If Moderate Voters Don't Vote, Extremism Will Triumph

If Moderate Voters Don't Vote, Extremism Will Triumph 
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2014

Executive Summary: The US mid-term elections are being held today. Some congressmen and governors are running for re-election. President Obama has a dismal record. Most pundits consider the situation unfavorable for the Democrats. They are likely to lose control of the senate. Obama faces a difficult future. An Economist editorial entitled "The Silent Centre” argued that if moderate voters do not vote, extremists will run amok. This warning is apropos, and is equally applicable to the year end elections on Taiwan.

Full Text Below:

The US mid-term elections are being held today. Some congressmen and governors are running for re-election. President Obama has a dismal record. Most pundits consider the situation unfavorable for the Democrats. They are likely to lose control of the senate. Obama faces a difficult future. An Economist editorial entitled "The Silent Centre” argued that if moderate voters do not vote, extremists will run amok. This warning is apropos, and is equally applicable to the year end elections on Taiwan.

Presidennt Barack Obama and President Ma Ying-jeou are in the same pickle. Their administrations were ineffective. Their approval ratings are in the toilet. They are a drag on their party's election prospects. This is a common problem in democratic politics. Current heads of state often win re-election by virtue of the power of the incumbency. But shortly after re-election, their calcified thinking alienates the public. Their approval ratings take an immediate downturn. This phenomenon clearly dogged Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, as well as Ma's predecessor Chen Shui-bian. The midterm elections in the US are often an opportunity to launch a counter-attack. Ma Ying-jeou has been a lame duck for some time.

There is another serious problem with democracy. It is highly susceptible to reductionism and dilution. Citizenship is reduced to merely casting a ballot. Political activism is diluted to the point where it applies only to political parties or politicians. In the United States for example, more and more money is spent on campaigns. The congressional elections burned through a record four billion US dollars. Campaign ads and technical operations have grown. Voter turnout on the other hand, has shrunk. This reflects the erosion of democracy. Voter turnout for the 2010 mid-term elections in the US was only 45%. Fewer than than half the voters went to the polls. That is deeply worrisome.

Two factors were responsible for the low voter turnout in the midterm elections. One. Low levels of minority participation. Most voters during midterm elections are white. African-American, Latino, and Asian voters have less sharply defined political identities. They are less interested in local elections. Many of them vote only during presidential elections. Latinos constitute an increasingly large percentage of the US population. The overall turnout for Latinos during the last midterm election was only 31%. The Democratic Party is attempting to turn the tide by appealing to minority voters.

Two. Centrist voters have been abandoned. The Pew Research Center is an independent polling organization. According to the center, 73% of those who consider themselves "long time conservatives" intend to vote during this election. By contrast, onlly 58% of those who consider themselves "long time liberals" intend to vote. Among those who consider themselves "centrist," only 25% intend to vote. As a result, the Democratic and Republican campaign strategies are addressing both extremes of the political spectrum, actively seeking their party's diehard supporters. The centrist voter on the other hand, is being ignored. He has been abandoned.

Are centrist voters too wishy-washy? Are they too difficult to win over? Are they too weak-willed? Were they abandoned because their loyalty to political parties was too weak? Were they too easily disappointed? Were they too quick to lose faith and become indifferent? This is an intriguing question. Admittedly, many historic elections hinged on the swing vote. They determined who won and who lost. They invested the election with meaning. But in most elections, the absence of the centrist voter caused democracy to retreat rather than advance.

The Pew Research Center survey also found that voters more disgusted with the other party, have a stronger incentive to vote. Republican supporters are far more disgusted with the Democratic Party than Democratic supporters are with the Republican Party. The desire of GOP voters for an upset, far exceeds the support of Democratic voters for their party.

This situation resembles blue vs. green partisan politics on Taiwan. The blue and green camps have different core supporters in different voting districts. But the true diehards are deep green voters. They can even sway the DPP leadership. As for blue camp supporters, a large proportion of them consider themselves moderates or swing voters. But they are highly susceptible to electioneering. They may abstain from voting because they consider both candidates to be rotten apples. This inevitably leads to the Economist's concern, that extremists may run amok. This is not unheard of in Taiwan's democracy. .

Taiwan's democracy took a different path than America. But the two most recent elections exhibit many similarities. Compare this to the situation in Europe. Many European countries have experienced political and economic setbacks. As a result, both left and right wing extremists are on the rise. The political center has caved in. One problem is that centrist voters are weak-willed. Modern democracy encourages mediocrity. Realpolitik is ugly and cruel. And lastly, there is the problem all citizens must face. If centrist voters do not vote, extremist forces may run amok. This may be a simple observation. But its shows that preserving our hard-won democracy may not be easy.

