Print

Mail

wiki links

Put the convenience of voters first

The pan-blue and pan-green camps are involved in a dispute over how ballots for candidates and the referendums should be distributed to voters during the next election. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has yet to reach a decision on the matter.

The pan-green camp has suggested that voters pick up their ballots for the election and the referendums at the same time. The pan-blue camp, meanwhile, says that voters should pick up the two ballots separately. Which method is more reasonable? The deciding factor should be which method is more convenient to voters and more beneficial to the implementation of Taiwan's democratic process.

First of all, from the perspective of voters, picking up the candidate and referendum ballots at the same time makes more sense. Why would they pick up ballots twice if they could do it once? Collecting the ballots separately would waste not only the time and energy of the voters, but also CEC funds and manpower.

In the US, for example, it would be impossible to propose that voters pick up ballots separately because the voter is god and their convenience is always the priority. As a matter of fact, it is common in the US to hold various referendums in tandem with presidential elections. In fact the candidates' names and the referendum proposals are often printed on the same ballot for the sake of the voters' convenience.

During the midterm elections last year in the US, two-thirds of the 50 states printed referendum items on the election ballots. In all, there were 200 referendum items. Since they were printed on the same ballot, voters only had to pick up ballots once. In the 2004 US presidential election, 11 states also put the referendum question of whether the definition of marriage should be restricted to being between a man and a woman on the same election ballot.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) opposes voters picking up the different ballots at the same time, saying it could result in "chaos." But logically speaking, if collecting ballots simultaneously will cause "chaos," wouldn't picking the election and referendum ballots up separately cause greater "chaos?"

From a democratic point of view, collecting ballots together is more convenient for the voters and is likely to increase participation in the referendums. It does not matter if the referendums are passed or not. What matters is allowing more voters to express their opinion and make their voices heard.

The KMT opposes distributing the ballots at the same time simply because it wants to reduce voter participation in the referendums. By introducing the inconvenience of having to pick up ballots twice, the KMT hopes the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan" will fail.

The KMT's referendum on rejoining the UN under the name "Republic of China" will also be affected if voters are reluctant to participate. But the party does not care at all whether its own referendum passes or not. This shows that the KMT UN bid is insincere. The ultimate goal of this whole charade is to stop the public from telling the international community it wants Taiwan to join the UN.

In the 2004 US presidential election, the referendum on marriage restrictions was clearly favorable to US President George W. Bush, who is strongly against same-sex marriage, and unfavorable to Democratic candidate John Kerry. Still, the Democrats did not object to the referendum, nor did they boycott the voting method. Despite the two parties' political disagreements, both kept the voters' best interests and convenience in mind and respected not only public opinion expressed through referendums, but also the very principle of democracy.

By insisting that different ballots be distributed separately, the KMT is having a relapse into authoritarianism.

Under the Chiang regimes, the KMT used violence to deprive the public of its right to express its views and they offered neither referendums nor any real elections. Now that it can no longer rule with violence, the party is attempting to stop voters from voting in the referendums by acting like a rascal. Any party that is afraid of referendums is in fact afraid of public opinion, afraid of democracy and afraid of the majority calling for a UN bid in the name of Taiwan.

Whether we talk about the KMT's past violence or its behavior today, compromise can lead us nowhere. People should put a stop to the KMT's interference using the same courage that ended the violence of the past. If they can do that, how long could the rascals oppress public opinion and Taiwan's democratic development?

Cao Changqing is a political commentator based in the US.

Translated by Eddy Chang
This story has been viewed 1131 times.