The elections are over, but the problem of vote buying is still with us and has not diminished by any discernible amount.
The problem has only been exacerbated by the single-member district electoral system, which has now been used for two elections and under which vote buying appears to be particularly rampant.
Article 4 of the Additional Articles to the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution was revised in June 2005 to address changes in the voting system.
Not only was the single term for legislators extended to four years, but a new “single-member district, two vote” system was adopted to limit the number of representatives elected by allowing only one seat per constituency.
It was also hoped that this measure would help curb vote buying.
From what we have seen in the two most recent elections, such hopes have been in vain.
One of the main reasons for this was that the Additional Articles stipulates that, of the 113 legislators, only 73 are elected from the constituencies. If these seats are divided among the entire electorate, that would mean each constituency has something like 310,000 voters.
Supposing voter turnout is more than 80 percent, that means a candidate would have a good chance of winning by controlling, say, 100,000 votes. Now, it would take quite some resources to secure these through vote buying.
The problem is, even though it is true that the cost is much higher than it was under the previous system, it might not be high enough to prevent vote buying altogether, especially when a given constituency is considered to be of sufficiently high importance to a political party that already enjoys considerable clout in the legislature, and given that there is now a reduced number of constituency seats available.
This problem is even more apparent in cities or counties with a relatively small population, because the first clause of Article 4 of the Additional Articles states that at least one member shall be elected from each county and city.
Places like Kinmen, Matsu, Hualien, Taitung, Penghu and Chiayi are still allocated a seat even though their populations fall short of the size stipulated above. While it is true that this promotes regional balance, it also violates the principle that each vote shall carry equal weight.
Vote buying is even more difficult to prevent in constituencies with low populations, where the phenomenon of the “phantom population” (people who take up residence in an area four months before the election date for the sole purpose of being eligible to vote) is easier to engineer.
With the shift to the single-member system as required in the Additional Articles and, as clause 3 of Article 35 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) states that the division of the constituencies can only be reviewed every 10 years, things are unlikely to change in the short term, especially with the governing party holding a majority in the legislature.
All we can do is rely on prosecutors to pursue vote buying, although it would be unwise to hold out too much hope for this.
In the end, it is going to come down to the wisdom of the public, because if a given number of people are still willing to take bribes in return for their votes, we do not stand a chance of curbing this practice, no matter how many revisions to the law are made, or how heavy the punishments for transgressors are.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor in the Department of Financial and Economic Law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS