On Jan. 8, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) and a coalition of small parties and civil groups called for election deposits to be abolished, to ensure that everyone has an equal right to run for political office.
However, from the perspective of election officials, the deposit is necessary, as rashly abolishing it would degrade the quality of Taiwan’s elections and its democracy, for the following reasons:
First, abolishing the deposit would significantly increase the number of candidates in every election, and could even paralyze the election process.
For example, in councilor elections, the number of people applying to run in each county and city could reach double digits, or even triple digits, making for a complex registration and proclamation process.
If the government abolished the threshold for registration, the excessive number of candidates would increase the administrative burden of election officials, delaying vote counts.
In the 2018 nine-in-one local elections, the counting of votes was delayed until late at night, as multiple elections were held simultaneously. If the number of candidates surged, the counting of votes would likely continue into the next day.
The deposit is a sign that candidates have some backing. If a potential candidate cannot even raise a small deposit from supporters, they lack either support or sincerity, and only want to campaign to boost their media exposure. Allowing such candidates to run is of no benefit; it is just a waste of administrative and public resources.
Second, abolishing the deposit does not increase the possibility of electing “virtuous and able candidates.”
If the deposit were abolished, the cost of running for office would be greatly reduced, and the number of candidates in a single electoral district could easily reach 50 or more. Voters, with the dozens of unfamiliar faces and unclear platforms on each election bulletin, would have difficulty distinguishing between good and bad candidates. They might end up simply voting for the candidates that had the most campaign ads.
Surely this would benefit candidates capable of spending more money on ads.
Third, replacing the deposit with public cosigners would not improve the situation.
Those who want to abolish the deposit have said that a person’s financial status should not be an obstacle to political participation. They propose that prospective candidates have the option of submitting a certain number of signatures in lieu of a deposit.
The question is whether the signature drive would be without cost. For example, each step of the signature drive for a recall proposal, from the setting up of signature stations to the mobilization of personnel and the distribution of information, requires money.
If the number of signatures acted as a threshold, those with more funds and greater party support would have a better possibility of crossing it. This would hardly improve the situation, as a person’s financial status would still determine their ability to run for office.
Finally, the huge campaign expenses, not the deposit, are what turn elections into a money game.
The main reason for abolishing the deposit is to prevent elections from becoming a cash game, but the massive campaign expenses are what turn most elections into a money game — campaign staff, printed pamphlets, ads and rallies all cost money.
A budget cap would effectively rid elections of the problem, but abolishing the deposit is neither a permanent nor a temporary cure.
Wang Yu-pei is a former correctional counselor.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs