the KMT did not field candidates (For the results of the elections see Table 1.). The two major parties did well in the election of lawmakers at large. The proportional representation system did not favor small parties. In Japan, small parties did not get any return for the wasted votes they collected in single constituencies( 王業立 :2002). Furthermore, the constitutional amendment of 2005 mandates no seats according to proportional representation for a party that fails to collect at least five percent of the votes cast in legislative elections. None of the small parties crossed that threshold to send a lawmaker at large to the legislature. According to other countries’ experiences, the incumbents were favored to win in single constituencies. It is not easy for a challenger to replace the incumbent. As a result, there would be few new faces in the Legislative Yuan in the future. It is believed that the party that won the 2008 legislative elections will have better chance to win in 2012 election. Moreover, the result of the legislator election will further affect the following presidential election which will be held two months latter. 2 請參閱鄭孝莉 ,「修憲過關 , 小黨恐得關門」, http://www.new7.com.tw/weekly/old/948/948-018. html
An Analysis of 2008 Legislative and Presidential Elections in Taiwan 27 Party Constituency Votes (%) Table 1 Result of Legislative Elections in 2008 Seats won (%) Seats for indigenous peoples Members at large Votes won for Members at large (%) Distribution Seat total Total seats (%) KMT 57 53.478% 78.08 4 20 51.23% 58.12% 81 71.68% % DPP 13 38.654% 16.44 0 14 36.91% 41.88% 27 23.89% % NP 0 N/A 0% 0 0 3.95% 0% 0 0 TSU 0 0.9634% 0% 0 0 3.53% 0% 0 0 NPS U 2 2.2514% 4.10 % 1 0 0.7% 0% 3 2.65% PFP 0 0.0212% 0% 1 0 N/A 0% 1 0.884% Ind. 1 3.9682% 1.3% 0 0 0 0 1 0.884% Resource: 行政院中央選舉委員會網站〈第七屆立委資料庫〉網站 http://www.cec.gov.tw/?Menu_id=814 Calculated by the authors. 3. Impacts on Taiwan’s Political Development The KMT won a landslide victory in the legislative elections. The DPP was disastrously defeated. There are only one predominantly large party and a middle-sized one in the new parliament. The small parties and an independent won where the KMT did not field candidates. Table 1 show that the KMT won 53.4 percent of the single constituencies but 78.1 percent of the seats or 57 out of the 73 seats at stake. The DPP won 38.7 percent of the votes but only 16.4 percent of the seats or 12 out of the 73 seats at stake. The single constituency system benefited the largest party. Studies show that the KMT won by fielding candidates its local factions favored. In particular, local factions were asked to field only one candidate in one single constituency. As the KMT has strong local factions in practically all the counties and cities in Taiwan north of the Tropics of Cancer, plus the two offshore island counties and as many in eastern Taiwan( 丁仁方 ,1999; 謝敏捷 ,2005). The DPP could only won 27 constituencies in Taipei County, Chiayi County, Tainan County, Tainan City, Kaohsiung County, and Kaohsiung City. No DPP candidates won in the other 18 counties and cities. To win in single constituencies, candidates had to take the middle of the road. Radical candidates stood no chance. The majority of voters like moderate candidates. Many DPP candidates were too radically pro-independence to win enough voter support. All but one candidate without party affiliation won as a regional legislator. This shows that it’s not easy for independent candidate to win in the single district. For example, in the fourth constituency in Changhua County, there were four candidates: Chen Zhaorong (PFP, incumbent legislator), Xie Zhangjie (PFP, a former legislator), Jiang Zhaoyi (DPP, incumbent legislator), and Xiao Jingtian (KMT nominee, new face). The first two ran as independents. Xiao won 41 percent of the votes to be elected. Jiang collected only 37 percent as the runner-up. The two independents shared the remaining 22 percent of the votes. In the second constituency in Taichung City, the KMT nominated Lu Xiuian and the DPP fielded Xie Minuan, while Shen Zhihui ran as an
Page 1 and 2: CONTENTS Preface Overview ix xi Foc
Page 3: Agriculture and Fisheries Impact of
Page 6 and 7: CHUANG, Yih-chyi( 莊奕琦 ) Pro
Page 8 and 9: TAN, Ching-yu( 譚瑾瑜 ) Associ
Page 10 and 11: enth effort on the part of the Foun
Page 12 and 13: ills pertinent to parliamentary ref
Page 14 and 15: xiv
Page 16 and 17: 2 Taiwan Development Perspectives 2
Page 24 and 25: 10 Taiwan Development Perspectives
Page 90 and 91:
76 Taiwan Development Perspectives
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
show all

PDF(2.7mb) - 國家政策研究基金會

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?