Legislative elections and referendums: Smaller parties suffer a setback *

　施正鋒

淡江大學公共行政學系暨公共政策研究所教授

LARGELY IGNORED: The 5 percent needed to gain legislator-at-large seats was as good as `mission impossible' for smaller parties, analysts said
By Meggie Lu
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Jan 13, 2008, Page 3
　

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was not the only party with bruises following the legislative elections yesterday, as smaller parties that had hoped to take advantage of the new "single-member district, two-vote system" also suffered a major setback.

In terms of district candidates, the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU) fared best among the smaller parties, with Yen Ching-piao (顏清標) winning by a landslide by claiming more than 66 percent of the votes in Taichung County.

The NPSU's candidate in Penghu County, Lin Pin-Kuan (林炳坤), received more than 51 percent of votes, 10 percentage points more than his DPP rival Chang Kuang-fu (陳光復). NPSU Aboriginal candidate May Chin (高金素梅) also won a seat with 20,012 votes.

disappointing

The smaller parties' performance was similarly disappointing in the competition for legislator-at-large seats, with none of the parties -- the Civic Party, the Constitutional Alliance, Third Society Party, Green Party Taiwan (GPT), Taiwan Farmers' Party, Home Party, Hakka Party and NPSU -- getting more than 1 percent, when 5 percent was required to qualify for seats.

The Home Party, which received the highest percentage of party votes among the eight smaller parties, was favored by a mere 0.79 percent of voters, while at the bottom of the list, the Constitutional Alliance, received only 0.31 percent.

The GPT, which nominated candidates in almost all of the constituencies, suffered a big setback as the most votes one of its candidates secured was little more than 3,400.

GPT Secretary-General Pan Han-shen (潘翰聲) said the results were a reflection of the unreasonable voting system and election laws, as well as the nation's media, all of which are geared to the advantage of the two main parties -- the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).

"In addition, the two-vote system was not explained to voters clearly enough for them to realize that they had the option to cast their party ballot to a third, smaller party," Pan said. "The 5 percent benchmark for legislator-at-large seats is too high for new, smaller parties. Voters did not vote for us because they thought parties with only one or two legislators would have no muscle in the new legislature."

Despite not securing a seat, the party ranked quite highly among the other smaller parties in various constituencies, and Pan said he appreciated the voters' support.

The party will continue to carry on its environmental protection mission, he said.

Taiwan Farmers' Party Secretary-General Hsiao Han-chun (蕭漢俊) shared Pan's concern that the voting system gave the larger parties an edge over the smaller ones.

"This is an election where winner takes all," he said. "Without a serious reform of the system, there is no chance for the smaller parties to survive."

Third Society Party Chairman Jou Yi-cheng (周奕成) echoed those views.

"It is also noteworthy how many people did not use their vote and dodged their civic duty," he said.

unstable

Analysts said the problem for the smaller parties stemmed from the fact that their main source of votes was an unsystematic and unstable source -- undecided voters who support neither the pan-green nor the pan-blue camp.
"When a voter supports neither camp, he or she may not vote at all, because they believe their vote counts for nothing," said Liao Da-chi (廖達琪), a political science professor at National Sun Yat-Sen University.

"Although between a third and a fourth of voters aren't happy with the two major parties, many may still `vote in tears' for fear that voting for the smaller parties may disperse votes and negatively affect the pan-green or pan-blue camp," Tamkang University professor of public administration Shih Cheng-feng (施正鋒) said.

Another reason that may have contributed to the smaller parties poor showing may have been that they are relatively new to the public.

"The smaller parties may not have attracted enough voters because their `branding' is not clearly embedded enough in voters' minds," Liao said. "Unlike the New Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union, which have been around for a long time and have made known their ideology, these smaller parties are relatively new and lack a famous political figure who makes an impression."

Analysts said the 5 percent benchmark for parties to gain legislator-at-large seats was almost "mission impossible" for the smaller parties.

"The 5 percent benchmark is higher than it seems," Academia Sinica political scientist Lin Jih-wen (林繼文) said.

"The smaller parties may have lost because of strategic sacrifices -- they only had a real chance of winning legislator-at-large seats by winning protest votes. However, 5 percent translates to almost half-a-million votes and there are not that many protest votes out there," Lin said.
This story has been viewed 797 times.

　

TOP