The results of the legislative elections on Jan. 12 showed a major discrepancy between the number of seats and the percentages of votes for the different parties. Such discrepancies are not uncommon in "winner take all" single seat district systems, such as in the UK.
While the single-seat district system increases the accountability of the legislators to the local electorate, it also opens the door to "little kingdoms" in which a legislator virtually has absolute power, and can perpetuate his or her hold on the position through money and connections.
The single-seat system also contains a flaw in the principle of democracy, since the people in a district whose candidate was not elected may feel that their views are not represented in the legislature.
In the 2005 restructuring, the negotiators adopted a mixed system, in which 73 of the 113 seats were district seats, six for Aboriginal groups and 34 seats were elected through an overall proportional distribution of party votes from a second ballot.
As we have seen from the results of the elections, this has not solved the problem and indeed illustrates the flaws in the new system even more clearly.
Should it seek to fine-tune its electoral system, Taiwan may want to look at the Dutch system, which is a proportional system, but with a twist.
In the Netherlands, the political parties first develop a list of candidates -- through an internal democratic system that represents a mixture of US party caucuses and primaries.
The list is headed by a prominent party member, but -- and this is essential -- also has candidates who represent the different parts of the country.
In that way, if the particular party has done its homework, the party list represents a balance from the different regions and even factions within the party.
On voting day, the voters generally mark the box of the person who heads the list and the seats are allocated on the basis of the total percentage of the vote the party receives.
In that way, there is no discrepancy between the percentage of the vote and seats allocated to any particular party.
The "twist" is that voters have an alternative to giving what is essentially a "party vote" to the person who heads a particular party's list.
Voters may instead choose to make a "preference vote" by specifically naming a candidate lower on the party list, and if that candidate receives more preference votes than the total number of valid party votes divided by the total number of seats for that party, he or she is elected.
Local favorites can therefore still be elected, even if the party primary might not have put them in a high position on their list.
The Dutch system creates the possibility for new entrants and smaller parties to win seats, enhancing democracy because new and different voices are heard.
It also necessitates procedures in the legislature whereby individual legislators cannot speak on all issues. Instead, parties appoint spokespersons on each major topic so that debate in the legislature is focused and represents the party position.
It also ensures the debates don't go on endlessly.
Some countries -- including Taiwan -- do also have a minimum percentage of votes a party must receive in order to have seats in the legislature.
As seen in the results of the Jan. 12 elections, the 5 percent threshold is probably too high and might need to be lowered to about 3 percent if other voices are to be heard.
Remember, Taiwan's democracy is still a work in progress. It is up to Taiwanese to really make it work.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS