TW
EN
News
About
Editorial Foreword
Open Access
Purpose
Editorial Foreword
Open Access
Purpose
Editorial Board
Edit Committee
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Publish
Edit Committee
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Publish
Contribution
Submission Guideline
Peer Review
Paper Format
Submission Guideline
Peer Review
Paper Format
Submit online
Issues
Online First
Current papers
Backissues
Online First
Current papers
Backissues
Community
Search results
home Home navigate_next Search results

Search results

Abstract

Prior to the 1995 Legislative elections, the only party which could equalize the vote was the KMT. Because KMT could reduce the cost of winning a seat, it was always overrepresented. Although the opposition parties did not have strong grass-root organizations, they still looked for other ways to equalize the vote to prevent underrepresentation. In the 1995 elections, the New Party (NP) used a new method (forced vote distribution) to equalize their vote in Taipei City, Taipei County and Taoyuan County. This method enabled 12 of their 14 candidates to win. Why was the NP able to use forced vote distribution in the election? Did all nominees in a particular district winning seats mean the forced vote distribution had been effective? In this paper, I discuss the policy making procedure and the factors that influence the effect of the forced vote distribution. Finally, I give some advice to the parties that will use this campaign strategy in the future.

Keywords

Multi-member district
Single non-transferable vote
Vote distribution
Party identification
Campaign strategy
Nomination errors