Tuesday, January 15, 2008

DPP Election Loss: Analysis

Max Hirsch has a great piece in Kyodo News this week, analyzing the election defeat of the DPP. Hirsch has a very sensible contrast to the well-known blog Peking Duck, where Raj has served a series of KMT talking points presented as a "centrist" analysis. Hirsch notes:

On the surface, the DPP's huge loss is easily explainable: a string of corruption scandals surrounding Chen and other DPP officials; a lackluster economy; a gridlocked government; rocky relations with Washington and Beijing; and a loss of diplomatic allies and clout.

Behind the obvious, however, lies a baffling contradiction: Despite its ''worst-ever'' showing at parliamentary polls since becoming the ruling party, the DPP on Saturday actually hit a historic high in terms of its overall share of votes cast in a general election.

That's what I pointed out in the post below this one: the numbers won't support the theory that Chen chased away voters. Hirsch goes on to say:

The DPP reaped some 33 percent of the vote in the general election in 2000, the same year it displaced the KMT as the ruling party after its more than 50 years of one-party rule. In the 2004 general election, the DPP garnered nearly 36 percent of the vote after Chen had won another four-year term as president. Ironically, the DPP's performance Saturday in terms of vote share was its best yet, with its share climbing to somewhere between 37 and 38 percent, experts say. This rising trend points to electoral reform as a subtler and perhaps more important reason for the DPP's shocking loss.

The key point in the DPP loss -- which has hardly a landslide in raw voting -- was that the electoral reform that reduced the number of seats and created a winner take all format, which favored the party with the most money (Hirsch notes that the KMT outspent the DPP by 5-1, citing Taiwan expert Dafydd Fell of the U of London). This, combined with gerrymandering, meant that the DPP was at a massive disadvantage. As a Taipei Times analysis put it on Sunday:

The pan-blue camp won yesterday's legislative election by a wide margin as its main rival, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), failed to come up with effective strategies that could have helped it overcome the disadvantages it faced under the new electoral system, political analysts said yesterday.

Except for certain districts in the south, the structure of most electoral districts favors the pan-blue camp by a 55 to 44 ratio, said Chen Chao-jian (陳朝建), an assistant professor of public affairs at Ming Chuan University.


In a political economy where political identity is the most outstanding single factor, the structure of the districts was the key to KMT dominance that gave it 80% of the seats with only 60% of the vote. Thus, the number one dumb DPP decision was not its party platform but its decision to go along with the legislative "reform" that produced a one-party legislature that is actually less democratic than the "unreformed" version.

As always, let's look at the numbers. I have added the local elections held since 1998 to the list:

1998 County Magistrate/City Mayor elections
KMT 3.56 million + 0.22 million New Party
DPP 1.15 million

2001 Legislative election
Blue vote: 5,136,827
Green vote: 4,249,030

2002 County Magistrate/City Mayor elections
KMT 2.52 + 0.49 million PFP + 0.03 New Party
DPP 1.27 + 0.10 TSU

2004 Legislative election
Blue vote: 4,552,831
Green vote: 4,228,141

2005 County Magistrate/City Mayor elections
KMT 3.54 million + 0.35 PFP + 0.04 New Party
DPP 1.96 million + 0.20 TSU

2007 Legislative Election
KMT 5.0 million
DPP 3.6 million

You can see first of all that only in the highly anomalous 2004 legislative election has the total Green vote managed to reach near the total Blue. Indeed in that year the DPP vote exceeded the KMT vote 3.4 million to 3.1 million, with the PFP taking 1.3 million votes, and 600,000 Blue voters staying home. This made the DPP the single biggest party in the legislature. It is 2004, when all those Blue voters stayed home, not 2007, that cries out for explanation. In 2001 there were over 5 million Blue votes, just as there were in 2007 (however, the DPP exceeded the KMT 3.4 million to 2.9 million; the PFP took 1.9 million votes).

