IN ANALYZING THE results of the legislative elections, it's clear that the number of seats each party won was not in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. Thanks to its strong campaigning, the pan-blue camp saw its votes concentrated in the right places, so that as many of its candidates as possible were elected. The low turnout helped the highly concentrated firepower of the pan-blue camp deal a fatal blow to the pan-green camp, whose votes were much more scattered.
Taking all eligible voters as a denominator, each of the two parties won only a small number of votes, and the difference between them was minor. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 30 percent of votes, whereas a little more than 20 percent voted for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Thus the results of the election was influenced by not only those willing to cast their ballots, but also the unseen 40 or so percent.
However, the spirit of democracy means respecting the public's choices and decisions -- and the public can decide not only which party to vote for, but whether to vote at all.
Nevertheless, the reasons for voting or not voting should still be analyzed, especially as new voting districts were used. Some voting districts were even smaller than districts for local government elections. Banciao (
Such an election system obviously leads voters in a certain direction to some degree. Apart from that, the biggest problem in Taiwanese democracy again raised its head -- vote-buying. Many cases of alleged vote buying have already entered the judicial system. Just when will Taiwan's democracy rid itself of this stain? And just when will Taiwanese stop selling their votes and their integrity?
Perhaps democratic consciousness has not really taken root since the transfer of power. Perhaps democratic values, which create a democratic culture of consciousness, self-confidence and self-respect, are still not firmly established. If we are completely honest about this issue and continue to question why people still consider their votes something they can sell -- even after 50 years of elections -- we may find some answers. The following are some of the most noteworthy.
First, some voters seem to have drawn a distinction between democratic governance and voting. They see their vote as something that can be exchanged for immediate benefits, without taking democracy into consideration. In the process, they trample their own rights as citizens.
Second, there are still some voters who don't care about national identity and social justice. They make calculations based only on their own situations. They have little historic consciousness, sense of responsibility, or ideas and hopes for the future of their children and grandchildren. If their vote can bring them a few thousand dollars right away, they will sell out.
Third, people who sell their vote do not feel ashamed about their actions because they do not recognize the idea of a vision for the country, or really understand why a democracy cannot function well unless legislators represent actual public opinion.
To these people, vote-selling appears to have nothing to do with reasons or morals, and the idea that they should always do what is economically best for them lead them to a line of reasoning that only takes personal benefits into consideration. As a result, they rationalize this erroneous means of participating in democracy.
Yeh Hai-yen is a professor in Soochow University's Department of Philosophy.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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