溫和選民若不投票，極端勢力就會張狂
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.04 02:15 am

美國今天舉行期中選舉，改選部分議員和州長。由於歐巴馬總統施政欠佳，一般預期此次選情對民主黨不利，極可能丟掉參院領導權，歐巴馬未來將更難施為。對此，英國《經濟學人》雜誌在社論「沉默的中間」中呼籲，「如果溫和選民不投票，極端勢力將變張狂」；這句警語，用在台灣年底的選舉，似乎也十分貼切。

歐巴馬目前的處境和馬英九總統很像，都因執政效能不彰，陷入民意的低潮，並拖累整個政黨的選情。這其實也是民主政治的通病：現任元首或首長常因既有執政優勢輕易贏得連任，但連任後不久，則因執政思維一成不變讓人民感到厭煩，政情旋即陷入低迷。這種現象，在歐巴馬的前任小布希、馬英九的前任陳水扁身上，也都極為明顯。美國期中選舉，往往是這個逆襲的發動點，而馬英九的跛鴨現象則早已發生。

民主政治另一個嚴重問題，則是很容易遭到化約與稀釋：公民的政治參與，被化約到只剩「投票」；政治活動的主體，則被稀釋到僅剩「政黨」或「政治人物」。以美國為例，競選活動所花的錢越來越多（這次國會選舉估計燒掉創紀錄的四十億美元），宣傳和技術性操作越來越強，而選民的投票率卻越來越低，在在反映了民主基石的消蝕與流失。美國二○一○年的期中選舉投票率僅四成五，不到半數選民前往投票，這正是令人擔憂之處。

美國期中選舉的低投票率，有兩個主要因素：其一，少數族裔參與程度不足。期中選舉的主力選民是白人，而非裔、拉丁裔和亞裔等因為政治認同較淺的緣故，對地方性選舉較不感興趣，許多人只在總統大選時參與投票；占美國人口比重越來越高的拉丁裔，上次期中選舉的整體投票率僅三成一。也因此，這次選情落後的民主黨正設法爭取少數族裔的選票，希望力挽狂瀾。

其二，中間選民被放棄。根據美國獨立民調機構皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center）的調查，這次選舉，有七十三％自認「一貫保守」的美國人將會投票，五十八％自認「一貫自由」的公民會去投票；而那些自認持「中間看法」的選民，則僅有廿五％會去投票。正因為如此，民主、共和兩黨的選戰策略都在經營光譜的兩端，積極爭取本黨的死忠支持者，中間選民則不受眷顧，成為失落的一群。

中間選民究竟是因為太會游移、不容易掌握而不受青睞，或是因為意志不堅、黨性不強而遭拋棄，抑或是他們太容易失望、太容易失去信念而變得沒趣，這是民主政治發展史上一個始終耐人尋味的問題。不可否認，歷史不少重要的選舉，是靠著「中間選民」的移動來決定成敗並賦與意義；但在更多的常態選舉中，卻是由於中間選民的失落與缺席，而讓民主政治的天平倒向一邊。

皮尤研究中心的調查還發現，對另一個政黨越感到憎惡的人，前往投票的誘因就越強；而共和黨支持者對民主黨的厭憎，遠超過民主黨支持者對共和黨的惡感，也因此，「象營」選民想要翻盤的欲望，便遠大過「驢營」護盤的選民。

這種情況，和台灣政黨政治的藍綠結構也頗類似：儘管藍綠在各地區有不同的「基本盤」，但最難撼動的一群就是所謂的「鐵桿深綠」，他們甚至不時可以左右民進黨中央的行動。至於藍營支持者中，則有比較大比例自視為溫和派或理性的「中間選民」；然而，他們卻很容易在選情激盪中受到動搖，或因不屑「兩個爛蘋果」而放棄投票。如此一來，就不免導致《經濟學人》所憂心的「極端力量擴張」的後果；這種經驗，在台灣民主政治史上也不是沒有發生過。

台灣民主發展的軌跡與歷史和美國截然不同，但此時此刻，兩國最近的選舉情勢竟有許多可堪比擬之處。若再對照歐洲的情況，不少歐洲國家最近因為政經受挫，都出現左右兩翼極端勢力增長的趨勢，顯示政治中間地帶的崩落。其中，有中間選民意志薄弱的問題，有現代民主政治「平庸化」的問題，也有現實政治醜陋與殘酷的問題，最後其實都需要全體國民一起面對。「溫和選民不投票，極端勢力就會張狂」雖是一句簡單警語，卻也道出了民主政治維持均衡之不易。