學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 選舉安全與立法背離
Electoral Safety and Legislative Defection作者 徐嘉謙
HSU, CHIA-CHIEN貢獻者 楊婉瑩
Yang, Wan-Ying
徐嘉謙
HSU, CHIA-CHIEN關鍵詞 選舉安全
立法背離
個人實力
政黨實力
立法行為
Electoral Safety
Legislative Defection
Personal Strength
Party Strength
Legislative Behavior日期 2023 上傳時間 1-Sep-2023 15:36:13 (UTC+8) 摘要 本文探討選舉安全對立法委員於記名表決時之投票背離行為有何影響？並對於過去研究中所闕漏處進行增補，藉由近期研究中的觀點，認為立法者的行為差異不僅存在於制度間，於相同制度之下亦可能有多樣的型態。故本文旨在探究國內於新選制（SMD）下的選舉因素對區域立法委員的「跑票」行為有何影響？在本文中將「選舉安全」拆分為二：一是候選人的「個人實力」；二則是政黨於選區中長期的「政黨實力」，並預計二者對於立法委員的背離行為有不同影響。 本文採用東吳大學政治學系國會研究中心（CLS）提供之「國會資料庫」中關於第八屆立法院的記名表決資料，與楊婉瑩教授主持之科技部計畫研究案之「政黨提名資料庫」。藉由「二元勝算對數模型」（binary logit model）進行檢證，探討選舉因素如何影響立法委員在記名表決時之背離行為。實證結果顯示本文將選舉安全的拆分對於立法背離確有不同影響：首先，在「個人實力」上，相較無個人實力的立法委員，有個人實力者於記名表決之時，背離政黨的機率會降低；反之，在「政黨實力」上，政黨實力則對於立法背離未有顯著影響。 此外，本文認為「個人實力」與「政黨實力」可能相互產生矛盾，二者關係並非為一成不變的相同方向，而是有競合關係，故透過在模型之中加入交互項以檢驗之。後續結果顯示「個人實力」與「政黨實力」確不相互獨立。為釐清不同選舉實力組合下對於投票背離的效應，本文提出四種不同的實力組合，並以預測機率將背離機率排序，發現耐人尋味的結果：反而不是同時擁有個人優勢與政黨優勢者最不會背離政黨，而是僅有個人優勢但政黨弱勢者最不會背離政黨。此一結果代表「個人實力」確有決定性的地位，亦即，在同為政黨弱勢的條件之下，相較於個人弱勢者，個人優勢者較不會背離其所屬政黨。
This study examined the effect of electoral safety on the voting defection behavior of legislators during roll-call votes. In addition, it addressed gaps in prior research and supplemented them by incorporating new research findings. This modern perspective argues that differences in legislator behavior extend beyond the realm of distinct institutional frameworks and may manifest themselves in different patterns even within the same institutional context. In light of Taiwan`s new Single-Member District (SMD) electoral system, the objective of this study was to determine the impact of electoral factors on the "vote against the party line" conduct of regional legislators. This analysis disaggregated "electoral safety" into two distinct components: first, the "personal strength" of individual candidates, and second, the enduring "party strength" exerted by political parties within their respective districts. It was hypothesized that these two factors have distinct effects on the propensity of legislative members to commit defections. This study utilized roll-call voting data from the eighth Legislative Yuan, sourced from the "Congressional Database" provided by the Center for Legislative Study (CLS) within the Department of Political Science at Soochow University, and data from the "Party Nomination Database," derived from a research project supervised by Professor Yang Wan-Ying and funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Using a "binary logit model," the investigation examined how electoral factors affect legislators` defection behaviors during roll-call voting. As outlined in this study, empirical findings have revealed nuanced effects resulting from the subdivision of electoral safety. In terms of "personal strength," legislators endowed with personal strength are less likely to deviate from their party`s position during roll-call voting than their counterparts who lack personal strength. In contrast, there is no statistically significant relationship between "party strength" and legislative defection, indicating that party strength has a negligible effect on such behavior. In addition, this study hypothesized that a potential conflict could develop between "personal strength" and "party strength." These two factors would not have a static, unidirectional relationship; rather, they would engage in a dynamic, competitive interplay. To investigate this, the model should include an interaction term for empirical examination. The results have revealed a significant relationship between "personal strength" and "party strength. "This study has introduced four distinct configurations of electoral strength in order to elucidate the effects of various electoral strength combinations on voter defection. Using predictive probabilities to rank defection likelihood, intriguing findings emerge: Contrary to popular belief, those who possess both personal and party advantages are not the least likely to deviate from their party`s position. Rather, individuals who possess only personal advantages but face party disadvantages are the least likely to defect. This result emphasizes the importance of "personal strength." In particular, in the context of comparable party vulnerabilities, individuals with greater personal strengths are less likely to deviate from their party`s position than those with fewer personal strengths.參考文獻 一、中文書目《立法院公報》，2012，〈委員會紀錄〉，101（37）：215–17。中央選舉委員會，2023，〈選舉資料庫（選舉區資料）〉，政府資料開放平臺網站：https://data.gov.tw/dataset/13119，查閱時間：2023/04/25。內政部國土測繪中心，2021，〈鄉鎮市區界線（TWD97經緯度）〉，政府資料開放平臺網站：https://data.gov.tw/dataset/7441，查閱時間：2023/04/25。王業立，2016，《比較選舉制度》（第七版），臺北：五南。李冠成，2014，〈兩岸經濟整合與簽署ECFA對臺灣民眾統獨立場的影響：2008至2012定群追蹤樣本的實證分析〉，臺北：國立政治大學政治學系博士論文。李冠成、楊婉瑩，2013，〈性別相關制度與政策對於兩性政治涉入的效果：33個民主國家的經驗研究〉。《問題與研究》，52（4）：33–69。https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.201312_52(4).0002。東吳大學政治學系國會研究中心，2019，〈國會資料庫〉，國會研究中心網站：https://cls.idc.scu.edu.tw，查閱時間：2021/11/15。俞振華，2018，〈變或不變？2016年總統立委選舉主要政黨的候選人甄補機制〉。陳陸輝主編，《2016年臺灣大選：新民意與新挑戰》，25–52。臺北：五南。高偉綸，2011，〈區域與不分區立委代表行為之差異〉，臺北：國立政治大學政治學系碩士論文。盛杏湲，1999，〈立法問政與選區服務：第三屆立法委員代表行為的探討〉。《選舉研究》，6（2）：89–120。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.1999.06.02.89-120。盛杏湲，2000，〈政黨或選區？立法委員的代表取向與行為〉。《選舉研究》，7（2）：37–73。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2000.07.02.37-73。盛杏湲，2008，〈政黨的國會領導與凝聚力─2000年政黨輪替前後的觀察〉。《臺灣民主季刊》，5（4）：1–46。https://doi.org/10.6448/TDQ.200812.0001。盛杏湲，2014，〈選制變革前後立委提案的持續與變遷：一個探索性的研究〉。《臺灣政治學刊》，18（1）：73–127。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201406.18(1).73-127。盛杏湲、黃士豪，2017，〈黨團協商機制：從制度化觀點分析〉。《東吳政治學報》，35（1）：37–92。黃秀端，2004，〈政黨輪替前後的立法院內投票結盟〉。《選舉研究》，11（1）：1–32。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2004.11.01.01-32。黃秀端、陳鴻鈞，2006，〈國會中政黨席次大小對互動之影響─第三屆到第五屆的立法院記名表決探析〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》，18（3）：385–415。https://doi.org/10.6350/JSSP.200609.0385。黃紀，2000，〈質變數之計量分析〉。謝復生、盛杏湲主編，《政治學的範圍與方法》，387–411。臺北：五南。黃紀、王德育，2016，《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》。臺北：五南。楊婉瑩，2020，〈不只是茶壺裡的風暴？初選分歧的大選效應〉。《政治學報》，70：121–55。https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.202012_(70).0004。楊婉瑩，2021，《輸在起跑點？從政治需求面探討女性參政》，科技部專題研究計畫，計畫編號：MOST 106-2410-H-004-088-MY3，臺北：科技部。楊婉瑩、林珮婷，2010，〈她們為什麼投給馬英九？探討2008年總統大選的性別差距〉。《選舉研究》，17（1）91-128。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2010.17.01.91-128。蕭怡靖、黃紀，2010，〈2008年立委選舉候選人票之分析：選民個體與選區總體的多層模型〉。《臺灣政治學刊》，14（1）：3–53。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201006.14(1).3-53。 二、外文書目Abramowitz, Alan I., Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning. 2006. “Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00371.x.André, Audrey, Sam Depauw, and Shane Martin. 2015. “Electoral Systems and Legislators’ Constituency Effort: The Mediating Effect of Electoral Vulnerability.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (4): 464–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014545512.André, Audrey, Sam Depauw, and Shane Martin. 2016. “The Classification of Electoral Systems: Bringing Legislators Back In.” Electoral Studies 42: 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.01.011.Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, and Charles Stewart. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669290.Ascencio, Sergio J., and Yann P. Kerevel. 2021. “Party Strategy, Candidate Selection, and Legislative Behavior in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (3): 713–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12300.Batto, Nathan F. 2009. “Change and Continuity in the Personal Vote after Electoral Reform in Taiwan.” Issues & Studies 45 (2): 99–123. https://doi.org/10.7033/ISE.200906_45(2).0005.Batto, Nathan F. 2012. “Differing Mandates and Party Loyalty in Mixed-Member Systems: Taiwan as a Baseline Case.” Electoral Studies 31 (2): 384–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.02.001.Berry, William D., Michael B. Berkman, and Stuart Schneiderman. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94 (4): 859–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586212.Bowler, Shaun. 2010. “Private Members’ Bills in the UK Parliament: Is There an ‘Electoral Connection’?” The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (4): 476–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2010.519457.Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014.Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Campbell, James E. 1981. “Electoral Competition & the Congressional Connection: The Marginality Hypothesis Reconsidered.” Political Methodology 7 (2): 55–70.Carey, John M. 2007. “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00239.x.Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810077.Carey, John M, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2.Carson, Jamie, Michael H. Crespin, Carrie P. Eaves, and Emily O. Wanless. 2012. “Constituency Congruency and Candidate Competition in Primary Elections for the U.S. House.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (2): 127–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440012438892.Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 478–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111633.Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1991. “On the Decline of Party Voting in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (4): 547–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/440017.Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Crisp, Brian F. 2007. “Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: General Election Laws, Candidate Selection Procedures, and Cameral Rules.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (12): 1460–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007301703.Crisp, Brian F., Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon, Bradford S. Jones, Mark P. Jones, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2004. “Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies.” The Journal of Politics 66 (3): 823–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00278.x.Depauw, Sam, and Shane Martin. 2009. “Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective.” In Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments, by Daniela Giannetti and Kenneth Benoit. London: Routledge.Dingler, Sarah C., and Lena Ramstetter. 2021. “When Does She Rebel? How Gender Affects Deviating Legislative Behaviour.” Government and Opposition, September, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.40.Dodd, Lawrence C. 1977. “Congress and the Quest for Power.” In Congress Reconsidered, by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, 269–307. New York: Praeger Publishers.Ferrara, Federico. 2004. “Frogs, Mice and Mixed Electoral Institutions: Party Discipline in Italy’s XIV Chamber of Deputies1.