The KMT legislative caucus recently proposed draft amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Law (
The proposal -- aimed at raising voter turnout and minimizing the impact of "black gold" -- has prompted extensive discussion. Some have criticized the move as being a regressive one for our democracy. In fact, compulsory voting is a highly controversial issue even overseas. I would like to clarify some ideas about this system.
Voting is compulsory in more than 30 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Turkey, Singapore, Argentina, Brazil and Peru. The thought behind compulsory voting is that voting is not simply a civil right, but rather a responsibility. Low voter turnouts shake the most fundamental cornerstones of democratic politics. That's why even some advanced countries have instituted compulsory voting.
Opponents of compulsory voting believe that if voting is a means of making a choice and expressing an opinion, then not voting can also be interpreted as such. When casting ballots, constituents are usually forced to choose the least rotten apple from several rotten ones. So some simply decline to make the choice. But compulsory voting forces people to eat rotten apples.
In many countries where voting is mandatory, various regulations have been established to punish those who refuse to vote, but those regulations are rarely implemented. Meanwhile, in some nations in which voting is compulsory, the elderly are not obliged to go to the polls out of consideration of their difficulties in getting about. Brazil, for instance, stipulates that voters under 17 (the voting age in Brazil is 16) and over 70, as well as illiterate voters, should not be forced to cast their ballots.
In other countries with compulsory voting, such as Australia, Belgium and Italy, the voter turnout is usually more than 85 percent. But turnouts in countries like Greece and Peru are still lower than 80 percent. Voter turnout in some nations that do not require their citizens to vote, however -- including Denmark, Iceland and the Netherlands -- exceed 85 percent, and in Malta, it even reaches 95 percent.
It is generally believed that elections in Taiwan generate high voter turnout. This is actually untrue. In legislative elections, for example, voter turnout has never exceeded 70 percent.
Taiwan's turnout exceeds those of the US and Switzerland, and is neck-and-neck with France and Ireland. Even the current record of 82 percent, set in our last presidential election, is a mediocre rate when compared with those of Western democracies.
Factors influencing a country's voter turnout are very complex. Turnouts tend to be higher in countries operating proportional representation electoral systems since constituents do not feel that their ballots are wasted, as supporters of minority parties in single-member district systems often do. In addition, whether absentee voting is in operation also affects voter turnout.
It is certainly appropriate to seek to raise voter turnout and reduce the impact of black gold on elections. But there is still ample room for discussion on whether we can attain those goals through compulsory voting.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath