The Democratic Progressive Party Has No Reason to Oppose Absentee Voting

The Democratic Progressive Party Has No Reason to Oppose Absentee Voting
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 10, 2010

The right to vote is one the most basic rights in a democracy. Absentee voting is democratic and progressive. The DPP's opposition to absentee voting is anti-democratic and anti-progressive.
The purpose of absentee voting is to increase political participation by giving citizens unable to return home the opportunity to exercise their voting rights. Transportation barriers and occupational factors deprive many members of the public the opportunity to vote. Absentee voting clears away such barriers, ensuring these citizens' their political rights. Such provisions were implemented in other democratic nations years ago. It is long overdue in the Republic of China. In theory, this ought to have unqualified bipartisan support. Who knew the the DPP would vehemently oppose it?

First, let us be clear. This measure, promoted by the Ministry of the Interior, is not about electronic voting. Nor does it apply to Taiwan businessmen living overseas or on the Chinese mainland. It applies only to Republic of China citizens living in the "Taiwan Region of the ROC." It does not apply to the vast numbers of young people studying or working abroad. It does not apply to the military, police and other special occupations. It does not apply to prison inmates. It originally included Taiwan businessmen living overseas or on mainland China. But because keeping track of overseas absentee ballots might be difficult, the Ministry of the Interior decided not to include Taiwan businessmen living overseas or on the Chinese mainland for the time being. Nevertheless the DPP still obstinately opposes absentee voting. It refuses to allow citizens the means to participate in politics. Its attitude is utterly incomprensible.

The Republic of China has undergone shocks from two ruling party changes. Yet the Blue vs. Green deadlock persists. Many people are disheartened. Recent voter turnouts are substantially lower. Allowing absentee voting would make political participation more convenient. It would help ensure everyones' right to express his political opinion. It is clearly necessary. During the Chen administration, Yu Shyi-kun and Premier Su Tseng-chang indicated their support for an absentee voting system. Who knew that as soon as the ruling party changed, the Green Camp would flip flop? Who knew that as soon as the DPP's political status changed, its political convictions would change?

One of the Democratic Progressive Party's objections for opposing absentee voting is that absentee voting may make manipulating the vote count easier. This objection has two aspects. On the one hand, the Taiwan Region of the ROC has held democratic elections for decades. It has developed a highly effective system for election monitoring. It is extremely difficult for anyone to engage in election fraud at the polling stations. The most appalling incidents of election fraud have occurred outside the polling stations. In recent years, all major incidents of election fraud were committed by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. During the 2004 presidential election, we had the 3/19 Shooting Incident. The Chen regime issued an executive order forbidding members of the military to leave their barracks. As a result, many citizens were unable to return home to vote. This was an even more chilling means of election fraud than vote stealing. Members of the military prevented from voting were not merely denied the right to cast absentee ballots. They were deprived of their right to return to their voting districts in order to cast their ballots in person.

On the other hand, traditional means of election fraud are seldom seen. The new approach to election fraud is through administrative means. During the 2004 presidential election, the gap between the Chen/Lu ticket and the Lien/Soong ticket was less than 30,000 votes. The number of invalid ballots was as high as 337,000 votes. A quick check of previous presidential election results shows that in 1996 the number of invalid ballots was 117,000. In 2000 it was 122,000. In 2008 it was again only 117,000. In other words, in 2004 the number of invalid ballots was almost three times the average. How can the public not suspect election fraud?

Absentee voting is not electronic voting. It is merely a way for citizens already registered to vote, to to cast their ballots in advance, in accordance with law. One must still go to the polling station in person, with one's identity card and chop in order to cast one's ballot. The polling stations will be normal polling stations. The polling stations where military personnel cast their ballots will not be under the auspices of the military. The polling stations for police personnel will not be ad hoc polling stations specially created for the police. During questioning, DPP officials said there must be supervisory staff. Of course there will be supervisory staff! What sort of question is that?

Some basic concepts must be clarified. Making the exercise of one's voting rights more convenient has nothing whatsoever to do with political manipulation and election fraud. If politicians have personal integrity and self-restraint, there will be no 3/19 Shooting Incidents. There will be no incidents of political manipulation. If laws are strictly enforced, if voting is strictly monitored, it will be impossible to engage in election fraud. These are all matters for which the government and politicians must take responsibility. How can one invoke anti-election fraud measures as a pretext to oppose absentee voting? How can one oppose measures making it more convenient for citizens to exercise their voting rights?

Cross-Strait relations and the political climate on Taiwan are closely related. Hundreds of thousands of Taiwan businessmen and their family members living on the mainland have been denied the right to vote in elections, at all levels. This constitutes a major defect in the political system. Absentee voting is highly controversial. Its credibility will not be easy to establish. We do not think that electronic voting should be implemented precipitously. But what reason is there to oppose the implementation of absentee voting within the "Taiwan Region of the ROC" providing proper measures are taken to prevent election fraud?

Is the Democratic Progressive Party in fact anti-democratic and anti-progress?

民進黨沒有理由反對不在籍投票
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.02.10 03:22 am

選舉權是公民參與民主政治的最基本權利，推行不在籍投票是一項「民主」且「進步」的舉措；民進黨反對採行「不在籍投票」，則是「反民主」與「反進步」的行徑。

實施不在籍投票，目的是為了擴大公民的政治參與，讓無法返鄉的民眾也有機會行使投票權。此項變革，基本上是在排除交通阻隔及職業因素對民眾投票機會的囿限或剝奪，以保障公民參政權。這在其他民主國家早已實施多年，台灣卻姍姍來遲，照理說，這本應是不分藍綠都支持的民主措施；沒想到，民進黨竟大肆反對。

首須釐清者，內政部正在研擬推動的不是「通訊投票」，亦即不包括大陸台商與海外僑民。不居住在戶籍地的台灣公民，包括為數龐大的青年學生和異地工作的年輕族群，以及軍、警等特殊職業，乃至受刑人外，原還有大陸台商及海外人士。但因境外通訊投票較不易掌握，內政部已決定暫不對大陸台商及海外僑民實施此制；在這種情況下，民進黨仍然執意反對不在籍投票，拒絕提供人民便利的參政管道，實在令人莫名所以。

台灣歷經兩度政黨輪替的震盪，藍綠卻對峙未已，許多民眾心灰意冷，最近幾次投票率均大幅降低；因此，開放不在籍投票，讓民眾有更便捷的政治參與途徑，確保民意的普遍表達，更顯必要。扁政府時代，游錫?和蘇貞昌擔任閣揆均曾表示支持建立不在籍投票制度；誰知朝野一易位，綠營的立場隨即翻轉。民進黨難道換了位子竟連民主信念也告翻覆？

民進黨反對的理由之一，是不在籍投票可能較易於「操作」，影響選舉結果。這可分兩方面來說。一方面，台灣實施民主選舉數十年，已發展出極為有效的監票方式，任何人想在投開票所裡動手腳，都已不太可能；真正可怕的「操作」，其實是發生在投開票所之外。近年執政者「操作選舉」的重大事件，皆發生在民進黨手上。二○○四年的總統大選，發生三一九槍擊案，扁政府更啟動國安機制，限制軍人離營，導致許多人無法返鄉投票。這是比「作票」更可怕的「操作」。受阻不能投票的軍人，非但不能「不在籍投票」，甚至連返回戶籍地投票的權利也受剝奪。

另一方面，傳統手法的「作票」已經少見，新手法是「行政操作」。二○○四年總統大選，最後扁呂、連宋兩組人馬得票差距不到三萬票，而廢票數卻高達卅三點七萬票。若查閱歷屆總統選舉結果，一九九六年廢票數是十一點七萬張，二○○○年是十二點二萬張，而二○○八年也僅十一點七萬張。也就是說，二○○四年的廢票，幾達平均值的三倍。其中有無「操作」，豈能不受公評？

不在籍投票，並不是通訊投票；而是有選舉權的公民事前依法申請在外地投票，也就是仍然必須由本人拿著身分證印章到「轉移」的投開票所投票；而那個投開票所亦是依法設置的一般投開票所。軍人的投開票所不是軍人主持的，警察的投開票所也不是為警察特設的。民進黨人質問，謂一定要有監察人員。當然有監察人員，根本是多此一問！

必須澄清的基本觀念是：提升公民行使選舉投票權的便利與機會，與選舉的「政治操作」與「作票」根本是截然不同的兩回事。如果政客自律自清，就不會有三一九槍擊案，就不會有「政治操作」；如果嚴格執法，嚴格監票，就不可能「作票」。這些皆是政府與政治人物必須承擔的責任；豈能因防備操作及作票，而竟反對不在籍投票？而竟反對提升公民行使選舉投票權的便利與機會？

其實，以兩岸關係與台灣政治生態的密切關係，大陸上數十萬台商台眷，若未能在台灣各級選舉中投票表達意見，確實已成為台灣政治的重大缺口。但是，畢竟通訊投票的爭議性極大，公信力亦不易建立；我們也認為不可貿然實施通訊投票。但在台灣境內實施不在籍投票，只要防弊措施周備，有什麼理由反對？