Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:35:31.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovations of Candidate Selection Methods: Polling Primary and Kobo under the New Electoral Rules in Taiwan and Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

CHING-HSIN YU ,
ERIC CHEN-HUA YU  and
KAORI SHOJI
CHING-HSIN YU
Affiliation:
Research Fellow at the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, [email protected]
ERIC CHEN-HUA YU
Affiliation:
Associate Research Fellow at the Election Study Center and Associate Professor at Department of Political Science, National Chengchi University, [email protected]
KAORI SHOJI
Affiliation:
Professor at Department of Political Studies, Gakushuin University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the linkage between electoral systems and candidate selection methods (CSMs) by analyzing two innovations of CSMs in Taiwan and Japan: polling primary and kobo, respectively. With an assumption that parties’ CSMs reflect their strategies to win elections, this article offers the rationale behind why and how major parties in Taiwan and Japan adjusted their CSMs to meet the challenges posed by the transition of electoral rules in each country from single non-transferable vote (SNTV) systems to mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) systems. We argue that a party's choice of CSMs reflects its rationale for maximizing the prospects of winning under the given electoral rule, which counters the ‘no-finding’ conclusion in some previous large-N studies on the linkage between electoral systems and choices of CSMs. Additionally, our findings highlight the importance of institutional factors, such as electoral systems, in explaining CSM reforms in a comparative perspective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 635 - 659
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Ahn, Byong-Man (2003), Elites and Political Power in South Korea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Barnea, Shlomit and Rahat, Gideon (2007), ‘Reforming Candidate Selection Methods: A Three-Level Approach’, Party Politics, 13: 375–94.Google Scholar
Browne, Eric and Patterson, Dennis (1999), ‘An Empirical Theory of Rational Nominating Behavior Applied to Japanese District Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 29: 259–89.Google Scholar
Chung, Jin Min and Gyu Go, Seon (2013), ‘Democratizing Candidate Selection of Major Political Parties in Korea’, paper presented at the Workshop on Candidate Selection Methods in East Asia at Gakushuin University, Japan, 18 March.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Rosenbluth, Frances (1993), ‘The Electoral Fortunes of Legislative Factions in Japan’, American Political Science Review, 87 (3): 577–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Thies, Michael F. (1998), ‘The Cost of Intraparty Competition: The Single Non-transferable Vote and Money Politics in Japan’, Comparative Political Studies, 31: 267–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Niou, Emerson (1994), ‘Seat Bonuses under the Single Nontransferable Vote: Evidence from Japan and Taiwan’, Comparative Politics, 26: 221–36.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice (1954), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Michael and Marsh, Michael (eds.) (1988), Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y. and Rahat, Gideon (2010), Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y. and Voerman, Gerrit (2006), ‘Electoral System and Candidate Selection’, Acta Politica, 41: 146–62.Google Scholar
Kasapovic, Mirjana (2001), ‘Nominating Procedures in Democratic Polities’, Politicka Misao, 38 (5): 3–17.Google Scholar
Kim, Hong Nack (2000), ‘The 2000 Parliamentary Election in South Korea’, Asian Survey, 40 (6): 894–913.Google Scholar
Krauss, Ellis S. and Pekkanen, Robert (2004), ‘Explaining Party Adaptation to Electoral Reform: The Discreet Charm of the LDP?’, Journal of Japanese, Studies, 30: 1–34.Google Scholar
Lundell, Krister (2004), ‘Determinants of Candidate Selection: The Degree of Centralization in Comparative Perspective’, Party Politics, 10 (1): 25–47.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa (1997), Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin (1981), ‘Candidate Selection’, in Butler, David, Penniman, Howard R., and Ranney, Austin (eds.), Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of National Elections, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 75–106.Google Scholar
Roces, Mina (2000), ‘Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez Family, 1945–1989’, Modern Asian Studies, 34 (1): 181–221.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1942), Party Government, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Seko, Hiroshige (2006), Jiminto kaikaku project 650 nichi (650 Days of LDP Reform Project), Tokyo: Shincho shuppan.Google Scholar
Shomer, Yael (2012), ‘What Affects Candidate Selection Process? A Cross-National Examination’, Party Politics (online version).Google Scholar
Wang, Yeh–Li. 2006. Comparative Electoral System, Taipei: Wunan Book Inc. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
Wu, Chung–li and Fell, Dyfadd (2003), ‘Taiwan's Primaries in Comparative Perspective’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 2: 23–45.Google Scholar