This suggests that another, hidden, absolutely vital component of KMT dominance was its ability to swallow the PFP (and the New Party) over the last couple of years and mobilize former PFP members, as well as its own people, to come out and vote for it. If the PFP were still a mighty force, the KMT might not have had a majority in many districts -- in '01 and '04 the PFP poached over a million votes from the KMT. KMT/Blue voters are far more aware of themselves as a group and an identity than Greens, and many analysts noted the feeling that the party could not concede Taiwan to the DPP. Party discipline was excellent, and in many districts the party made sure voters had transportation and so forth. The KMT cut deals with former PFP members and the two marched in lockstep to victory as the KMT gathered the Blue vote all to itself. The DPP, by contrast, still had to contend with the TSU which obstinately refused to give in and form a Green coalition.

Note that nary a peep was heard from KMT splittist James Soong, former Chairman of the People's First Party (PFP), as his party basically disappeared into the KMT. The silence from Soong was absolutely deafening. By contrast TSU spiritual head former President Lee Teng-hui was still out there campaigning against the DPP and complaining about Chen Shui-bian. That was just plain stupid from the standpoint of the island's long-term needs. Additionally, in some districts disgruntled DPP legislators ran against their own people. The DPP's lack of party discipline and its inability to manage its relations with the TSU hurt it (Hirsch reports that Lee is set to endorse Hsieh for the presidency).

In sum, the KMT/Blues got 5 million votes, about the same as in 2001 (suggesting a natural ceiling for KMT legislative election votes), and the DPP actually increased its totals, both percentage-wise and absolutely, from about 3.4 million to 3.6 million (the Taipei Times has a nice chart of the vote totals). The voting trends are very similar to historical trends, and any explanation that relies on the conventional wisdom of Blame Chen! will have to confront the fact, as Hirsch noted, that the DPP actually increased its vote from 2004. There is no evidence in the voting patterns that voters switched to the KMT from the DPP, that the KMT was able to increase the Blue vote, or that the DPP was impacted by any of the negative publicity in recent months. Competent survey work might find such evidence; but at the moment, no such work exists and all evidence is anecdotal. In the final analysis, this was a perfectly normal legislative election by raw vote counts, completely typical. But with the new, gerrymandered, winner take all districts, conventional just wasn't good enough.

The DPP's failure was the same as we have seen in previous elections: it cannot compete with the KMT's ability to mobilize Blue voters. For better or worse, even though the legislature is far more important than the ROC's weak presidency, Green voters seem to be less interested in getting out there and voting for the DPP at the local level. The DPP is going to have to make some significant investments in the nitty-gritty of voter education and voter mobilization, because in the last three legislative elections it has received 3.4, 3.4, and 3.6 million votes -- which suggests that there is a kind of structural ceiling built into the voting patterns that probably has very little to do with the ebb and flow of campaign rhetoric.

It would be nice if we could say that the modest rise in DPP voters meant something for the future, but to compete with the KMT, the DPP would have to be able to get 5 million people out there to vote for it at the local level. It has never even come close to such a figure in a local election. In the Presidential election of 2004 6.4 million people voted Green, and 6.4 million voted Blue. That probably represents the upper bound of people willing to come out and vote in Taiwan. If we replay the 2000 presidential election this year, as we have replayed the 2001 legislative elections, the Blues took 7.58 million votes, Chen Shui-bian, 4.97 million votes (source), for about 12.6 million votes cast, which suggests that the Presidential pool is about 12.6-8 million votes, meaning that in the next 70 days the DPP will have to mobilize 6.4 million voters, again. If the Blame Chen! theorists are right, maybe we'll see a return to the 2000 voting levels as swing voters either stay home or switch to Blue. Your guess is as good as mine.....

Implications for the future? I observed a couple of weeks ago that the DPP strategy in making Chen Shui-bian chair of the DPP was probably to permit the egg from this defeat to stick to the lame-duck Chen, and not land on Hsieh or any up-and-coming politician. In that scenario Hsieh then rides in to become DPP Chairman, as indeed he has, and then the DPP presidential campaign gets a big boost as Hsieh rides in on a white horse to save it. Unfortunately the debacle was so great that any boost Hsieh could have gotten has been swamped by KMT trumpeting of landslide! Like everyone, I await the DPP's strategy for climbing out of this hole -- yet also, note that despite the negatives, the DPP was still able to increase its vote -- whereas despite the negatives for the DPP, the KMT reached its previous ceiling. Does that auger well for the future? Perhaps....

Where the effects will be felt is at the local level. With the legislature to provide cover, local officials, who are 90% KMT, can now engage in election shenanigans with impunity -- one of the first acts of the new legislature, I suspect, will be to formally or informally pull the teeth of the Ministry of Justice and the Central Election Commission's investigative apparatus, which at the moment is looking at a historic high of 6,100 vote buying cases. Disclaimer: note that I am not saying that local officials WILL engage in shenanigans, I am only saying that they CAN. Of course, I would never assert, in a public forum, that anyone would actually engage in serious illegal election activity.

Apologies for the lack of blogging recently. It's finals week here -- one reason the student vote was apparently low -- and I am swamped. Couldn't the CEC have scheduled this election three weeks ago when people weren't so busy?

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't the CEC have scheduled this election three weeks ago when people weren't so busy?

Why, that would have just been another DPP dirty trick to get more people to vote for them!

/sarcasm off

Seriously though, do you have any info on the relative support young people gave to the different parties? My sense, for whatever it's worth, is that the young in northern Taiwan were either apathetic or leaned blue.

Be interesting to know if the DPP is still considered the party of the young.

Anonymous said...

the new eletoral reform and low green voter turnout are the two main reasons for DPP's defeat, however the low green voter turnout are mainly attributed to their disappointment of DPP's rule.

Anonymous said...

The self-delusion continues.

A couple points:

- first, the 2004 legislative elections were considered a significant step-back for the pan-Green parties. In fact, Chen Shui-bian also resigned in order to accept responsibility for the 2004 legislative elections. Who would've thought, at the time, that 4 years later pan-Green defenders would desperately be aiming for the valleys of 2004 as an aspirational goal.

- second, those who voted for the TSU in 2004 were pan-Green supporters first and foremost, period. The previously influential Lee Tung-hui called explicitly for an even division of votes amongst pan-Green supporters between the DPP and TSU.

If you had any intellectual honesty, for the purposes of this analysis you'd have combined TSU/DPP vote totals in 2004, just as you did for the KMT/PFP.

- third, "gerrymandering"? Look into the mechanisms of how the districts were drawn up, and who did the drawing. There's a reason the DPP enthuastically supported the redistricting 3 years ago: it's because it was perceived as a very fair process.

- finally, really, it doesn't matter how you try to paint this pig.

In fact, the more self-denial you and the rest of the extremist Greens are able to sell, the more likely it is that your party will continue to be hijacked by the fringe, the more likely it is your party will continue to be irrelevant to the vast majority of Taiwanese voters.

So, please, continue to celebrate this most recent election as an electoral mandate to continue with things as they were.

Unknown said...

Michael, your articles are always well-researched and well-presented. Thanks so much for your "View from Taiwan"!

Raj said...

Hirsch has a very sensible contrast to the well-known blog Peking Duck, where Raj has served a series of KMT talking points presented as a "centrist" analysis.

Michael, I think you could do with growing up a bit. Lashing out at people for expressing their views will only lose you friends and supporters.

Michael Turton said...

Michael, I think you could do with growing up a bit. Lashing out at people for expressing their views will only lose you friends and supporters.

Raj, next time do the research before you regurgitate KMT talking points as "analysis." Then I won't have to shoot it down in public, and you won't look foolish for having swallowed a party line and presented it as "analysis."

Michael

Michael Turton said...

the new eletoral reform and low green voter turnout are the two main reasons for DPP's defeat, however the low green voter turnout are mainly attributed to their disappointment of DPP's rule.

Prove it. With numbers.

Michael Turton said...

- first, the 2004 legislative elections were considered a significant step-back for the pan-Green parties. In fact, Chen Shui-bian also resigned in order to accept responsibility for the 2004 legislative elections.

Duh. Of course. But the thing that needs explaining is why 600,000 Blue voters stayed home. The Blue ceiling seems to be just over 5 million.

If you had any intellectual honesty, for the purposes of this analysis you'd have combined TSU/DPP vote totals in 2004, just as you did for the KMT/PFP.

I did, in the post below. If you can't read, don't post here. You'll save everyone's time and effort.

- third, "gerrymandering"? Look into the mechanisms of how the districts were drawn up, and who did the drawing. There's a reason the DPP enthuastically supported the redistricting 3 years ago: it's because it was perceived as a very fair process.

There was nothing fair about it, and the KMT's advantages were known at the time, and the subject of articles in the newspapers and on this blog.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Whether the DPP scored record numbers or not, and managed to incraese their share of the vote, they still only managed to attract 37-38% of all votes. I might be wrong here but how many political parties in effectively bi-partisan states have won elections with just 37% of the vote? Also if the election was such a success for the DPP as the numbers allegedly suggest then why is the DPP in such a messed-up state right now, and quite rightly fearing more problems in the presidential election? If the numbers of a green success are so apparent why isn't the DPP celebrating and so optimistic for March?

阿牛 said...

Very well written. I think you're right that this requires further study by competent surveys to see exactly what is going on. Another factor that I think is missing from most analysis is the very low turnout among younger voters and their disenchantment with the political process.

Anonymous said...

I would also like to see the voting demographics based on age, gender, education level and relevant other factors. Do you think this study has been done?

channing said...

According to interviews, many of the young are disgusted by the thought of having to elect politicians at all, given how trustworthy they are. So we see the rise of two trends in this elections:

1. Light-greens and undecided voters feel disillusioned and vote against the DPP.

2. A growing portion of the youth feel disillusioned with politics in general and don't vote at all.

One interesting thing is, the area where I live in California (just south of San Francisco) is very well-connected with Taiwan. Lots of people I know with first-generation immigrant status are planning to fly in to vote in March.

Raj said...

Then I won't have to shoot it down in public, and you won't look foolish for having swallowed a party line and presented it as "analysis."

Well the strange thing is I came to my own conclusions without listening to anything the KMT said before/after the election, or any of its mouthpieces. I even give the usual suspects in the international media a wide berth.

So unless you think the Pan-Green media has been pushing KMT viewpoints then you were jumping to conclusions.

Michael Turton said...

Raj, you absorbed these talking points because they were in the air prior to the election. The fact is you didn't take a moment to check the numbers, which might have surprised you and made you think about what you were saying.

Further, your comment that DPP supporters will have to learn to take election results without violence was extremely patronizing, as only KMT supporters get violent. Greens haven't done that, and they didn't this time either. Shame on you for that.

I hope your next commentary on Taiwan relies on evidence, instead of faith-based assertions. Then I'll be delighted, and we won't have to snipe at each other. I am happy to believe anything always provided it is backed up by evidence.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Whether the DPP scored record numbers or not, and managed to incraese their share of the vote, they still only managed to attract 37-38% of all votes. I might be wrong here but how many political parties in effectively bi-partisan states have won elections with just 37% of the vote? Also if the election was such a success for the DPP as the numbers allegedly suggest then why is the DPP in such a messed-up state right now, and quite rightly fearing more problems in the presidential election? If the numbers of a green success are so apparent why isn't the DPP celebrating and so optimistic for March?

I quite agree with these points, as I noted in my discussion. But the easy conventional explanation won't wash -- if the public was disgusted with Chen, why did the DPP's vote count rise? Why was the KMT unable to pass its KMT + PFP vote total?

I'm not saying that the DPP isn't reeling -- certainly the KMT is now going to use the law to destroy it. But the fact is that strip away the talking points and you have a perfectly conventional legislative election. Only conventional wasn't good enough -- somehow the DPP has to find a way to cross the 3.6 million plateau it has hit in the last three elections.

I'm not suggesting the DPP isn't in trouble. I'm saying that the trouble it is in is not what everyone is saying. If you want to cure the problem, you first need to understand the problem. No matter what policies or successes or inducements the DPP offers, it can't get more than 3.4-6 million people out there to vote for it in a local election. That is true regardless of the current political climate.

My own thesis would be that voters simply disregarded A-bian and all the talking points and voted their identities, especially the Blues. That is what everyone I am close to did. So the issue is really why the DPP can get 5 or 6 million to vote for it in a national election, but not in a local election.

Got any serious recommendations for how the DPP can increase its vote totals for the local election beyond the plateau of 3.4-6 million?

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Very well written. I think you're right that this requires further study by competent surveys to see exactly what is going on. Another factor that I think is missing from most analysis is the very low turnout among younger voters and their disenchantment with the political process.

Yes. Consider this analysis...

Presumably, those who decided to stay home are predominantly moderate or undecided voters. In other words, people who do not have consistent party affiliation chose not to go to the polls. In a country as divided as Taiwan, this makes perfect sense. The last presidential election left the nation bitterly divided, and the controversies surrounding that election have continued to plague the country to this day. As a result, many people have become sick and tired of politics, and many wanted nothing to do with the legislative elections.

The campaign strategies used by all political parties across the political spectrum contributed to the wave of voter apathy. There were very few debates on substantive policies and issues, and party platforms did little to lure moderate voters. Instead, how voters should allocate votes, and which candidates should be "dumped" and which be "saved" became the focus of campaigning. These strategies were only successful in motivating steadfast party supporters to go out and vote. The results show that moderate voters were largely alienated and that parties did not do enough to seek support from outside their traditional voter bases.


Hey, but that's from ..... 2004. Same election, same score, same complaints about Chen abandoning his "moderate" position. The real problem the DPP faced was the combination of winner-take-all districts plus gerrymandering. That in turn traces back to the failure of the DPP to win the legislature in 2004, when they ran too many candidates.

The young didn't vote in '04 either. So what to do? How to get young people to vote?

Michael

Raj said...

you absorbed these talking points because they were in the air prior to the election

What, like the need to talk about bread-and-butter issues instead of reclaiming KMT assets? You think the latter will be a vote-winner in 2012 whereas the former is a waste of time?

The fact is you didn't take a moment to check the numbers

I can see full well that the DPP vote didn't drop (did I say it did?), but they still failed to win nearly enough support to get anywhere near a majority. That is a problem they need to address.

Further, your comment that DPP supporters will have to learn to take election results without violence was extremely patronizing

Michael, for someone who complains I ignored the facts you are misrepresenting what I said. I did not refer to DPP violence anywhere - as I explained on the comments section of the PD article, I was talking about in their hearts. Because at the moment I don't think they could accept it.

Michael Turton said...

What, like the need to talk about bread-and-butter issues instead of reclaiming KMT assets?

Raj, whatever do you think they were talking about? As many analysts noted in the Sunday Taipei Times, bread and butter issues were prominent at the local level. You only have to look at the election pics I put up -- the guys who want to run highway 4 down the east side of Taichung, the KMT guys supporting the DPP candidate in our neighborhood, the DPP's regional development plans, the reaching out to the aboriginal communities -- including expanding the list of tribes, etc.

And we're still stuck with the same faith-based arguments, Raj. What numbers support your claim that bread and butter issues kept potential DPP voters at home this election? None, of course -- unless you wish to make the same claim of 2001 and 2004. The DPP's problem is structural not rhetorical.

I can see full well that the DPP vote didn't drop (did I say it did?),

You didn't need to. You hadn't looked, so you didn't know what you needed to explain.

but they still failed to win nearly enough support to get anywhere near a majority. That is a problem they need to address.

Sure. It's been that way for three elections now. Clearly, since the rhetoric is different in every election, the issues you name are not THE ISSUE. The DPP's problem is party mechanics and KMT control at the local level.

I did not refer to DPP violence anywhere - as I explained on the comments section of the PD article, I was talking about in their hearts. Because at the moment I don't think they could accept it.

Another faith position. There's been no violence, no attacks on the KMT, etc. Why on earth would any thinking person imagine that the DPP supporters don't accept it in their hearts?

Michael

Anonymous said...

I agree with you that the unity of the blue camp (PFP disappeared) is a great factor in their victory. But while you mention the splitting of the green vote due to the TSU, let's notice that the New Party got even a few more votes than the TSU. So the TSU split factor is actually canceled out by the New Party.

The voting reform established 1 third of seats according to total party vote. This has favored the DPP. That's where they got 14 out of their 27 seats.

For the other 2 thirds, I don't see much gerrymandering. Or what is your definition of gerrymandering? For me, it's when 2 big parties have a similar strength, but three adjoining districts are cut so that 1 party wins big in 1 district and the other party wins closely in the other 2 districts. Or when it takes more votes from 1 party to get a district than for another party. Except for the aborigene vote, I didn't see a pattern here.

So, the district system (2/3 of the seats) favored the party with most votes, not necessarily the KMT. This is quite common in the world.

Raj said...

Raj, whatever do you think they were talking about? As many analysts noted in the Sunday Taipei Times, bread and butter issues were prominent at the local level.

The message that came across at the national level was not the same. Local campaigning is important, but the national message also affects matters.

What numbers support your claim that bread and butter issues kept potential DPP voters at home this election? None, of course

That's because there are no numbers based on that matter. It's a matter of opinion, not research.

the issues you name are not THE ISSUE. The DPP's problem is party mechanics and KMT control at the local level.

According to your logic, you should provide some numbers to support that.

There's been no violence, no attacks on the KMT, etc.

First of all, why would there be violence before the presidential election? The DPP knew it would lose the legislative election, so the reason it was a blow was the scale of it. But certainly I didn't believe there would be trouble at the moment.

In any case if there has been no violence and I didn't allege there might be violence, why did you raise the subject?

Why on earth would any thinking person imagine that the DPP supporters don't accept it in their hearts?

Because people like yourself make it seem like a KMT victory would almost be the end of the world. Maybe you're unusual in that respect, but I know from experience that a lot of loyal supporters can't manage losing power after an election. It doesn't mean they're going to riot, commit suicide or do anything silly. But a malaise often comes about that causes a lot of people to lose hope, drift away from politics, etc.

Dealing with the possibility of defeat beforehand helps the rebuilding process.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

Thanks for commenting earlier on my comment about the DPP and their 37% total.

So, how can they increase their vote. Well, firstly any party needs to attract people to it. I think the DPP will slowly move from Chen in the next few weeks and this will certainly improve their marketability. But, this is a very simplistic explanation. They simply need to invigorate Taiwanese politics, get those who don't normally to vote to do so, and by this I'm angling at getting the young.

I think you're dead one about the DPP having a 'core' 3 million plus people but to top 3.6 million relies on other factors. Being pessimistic the DPP have demographic and literal mountain to climb. The presidential election is there for the KMT to lose rather than the DPP to win, but to be honest I don't agree with your comment about the KMT and law changes. If the KMT has any sense it will realise it is in a position that comes around once every 20-30 years at best. If they tarnish this opportunity then in time they, just like Chen's DPP, will be unelectable.

BTW, keep bloggin!! You're doing a great job!!

Anonymous said...

Yes Michael, you were all over the risks of redistricting from day one. Your intellectual insights continue to amaze.

In your own very words on this blog, in response to the redistricting:

http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2007/02/redrawing-legislature.html

[i]It's too early to say how the redistricting will favor the individual parties, except that it doesn't favor the little ones.
...

Hsu Chung-wen, director of the DPP's Taoyuan branch, was elated, saying that the new scheme will finally break the KMT's traditional hold on the two cities and that the DPP will be able to win half of the six seats in Taoyuan County.

Outside of the generally pro-KMT north, the redistricting plan appears to diminish KMT clout in certain areas.[/i]

Anonymous said...

But the easy conventional explanation won't wash -- if the public was disgusted with Chen, why did the DPP's vote count rise?
Because the TSU disintegrated as a party, and "pro-localization" forces voted for the only party they could?

Why was the KMT unable to pass its KMT + PFP vote total?
Uh, it did. 4.5m pan-Blue votes in 2004, 5m KMt votes in 2008.

No matter what policies or successes or inducements the DPP offers, it can't get more than 3.4-6 million people out there to vote for it in a local election.
A more objective reader would point out the obvious: the DPP offered exactly the same platform in 2008 that it did in 2004. Resist China, establish an unique Taiwanese identity, normalize the Taiwanese nation, regain KMT party assets, erase the memory of Chiang dictatorship + 228. Look at Chen Shui-bian's campaign statements, and/or the Taipei Times editorials in the last month of the campaign. for both elections. There's no difference.

