The result of the legislative elections are out, and as such, the biggest question on everyone's mind has been answered: the pan-blue camp will continue to hold a slight majority in the legislature, having won 114 seats out of 225.
That is hardly good news for those who are fed up with the continued gridlock in the Legislative Yuan over the past four years, where many important bills were blocked as a result of political rivalries.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains the biggest political party in the legislature, holding 89 seats. At 38 percent, the percentage of votes earned by DPP grew in number from the last legislative election, earning the party two additional seats. However, this growth falls far short of the pan-green camp's ambition of seizing a majority in the legislature.
This suggests that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who received 50.1 percent of the vote in March presidential election, was unable to use his relative popularity to raise support for pan-green candidates in yesterday's elections. The fact that 59 percent of voters participated in the legislative elections -- compared to 80.2 percent turnout for the presidential election -- probably played a significant role in this outcome.
Presumably, those who decided to stay home are predominantly moderate or undecided voters. In other words, people who do not have consistent party affiliation chose not to go to the polls. In a country as divided as Taiwan, this makes perfect sense. The March 20 presidential election left the nation bitterly divided, and the controversies surrounding that election have continued to plague the country to this day. As a result, many people have become sick and tired of politics, and many wanted nothing to do with the legislative elections.
The campaign strategies used by all political parties across the political spectrum contributed to the wave of voter apathy. There were very few debates on substantive policies and issues, and party platforms did little to lure moderate voters. Instead, how voters should allocate votes, and which candidates should be "dumped" and which be "saved" became the focus of campaigning. These strategies were only successful in motivating steadfast party supporters to go out and vote. The results show that moderate voters were largely alienated and that parties did not do enough to seek support from outside their traditional voter bases.
A closer look at the outcome also shows that many incumbents who were seemingly popular in pre-election surveys were actually defeated by small margins at the polls. Cases in point include the Taiwan Solidarity Union's (TSU) Chen Chien-ming
The election result had much to do with the way the pan-green camp became too ambitious by nominating too many candidates in the same districts. It also had much to do with vote-allocation strategies. As a result of such strategies, many voters decided not to vote for candidates favored to win, and instead voted for those forecast to be underdogs. Interestingly, many "underdog" candidates got elected as a result.
Under the circumstances, it is comforting to know that this will be the last legislative election in which the "single-vote, multiple-member" system will be used, and that the problematic "save and dump" vote-allocation strategy it gives rise to will come to an end.
Finally, the number of legislative seats held by the pan-blue camp has not changed much as a result of this election. This indicates that voters prefer stability over unpredictability. Hopefully, the political camps and their successfully-elected candidates will keep this in mind in the coming years.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers