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
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
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS