Legislative elections: should we go Dutch?

The results of the legislative elections on Jan. 12 showed a major discrepancy between the number of seats and the percentages of votes for the different parties. Such discrepancies are not uncommon in "winner take all" single seat district systems, such as in the UK.

While single-seat district system increases the accountability of the legislators to the local electorate, it also opens the door to "little kingdoms" in which a legislator virtually has absolute power, and can perpetuate his or her hold on the position through money and connections.

The single-seat system also contains a flaw in the principle of democracy, since the people in a district whose candidate was not elected may feel that their views are not represented in the legislature.

In the 2005 restructuring, the negotiators adopted a mixed system, in which 73 of the 113 seats were district seats, six for Aboriginal groups and 34 seats were elected through an overall proportional distribution of party votes from a second ballot.

As we have seen from the results of the elections, this has not solved the problem and indeed illustrates the flaws in the new system even more clearly.

Should seek to fine-tune its electoral system, Taiwan may want to look at the Dutch system, which is a proportional system, but with a twist.

In the Netherlands, the political parties first develop a list of candidates -- through an internal democratic system that represents a mixture of US party caucuses and primaries.

The list is headed by a prominent party member, but -- and this is essential -- also has candidates who represent the different parts of the country.

In that way, if the particular party has done its homework, the party list represents a balance from the different regions and even factions within the party.

On voting day, the voters generally mark the box of the person who heads the list and the seats are allocated on the basis of the total percentage of the vote the party receives.

In that way, there is no discrepancy between the percentage of the vote and seats allocated to any particular party.

The "twist" is that voters have an alternative to giving what is essentially a "party vote" to the person who heads a particular party's list.

Voters instead choose to make a "preference vote" by specifically naming a candidate lower on the party list, and if that candidate receives more preference votes than the total number of valid party votes divided by the total number of seats for that party, he or she is elected.

Local can therefore still be elected, even if the party primary might not have put them in a high position on their list.

The Dutch system creates the possibility for new entrants and smaller parties to win seats, enhancing democracy because new and different voices are heard.

It also necessitates procedures in the legislature whereby individual legislators cannot speak on all issues. Instead, parties appoint spokespersons on each major topic so that debate in the legislature is focused and represents the party position.

It also ensures the debates don't go on endlessly.

Some -- including Taiwan -- do also have a minimum percentage of votes a party must receive in order to have seats in the legislature.

As seen in the results of the Jan. 12 elections, the 5 percent threshold is probably too high and might need to be lowered to about 3 percent if other voices are to be heard.

Remember, Taiwan's democracy is still a work in progress. It is up to Taiwanese to really make it work.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.