Pray tell, what innovative policies and "inducements" did the DPP offer this time around?

Anonymous said...

Michael,

One way to characterize gerrymandering on national basis is if the districts were drawn up in a way that one party needs fewer votes than the other to win a district seat. So, I made a quick computation of the votes it took to gain district seats last Saturday. Here are my results:

1. For the DPP, it took on average 73,385 votes to gain a seat. (All gained on the island of Taiwan and it gained no aborigene seat).

2. For the KMT (and blue independent), on the island on Taiwan and without the aborigenes, it took an average of 79,177 votes to gain a seat. If we assume all the aborigene seats and all the independents from the small islands are also blue, then the average votes drops to 70,590. That's because these seats (aborigene and small islands) only needed an average of 16,745 to be won.

So, for the non aborigene Taiwan 'mainland', I see no evidence of gerrymandering favoring the KMT. The averages point more to the opposite, but not in a significant way.

The real 'disadvantage' I see for the DPP are the aborigenes and the small islands. They have more clout than their (voting?) population represents. But is this gerrymandering or a way to strengthen minorities? (The same way each US State has the same number of senators, independent of the population.)

Anonymous said...

I am not sure about this. But 2.5 million of the DPP people stayed at home and were reluctant to vote because they were disappointed in Chen's Rule.

I heard this over the news report there and why is it that DPP isn't optimistic about MARCH?

Even if DPP wins the march election, it will be a tough job in the parliament with the fact that the seats are like 2/3 to 1/3?

And also, do not forget that March is the most important election. I've got friends over at the state flying back just to vote for DPP.

Anonymous said...

Taiwan Nushu,

Your number for KMT (79,177 or 70,590 votes per seat) may be correct, but the number for DPP (73,385 votes per seat) is simply absurd. DPP would need to gain seats close to 50 to have your number. Here is a quick estimation:

District:
5M(votes)/61(seat)≈82,000 votes/seat(KMT)
3.5M(votes)/13(seat)≈269,000 votes/seat(DPP)

Total:
5M(votes)/81(seat)≈62,000 votes/seat(KMT)
3.5M(votes)/27(seat)≈129,000 votes/seat(DPP)

On average, DPP is about 2-3 x harder than KMT to win seats counting the seats for aborigines (and for off-main islanders) or not. The disadvantage for DPP is real and is everywhere.

Anonymous said...

siyw,

For these averages, I was just talking about the district vote. That's because I wanted to investigate the gerrymandering claim, and gerrymandering, by definition, can't happen on the total national level.

So, for the 13 districts that DDP carried, the DDP did so with an average of 73,385 votes. Please check the numbers again.
What your numbers describe is the fact that the plurality electoral system for the districts gives an advantage to the biggest party. This happened to be the KMT this time.

Anonymous said...

Taiwan Nushu,

I misinterpreted your calculation. If one counts ONLY the 13 districts won by DPP (as this restriction was not apparent in your previous statement), one could have arrived at your numbers (votes/seat).

Nevertheless, your conclusion is still shaky at best. This (votes/seat) number alone simply cannot tell whether gerrymander has occurred without considering other factors, such as the voter constituents, the turnout rate, and most importantly, how the districts were drawn (for multiple-seat city or prefecture). By drawing each district with an equal number of voters does not guaranty no gerrymandering.

The bottom line is that, gerrymandering or not, there will be a large group of people underrepresented in the central government.

Michael Turton said...

I missed cctang's comment, which he pulled out of context. Here's the entire quote:

Outside of the generally pro-KMT north, the redistricting plan appears to diminish KMT clout in certain areas. Yilan has long been a DPP stronghold, but Taitung, Hualien, Kinmen, and Matsu all tend to vote Blue. Compared to those, the southern areas of Kaohsiung, Yunlin, Chiayi, and Nantou did well, with two seats each. But by comparison with the north, the south appears to fare poorly -- there are a total of 12 legislators from Taipei county and 8 from Taipei. The aborigines tend to support the KMT as well, for historical reasons.

Readers will have to judge from the results in the north and south whether my judgments were correct.

LOL.

Michael