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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS