Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T20:00:55.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two-party Contests and the Politics of Electoral Reforms: The Case of Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2014

Eunju Chi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how party competition has led to electoral reforms in Taiwan. Dissatisfied with the existing system, political parties in Taiwan promoted electoral reforms. The Democratic Progressive Party led the reform process and the Kuomintang collaborated with it to change the electoral system from a single non-transferable vote and multi-member district system to a first-past-the-post mixed system. Despite opposition to the changes, these two parties successfully formed a coalition and passed reform bills with the support of the public. Using a theoretical framework of actors’ rational choices, this article argues that the parties’ goals of maximizing the number of seats and strategic interaction led to electoral reforms, and that during the reforms, the provision that the first-past-the-post system would provide more seats in the Legislative Yuan was crucial for the two parties. The article supports this argument with evidence from interviews, biographies and documents.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 658 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Eunju Chi is a Research Professor in the Peace and Democracy Institute at Korea University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Bawn, K. (1993), ‘The Logic of Institutional Preference: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice Outcome’, American Journal of Political Science, 37(4): 965–1089.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2004), ‘Models of Electoral System Change’, Electoral Studies, 23(3): 363–389.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2007), ‘Electoral Laws as Political Consequence: Explaining the Origins and Change of Electoral Institutions’, Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 363–390.Google Scholar
Benoit, K.Schiemann, J.W. (2001), ‘Institutional Choice in New Democracies: Bargaining over Hungary's 1989 Electoral Law’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13(2): 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, S., Millard, F., Popescu, M.Williams, K. (2002), Embodying Democracy: Electoral System Design in Post-Communist Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Blais, A.Carty, K. (1988), ‘The Effectiveness of the Plurality Rule’, British Journal of Political Science, 18(4): 330–333.Google Scholar
Boix, C. (1999), ‘Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies’, American Political Science Review, 93(3): 609–624.Google Scholar
Bowler, S. (2008), ‘Electoral Systems’ (2008), in R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder and B.A. Rockman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (New York: Oxford University Press): 576–594.Google Scholar
Brady, D.Mo, J. (1992), ‘Electoral Systems and Institutional Choice: A Case Study of the 1988 Korean Elections’, Comparative Political Studies, 24(4): 405–430.Google Scholar
Chang, A.C.Chang, Y.T. (2009), ‘Rational Choices and Irrational Results: The DPP's Institutional Choice in Taiwan's Electoral Reform’, Issues and Studies, 45(2): 23–60 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Chen, S.B. (2004a), Believing Taiwan (Taipei: Yuanshen) (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Chen, S.B. (2004b), ‘Paving the Way for a Sustainable Taiwan’, Inauguration address of the eleventh president of the Republic of China, 20 May, www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/05/20/2003156312.Google Scholar
Chin, K.L. (2003), Heijin: Organized Crime, Business and Politics in Taiwan (New York: M.E. Sharpe).Google Scholar
Chu, Y.H. (1999), ‘Electoral Reform: Taiwan's Unfinished Democratization Process’, NIRA Review, autumn, www.nira.or.jp/past/publ/review/99autumn/chu.html.Google Scholar
Chu, Y.H. (2001), ‘The Legacy of One-Party Hegemony in Taiwan’, in L. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds), Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press): 266–298.Google Scholar
Colomer, J.M. (2004), ‘The Strategy and History of Electoral System Choice’, in J.M. Colomer (ed.), Handbook of Electoral System Choice (New York: Palgrave Macmillan): 3–78.Google Scholar
Colomer, J.M. (2005), ‘It's Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Law's Upside Down)’, Political Studies, 53: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G.Niou, N. (1994), ‘Seat Bonuses under the Single Nontransferable System: Evidence from Japan and Taiwan’, Comparative Politics, 26: 226–228.Google Scholar
Croissant, A.Völkel, P. (2012), ‘Party System Types and Party System Institutionalization: Comparing New Democracies in East and Southeast Asia’, Party Politics, 18(2): 235–265.Google Scholar
Duverger, M. (1951), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (New York: John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. (2005), ‘Conclusion’, in M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 535–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, J.F. (2009), ‘The Origins and Consequences of Electoral Reforms in Taiwan’, Issues and Studies, 452: 1–22.Google Scholar
Huang, T.F.Liao, Y.H. (2009), ‘Why Did the Legislators Choose the Parallel Mixed-Member Electoral System in Taiwan? An Observation on the 2004 Electoral Reform’, Chinese Political Science Review, 47: 1–27 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Jaung, H. (2006), ‘Effects of Two Ballot Mixed Electoral System in Korea’, Korean Political Science Review, 40(5): 203–204 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Katz, R. (2005), ‘Why Are there so Many (or so Few) Electoral Reforms?’, in M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1990), ‘The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–1986’, American Political Science Review, 84(2): 481–495.Google Scholar
Lin, C.S. (2009), Theatre of History (Zhonghwa: INK Literary Monthly Publishing): ch. 3 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Lin, J.W. (2001), ‘Electoral System, Voter Preferences, and the Fragmentation of Party System: The East Asian Cases’, Journal of Electoral Studies, 9(1): 137–171.Google Scholar
Lin, J.W. (2006), ‘The Politics of Reform in Japan and Taiwan’, Journal of Democracy, 17(2): 118–131.Google Scholar
Lin, J.W. (2011), ‘The Endogenous Change in Electoral System: The Case of SNTV’, Party Politics, 17(3): 365–384.Google Scholar
Liu, F.L. (1992), ‘The Election System and Voting Behavior in Taiwan’, in T.J. Cheng and S. Haggard (eds), Political Change in Taiwan (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner): 149–175.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2011), ‘Cultural Explanations of Electoral Reform: A Policy Cycle Model’, West European Politics, 34(3): 531–550.Google Scholar
Palalavi, H. (2006), ‘Research on the Participation of Aboriginal People in Legislative Yuan Elections’, unpublished PhD thesis, National Chengchi University (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Powell, G.B. (1982), Comparative Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Reed, S.R. (2005), ‘Japan: Halting toward a Two-party System’, in M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 277–294.Google Scholar
Reilly, B. (2007), ‘Electoral Systems and Party Systems in East Asia’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 7: 192–194.Google Scholar
Rigger, S. (2001), From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakemoto, T. (1999), ‘Explaining Electoral Reform: Japan versus Italy and New Zealand’, Party Politics, 5(4): 419–438.Google Scholar
Scheiner, E. (2008), ‘Does Electoral System Reform Work? Electoral System Lessons from Reforms of the 1990s’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 161–181.Google Scholar
Shugart, M. (2005), ‘Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead’, in M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 25–56.Google Scholar
Shugart, M.Wattenberg, M.P. (2001), Mixed-member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Taagepera, R.Shugart, M. (1989), Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
TBVS Poll Center (2004), ‘Public Opinion Survey on Legislative Yuan Meeting’, www.tvbs.com.tw/tvbs2011/pch/tvbs_poll_center_aspx (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1990), Nested Games: Rational Choice and Comparative Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Wang, C.S. (2004), ‘Collapsing Local Factions: The Case of Ping-Tung’, Taiwanese Sociology, 7: 197–199 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Yu, C.H. (2008), ‘How to Evaluate the Political Effects of Electoral District Realignment’, in C. Huang and C.H. Yu (eds), How to Evaluate Electoral System Change (Taiwan: WuNan): 39–43 (in Chinese).Google Scholar