In recent years politicians and the media have often referred to the term "median voters" to describe a particular group within the electorate. However, they often confuse its meaning with that of "independent voters," which refer to voters with no party affiliation, and "undecided voters," which refers to voters who do not divulge their preferences during opinion poll interviews.
The median voter theorem is a well-known concept in game theory. It posits that in an electoral competition between two candidates, if voter policy preferences can be represented along one dimension, the candidate whose views coincide with the median preferences of the electorate as a whole will win the ballot.
This means that in a single-member district plurality electoral system with two candidates, a candidate who really wants to win must lean toward the median because whoever secures that position will win greater voter support .
That theory might not apply, however, if there is more than one issue or more than two candidates in an election. Neither would it apply in a situation where the preferences of the electorate as a whole describe an "M" or normal distribution on the ideological spectrum of a single issue.
In other words, even if the electorate as a whole trace an M-peak, or double-peak distribution in single-member districts, the candidate closer to the median in a standoff between two contenders is still more likely to win unless some of his erstwhile supporters decide not to vote.
Legislative elections used to be based on a multi-member district system. Under the system, candidates might spread across the whole ideological spectrum rather than lean towards the middle, because they can be elected by attracting the votes of minority groups. Hence, in addition to party affiliation and personal image, other factors such as the total number of candidates nominated by the party, successful vote allocation and differentiation of nominees from the same party may all affect election results.
In such elections, candidates in the median position may not be elected if voter preferences show a double-peak distribution. But under the new single-member district systems -- be it elections for local government chiefs, legislators or president -- victory will almost be guaranteed for the candidate choosing the middle path as long as the campaign focuses on one major issue and there are only two candidates.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) politicians running for legislative seats in this year's elections may face a two-level game dilemma. The DPP's legislative primaries are 70 percent decided by opinion polls that include only green camp supporters and 30 percent by a poll open only to party members.
Based on past experience both inside and outside Taiwan, those who actively participate and wield a greater influence in the primaries are usually the party's hardline supporters. Thus, DPP politicians will have a better chance to be nominated if they are backed by die-hard supporters.
In the year-end elections, however, they will have to strive for majority support in one-on-one races. This is a whole new experience. How candidates adjust to their different roles and strategies in the primaries and the official election will be a tough challenge. Naturally, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) may face the same problem if it also excludes the rival camp's supporters from their opinion polls for the primaries.
Lastly, it is important to note that this discussion is based on a single-issue campaign. Voter structure and preferences may be different in each electoral district. For certain candidates, if they want to win in a single-member district, local service and grassroots management may still prove crucial to being elected.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
RSS