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
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
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS