The KMT legislative caucus recently proposed draft amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Law (
The proposal -- aimed at raising voter turnout and minimizing the impact of "black gold" -- has prompted extensive discussion. Some have criticized the move as being a regressive one for our democracy. In fact, compulsory voting is a highly controversial issue even overseas. I would like to clarify some ideas about this system.
Voting is compulsory in more than 30 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Turkey, Singapore, Argentina, Brazil and Peru. The thought behind compulsory voting is that voting is not simply a civil right, but rather a responsibility. Low voter turnouts shake the most fundamental cornerstones of democratic politics. That's why even some advanced countries have instituted compulsory voting.
Opponents of compulsory voting believe that if voting is a means of making a choice and expressing an opinion, then not voting can also be interpreted as such. When casting ballots, constituents are usually forced to choose the least rotten apple from several rotten ones. So some simply decline to make the choice. But compulsory voting forces people to eat rotten apples.
In many countries where voting is mandatory, various regulations have been established to punish those who refuse to vote, but those regulations are rarely implemented. Meanwhile, in some nations in which voting is compulsory, the elderly are not obliged to go to the polls out of consideration of their difficulties in getting about. Brazil, for instance, stipulates that voters under 17 (the voting age in Brazil is 16) and over 70, as well as illiterate voters, should not be forced to cast their ballots.
In other countries with compulsory voting, such as Australia, Belgium and Italy, the voter turnout is usually more than 85 percent. But turnouts in countries like Greece and Peru are still lower than 80 percent. Voter turnout in some nations that do not require their citizens to vote, however -- including Denmark, Iceland and the Netherlands -- exceed 85 percent, and in Malta, it even reaches 95 percent.
It is generally believed that elections in Taiwan generate high voter turnout. This is actually untrue. In legislative elections, for example, voter turnout has never exceeded 70 percent.
Taiwan's turnout exceeds those of the US and Switzerland, and is neck-and-neck with France and Ireland. Even the current record of 82 percent, set in our last presidential election, is a mediocre rate when compared with those of Western democracies.
Factors influencing a country's voter turnout are very complex. Turnouts tend to be higher in countries operating proportional representation electoral systems since constituents do not feel that their ballots are wasted, as supporters of minority parties in single-member district systems often do. In addition, whether absentee voting is in operation also affects voter turnout.
It is certainly appropriate to seek to raise voter turnout and reduce the impact of black gold on elections. But there is still ample room for discussion on whether we can attain those goals through compulsory voting.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means