As an American observer of Taiwan’s legislative debates, I find myself envying something Taiwan has that the US lacks: a meaningful defense against pre-election polling manipulation.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling’s (翁曉玲) proposed amendments to Article 53 of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) would slash the pre-election media blackout period from 10 days to a mere three. It would open the floodgates to foreign interference threatening Taiwan’s democracy.
Weng claims that there is no evidence showing pre-election polls influence voters’ decisions. If this were true, that raises the question: Why the rush to publish them? Polls matter precisely because they do influence voter behavior.
The real question is whose interests are served by allowing their unveiling in the 11th hour when there is little time to verify their accuracy or expose manipulation.
Taiwan faces a geopolitical reality that makes it uniquely vulnerable to information warfare. China’s willingness and capacity to interfere with Taiwan’s elections demonstrate exactly why reducing the blackout period is a high-risk proposition.
As Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chuang Jui-hsiung (莊瑞雄) warned, with “China’s long history of using disinformation and fake polls to manipulate public opinion in Taiwan, the potential risks should be carefully considered.”
The 10-day blackout period provides the time necessary to fact-check and expose fabricated polls. Reducing this window to three days would leave little time to counter disinformation effectively.
Citizen Congress Watch executive director Chang Hung-lin (張宏林) took Chuang’s warning a step further, arguing that “the legislature should focus on amending regulations to penalize the dissemination of fake polls rather than shortening the blackout period, which could further polarize society during elections.”
Taiwan lacks a legal framework for penalizing those who fabricate polls. Until such protections exist, shortening the blackout period is reckless.
As Chuang said: “While the public’s right to know is important, national security and electoral integrity must be ensured.”
A democracy manipulated by fabricated foreign polls is not exercising its free will.
The US operates without any such blackout period. As a result, its process has been leveraged by special interests that weaponize polling for unsavory ends. Lee Atwater’s legacy is alive and well through the modern “push poll,” a method designed not to measure public opinion, but to mold it — sowing doubt and spreading disinformation under the guise of research.
Push polls are fake surveys that disguise suggestions as fact. Reputable groups such as the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the National Council on Public Polls condemn the practice.
The result is an electoral landscape where perception often matters more than substance. The final days of US elections resemble a carnival’s hall of mirrors, with polls claiming to reflect the public’s will while simultaneously shaping it — creating a feedback loop that serves whoever has the resources to flood the zone with their preferred facts.
Taiwan has the wisdom to recognize the danger such methods pose if left unchecked.
For Taiwan, maintaining a robust blackout period is a strategic imperative. Every safeguard that Taiwan implements is an assertion of its democratic autonomy. As China seeks to undermine confidence in Taiwan’s institutions, proving they can be protected matters enormously.
Weakening the blackout period sends the wrong signal. It would suggest that the legislature is willing to make its elections more vulnerable to the very interference Beijing practices relentlessly.
The question facing the legislature is simple: In whose interest is it to reduce the blackout period? Not the voters, who deserve accurate information untainted by foreign interference. Not Taiwan’s democracy. The only beneficiaries would be foreign actors and domestic opportunists willing to partner with them.
From an American watching Taiwan’s democracy with admiration and concern, my plea is straightforward: Do not make the same mistakes as the US. Do not surrender a protection we wish we had.
If last-minute polls truly do not influence voters, there is nothing to gain by publishing them. If they do influence voters — and they do — then Taiwan must maintain the safeguards that prevent them from being weaponized by its adversaries.
The blackout period must remain strong enough to ensure that choice remains Taiwan’s own.
Duncan Barron is a former voter protection specialist who worked for the Democratic Party of Virginia and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He is a J.D. candidate at American University’s Washington College of Law.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS