Positive about negative vote
Chiou Tian-juh (邱天助) said in his opinion piece (“Positive effect of ‘negative voting,’” March 9, page 8) that 14 states allow negative votes.
I am compelled to clarify that what is available in these 14 states is the “none of the above” (NOTA) option. That is very different from what is being proposed, which Chiou understands and apparently supports — and the positive effects of which he wrote eloquently about.
A few more points of clarification are needed in response to some criticism mentioned in Chinese-language newspapers.
One assertion is that the proposal was advanced to promote Shih Ming-te (施明德) or some person with political ambition to benefit the third party candidate.
Nothing is further from the truth. We have been promoting this idea for more than a year on the Internet, mainly through Facebook.
The Negative Vote Association formed in March last year and sent an application with a list of more than 30 founders to the Ministry of the Interior (not including Shih) in November last year.
We knew we needed a prominent figure to serve as our chairman to gain the attention of mainstream media.
In spite of our best efforts, all such figures we approached declined.
Only Shih was willing, although fully aware that he would draw fire from all vested interests.
Shih is willing to become a target of attack because he believes our proposal will improve all democracies, improve harmony in Taiwan and contribute to world peace by weeding out extremists.
As expected, all Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators interviewed did not support the idea. Some responded more viciously than others to draw attention to themselves.
In the nine-in-one elections in November last year, 38 percent of candidates for the office of village warden — that is, 2,970 people — ran unopposed.
I am sure that many of these people are so loved by their neighbors that they are unopposed (one of our founders is such a person).
Yet, it is also public knowledge that some of these people are local gang leaders who can intimidate potential opposition into not running. Negative voting would solve this problem.
With negative voting, the probability exists (though very low) that no candidate receives any net positive votes. In this case, another election should be held and those initially rejected should be barred from participating.
The natural question in that scenario is: “Is a second election not very costly to society?”
To which our response is: “Is electing the wrong person not even more costly to society?”
In a two-candidate scenario, under the current system, the winner often arrogantly proclaims: “I have [overwhelming] popular support.”
The truth is more likely that he does not. In this scenario, many people do not vote because they dislike both candidates. Some vote for the winner as the “lesser of two evils.”
If negative voting is adopted, more people would participate in voting and the result would more accurately reflect people’s views.
The outcome of who wins could also be the opposite of the outcome when only positive votes are allowed.
For example, under the current system, if out of 67 votes, candidate A receives 34 and candidate B receives 33, candidate A would win with 50.7 percent majority support.
If negative voting is an option and 33 more people choose to vote, and candidate A receives 34 positive votes and 22 negative votes, the candidate’s net positive votes number 11.
If candidate B receives 33 positive votes and 11 negative votes, that candidate’s net positive votes number 22.
Candidate B would win and humbly note that he does not have majority support.
It is clear which system is better.
Sam Chang
Negative Vote Association secretary-general
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Tuesday returned from her visit to the US, where she had met with several US senators and representatives, think tanks, and overseas Taiwanese and Chinese communities, espousing her vision of promoting cross-strait dialogue as a way to evade war. On Monday last week, she sat down with US academic Orville Schell and Asia Society Policy Institute distinguished fellow Daniel Russel. Russel is a seasoned diplomat who has served in positions related to East Asian and Indo-Pacific affairs. At the conclusion of the discussion, Russel employed his considerable diplomatic experience and knowledge
In the aftermath of China’s expulsion of the New York Times correspondent Vivian Wang (王月眉), Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian (林劍) has publicly and explicitly articulated Beijing’s core thinking on the Taiwan issue. Chinese authorities accused the newspaper of promoting what they called “Taiwan independence fallacies,” and said that its description of Taiwan as a country amounts to a challenge to the “one China” principle. The significance of the incident goes beyond the reporting dispute and has given the international community a window into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attitude toward Taiwan. Lin, in a statement, said
RSS