The Ministry of the Interior's proposal to change the electoral system for legislators to medium-sized (smaller) constituencies with two votes per person -- or to allow votors to vote once for a candidate and once for a party of their choice -- has initiated a war of words between the ruling and opposition parties. The opposition objects to the idea, the DPP favors it. Some legislators and scholars hope to implement a system with single-member constituencies (one legislator per constituency) and two votes per person.
A single-member constituency, however, will give rise to many thorny issues, including what to do about the guaranteed quota for women. Also, legislation will be difficult without Constitutional amendments. The ministry can only initiate electoral reform within the Constitutional framework by suggesting smaller constituencies and a two-vote-per-person system, and shouldn't be criticized for not wanting to implement a system with single-member constituencies and two votes per person.
After the KMT had evaluated the proposal in 1995, in the end only Taipei County was divided into three constituencies. Given the KMT's strength in the legislature at the time, the reason that there was no support for the plan was that it was not beneficial to the KMT. Why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot?
In the last few legislative elections, support for the DPP has hovered around 30 percent, especially in the cities. If electoral support in a multi-member constituency electoral system is evenly divided between the candidates, the more seats a party wins, the greater may be the difference between votes received and seats won.
If the standard is five seats for each constituency, and the DPP nominates at least two candidates in each, election can be almost guaranteed. The parties' prospects will differ from district to district, but it can't be denied that if the DPP, with a support rate of 30-odd percent, wants to obtain 40 percent of the seats, precisely such a divergence between votes and seats is a distinct possibility. This is also the reason why the KMT proposed the single-member constituency system with two votes per person and denounced the medium-sized system.
In the past, there was often no set standard according to which constituencies were divided, and even though the situation wasn't what is known as gerrymandering, it still took the distribution of local factions into full consideration. There is therefore suspicion that the medium-sized constituency system with two votes per person is an attempt to benefit the ruling party and that it therefore cannot possibly receive the support of the opposition parties.
The medium-sized constituency system and the two votes per person system are, however, two different things. The redrawing of constituencies must be carefully considered before being decided upon, while amendment to laws regulating the two-votes-per-person system can be implemented quickly.
Legislators are now elected through a multi-member constituency system. There is no competition to speak of between parties, and it creates a number of factions within the same party. It is only by implementing a single-member constituency system, with one candidate per party, that there will be competition between political parties instead of political fighting.
The implementation of a single-member constituency system with two votes per person is therefore a matter of urgency. Since opposition parties are already opposed to a transitional multi-member constituency system, an amendment to the Constitution should be initiated to design an overall plan for the legislative electoral system.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a legislator for the Taiwan Independence Party.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS