After losing last month's legislative elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has deplored the fact that it received less than one-fourth of the seats in the legislature, despite winning 38 percent of the votes.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said this demonstrates the problem with the new electoral system. The DPP caucus has since said it would call for a constitutional interpretation of the new system.
The party seems to think that it didn't lose the elections because of ineffective governing, but rather because of problems with the drawing of district lines.
The DPP feels that the number of votes a party wins should be reflected in the number of seats it wins. Based on that idea, it argues that the new system violates the constitutional principle of electoral equality.
That conclusion is far-fetched.
In the 1962 US Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr, the court ruled on Tennessee's electoral district system, which did not fairly represent the population. The state had refused to redraw district lines, which the court ruled was unconstitutional. The ruling protected the rights of voters, but did not require that Tennessee implement a system in which seats in the state assembly are handed out in direct proportion to the number of votes each party wins.
The US uses an electoral college for its presidential elections. In this system, each state has a certain number of electoral votes. Those votes are not split to reflect the votes cast by residents in that state, but rather are granted as a whole to one candidate. California, for example, has 55 electoral votes, and if a presidential candidate wins more than 50 percent of the votes in that state, that candidate receives all of California's 55 votes.
If the DPP's argument that such a system is unfair were correct, the US would already have abolished this system.
The DPP says that the amendment to the Constitution that says there should be a legislator for every county and city in Taiwan, so that small counties like Kinmen can have their own legislators, goes against the spirit of equality.
But in the US House of Representatives, all states are represented, large and small. Seats are allocated in proportion to the population of each state. Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution says that every state has the right to at least one seat in the House of Representatives. No one has ever questioned the fairness of this.
If the DPP is of the opinion that Kinmen and Matzu are too small too be represented in the legislature, then it wants voters on Taiwan proper to represent the interests of Kinmen and Matzu voters. Not everyone would say that's a good idea.
If we follow the DPP's argument, a system is only democratic if the number of votes a party obtains is reflected in the number of legislative seats the party gets.
But this is perhaps to misunderstand the meaning of democracy. Democracy means the public has the power to decide on matters of government. However, direct democracy is problematic in practice, which is why representative democracy was created, in which voters choose a representative to voice their interests when policies are made.
In the new legislature, the DPP is too small to request a constitutional interpretation. The party says this is against the principle of separation of powers.
This too is an exaggeration. The idea of separation of powers is the division of political powers between different governmental institutions. The different institutions must balance each other to protect the rights of the public. Separation of powers has nothing to do with the rights of political parties to request a constitutional interpretation.
Regardless, there are other means for the public, political parties and government institutions to request a constitutional interpretation.
The new voting system is not without problems. An absolute majority for one party, or a two-party political system, will push out small parties. This is the kind of issue over which political parties should be seeking a constitutional interpretation.
The DPP is free to request a constitutional interpretation. But it would be sad if the public's representatives in a democratic system didn't fully understand the basic principles of representative democracy. The party may just be manipulating the public with this issue to win the presidential election.
Samantha Wu is an associate professor at the International Trade Department of the Technology and Science Institute of Northern Taiwan.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.