The rush is on to analyze, interpret and spin the meaning of the Jan. 12 elections and the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) capture of a nearly three-fourths legislative majority. Pundits have discussed reasons for the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) loss: a repudiation of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), an incumbent effect, perceptions of poor economic performance, resurfacing of local factions and a low voter turnout to name a few.
A majority of these commentaries focus on the new electoral system and its effects on the outcome. If political fortunes are being bet on the meaning of the Jan. 12 elections for Taiwan's political future, one cannot deny that the new electoral system played a critical role in the KMT's major victory.
In a nutshell, the foundation of the KMT's victory was not policy, people or identity, but redistricting and single-member districts. Barring a marked increase in green support from 2004, the KMT and the larger pan-blue camp were structurally destined to win the election, and win it big. Based on voting patterns from four years ago, the KMT won in districts where it numerically should have won, as did the DPP in most cases.
A very literal application of the 2004 vote, adjusted for the new districting this year, indicated approximately 73 seats for the pan-blue camp. If political winds had remained unchanged, the DPP should have secured no more than 21 district seats.
The DPP's publicly stated goal of 35 or so seats was unrealistic from the start and the actual outcome may not have been a political indictment of the DPP as much as it was the straightforward result of structural and regulatory changes to the election system.
The new system favors the largest party and in most of the nation's electoral districts, the party with the most historical electoral support was the KMT.
The "surprise" losses for the DPP, of which there were approximately eight, were largely concentrated in the Kaohsiung area, and this is where the parties can learn most of the political lessons from this election.
A common perception is developing that the DPP failed to hold its base and was repudiated by voters. In reality, the national vote for the DPP was higher this year than in 2004, and when one looks at the district results nationwide, the DPP increased its vote from 2004 in most cases or suffered small declines.
Again, these are not signs of a massive shift in voter sentiment, but rather an effect of the single-member district competition which rewards winners generously and punishes losers disproportionately.
What appears to be a key reason for the DPP's general defeat was its unrealistic goal and/or failure to adopt electoral strategies crucial to winning under new majority wins rules. Either way, with only one-third of voters to count on this year, the DPP was set to lose at least a two-thirds majority to the KMT and its allies.
The majority of voters in legislative elections have traditionally favored the blue camp; it was thus not surprising that the KMT did so well in the single-member district contest.
Hans Stockton
Taipei
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS