In a political campaign, candidates attempt to mobilize voters by using contributions from individuals, corporations, and political parties. It is an accepted fact of democracy that campaigns should attempt to outdo one another in both the amount they collect in contributions and what they spend on campaigns. Previous research has explored the incumbent advantage in campaign finance, but many interesting factors remain. For instance, is fund-raising aided by factors such as the closeness of an election or a candidate’s tenure in the Legislative Yuan? In this study, we explain campaign contributions using data from prediction markets and television news reports to account for variations in campaign spending. Our results suggest that incumbent advantage does indeed affect contributions and that DPP candidates outperformed other candidates in campaign finance. We also find that previous electoral margins and television news coverage contribute significantly to campaign donations, and that election betting has an impact on spending. These findings suggest that a political party’s general campaign can influence the election race of an individual candidate, and that contributors tend to bet on likely winners, deepening the influence of the electoral system on competing political parties.

Cognitive madisoniansim is crucial in political situations. It is not only an important value of democratic societies, but also a factor in explaining split-ticket voting. With the increase of minor parties and candidates, the media believe that Taiwan’s 2016 general elections have shown the most fierce split-ticket voting. It is worth mentioning that we shall not ignore the issue of endogeneity caused by partisanship when discussing the relationship between cognitive madisoniansim and split-ticket voting. Based on the panel data of TEDS2016, this study aims to recategorize the cognitive madisoniansim of the respondents and resolve the issue of endogeneity by applying a generalized structural equation model (GSEM). By doing so, we aim to examine the relationship between cognitive madisoniansim and splitticket voting.

The findings show that the public’s cognitive madisoniansim was indeed affected by party preference. DPP supporters have tended to support cognitive madisoniansim in the past. However, they stopped supporting it once the DDP took over the government. The KMT showed the opposite situation. They had been against cognitive madisoniansim in the past. When they began losing elections, they started to support it. Regarding voting decisions, cognitive madsoniansim has positive effects on people’s decisions about straight-ticket voting or split-ticket voting. Nevertheless, most voters who cast straight-ticket voting for the DPP are those who stopped supporting or constantly supported cognitive madisoniansim. These two groups of voters both prefer the DDP. This result indicates that the effect of voters’ cognitive madisoniansim on their voting behaviors still reflects their party preference. The above-mentioned issues present the endogeneity issue derived by explaining the split-ticket voting behaviors by cognitive madisoniansim and the inevitability of GSEM methods. We suggest that researchers not ignore the effect of party preference as they examine the relationship between cognitive madisoniansim and split-ticket voting.

A survey is designed to explore the participants’ opinions, attitudes and actions towards certain topics. The amount of information possessed by participants is not the only factor that influences their willingness to participate; question types and options design also influence participants’ responses. In reality, given cost constraints and questionnaire length, it is not feasible to provide a multiple survey design for a single concept, or to verify participants' response mode under different survey designs. This study used an experimental design to measure political knowledge from Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study (TEDS) as an example, based on (1) an “open-ended vs. close-ended” question design; (2) whether it provides “non-response” as an option, to design four different types of surveys. The study uses a posttest-only control group design with university students as participants. We randomly released the questionnaires to participants and had 1,110 valid questionnaires.

The study found that question type and non-response design affects the participant response mode; a close-ended questionnaire design does increase the correct response ratio from participants, but it also produces a higher proportion of incorrect answers than an open-ended questionnaire. An openended questionnaire design does not have options as reference, and so it could lower the willingness of participants to take part in the survey, and it therefore resulted in a higher non-response ratio. From the composite design of question type and non-response option, we were able to precisely estimate types of participants as in Mondak (1999), but the combinations of different types of participants vary significantly as results from the level of difficulties in a questionnaire designed to measure political knowledge.

Views on what qualities elected representatives should embody vary among individuals. Some argue that legislators should fulfill the promises they made during their campaigns, while others believe they should adapt their viewpoints in response to opinion dynamics. This paper evaluates from the electorate’s perspective whether legislators should adhere to their commitments or shift their stances. To address this question, an online experimental design was employed, dividing the study into six experimental groups: three groups assessed voter evaluations when legislators maintained their positions, and the other three evaluated changes in legislators’ stances. Furthermore, this study delves into whether voters’ perceptions differ when legislators persist in their positions or alter them under various types of pressure, including those stemming from their political parties, national public opinion, or constituency opinion.
The experimental outcomes indicate that voters rate legislators who keep their promises higher than those who change their positions. Among the steadfast legislators, the evaluation varies depending on the nature of the conflict arising from their firm stance against different kinds of pressure. Legislators who stand firm against party conflicts receive the highest approval from participants, followed by those who resist national public opinion and lastly, those who resist constituency opinion.
Conversely, for legislators who change their positions, voter evaluations are inversely related; those who shift due to party pressure are rated lowest, followed by shifts due to national public opinion. Voters are most accepting of changes made in response to constituency opinion.

Public safety depends on a strong rule of law, efficient governance, and a capable military. Without these elements, trust erodes, and economic growth suffers. Despite its critical role in national security, research on political trust in the military, especially in democracies like Taiwan, is limited. Taiwan faces a unique security challenge from China, making trust in its military indispensable for deterrence and domestic stability. The 2022 Chinese military drills intensified tensions, underscoring the need for robust public trust to support defense policies and maintain civilian control over the military. This study explores the factors influencing public trust in the Taiwanese military in light of these recent developments. Statistical evidence suggests that four key factors play a role: public safety, the China threat, government trust, and democratic governance. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for formulating policies that bolster national security and public confidence in the military.