What Do First Time Voters Really Want?

What Do First Time Voters Really Want?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 25, 2011

The ruling and opposition presidential candidates are Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Both consider winning over first time voters essential to their election strategy. First time voters, as the name implies, are citizens who have just acquired the right to vote. This group of voters ranges from 20 to 24 in age, and comprise approximately 1.23 million people. It is large enough to decide the outcome of the election. More importantly, this group of young people, who will be going to the polls for the first time, have no strong political preferences or ideology. They are not burdened by historical grievances. In other words, they are true centrist voters. But do the two major parties really know what these young people want?

The two major political parties attach great importance to first time voters. They did not begin doing so this year. They began doing so when former president Chen Shui-bian was running for Mayor of Taipei. His campaign slogan, "dreams are beautiful, walk hand in hand with hope," was a classic case of youth oriented propaganda. Middle aged and older voters have experienced too many national and family tragedies. They have strong feelings about their experiences. In both the Blue and Green camps, they have fixed attitudes. The KMT has been in power a long time. It has gained the support of a large group of people who do not want too many political changes, They view changes in a nation's ruling party with concern, even anxiety. Enthusiastic young people who are relatively apathetic about politics running for elective office could change the political status quo.

Beginning with Chen Shui-bian, the DPP became more attractive to young people than the KMT. The DPP began making heavy use of young people. In both party positions and elective office, they gave young people more opportunities to advance themselves than the "old fogey" dominated KMT, The DPP subculture allows these young people to challenge the old fogies without guilt.

Chen Shui-bian's corruption dealt a major blow to the DPP. But for young people, the DPP's political rhetoric is still more appealing than the KMT's. Su Tseng-chang's party primary campaign literature quoted a first time voter in his own family, who said: I want a good job. I want to get married and have children. I want to be able to support my children. I do not want Taiwan to lose face.

Simply put, young people have a dream. But they are not overly ambitious. They know the pressures of real life. They do not want this pressure to crush their dreams. Su Tseng-chang cleverly invoked the language of these young people: I do not want Taiwan to lose face. But he avoided invoking the Democratic Progressive Party's long-held fears about sovereignty.

Most young people do not bother to distinguish between the "Republic of China" and "Taiwan." Taiwan is part of a sovereign and independent nation called the Republic of China. Young people do not want Taiwan to lose face. But they feel no particular attachment to Taiwan independence ideology. They cannot tolerate ruling and opposition party political leaders constantly treating national sovereignty as a political football. When the Democratic Progressive Party criticized the Ma administration for "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," their reaction was: Boring! But although they might respond in this manner, it does not mean they are more inclined to vote for the KMT. Just as when they express hope that Taiwan will not lose face, it does not mean they will vote for the DPP.

Young people are more inclined to vote for the man himself than the party. What they value is a leader's approachability and ability to govern. When a current leader comes and goes, he needs hordes of bodyguards. This means he has limits to how approachable he can be with his constituents. He is even more hobbled when it comes to resolute governance. Taiwan's competitiveness jumped in the Lausanne International Institute for Management's latest report. But the government's efficiency rating fell. Even though this included the Legislative Yuan, and even though partisan politics exacts a cost, it is easy to oversimplify and say that the leader is not bold enough.

The incumbent must bear all sorts of burdens. He is subject to constant scrutiny. But when a challenger paints a picture of a better future, he must confront an important question. Can that better future he painted be achieved by means of his political platform? Many younger people have no party affiliation. They have no ideology. All they want is a genuine opportunity. All they want is a fighting chance. All they want is a more livable environment. They do not want Taiwan to become uninhabitable for their children. These are not problems to which debates over sovereignty or Closed Door cross-Strait policies can provide solutions.

Ma Ying-jeou has packaged his appeal to first time voters in the trappings of "generational justice." He says that sustainable development has three requirements: national rights (sovereignty), human rights, and environmental rights. He says this generation must consider the well-being of the next. Ma Ying-jeou has offered a blueprint for the future. But this world is not a utopia. One can reduce the gap between rich and poor, but one cannot make it disappear. One can establish a social safety net for widows and the orphans. But someone will always slip through the holes. One can reduce the unemployment rate. But one cannot reduce it to zero. One can ensure fair access to education. But one cannot change the fact that under a capitalist society some will inevitably be more competitive than others. One can provide everyone with a home. But one cannot ensure that everyone lives in luxury. One can be environmentally friendly. But one must also find alternative employment through industrial restructuring. Otherwise, sustainable development will become empty talk.

One never stops pursuing dreams. Younger people are never content with the status quo. This means they have more room to grow. This provides the impetus for national progress. This is the vision upon which ruling and opposition political leaders must draw. They must accept the criticism leveled against them by young people. More importantly, they must reclaim the passion that once led them to pursue their ideals.

首投族真正要的是什麼？
2011-05-25 中國時報

朝野總統參選人馬英九、蔡英文不約而同，把爭取首投族列為競選重要策略。首投族顧名思義是首次成為具有選舉權的公民，這群廿到廿四歲的族群估計有一百廿、卅萬人，足可影響選局；更重要的，這群首次進入選舉市場的年輕人，沒有強烈的政黨好惡和意識形態，也沒有歷史恩怨的包袱，換言之，他們是真正的中間選民。但是，兩黨真的知道年輕人要什麼嗎？

兩黨重視首投族，並不是今年特有的現象；事實上，早在前總統陳水扁競選台北市長的時候，他的「有夢最美，希望相隨」，就是號召新世代的典型文宣。中壯代或老年人經歷過太多國仇家恨，不論偏藍偏綠，多有其既定的主見。國民黨長期執政，養成很大一群不希望在政治上有太多改變的人，他們對換黨執政這件事，有著不確定感，甚至不安全感。讓有熱情卻對政治相對冷漠的年輕人，投入選舉市場，確實可以是改變政治現狀的動力之一。

從陳水扁開始，民進黨向例比國民黨更吸引年輕人；他們大量進用年輕人，不論黨職或選舉，他們比已經老大的國民黨，給年輕人更多竄出頭面的機會。民進黨的文化讓他們更習於挑戰大老，而不必心懷歉疚。

即使陳水扁的貪汙舞弊對民進黨造成重大打擊，但民進黨的政治語言，對年輕人而言，依舊比國民黨更具吸引力。總統初選落敗的蘇貞昌在他的參選聲明中就用了一位首投族的心聲：我要找得到好工作，要結了婚還敢生小孩，生了小孩還要養得起，還有我不要台灣丟臉。

簡單講，年輕人有夢想，卻並不好高騖遠，他們知道現實生活的壓力，不希望這層壓力壓垮他們追求夢想的心。蘇貞昌很聰明的運用年輕人的語言：不要台灣丟臉，而未使用民進黨長期訴求的主權恐懼。

對多數年輕人而言，他們看待中華民國與台灣並無二致；台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，名字就叫中華民國，他們不要台灣丟臉，卻沒有獨派的意識形態，甚至無法容忍朝野政治領袖三天兩頭拿國家主權做為批判彼此的議題。當民進黨批評馬政府傾中賣台的時候，他們的反應可能只有兩個字：無聊。但即使有這樣的反應，都不表示他們的投票傾向更有利於國民黨；就像他們希望台灣不要丟臉的時候，不表示他們就一定投票給民進黨。

年輕人的投票行為更傾向於選人不選黨，領袖的親和力和執行力，才是他們看重的。出入隨扈必須成群的現任者，在展現親和力上有其限制，在執行魄力上更受到層層框架。當洛桑評比台灣競爭力大躍昇的同時，政府效能卻大退步，儘管這中間有立法院、有兩黨政治必然付出的成本，但很容易被簡化為領導者魄力不足。

不過，現任者雖有各種包袱、各種被檢驗的空間，但是，當挑戰者敘述一個美好未來的可能時，還是得面對最重要問題：那個理應更好的未來，是不是你的政見可達到的？沒有政黨立場、沒有意識形態的年輕人，要求的是一個開放空間，給他們公平競爭的機會；他們要求的是一個更優質的環境，不要擔心等他結婚生子後，台灣可能成為不適合居住的地方；這些都不是執著於主權爭議、甚至相對封閉的兩岸政策能提供答案的。

馬英九用「世代正義」包裝他的首投族策略，談他對國家永續發展的三個責任：主權、人權、環境權，為這一代努力，也要為下一代的幸福著想。馬英九簡筆畫出他的國家藍圖。但是，這個世界沒有烏托邦，貧富差距只能縮短，無法消弭；安全的社會網可以建立，鰥寡孤獨有所養，卻總會有漏網之魚；失業率只能降低卻不可能降為零；可以有公平的教育機會，卻無法改變資本主義社會必然有的競爭本質；盡量讓住者有其屋，卻不可能人人住豪宅；對環境友善卻也得另謀產業轉型的契機，否則永續也將成空談…。

夢想，沒有停止追求的一天，年輕人不滿足現狀的特質，讓他們有更大的成長空間，這就是國家進步的動力。朝野政治領袖必須畫出願景，接受年輕人的不滿與批評；更重要的是，讓自己重回那個曾經不斷追求理想、熱情的本心。