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.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS