The Central Election Commission on Feb. 1 passed a resolution to increase the number of legislative seats by one each for Hsinchu County and Tainan, and to reduce the number of seats for Kaohsiung and Pingtung County by one each. The number of seats in other constituencies is unchanged.
Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) has said that the principle of fair apportionment should be respected in legislative elections. When Kaohsiung city and county were merged in 2010, the administrative area was expanded and the population increased.
Chen said reducing the number of legislative seats for Kaohsiung was tantamount to punishment.
Chen has only pointed to the tip of the iceberg. Viewed from a global perspective, Taiwan’s legislative election system shows a high degree of malapportionment.
The Additional Articles of the Constitution contain several flaws that result in an imbalance in the number of legislative seats for regional constituencies and legislators-at-large, and a disproportionate number of seats for party representation in relation to the number of votes received.
This has led to the legislature becoming severely dissociated from the public, and the problem has evolved into a crisis of democracy where not all are represented fairly.
After President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) assumed office, she said she wanted to initiate constitutional reform, in which the problem of malapportionment in the legislative election system is one major concern.
There are three aspects to consider for proper apportionment: first, the balance between different autonomous entities, such as special municipalities, counties and county-level cities; second, whether or not the difference in the number of seats allocated to political parties coincides with the difference in the number of votes received; and third, fairness between different ethnic groups.
Looking at the ninth legislative elections in 2016 as an example, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) received just more than 44 percent of the party vote, but 18 of the legislator-at-large seats, which make up 52.9 percent of the total number of legislator-at-large seats.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) received 26.9 percent of the party vote and 11 of the legislator-at-large seats, 32.3 percent of the total, while the parties that received less than 5 percent of votes were not given any legislator-at-large seats. This is clearly not in line with the principle of proportionality.
A total of 18 political parties took part in the 2016 legislative elections, but only four of these parties — the DPP, the KMT, the New Power Party and the People First Party (PFP) — received more than 5 percent of the party vote and were allocated legislative seats.
The other 14 parties did not obtain any seats, because they received less than 5 percent of the total vote.
These small parties received almost 2 million votes, which is equal to 16.35 percent of the total number of votes. This represents a sizable part of the electorate that was not recognized. This blocks a channel for voters to make their voices heard and prohibits smaller parties from political participation. This is not in line with the spirit of democracy.
In terms of constituencies, the DPP received only 44.58 percent of the total votes, but won 50 seats, which represent 68 percent of the total number of constituency seats. The PFP received 1.26 percent of votes from all constituencies, but did not win a single constituency seat.
The contrast becomes more noticeable when the number of votes for one legislative seat in a constituency is taken into consideration: Taitung County with only 140,000 residents — deducting Aborigines as they vote for Aboriginal representatives — elect one legislator, as does Lienchiang County with just over 12,000 residents, while New Taipei City only gets one legislator per 330,000 residents.
There are 560,000 Aborigines, and they get six legislators, an average of 93,000 people per legislator. All these instances exemplify severe malapportionment.
Fairness in the election of legislators should be as important as fairness when voting for parties. All legislative seats should be allocated based on votes, to properly reflect the influence of the different political parties and the diversity of public opinion.
While the Additional Articles of the Constitution stipulate that “the number of elected female members on each party’s list shall not be less than one-half of the total number,” it should also be possible to consider the representativeness of a constituency, as well as Aboriginal legislators.
Using the argument that too many parties in the legislature would affect the efficiency of legislative proceedings as an excuse to deprive smaller parties of their right to be allocated legislative seats goes against the spirit of equality that is stated in the Constitution.
Moreover, there has never been any example in the past of a small party having such influence in the legislature that it obstructs legislative performance. This cannot be used as a reason to justify the constraints imposed on small political parties.
The single-district, two-vote legislative electoral system has inflicted more pressure on smaller political parties than necessary. The government and the public should think seriously about the issue of malapportionment in the voting system.
Lau Yi-te is chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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
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
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry