There has been a lot of talk about whether the ballots for the upcoming referendums on joining the UN should be issued simultaneously with those for the presidential election. The Central Election Committee (CEC) recently held a meeting to decide the issue, but because of opposition by some pro-blue committee members, it did not reach a final decision.
The "one stage" voting procedure means that when voters enter the voting venue, they would be issued ballots for both the presidential election and the various referendums at the same time.
Voters would have to drop the ballot for the presidential election and those for the referendums into different boxes.
The "two stage" voting procedure, for its part, means that ballots are issued separately. After voters have received their ballot for the presidential election and have voted, they go back to receive ballots for the referendums and vote again.
Legality of these two voting procedures is not disputed and voters are surely competent enough to deal with either.
It is therefore difficult to understand why the pan-blue media and politicians oppose the "one-stage" procedure with such fervor, demonizing whenever they can. They even rallied 18 mayors and county commissioners to collectively protest it. To such fanaticism, the only reply is: Don't get so worked up about it.
Generally speaking, the "one-stage" voting procedure is an easier and simpler way of issuing ballots and voting, and it can save a lot of unnecessary manpower and work. On the other hand, using the "two stage" procedure can prevent the problem of people dropping their ballot in the wrong box.
The controversy stem from the fact that issuing all ballots at the same time would be the most effective in terms of increasing the turnout in the referendums.
The outcome of the 2004 referendums shows that if the ballots are issued separately, many people will not know that after voting in one election, they need to pick up another ballot and vote again. This lowered the turnout in the referendum. At the time, many voters who wanted to vote in the referendum complained that they didn't know they had to get into another line.
Because of the way the exits were placed, voters walked straight out of the voting venue after voting in the presidential election and afterwards could not go back in again to vote in the referendum.
Taiwan's democracy has matured a great deal and its people have a lot of experience with voting. Issuing all ballots at the same time would therefore not cause any problems.
Also, referendums are the means for the public to express its opinion, and the system should be designed to encourage voting. Whether the ballots are issued separately or simultaneously, voters will still receive the ballots for voting in the two referendums -- "entering the UN" and "returning to the UN" -- at the same time, which should increase turnout for both.
Why does the pan-blue camp think using the "one stage" voting procedure would only benefit the Democratic Progressive Party? If they worry that issuing ballots simultaneously will increase turnout in the referendums, are they really going to say that their own referendum about "returning to the UN" was only a front?
Looking at the way voting is organized in other countries or states with a mature referendum system, like Switzerland, Denmark or California, it becomes clear that when referendums are combined with important elections, the "one-stage" voting procedure is the norm.
The focus in these countries is on simplifying elections and making things easy for voters. The procedures in the above-mentioned places differ a bit: In some, two or more ballots are issued at the same time, but after voting the ballots are all dropped into the same box. Other countries let voters vote on various issues on different parts of the same ballot.
The implementation of the "two stage" voting procedure in the 2004 referendums was an original idea of Taiwan.
Recently, three elections were combined into one. The ballots for this election were issued simultaneously and had to be dropped into different boxes, yet there was no chaos.
Why would Taiwan have to go against the global norm?
The above-mentioned pan-blue mayors and county commissioners recently published a joint statement saying that the legislative and presidential elections and the referendums require a "two stage" voting procedure. Legally speaking, the CEC is the central authority on electoral matters. As such, it is responsible for ordering, supervising and handling national elections.
Mayors and county commissioners are only entrusted with the actual carrying out of the elections. The CEC should insist on its authority and demand local election committees to follow instructions to the letter.
If anyone goes against these instructions, the CEC has the responsibility to thoroughly investigate the case.
Taiwan must not be allowed to sink into a bizarre situation of "one country, two voting systems."
Lee Chun-yi is director of the Presidential Office's Constitutional Reform Office.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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
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
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