When Swing Voters Become Swing Non-Voters

When Swing Voters Become Swing Non-Voters
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 1, 2010

The political atmosphere for the five cities elections is highly volatile. The two major parties each claim to be ahead in the polls. But the number of poll respondents who refused to be interviewed or reveal their political position remains high. This gray area remains impossible to decipher. Most observers believe that this year "swing voters" could become "swing non-voters."

It is undoubtedly true that without swing voters, the Republic of China could not have experienced its second change in ruling parties. This is incontrovertible fact. Roughly one to two million swing voters occupy the space between the Blue and Green Camps. They are the key to either a ruling or opposition party victory. Two years ago the Democratic Progressive Party once insisted that "Taiwan has no swing voters." But recently the DPP launched a public relations offensive directed at swing voters, arguing that "You've always been here." It boasted that it would bring home these votes. This was an interesting development indeed.

The DPP discovered that the swing voters who supported Ma during the 2008 presidential election recently showed signs of wavering. Therefore it launched a soft offensive, urging them to defect. Whether its move has been effective work will not be known until after the election. But it is worth noting that the previous wave of swing voters who supported the Blue Camp shows signs of weakening. Different polls show different results. Many of those polled refuse to declare their support for the Blue Camp. Even more refuse to be polled altogether. The Blue Camp has long held an absolute advantage in Taipei City and Taipei County (now Xinbei City). Lately it has had difficulty attracting votes. It may well be fighting for its life. This is probably the main reason.

Before speculating about voter trends, we should establish a profile of the typical swing voter. In terms of political attitude, swing voters are usually more rational, more aware, less vulnerable to populist appeals. In terms of political identity, they attach great importance to integrity, ability, and progress. They are unlike fundamentalist voters who blindly support their own camp. They are less concerned about ideological differences such as reunification and independence. As a result they are less likely to be disappointed. They are pragmatic regarding practical issues, and oppose extreme choices. They have higher expectations regarding reform, and oppose muddling through. They see themselves as political arbiters. They long to punish politicians who do wrong. Mediocre politicians are unlikely to be recipients of their praise.

From the above outline it is not hard to imagine the reason for the five cities elections stalemate. During the second change in ruling parties, voters expected a great deal from President Ma. Two and a half years later, despite considerable progress in cross-Strait relations, the sputtering economy has yet to significantly improve. The ruling and opposition parties' old pattern of confrontation persisted. Government agencies have done nothing to inspire hope. The nation remains mired in bickering over minutiae. Two and a half years ago, swing voters supported Ma. They may not feel discontent or anger at the lack of progress. But even they are going to feel depressed.

Swing voters are very different from Deep Blue and Deep Green fundamentalist voters. They hold independent political views. They are unwilling to be blind political followers. They are unwilling to be held hostage by any political party. Judging by the current elections, the DPP seems to have more clearly sensed the change. Therefore it has adopted a comprehensive tactic to appeal to swing voters. Current Green Camp PR has "eliminated its Green coloration" and even "turned pink." By contrast, the KMT still clinging to its traditional "safe" tactics. It is blindly downplaying the election. It is attempting to rely on the loyalty of its core supporters to win. This betrays not merely a lack of ambition, it also leaves voters disillusioned.

Nevertheless, the Green Camp will not necessarily win over the swing vote. After all, over the past eight years the Chen Shui-bian regime engaged in rampant corruption, stonewalling, and malfeasance. Voters are not about to forget their experience. Besides, the DPP has yet to engage in any self-reflection. How can it possibly win the hearts of most swing voters? Swing voters are reluctant to vote for the Blue Camp. On the other hand they have no incentive to vote for the Green Camp either. Under the circumstances the most likely scenario is that many voters will choose not to vote. They will become "swing non-voters." Political parties on Taiwan have hijacked the election system. They have forced voters to "vote with tears in their eyes," and to "choose between the lesser of two evils." Democracy has run into a brick wall. Many voters may choose to boycott the current election altogether.

Such is the odor in the current atmosphere. If one month before election day, Blue and Green Camp strategies remain unchanged, there will most likely be a large number of "swing non-voters." Large numbers of "swing non-voters" are likely to distort the election results. This resembles previous protest movements which deliberately cast invalid ballots. The loss of "swing voters" is bound to distort the results of the election. It is bound to make the election result deviate further from the center. But the ruling party has let them down. The opposition party is unable to gain their trust. So what choice do conflicted swing voters on Taiwan have?

當中間選民變成「中間不選民」
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.01

五都風雲詭譎，兩黨均宣稱坐二搶三；但各項民調拒絕受訪或拒絕表態的民眾比率偏高，這塊灰色地帶如何解讀，充滿懸疑。其中最普遍的想像是：台灣的中間選民，今年會不會變成「中間不選民」？

如果沒有中間選民，台灣就不可能締造兩次政黨輪替，這是毋庸置疑的事實。從過去十年的變化看，曾經在藍綠板塊之間移動的中間選民數，大致在一百萬到兩百萬人之間，他們被視為朝野決勝的關鍵。也因此，兩年前曾悍稱「台灣沒有中間選民」的民進黨，最近卻發出一波專攻中間選民的文宣說「你一直都在」，揚言要把這批選票催出來。這個現象，深值玩味。

民進黨發現，在二ＯＯ八年大選挺馬的中間選民，最近似出現了疲弱傾向，所以發動柔性攻勢召喚他們投靠。這招是不是有效，仍有待選舉的最後驗證；但值得注意的是，中間選民前一波擁藍趨勢的疲弱化，在不同民調中也有具體的反映：許多人拒絕表態挺藍，更多人根本拒絕受訪。藍營在一向自以為具有絕對優勢的北二都，近來打得相當艱難，甚至陷於苦戰，這或許是主要原因。

在臆測其投票取向前，可先勾勒一下中間選民的大致圖像。在政治態度上，中間選民通常比較理性，比較具有批判意識，比較不容易受民粹指令驅動。在政治認同上，他們重視清廉、效率和進步的價值，甚於對統獨等意識形態的分野；他們不像基本盤群眾那樣一味死忠相挺，也因此比較容易感到失望。面對現實問題，他們有務實的傾向，反對極端的選擇；對改革有更高的期待，也反對和稀泥。在自我認知上，他們以政治的「仲裁者」自居，對做錯事的政治人物要給予懲罰，表現平凡的執政者不易得到他們的獎賞。

從以上輪廓，不難想像這次五都選情膠著原因何在。第二次政黨輪替的締造，馬總統承載了選民的莫大期待；兩年半來，兩岸關係雖有長足進展，凋萎的經濟也有顯著改善；但朝野舊有對峙格局未變，政府部門缺乏讓人振奮的作為，導致國家常困在細節事務中打轉。兩年半前挺馬的中間選民，即使不對這種滯悶的空氣感到不滿或憤怒，也會覺得意興闌珊。

中間選民的特質，與深藍、深綠基本盤群眾大相逕庭，他們以具有獨立的政治見解自許，不願作盲目的政治追隨者，更不願被任何政黨綁架。從這次選舉看，民進黨似乎更清楚嗅到變化的氣味，因而全面採取了迎合中間選民口味的柔性戰術；這次綠營文宣的「去綠化」乃至「粉紅化」，即是因此而發。相形之下，國民黨仍留戀著傳統的安全戰法，一味壓低選情，想靠昔日的老盤面求勝，不僅缺乏企圖心，也會讓中間選民心灰意冷。

儘管如此，綠營這次也未必一定能攫取到中間選民的票。畢竟，過去陳水扁執政八年貪瀆、硬拗、惡搞的血淋淋教訓，中間選民不可能太快淡忘。何況，民進黨至今尚未提出任何反省，又何以能抓住多數中間選民的心？在投藍不甘心、投綠又沒誘因的情況下，最可能的情況就是，許多中間選民將選擇不投票，變成「中間不選民」。原因是，台灣政黨綁架選舉的「含淚投票」及「兩個爛蘋果」，已使民主政治陷入撞牆期；許多中間選民可能選擇「棄投」，退出這場選舉。

現在的空氣中，已嗅得到這樣的味道。如果在投票前的這個月，藍綠兩營的戰略仍然沒有改變，極可能出現大量的「中間不選民」。然而，「中間不選民」的集體行動卻可能扭曲選舉的結果，這從過去的廢票運動即可見一斑。因為，失去「中間選民」的後果，必定會使選舉的結果更扭曲變形，更加偏離「中間」。問題是，當執政黨讓他們失望，在野黨又無法取信於他們，台灣徬徨的中間選民還能有什麼選擇？