Should We Implement Absentee Voting?

Should We Implement Absentee Voting?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 20, 2012

Summary: The current election system fails to allow absentee voting. This alone constitutes a breach of the constitution. The DPP, which casts itself as a "champion of human rights," has no excuse to oppose absentee voting. Alternate polling station voting has just been implemented for the central government level presidential and legislative elections. As long as one registers and specifies the polling station in advance, the technical aspects should be no problem. Absentee voting is necessary to uphold voter rights and enhance the quality of our democracy. Everything now depends on the DPP, on whether it insists on behaving as an obstacle to democracy.

Full Text below:

Ma Ying-jeou won the 2012 presidential election. The reasons were manifold. Everyone has his own take on why. Some say "The 1992 Consensus won the day." Lee Teng-hui objects to this interpretation. He blames the DPP's election defeat on the Ma administration. He accuses it of deliberately moving election day to the eve of the Spring Festival. He says this prevented many voters who work or study far from their voting districts from returning home to vote.

Actually the DPP's own post-election review said the fact that few voters returned home to vote was merely one of many reasons for its defeat. Also, who does not know that the most adamant opponent of absentee voting is the Green Camp itself?

In fact, the Green Camp has long considered voters working and studying far from their voting districts as the key to election outcomes. Two years ago, during the Three in One Municipal and County Elections, the DPP's slogan was "return home to vote, prosperity will appear." They asked young expatriates and those living far from their voting districts to return home and vote for the DPP.

On the one hand, the DPP encourages its supporters to return home to vote. On the other hand, it has long opposed absentee voting, which would enable voters to cast their ballots without returning in person to their voting districts. Every time the Ministry of the Interior attempts to promote absentee voting, the Green Camp opposes it, alleging that the KMT wants to use absentee voting to "implement political machine voting" or even "commit election fraud." Even Lee Teng-hui believes the main reason Tsai Ing-wen lost was that many voters were unable to return home to vote. Following the election, the Executive Yuan and the Ministry of the Interior urged the implmentation of absentee voting. Nevertheless the DPP remains obdurately opposed,

In general, absentee voting can be divided into five types: Mail-in voting. Proxy voting. Advance voting. Designated polling station voting. Alternate polling station voting. Mail-in voting is the most commonly used system in other countries. But many on Taiwan are concerned about possible abuses, making it difficult to implement near term. The Ministry of the Interior has indicated that initial implementation of absentee voting will not include the more controversial mail-in voting. Instead, it will give priority to Alternate polling station voting.

Alternate polling station voting would enable voters who find it difficult to return to their voting districts in person, to choose an alternative polling station in advance. The system would enable students, office workers, and laborers to cast their ballots at a polling station nearby, instead of in their own voting district. It would spare them the need to rush back to the voting district listed in their household registry. It would protect their precious and sacred right to vote.

The Green Camp professes concern that absentee voting would give rise to all manner of ills. Basically opposition political parties mistrust the party in power. But the voting system on Taiwan is long-established. These concerns can be overcome by narrowing the scope of the changes, and through attention to technical means. For example, for the presidential election, the electoral district is the entire nation. The ballots are the simplest of all. It would be the most suitable candidate for the initial implementation of absentee voting. The DPP deeply distrusts the Chinese diaspora and businessmen from Taiwan who do business on the Mainland. The ruling and opposition parties still have concerns over mail-in voting. Therefore the government will not prematurely implement mail-in voting. It will only implement alternative polling station voting. This will enable domestic voters who find it inconvenient to return home to their voting districts to transfer to a more convenient polling station nearby, and exercise their right to vote. From a practical point of view, given an increasingly trustworthy voting system, any problems with alternate polling station voting can be dealt with.

The DPP has long loved pontificating about human rights. The constitution stipulates that "The people have the freedom to reside or migrate" at their discretion. It stipulates that "The people have the basic human rights of election, recall, initiative and referendum." The DPP's opposition to absentee voting infringes the rights of voters who live abroad. It also violates the provisions of the Additional Articles of the Constitution, which stipulates that "The nation will ensure the political participation of citizens residing abroad."

The DGBAS has conducted surveys, At least 15% of the people who live in the Taiwan Region have their household registry in one place, but reside in another. This 15% of the electorate in unable to exercise its voting rights. The fact is, this 15% could have a decisive impact on election results. During the presidential election, for example, Tsai Ing-wen lost to Ma Ying-jeou by less than 6%. Filling this gap in the current voting system, which does not permit absentee voting, could well reverse election results. This could affect any election and any candidate. This being the case, refusal to implement absentee voting deprives voters of the right to vote. It is also a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in order to enhance the quality of our democracy, and fully honor the Will of the People, how can we not implement absentee voting?

The current election system fails to allow absentee voting. This alone constitutes a breach of the constitution. The DPP, which casts itself as a "champion of human rights," has no excuse to oppose absentee voting. Alternate polling station voting has just been implemented for the central government level presidential and legislative elections. As long as one registers and specifies the polling station in advance, the technical aspects should be no problem. Absentee voting is necessary to uphold voter rights and enhance the quality of our democracy. Everything now depends on the DPP, on whether it insists on behaving as an obstacle to democracy.

應當實施「不在籍移轉投票」
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.02.20

馬英九贏得二○一二總統大選，諸多原因，各有說法。有人解讀為「九二共識贏了」，但李登輝頗不以為然，他認為民進黨敗選，與馬政府刻意將投票日選在春節前夕有關，讓很多在外打拚、求學的選民都無法返鄉投票。

其實，民進黨的敗選報告也指出，返鄉投票率偏低是敗選的原因之一；但是，殊不知目前反對「不在籍投票」最力的，正是綠營本身。

其實，綠營一直視在外地工作、求學的選民是對選舉勝負最有影響力的支持群，早在兩年前的縣市三合一選舉，民進黨就力推「返鄉投票、幸福看得見」口號，呼籲在外打拚的年輕人或居住他鄉的選民回到家鄉，投給民進黨候選人一票。

但是，民進黨一方面鼓勵支持者返鄉投票，另一方面卻始終反對推行「不必返鄉，也能投票」的「不在籍投票」。每次內政部提出準備修法推動不在籍投票，綠營就強烈反對；聲稱國民黨就是要藉不在籍投票「發動投票部隊」、甚至「作票」。即使這次連李登輝都認為很多選民無法返鄉投票，是造成蔡英文落敗的主因；但當行政院及內政部選後檢討談到要修法引入不在籍投票時，民進黨仍持反對立場。

一般而言，不在籍投票可分為「通訊投票」、「代理投票」、「提前投票」、「指定投票所投票」、「移轉投票」五種。通訊投票雖是各國最普遍採用的方式，但在我國卻被質疑流弊較多，短期內要推動似有困難。但內政部已表明，不在籍投票實施初期，並不考慮納入爭議較多的通訊投票，而是優先推動移轉投票。

所謂移轉投票，即考慮選民在投票日不便或不能到戶籍地親自投票，容許選舉人事先向選務機關申請「移轉投票處所」，以便行使投票權利的一種制度。這種制度的好處，就是讓符合投票資格的學生、上班族或勞動者，可以就近在申請移轉的投票所輕鬆投票，而不必趕返戶籍地投票，以維護珍貴神聖的選舉權。

綠營擔心不在籍投票會生弊病，基本上是出自政黨對抗衍生的不信任感；但以我國投票實務運作之成熟度，這些疑慮其實可以從限縮實施範圍等技術上加以克服。例如，總統選舉，全國都是同一個選區，選票最單純，也最適合以此做為實施不在籍投票的開端；且最讓民進黨不放心的海外僑民或在大陸台商，不會在朝野仍有疑慮下貿然進行通訊投票；如今只是要照顧不便返回戶籍地投票的國內選民，在國內申請轉移投票所，行使其投票權而已。從實務上看，以越來越具公信力的選務水準言，「移轉投票」的弊端可以控制。

民進黨素來愛講人權，但憲法規定的「人民有居住及遷徙之自由」、「人民有選舉、罷免、創制及複決之權」等基本人權，都因為民進黨反對不在籍投票而使得居留外鄉的選民權利受損，更不必談憲法增修條文規定「國家對於僑居國外國民之政治參與，應予保障」。

主計處曾作調查，台灣地區至少有百分之十五民眾的戶籍地與現居地不一致。這十五趴選民能否便利行使投票權，對選舉結果其實有決定性的影響。以這次總統大選為例，蔡英文輸給馬英九不到六趴；因此，不能說現行投票制度缺的不在籍投票這一角，沒有讓選情反轉的可能性。這種情況，在任何一次選舉，及對任何候選人而言，皆可能發生；倘若如此，則全民意志因未設不在籍投票而不能完整呈現，非但是選民的選舉權被剝奪，更是對國家公義的重大傷害。因而，為提升民主品質，完整呈現全民意志，豈能不推行不在籍投票？

現行選制少了不在籍投票，已有違憲之虞；言必稱「保障人權」的民進黨，實在沒有理由始終反對。「移轉投票」實施初期，得以總統及立委兩項中央級選舉為目標，只要事前申請登記並擇定「移轉投票所」，選務技術必不成問題。這是伸張民權、提升民主品質的要著，全看民進黨是否仍要扮演阻路的大石頭了。