One obvious conclusion can be drawn from the distribution of votes between the different parties in the legislative elections: there is basically no difference from the results of the elections three years ago.
Whether we look at the number of votes won by the different parties, their proportions of the total vote or the number of seats won by the blue and green camps, the situation remains almost static.
Keeping in mind the upsetting presidential election and the political situation and social unrest that followed, how could this be?
The people most disappointed by the outcome of the the elections are probably two presidents.
Despite former president Lee Teng-hui's (
The trend was more or less the same in every city and county, nor were there any obvious differences between the north and south.
The blow to President Chen Shui-bian (
Unexpectedly, the strategy failed completely, and the number of votes won was the same as three years ago. Because voter turn-out was low, the final proportion of votes won was 37.5 percent, a small increase of only two percentage points.
Deducting the TSU's 800,000 votes, the total number of votes won by the DPP in the legislative elections was approximately 2.2 million lower than the number of votes won by Chen in the presidential election nine months ago. So what are voters thinking?
Looking at the number and proportion of votes won by each party in different areas, the DPP did not win a majority in any city or county except for Ilan County. In Taiwan south of the Chuoshui River, they saw an increase in Chiayi County, but in other cities and counties, results were about the same as in 2001. Looking at actual votes won, the changes were even smaller.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 240,000 votes more than in 2001, or about four percentage points, and increased its number of legislative seats by eight. The main differences occurred in Taipei County and City because of a more cautious approach in the nomination process -- to avoid repeating past mistakes -- finally brought results.
The People First Party's (PFP) losses "complemented" the KMT's gains. The party lost 560,000 votes, or almost 5 percentage points, and eight seats. As a result, the blue camp maintained the same number of seats, making the whole election exercise look like a storm in a teacup.
But why didn't the large number of opinion polls published prior to the elections detect this phenomenon?
At least half of the answer to that question is to be found among respondents that could not be included in the telephone queries or that did not respond to the polls.
Although Taiwan is inundated by opinion polls, very few pollsters are willing to spend time on these two categories of respondents, which means that there is still much to learn. Do voters want to slow things down, or do they want to turn the political clock back?
Hung Yung-tai is a professor in the department of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS