Did the DPP really lose the Election because the System is Unfair?

Did the DPP really lose the Election because the System is Unfair?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 17, 2008

The results of the legislative elections are considered a vote of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian. But when Chen Shui-bian discussed the election during a diplomatic visit yesterday, he stubbornly maintained that his political path was correct. A centrist path was out of the question. This kind of mentality makes it clear that not only are Frank Hsieh's election prospects at risk, so is the political future of the DPP.

DPP officials are currently reviewing the election process. The overwhelming majority of them are blaming the electoral system for alleged unfairness. In fact, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Because the KMT won, it received an extraordinary number of seats. But no matter whether we are talking about At Large Party Ballots, or District Representative Ballots, the KMT received over half the votes. The District Representative vote was 53.5% vs. the DPP's 38.7%. The At Large Party vote was 51.23% vs. the DPP's 36.91%. The gap between the two votes was as high as 15%. In any democratic nation, this would be considered a clear indication of public sentiment.

Such an election result looks like radical change. But in a democratic nation it is the norm. Just last year alone, the ruling party in the United States, Japan, Poland, and Venezuela faced electoral defeat due to ideological dogmatism. The governments of Japan and Poland were forced to modify their political paths. Even Venezuelan eccentric Hugo Chavez had to make concessions to the public.

Yesterday Chen Shui-bian said "Everyone is to blame, but I am assuming responsibility." Having done so, he passed the buck for the election debacle to others. He told AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt that under the old electoral system the DPP would have gotten 44 seats instead of 27 seats. Perhaps Chen Shui-bian is unwilling to admit that the loss of 17 seats was largely due to his own strategic miscalculations.

This is the first time the ROC has ever used the Single Member District Electoral System. Its most distinctive feature is that it is extremely sensitive to shifts in public sentiment. Particularly in political regions as small as Japan or Taiwan, due to local issues that may not be obvious. The election results often become votes of confidence in the leaders of the ruling party. During the 2008 ROC Legislative Yuan elections, all other topics were eclipsed. Chen Shui-bian single-handedly orchestrated the "Join the UN" and reunification vs. independence plebiscite campaigns. The election result amounted to a vote of no-confidence in Chen Shui-bian. An average of five percentage points in each electoral district was enough to cause many candidates to go from winners to losers.

To win under such an electoral system, one must win a plurality in each electoral district. In other words, one must appeal to swing voters. This of course runs completely counter to an election strategy in which one appeals only to one's core supporters. Yet even after the election Chen Shui-bian continued talking about how the DPP's core support was still intact, and stubbornly asserted that his election strategy was perfectly sound. But if his strategy was so sound, why couldn't he get a majority of the public to support it?

Constitutional amendments two years ago meant that the ROC's electoral system would change. Changes in the electoral system invariably lead to changes in the party system. In order to comply with the requirements for the Single Member District Electoral System, the Democratic Progressive Party modified its Deep Green party line. But why did the DPP, which has always been sensitive to the larger political environment, allow buffoons such as Hsieh Chi-wei, Tu Cheng-sheng, and even Chuang Kuo-jung, to engage in outrageous political stunts that alienated voters? They knew perfectly well that the Single Member District Electoral System posed a serious challenge to their election prospects. Yet they concocted a "Blues Excluded Clause" and incorporated it into the party primary process, deliberately shutting out potential candidates with more moderate images. How does one go about explaining the DPP's insanely self-destructive behaviour?

Do the Democratic Progressive Party's keepers of the flame really not see that the relationship between Chen Shui-bian and the DPP is now an adversarial, zero sum relationship? Chen Shui-bian knows that adopting a radical independence posture won't win any votes. But he must stick to it to the bitter end. Only then can he remain secure in his position as the Godfather of Taiwan independence. Only then can he shield himself from impending prosecution. If Chen Shui-bian is correct, if insistence on the "Primacy of Taiwan" is not merely a Deep Green position, but the majority view on Taiwan, then why have so-called "Chinese Fellow Travelers" who support the Blue Camp emerged triumphant in the legislative elections? Obviously Chen Shui-bian's arguments on behalf of any particular political path are merely political tools.

Chen Shui-bian has adopted his self-contradictory positions merely to ensure his personal survival. If the DPP continues down the Chen Shui-bian path however, it will not be ensuring its survival. It will be marching into the political wilderness. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party achieved power by uniting Deep Green and centrist voters. But Chen Shui-bian's corruption led to the loss of centrist support. Chen Shui-bian then reached out to fundamentalist elements, using them to hold off the center. This left the DPP, which might have been able to reconcile centrist with Deep Green voters, in an insoluble dilemma.

The DPP's predicament was obvious during the recent election. When it lost to the KMT even in Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County, when even solidly DPP districts began to slip from the DPP's grasp, its core support was lost. It is hardly surprising that many DPP supporters are concerned. This is no longer merely a question of whether their candidate can win the presidency. The Democratic Progressive Party must prepare itself mentally to being in the political opposition for years to come.

During the past eight years, under Chen Shui-bian's leadership, the Democratic Progressive Party has virtually nullified the rule of law. It has demonstrated contempt for the legislature, destroyed the credibility of the judiciary, and undermined the independence of independent agencies. The only democratic mechanism intact under DPP misrule is the electoral system. Chen Shui-bian has deliberately misinterpreted the meaning of the outcome of the legislative elections. The DPP had better wake up. When even the democratic procedures by which the people send messages to the ruling administration are being flouted, the public will certainly demand even stronger punishments.

民進黨真是輸在選制不公平嗎？
中國時報
2008.01.17　

　這次立委選舉的結果，一般都認為是一次典型的對陳水扁不信任投票。但面對敗選現實，陳水扁日昨在外交出訪的談話中卻依舊堅持路線正確，沒有中間路線，這種心態令人清楚的感覺到，目前岌岌可危的已不只是謝長廷的總統選情，而是整個民進黨未來的發展了。

　目前民進黨內檢討敗選的原因，絕大多數都是歸咎於選制對民進黨不公平。這其實是故意在混淆視聽，要知道即使國民黨因為勝選而拿到若干超額席次，但不論是就政黨票還是區域票計，國民黨都超過半數，區域立委選票以五三．五％對民進黨的三八．一七％，政黨票以五一．二三％對上民進黨的三六．九一％，兩種選票的差距都高達十五個百分點，這在任何民主國家，已經都是相當清楚的民意表達了。

　這樣的選舉結果，表面看來變動很大，但在民主國家卻是常態，單單去年一年，就有美國、日本、波蘭、委內瑞拉等多國，因為執政黨以意識形態治國，都相繼面臨大選挫敗，日本、波蘭政府因此調整路線，即使委內瑞拉狂人查維茲都必須向民意讓步。

　但到昨日為止，陳水扁除了一句「萬方有罪、罪在朕躬」之外，仍然將敗選責任推給他人，他向薄瑞光說，如果是舊選制，民進黨應該拿到四十四席，不是二十七席。陳水扁或許不願承認，這少掉的十七席，很大一部分就是因為是他的操作而流失的。

　以這次在台灣首次實施的單一選制論，它最大的特色，就是對輕微的民意變動相當敏感，尤其是如日本及台灣這樣幅員小的國家，由於地方議題不明顯，選舉結果往往就成為對執政黨或領導人的信任投票，這次台灣立委選舉，其他議題完全消失，扁一手主導入聯公投、統獨公投議題，釀成整個選舉結果其實是對陳水扁的不信任投票，只要每個選區平均少五個百分點，就夠讓許多候選人從贏轉為輸。

　換言之，要在這種選制下勝選，就是要在各個選區內爭取相對多數的選票，也就是要爭取中間選民，這當然是和只固基本盤的選舉策略完全背道而馳的；但扁卻在選後不斷大談基本盤還在，更堅持選舉路線正確，問題是，他如何解釋既然路線正確，卻為何無法得到多數民意支持？

　二年前的修憲，就已確定台灣選制將改變，制度調整必然改變政黨行為，民進黨為了符合單一選制要求，當然該調整過去深綠路線，但為何向來對大環境相當敏感的民進黨，竟任由謝志偉、杜正勝、甚至莊國榮等小丑盡情演出，聽任選票流失？甚至在明知要面對單一選區挑戰下，竟然還發明了「排藍條款」，刻意封殺黨內中間形象候選人。該如何解釋民進黨如此瘋狂的自毀行為呢？

　至此，有心維持民進黨香火的大將，難道還看不出來，扁與民進黨之間，已是利害衝突的關係。對扁而言，即使採取急獨冒進路線沒有選票，他也必須堅持到底，才能穩坐獨派教主地位以自保。畢竟如果真如扁所說，堅持台灣主體路線的，不只是深綠，而是台灣多數的意見，那麼為何是支持藍營的所謂「中國的同路人」最後勝選？足見任何路線之辯，對當今的陳水扁而言，都是工具罷了。

　如果扁的自相矛盾，其實就是為了他個人的利益，那麼對民進黨而言，跟著扁走下去，已是山窮水盡。民進黨二千年能執政，靠著是深綠與中間路線合作，但當扁涉貪腐，導致中間選民流失後，扁卻拉攏基本教義派與中間對抗，讓本來已有能力調和中間與深綠的民進黨，掉入非此即彼的兩難困境中。

　這樣的困境，在此次選舉相當明顯，而當民進黨在高雄縣市得票率都輸國民黨，南部鐵票區逐漸失守，所謂的基本盤也在流失。面對未來，也難怪不少支持民進黨的人會擔憂，這已不是總統是否當選的問題，而是民進黨必須有長期在野臥薪嘗膽的決心。

　這八年來，陳水扁帶領民進黨所採取的路線，幾乎將法治基礎摧毀殆盡：藐視國會、破壞司法公信力，摧毀獨立機關等，所謂的民主制度，在當下台灣只餘選舉投票一項了，而當陳水扁故意曲解選舉的結果，民進黨內若又完全沒有警覺，連人民藉由民主程序傳達的訊息都遭到蔑視時，必然還會遭受民意更強烈懲罰的。