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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which