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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS