When fights and controversies over whether to "dump" or "save" certain candidates and whether to divide votes begin to take over the news headlines, everyone knows that the legislative election campaign has entered the final stretch. The candidates are going all out to get elected, even if that means sacrificing their comrades from the same parties. In times like this one cannot help but wonder "with friends like these, who need enemies?"
The so-called "dump-save" and vote allocation strategies are unique to Taiwan's political culture and have played significant roles in almost all of the past elections here. "Dump-save" means to instruct supporters in one camp or party not to vote for a candidate who is unlikely to get elected since he or she is trailing so far behind in the polls, and instead vote for a different candidate who does have a chance of getting elected. The point is to ensure that votes are not wasted on lost causes.
Whenever "dump-save" plans begin to surface, those who are far behind in the polls always panic, fearing that they will become a casualty of the proposal. Further complicating the matter is that the practice can be used across political parties in the same camp -- for example, across the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) in the pan-green camp, or across the Chinese Nationalist Party(KMT), People's First Party (PFP), and New Party in the pan blue camp.
Since the candidates getting dumped will usually become extremely upset, the plan must be carried out tactfully. The parties typically will not openly admit that they hope their supporters will practice a "dump-save" strategy. Instead, it generally begins with street rumors, passed on by anonymous sources, that it is about time to "dump-save." Pretty soon, everyone on the street knows who the intended victims are going to be. When the victims inevitably find out and raise a ruckus, the party headquarters will typically deny any plan. Therefore, any time there is such a denial from a party, one knows it is "dump-save" time again.
One can hardly understate the impact that "dump-save" strategies have had on critical elections in the past. As a matter of fact, the first ever change of ruling party in Taiwan could not have taken place in 2000 without a type of "dump-save" strategy. At the time, then incumbent vice president Lien Chan (
As for vote allocation, that means to ask the voters to transfer some of their votes from candidates who are sure to win to less popular ones. Again, the goal is to ensure that the political parties win as many seats as possible. In contrast with "dump-save" strategies, political parties have openly called for vote allocation plans. In such cases, those leading in the popular polls will often resist, fearing that too many of their votes may be transferred to other candidates and that they could up losing the elections -- something that has actually happened before.
The reason that the above practices are possible in Taiwan is because voters will agree to cast their ballots based on party affiliation rather than the merits of the individual candidates. That in turn is because voters are extremely polarized in terms of supporting specific parties; there are virtually no moderate and undecided voters. But one cannot help but wonder: Aren't practices such as these fundamentally at odds with the spirit of democracy?
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under