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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS