A group of Democratic Progres-sive Party (DPP) legislators has proposed a mechanism to exclude pan-blue respondents from participating in the opinion polls that the party will use to choose candidates in its primaries. Anyone who did not vote for a DPP or Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) candidate in the last presidential, local or legislative election would be disqualified from taking part in the opinion poll.
This "blue exclusion clause" is being fiercely debated within the party. Some lawmakers are claiming that the proposal is tailor-made for certain legislators.
The proposal's author, Legislator Wang Shih-cheng (
But the proposal's backers and its opponents have so far failed to discuss it in a constructive fashion. Their positions are largely based on whether the proposal will help or harm their chances of being nominated.
The entire debate is a striking example of the anxiety being caused by the new single seat district system that will come into effect with the next legislative elections in December.
The proponents believe that pan-blue voters will distort the DPP's primaries and thus the DPP's nominations. The only case they have cited, however, is my own.
Before the 2005 legislative elections, then DPP legislator Tuan Yi-kang (
The three winning DPP candidates in Taipei City South had received a combined approval rating of just 16 percent in the same poll.
Candidates who lead in the polls will always come out and plead for support in the final days of a campaign because they are worried they will lose the election.
This phenomenon -- leading in opinion polls but losing the election -- is caused by Taiwan's multi-seat districts. Voters in these districts vote based on their calculations of who needs their vote the most. This is why polls do not accurately predict the winners of legislative elections.
Tuan and I lost because candidates with high ratings in the polls get attacked not just by opposition candidates, but also by candidates from their own party. I was the victim of an unprecedented smear campaign that cost me votes.
The DPP's first primaries for legislative candidates took place in 1992. The system started off as a simple vote but later evaluations by party leaders and opinion polls were added.
When the DPP first used opinion polls, the polling results received a weighting of 50 percent. Later this was raised to 70 percent. Party members votes now count for just 30 percent.
This evolution demonstrates the increasing importance of polls in DPP primaries not only because they are trusted, but also because they reflect the will of the people.
In contrast, direct voting in primaries has become less important because it has been plagued by scandal and has resulted in candidates without strong voter appeal.
The last DPP primary for legislators-at-large can serve as an example. Party members voted for a slate of at-large candidates headed up by Hsueh Ling (薛凌), Chiu Yung-jen (邱永仁), Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) and 10 others.
The primary opinion polls ranked Hong Chi-chang (
The two orderings of the same 13 at-large candidates were miles apart with a low relative coefficient, if we apply statistical analysis.
In other words, the first slate of candidates chosen by a direct vote of party members was very different from the second slate of candidates chosen by opinion polls which included pan-blue voters.
But the second set was far more electable than the first, as was suggested by the strong showings of Hong, Tsai and Lin, three of the DPP's most well-known legislators.
Past experience shows that the biggest problem in DPP primaries is the existence of nominal party members. Their existence leads to persistent rumors of vote buying and a tendency for bad candidates to eliminate good ones.
If the party leadership wants to reform the party's primaries, its first priority should be getting rid of nominal members. One way to achieve this would be to filter them out by asking three questions, just as is being proposed for participants in primary opinion polls to filter out pan-blue voters.
The first question could be: "Have you paid up your party dues?" The second question could ask: "Do you hold onto your own party membership card?" And the third could be: "Are you voting in the primary on your own accord?"
Naturally, anybody with any sense will question the efficacy of asking these three questions, since every party member is going to answer "Yes, yes and yes."
If this method won't work to get rid of nominal DPP members, then how is the blue exclusion clause going to filter out pan-blue voters?
Shen Fu-hsiung served four terms as a DPP legislator.
Translated by Michael Fahey
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS