Combining Elections May Not Help Ruling Party

Combining Elections May Not Help Ruling Party
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 10, 2011

How should presidential and legislative elections be scheduled and conducted? Democracies each have their own traditions. Each should realize that their own traditions have downsides. Should presidential and legislative elections on Taiwan be combined? That remains a perplexing problem, one that presents itself every four years. No matter which party is in power, electoral advantage will always be a consideration. Changing the election timetable may be viewed as the prerogative of the ruling administration. But will the election results necessarily benefit the ruling administration? That remains open to question.

The presidential and legislative elections occur at different times. That leads to a variety of political consequences. Consider the United States. Presidential elections are invariably accompanied by congressional elections. Congressional elections are held every two years, but for half the congressional seats only. Therefore the US must also hold mid-term elections. In general, midterm elections are bad for the ruling party. Therefore the White House and Congress are often controlled by different parties. One might even consider it the norm. Obama won the presidential race in 2008. His party won a controlling majority in both the House and the Senate. But last year during the mid-term elections, his party lost its House majority.

Legislative elections held less than a year after the presidential inauguration are referred to as "honeymoon period elections." These often take place in France. On May 22 France holds its presidential elections. A month and a half later, on June 10, France holds its parliamentary elections. The left and the right have formed coalitions in the past. But France has an election timetable in which presidential elections are followed by parliamentary elections. This means that in the wake of the presidential election, voters are presented with the opportunity to choose either a majority government or a minority government. They are presented with the opportunity during the parliamentary elections to vote for a party other than the president's. Based on the recent record, French voters tend to put their faith in the ruling administration. They tend to vote for the same party in parliament. That has been true from Chirac through Sarkozy. After winning the presidential election, the president's party generally has no trouble winning a majority in parliament.

On Taiwan, by contrast, we have a legislative election followed by a presidential election. This results in "anti-honeymoon period elections." Legislative elections are held in early December. Legislators take office on February 1 of the following year. This is followed by the presidential election in March, and the presidential inauguration on May 20. On Taiwan, the executive has traditionally been the dominant branch of government. Therefore, legislative election results may not indicate which presidential candidate the public will support. But politicians are adept at political games. Newly-elected legislators provide these politicians considerable latitude for political games. The DPP has long advocated streamlining and combining elections. During the 2008 presidential election however, it hoped that the presidential election would induce Blue Camp legislators to to desert and defect.

Alas, the DPP found itself dragged down by the Chen family corruption scandals. Its strategy failed. The result was a debacle. This time however, the ruling Kuomintang lost nine out of 13 elections. It is now concerned that if the legislative elections, which are held first, result in defeat, the impact may snowball. The DPP may gain momentum. Movement can now be detected at the KMT grassroots. KMT legislators in central and southern Taiwan may vote against their own party. The KMT is considering combining the elections. This would prevent fence sitters within the KMT from using the opportunity to collude with DPP legislators.

Two major elections are held within six months of each other, year after year. This leads to extreme polarization on Taiwan. For many citizens, this is intolerable. Therefore the proposal to combine the elections has considerable justification.

But according to the "Public Officials Election and Recall Law," the next batch of legislators must be elected 10 days before current legislators' terms expire. Therefore, if the elections are combined, voting must occur no later than January 20 next year. But this would mean that the new president must assume office on May 20. For a four full months, his status would be unconstitutional. Today the world is flat. Financial turmoil, new influenza strains, extreme climate conditions, hot money flows, general inflation, and other crises, may start in one place, but may spread worldwide overnight. Over the past several years, Taiwan has largely been spared the impact of such storms. But what if a crisis occurs during a ruling party change, at the same time as a constitutional crisis? Would a caretaker government have the either the determination or ability to cope? It is hard to say.

How should the constitutional crisis be resolved? The only apparent solution is a constitutional amendment extending the mandate for legislators by two months. But the ruling and opposition parties are currently engaged in all manner of intrigue. They cannot possibly cooperate and pass a constitutional amendment. An even bigger problem presents itself. The constitution clearly states that if the legislature votes no confidence in the government, the president may dissolve the legislature. Once the legislature is dissolved, by-elections must be held. Legislative terms must begin anew. The original process of combining elections would be disrupted. Any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment would be futile.

Four years ago the DPP, for fear of losing, refused to combine the elections. This time the KMT has proposed combining the elections. It too is having trouble avoiding campaign considerations. Few democracies around the world resemble the Republic of China. Here, even the timetable for elections is part of campaign strategy. That is why they keep getting changed, time and again. Winning or losing still depends upon who is in power. As the saying goes, high office is not attained through wisdom. Sacrificing the stability of the political system may not turn defeat into victory.

合併選舉 未必有利執政黨
2011-03-10 中國時報

總統和國會議員選舉時程如何安排，民主國家各有不同的傳統，也都得接受各種不同模式所帶來的風險；相反的，台灣的總統和立委是否該合併選舉，這個頭痛問題，卻是每四年就要來一次，無論哪個黨執政，都想從選舉利害的角度考量，將調整選舉時程視為執政者的特權，但結果是否真的對選舉有利，卻很值得探究。

總統、國會選舉時程不一致，有時確會出現不同的政治後果。以美國為例，凡總統大選必伴隨國會選舉，但由於國會每兩年只改選一半席次，因此還會有一次「期中選舉」。一般而言，期中選舉對執政黨相當不利，因此，美國總統與國會由不同黨掌握，幾可說已是常態，如歐巴馬政府二○○八年當選總統時雖同時拿下參眾兩院多數，但去年的期中國會選舉就喪失了眾院多數。

另外，凡是國會選舉在總統就職一年內發生的，學界稱之為「蜜月期選舉」。法國就是經常出現此一模式，五月二十二日舉行總統第一輪投票，隨後在一個半月後的六月十日舉行國會選舉；法國雖有左右共治的憲政前例，但這樣「先總統、後國會」的時程設計，等於是讓選民在大致已確定總統人選後，有足夠的時間及空間考量，是否要採取共治，而決定在國會議員投票時支持不同政黨；不過，根據這幾年的發展，法國選民充分反映了期待行政、立法合一的傾向，從席哈克到薩科奇，在確定勝選之後都順利拿下國會多數。

相反的，台灣通常碰到的是「先國會、後總統」的「反蜜月期選舉」模式。依往例，立委選舉於十二月初完成，隔年二月一日就職，接下來總統選舉於三月投票，五月二十日就職。台灣過去有行政權獨大的傳統，因此，從國會選舉結果中，未必能讀出民意青睞的總統人選，但是對擅長操作的政治人物而言，這些剛當選的國會議員，提供了合縱連橫的空間，二○○八年大選時，民進黨改變向來主張精簡、合併選舉的立場，就是期待能夠在大選時對藍軍收招降納叛之功。

只是，民進黨當時受扁家弊案拖累，謀略未盡其功，還是大敗收場；這次則是執政的國民黨在十三次選舉九敗的壓力下，反過來擔心若國會先選先敗，會出現西瓜效應，更留給民進黨操作空間；尤其是，此刻國民黨基層蠢蠢欲動，國民黨籍的中南部立委甚至傳出分裂投票，讓國民黨考慮合併選舉，防堵騎牆派立委當選後趁勢和民進黨結合。

再則，不在少數的民意也反映在半年內連續進行兩項重大選舉，對年年選舉釀成極端對立的台灣而言，確實是難以承受的負擔。因此，合併選舉之議，並非完全沒有道理。

問題在於，根據《公職人員選舉罷免法》的規定，下屆立委必須在本屆立委任期屆滿十天前選出，因此若合併選舉，最慢要在明年一月二十日前投票，但如此一來就和新任總統就職的五月二十日，出現整整四個月的憲政空窗期，在「世界是平的」今天，無論是金融風暴、新流感、極端氣候、還是熱錢四處流竄、通貨膨漲等危機，都可在一地點燃後，一夕之間蔓延全球，觀察過去幾年，面對這些風暴，台灣幾乎無一倖免，試問，如果哪一件危機正好發生在政黨輪替的憲政空窗期，看守政府是否有心力去處理，實在令人不敢樂觀。

要解決憲政空窗期問題，似乎只有靠著修憲將立委任期延長兩個月，但別說當前朝野爾虞我詐、不可能合作修憲；更大的問題是，憲法增修條文明定，國會若通過倒閣案，總統有權解散國會，一旦立委改選，任期又重新起算，原來合併的選舉時程一樣會被打亂，修憲將是徒勞無功。

就如四年前的民進黨，為了選舉輸贏不肯合併選舉一樣，國民黨此次的合併選舉之議，也難脫選舉考量，全世界民主國家大概很少像台灣這樣，連選舉時程都成為選舉策略的一環、因此可以一變再變，只是，選舉輸贏仍要看執政者施政而定，俗話說，大位不以智取，若為了選舉而犧牲制度的穩定性，不見得就能夠反敗為勝的。