A group of Democratic Progres-sive Party (DPP) legislators has proposed a mechanism to exclude pan-blue respondents from participating in the opinion polls that the party will use to choose candidates in its primaries. Anyone who did not vote for a DPP or Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) candidate in the last presidential, local or legislative election would be disqualified from taking part in the opinion poll.
This "blue exclusion clause" is being fiercely debated within the party. Some lawmakers are claiming that the proposal is tailor-made for certain legislators.
The proposal's author, Legislator Wang Shih-cheng (
But the proposal's backers and its opponents have so far failed to discuss it in a constructive fashion. Their positions are largely based on whether the proposal will help or harm their chances of being nominated.
The entire debate is a striking example of the anxiety being caused by the new single seat district system that will come into effect with the next legislative elections in December.
The proponents believe that pan-blue voters will distort the DPP's primaries and thus the DPP's nominations. The only case they have cited, however, is my own.
Before the 2005 legislative elections, then DPP legislator Tuan Yi-kang (
The three winning DPP candidates in Taipei City South had received a combined approval rating of just 16 percent in the same poll.
Candidates who lead in the polls will always come out and plead for support in the final days of a campaign because they are worried they will lose the election.
This phenomenon -- leading in opinion polls but losing the election -- is caused by Taiwan's multi-seat districts. Voters in these districts vote based on their calculations of who needs their vote the most. This is why polls do not accurately predict the winners of legislative elections.
Tuan and I lost because candidates with high ratings in the polls get attacked not just by opposition candidates, but also by candidates from their own party. I was the victim of an unprecedented smear campaign that cost me votes.
The DPP's first primaries for legislative candidates took place in 1992. The system started off as a simple vote but later evaluations by party leaders and opinion polls were added.
When the DPP first used opinion polls, the polling results received a weighting of 50 percent. Later this was raised to 70 percent. Party members votes now count for just 30 percent.
This evolution demonstrates the increasing importance of polls in DPP primaries not only because they are trusted, but also because they reflect the will of the people.
In contrast, direct voting in primaries has become less important because it has been plagued by scandal and has resulted in candidates without strong voter appeal.
The last DPP primary for legislators-at-large can serve as an example. Party members voted for a slate of at-large candidates headed up by Hsueh Ling (薛凌), Chiu Yung-jen (邱永仁), Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) and 10 others.
The primary opinion polls ranked Hong Chi-chang (
The two orderings of the same 13 at-large candidates were miles apart with a low relative coefficient, if we apply statistical analysis.
In other words, the first slate of candidates chosen by a direct vote of party members was very different from the second slate of candidates chosen by opinion polls which included pan-blue voters.
But the second set was far more electable than the first, as was suggested by the strong showings of Hong, Tsai and Lin, three of the DPP's most well-known legislators.
Past experience shows that the biggest problem in DPP primaries is the existence of nominal party members. Their existence leads to persistent rumors of vote buying and a tendency for bad candidates to eliminate good ones.
If the party leadership wants to reform the party's primaries, its first priority should be getting rid of nominal members. One way to achieve this would be to filter them out by asking three questions, just as is being proposed for participants in primary opinion polls to filter out pan-blue voters.
The first question could be: "Have you paid up your party dues?" The second question could ask: "Do you hold onto your own party membership card?" And the third could be: "Are you voting in the primary on your own accord?"
Naturally, anybody with any sense will question the efficacy of asking these three questions, since every party member is going to answer "Yes, yes and yes."
If this method won't work to get rid of nominal DPP members, then how is the blue exclusion clause going to filter out pan-blue voters?
Shen Fu-hsiung served four terms as a DPP legislator.
Translated by Michael Fahey
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS