The proposal of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-te (施明德) that the nation adopt a “negative voting” system has been met with mixed reactions.
Some commentators have said that it could increase voter turnout, decrease the number of extremist politicians and help break the political deadlock between the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
Those who are opposed to the suggestion say that it would result in chaos, incite hatred and strengthen political opposition, and that it might be unconstitutional.
I, on the other hand, am looking forward to it.
For many years now, Taiwanese democracy has seen a series of vicious political power struggles. In order to make headlines and ignite supporters, some politicians often resort to extreme, biased and inflammatory language and actions, filling society with contradictions, opposition and hatred, tearing the nation apart and obstructing social progress. People even act against their consciences and drag society into moral and civil predicaments.
However, results from past elections show that because there is no power to counterbalance such behavior, people who act this way usually benefit politically, whereas the good-tempered and well-intentioned politicians rarely have the chance to get ahead. Therefore, even calls to transcend partisanship are but a means to make up for a lack of competence and a moral void, or a defense for a lack of political principles or beliefs.
Elections are fundamental to maintaining democracy. People generally expect that those who are best suited for the positions are the ones who will be elected. This means that candidates should have high standards of competence and ethical values.
Nowadays, some politicians think that they are backed up by loyal supporters who they can count on, so they are free to intimidate and appropriate as they see fit without anyone being able to do anything about it. We must be aware that if conscience is removed from politics, even a group of ill-intentioned people would be able to build a nation.
The design of the democratic system gives one vote per person at an election, with each vote carrying equal weight. The current system only allows supporters the right to vote for a candidate, while opponents must resort to passively choosing not to vote or to cast a spoiled vote, or even vote against their own will.
Such design limits civil participation in political affairs, and this is not what true democracy is about. Not giving the opponents the chance to vote against someone they deem as inappropriate for the job runs counter to the essence of democracy and liberty.
Unlike the current voting system, a negative voting mechanism would place options both to approve and disapprove of each candidate on the ballot. A voter would be able to choose to use their vote to pick a candidate that they support, or to vote against a candidate that they disapprove of.
The final ballot count would be the result of approval votes with the number of disapproval votes for each candidate subtracted. The number of net approval votes would determine which candidate is elected.
On Sept. 27, 2013, India’s Supreme Court ratified a negative voting system, making India the 14th state that allows voters to cast negative votes in an election after France, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Ukraine, Chile, Bangladesh, Finland, Columbia, Spain, Sweden, Canada and the US state of Nevada.
Negative voting forces political parties to take candidates’ reputations into account when they nominate them, freeing political parties from possible extortion by extremists. It could even heighten conscience awareness in politicians, who could learn to represent the public from its perspective, and how to address conflicting interests, fight for what is right with reason while at the same time respecting the views of others.
Those who are only skilled in malicious criticism and verbal abuse, even with the support of a certain party, would only attract more people to oppose them, forcing them to abstract themselves from little cliques of people working only for their own self-interest. As a result, politics would stop being a meeting-house of, and a haven for, discrimination and prejudice.
In the context of modern morals and politics, personal choice and the freedom to choose are the most visible ideals and goals.
Negative voting is a Copernican revolution in democracy, in that it changes the essence of representative politics, letting people speak up about what is truly on their minds, giving them the right and a chance to say no, reshaping the form and content of politics and promoting a social conscience.
Chiou Tian-juh is a professor of social psychology at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS