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
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS