How Can the DPP Oppose Absentee Voting?

How Can the DPP Oppose Absentee Voting?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 11, 2010

The Ministry of the Interior is planning to implement absentee voting for the 2012 election. This will permit police officers as well as workers and students living far from home to cast their ballots at the nearest polling booth. This is a progressive measure designed to ensure peoples' political rights. Who knew it would meet with vehement opposition from the Democratic Progressive Party, which accused the KMT of "consolidating control" over military and police personnel in order to influence the outcome of the election.

The DPP's reaction unwittingly revealed three of the party's unspoken attitudes. First, the DPP has an obstructionist attitude. It never considers the merits of KMT policy proposals. It simply opposes them out of sheer spite. Its attitude is utterly irrational. Secondly, the DPP has a self-contradictory attitude. Normally it invokes "democracy" as if it were apple pie and motherhood, But whenever the Republic of China's democracy stands in the DPP's way, it demeans that same democracy as illusory and insubstantial, It treats it as something to be manipulated at its own whim. Its attitude is flagrantly self-contradictory. Thirdly, the DPP has a reactionary attitude. Absentee voting increases public participation in political affairs. It constitutes progress in electoral politics. And yet the Democratic Progressive Party shrilly opposes this move to uphold the right to vote.

The DPP's third attitude is the most noteworthy. Democratic Progressive Party obstructionism, motivated by either sheer spite or partisan political calculation, is old news. But absentee voting would constitute a tremendous convenience for so many. It would advance democratic reform on Taiwan. Yet the DPP stridently opposes it, even though it can offer no legitimate reason why. This shows how debased the DPP's conception of democracy has become. It is so debased the DPP does not realize it has become a force for political reaction. One fiasco after another during eight years in power, led the DPP to forfeit any vestige of integrity or justice. It has apparently even forsaken its belief in the pursuit of progress.

Most people, needless to say, understand the need for absentee voting. They understnd the convenience it offers. Each time an election rolls around, millions of people are forced to commute back and forth between the north and south. Individuals are physically fatigued. The transportation system is subjected to an enormous burden. If citizens living far from home are allowed to vote at the nearest polling station, it will reduce the burden on society. It will also increase political participation. Advanced nations implemented absentee voting decades ago. Democracy took root on Taiwan years ago. Is it really not possible for the balloting and vote-counting system to take this simple step forward? Besides, scholars have been wondering. Isn't it unconstitutional for the government to deny people their right to vote, merely because they live too far from the polling stations, or because their duties prevent them from getting away?

In fact, the Interior Ministry's absentee voting proposal is far too limited. For example, a million or more Taiwan businessmen live on the Mainland. Even with direct cross-Strait flights, it would be difficult to transport all of them back to Taiwan to vote. In short, many people have effectively been deprived of their right to vote. This is unfair, and seriously distorts our system of democratic representation. But intense opposition from the DPP, plus technical problems yet to be fully overcome, have ensured that the Ministry of the Interior automatically excludes registered voters living on the Mainland from any "mail in balloting system." This effectively deprive millions of Republic of China citizens and other overseas citizens of their right to vote. The currently proposed "absentee ballot" system merely allows voters on Taiwan to cast their ballots closer to where they live. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party opposes even this. It is simply incomprehensible.

Why is the Democratic Progressive Party opposed to increased political participation? Because it assumes that Mainland and overseas compatriots, as well as military and police officials, are more inclined to vote for the Blue Camp. Therefore as the DPP sees it, the voting threshold for these citizens must never be lowered. In other words, the DPP's intent is to reduce the total number of voters. The DPP thinks that as long as it retains its die hard supporters -- the less mobile members of society -- it stands a chance of defeating its larger rival. In short, the DPP is a political party that pins its hopes on winning office, on its ability to deny people their basic rights. Is this not pathetic? The DPP has been unable to appeal to a broader voter base. That is also why it has been unable to transform itself. Is the DPP truly unaware that this constitutes a crisis of democracy?

When Yu Shyi-kun was premier, he praised absentee voting. He said it "enhanced the legitimacy of the government," and "reduced the cost to society." But as we know, once the DPP and KMT changed places, the legitimacy of the government and the cost to society immediately ceased being relevant. In democratic nations, ruling party change is the norm. If political parties hope to gain popular support, they must continually engage in self-reflection and self-encouragement. They must attempt to advance both themselves and the nation and society as a whole. If they consider only their own interests, and stubbornly obstruct what is good for democracy, such conservative and reactionary behavior does not merit the adjectives, "democratic," and "progressive."

Imagine a nation in which millions of citizens are not permitted to cast a ballot or have a voice. How can the public mandate not be distorted? We call upon the DPP. Remove your hands from the mouths of the people! The image of the DPP suppressing their rights is simply too ugly for words.

民進黨豈可反對不在籍投票
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.10.11

內政部規劃在二○一二年大選時實施「不在籍投票」，讓軍警和出外工作、求學的人能移轉投票處所，就近在居住地投票。這是一項保障人民參政權的進步措施；不料民進黨竟強烈反對，指控國民黨是為「集中掌控」軍警影響選舉而出此策。

此一反應，暴露了民進黨的三種心態。一是「反對心態」，對國民黨提出的施政，不問是非曲直一概反對，到了非理性的地步。二是「矛盾心態」，平時將「民主」無限上綱，但一翻臉就把台灣民主貶抑為脆弱不堪、任人操弄的玩意，矛盾到了極點。三是「退化心態」，不在籍投票旨在擴大民眾的政治參與，是選制上的一大突破與進步，而民進黨對保障投票權的變革竟大唱反調。

最值得注意的，是第三點。民進黨為反對而反對，或為攫取政治利益以致出爾反爾，人們早已司空見慣。但對於「不在籍投票」如此明顯地能帶給民眾莫大方便、亦有利於台灣民主的改革工程，民進黨竟大唱反調，且說不出任何正當的理由；這顯示民進黨的民主思維已嚴重鏽蝕，以致連自己在向後倒退都無法察覺了。八年執政的挫敗，民進黨不僅失去了清廉和正義，似乎也失去了追求進步價值的信念。

「不在籍投票」的意義，毋庸再贅述，絕大多數民眾都明白其必要性及便利性。每逢選舉，數百萬民眾舟車勞頓南北奔波，除了個人身心疲累，社會也要承受巨大的運輸負擔。若讓旅居外地的公民選擇就近投票，不僅能降低社會成本，也能提高民眾的政治參與；先進國家早已實施數十年，以台灣多年的民主根基，難道無法在投票、計票機制上多跨出一步？更何況，早有學者質疑，政府讓人民因距離或工作因素而無法投票，恐已涉及「違憲」。

觀察內政部提出的不在籍投票方案，其實已顯得過度自我設限。例如，旅居大陸的台商、台胞多達百萬人，即使兩岸直航，也難以在短短幾天內全部輸運返台投票，許多人形同長年被剝奪了投票權。這對他們並不公平，對台灣而言，也是民意代表性的嚴重流失與扭曲。但由於民進黨的強烈反對，及技術問題未能完全克服，內政部早已主動排除「通訊投票」，犧牲了百萬台胞和其他海外僑民的權益。現在，所謂「不在籍投票」，只是要讓居住台灣的選民可以就近選擇投票所，而民進黨竟連這點都要反對，簡直已是不可理喻。

民進黨之所以反對擴大民眾的政治參與，其基本假設是，包括大陸及海外台胞，及軍警等，或許較多潛在傾向投藍的選民，因此絕對不能為他們降低投票的地理門檻。亦即，意圖藉著降低總選民的「分母數」，認為只要固守移動性較弱的最死忠的綠色基本盤，民進黨就握有「以小搏大」的機會。但是，一個政黨把自己的掌權希望寄託在限制人民參政的基礎上，不覺得可悲嗎？何況，正因過去投票未能顯現較完整的民意，也許正是造成民進黨長期未能轉型的原因，該黨難道不知這其實是民主的危機？

當年游錫?擔任閣揆時，曾稱讚不在籍投票可以「強化政府的正當性」，「可以降低社會成本」；孰料，一旦朝野易位，政府正當性和社會成本竟都變得無足輕重了。在民主國家，政黨輪替是常態，政黨要贏得民心，必須不斷自我反省、鞭策，找到自己和國家社會的最佳共榮位置。如果一心盤算著自己的利益，對於有益民主、又能便民的事卻一味阻撓，這種保守與反動作風，豈不愧對頭上的「民主」和「進步」四字？

試想，一個國家若有幾百萬公民無法投票發聲，民意怎麼可能不受到扭曲？請民進黨鬆開摀住人民嘴巴的那雙手吧！這個場景實在太醜陋了。