搜尋結果
home 首頁 navigate_next 搜尋結果

搜尋結果

摘要

This study attempts to unravel mnemonic manipulation in electioneering. The results of the 2018 nine-in-one election in Taiwan can be explained by the “Han tide” and its spillover effects, and so this study aims to decipher the emergence of the Han tide using a memory-studies approach. While admitting that other social factors played a role in the formation of the Han tide, this study suggests that four elements were found in Han’s electioneering: (re)defining the present as negative and (re)directing attention to the future, switching the commemorative focus from politics to economics, encouraging people to forget the political past and embrace the economic future, and employing an awakening narrative to evoke change. Moreover, four additional aspects were observed in the Han tide: canceling the challenges of counter-narratives by redirecting people’s attention, solving the issue of lacking a shared past with Kaohsiung City, downplaying and/or editing “out” the negative aspects of “our side,” and degrading the mnemonic framing and nostalgic capital of the Democratic Progressive Party. Although scholars of memory studies have shed light on politics in memory, this study argues that memory in politics should also be emphasized by investigating more empirical cases.

摘要

During the last 50 years. as election polls in the U. S. and in most other countries have proliferated. there has been an ongoing controversy over their electoral effects. Their perceived influence on election outcomes has been sufficient to lead to calls for legislation restricting the publishing of opinion polls during a campaign, restrictions that already exist in countries as diverse as Germany. Japan, France, South Korea. and Brazil (McAllister and Studlar 1991; Mutz. 1992) . These restrictions suggest that pre-election polls have some effects on election outcomes, or at least that some people suspect some effects and think the results could. more or less, hurt the fairness of an election. Counter arguments conclude that perception of public opinion has little impact on vote preference (Asher 1992, Marsh. 1983; Merkle 1991 ) . Many believe that traditional factors such as affect. candidates, issue. party. etc ., are the factors that determine vote preference rather than the perceptions of public preference ( Niemi and Weishberg, 1993 ) . Despite these arguments. evidence from surveys and experimental studies remains inconclusive. One of the earliest discussions of polls' effect on voting. by Lazarsfeld. Berelson. and Gaudet (1948) , found many voters attempting to sense the direction of public opinion and the outcome in order to vote "with the winner. " Follow-up work (Berelson. Lazarsfeld, and McPhee. 1954) revealed that a bandwagon effect (perception guiding preference) and a projection explanation (preference guiding perception) carried about equal weight in presidential election voting. Some laboratory studies of artificial elections coupled with bogus poll results produced an "underdog" effect of people shifting to the minority rather than majority view (Ceci. 1982, Fletias, 1971 ) . Evidence from the 1988 NES Super Tuesday Study showed that some voters vote for their second (or even lower) choice rather than their most preferred candidate in order to stop another candidate they like even less (Abramson et. ai, 1992 ) .