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 10 (4): 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357233042000322454.Ferrara, Federico, Erik S. Herron, and Misa Nishikawa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Fiorina, Morris P. 1973. “Electoral Margins, Constituency Influence, and Policy Moderation: A Critical Assessment.” American Politics Quarterly 1 (4): 479–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X7300100403.Fleming, Thomas G. 2020. “Partisan Dealignment and Personal Vote-Seeking in Parliamentary Behaviour.” Political Studies, September, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720953506.Herron, Erik S. 2002. “Electoral Influences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems: Evidence from Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 27 (3): 361–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/3598568.Hix, Simon. 2004. “Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament.” World Politics 56 (2): 194–223. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2004.0012.Hurley, Patricia A. 1989. “Parties and Coalitions in Congress.” In Congressional Politics, edited by Christopher Deering, 113–34. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-82.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1): 126–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111327.Jacobson, Gary C. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 8th ed. Pearson Classics in Political Science. Boston: Pearson.Jang, Jinhyeok, and Nick C. N. Lin. 2019. “Personal Votes, Electoral Competitiveness of Parties, and Legislative Representation in Taiwan under SNTV.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 20 (1): 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109918000397.Johannes, John R. 1980. “The Distribution of Casework in the U. S. Congress: An Uneven Burden.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 5 (4): 517–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/439572.Johnson, Gregg B., Meredith-Joy Petersheim, and Jesse T. Wasson. 2010. “Divisive Primaries and Incumbent General Election Performance: Prospects and Costs in U.S. House Races.” American Politics Research 38 (5): 931–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X09345823.Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576614.Kam, Cindy D., and Robert J. Franzese. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Kellermann, Michael. 2016. “Electoral Vulnerability, Constituency Focus, and Parliamentary Questions in the House of Commons.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (1): 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12075.Lauermann, Robin M. 2014. Constituent Perceptions of Political Representation: How Citizens Evaluate Their Representatives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2005. “Unintended Consequences: Anticipation of General Election Outcomes and Primary Election Divisiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (3): 435–61. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298005X201626.Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2009. “Party, Electoral Vulnerability, and Earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives.” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1050–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090872.Levendusky, Matthew S., Jeremy C. Pope, and Simon D. Jackman. 2008. “Measuring District-Level Partisanship with Implications for the Analysis of U.S. Elections.” The Journal of Politics 70 (3): 736–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080729.Macrae, Duncan. 1952. “The Relation Between Roll Call Votes and Constituencies in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 46 (4): 1046–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952111.Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6 (3): 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931.Mitchell, Paul. 2000. “Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 335–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007025105144.Ohmura, Tamaki. 2014. “When Your Name Is on the List, It Is Time to Party: The Candidacy Divide in a Mixed-Member Proportional System.” Representation 50 (1): 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2014.902215.Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503.Preece, Jessica Robinson. 2014. “How the Party Can Win in Personal Vote Systems: The ‘Selectoral Connection’ and Legislative Voting in Lithuania: Legislative Voting in Lithuania.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (2): 147–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12040.Ranney, Austin. 1951. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Commentary.” American Political Science Review 45 (2): 488–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951475.Rich, Timothy S. 2014. “Party Voting Cohesion in Mixed Member Legislative Systems: Evidence from Korea and Taiwan: Party Voting Cohesion.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (1): 113–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12035.Riera, Pedro, and Francisco Cantú. 2018. “Determinants of Legislative Committee Membership in Proportional Representation Systems.” Party Politics 24 (5): 524–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816668678.Saalfeld, Thomas. 1995. Parteisoldaten Und Rebellen: Eine Untersuchung Zur Geschlossenheit Der Fraktionen Im Deutschen Bundestag (1949-1990). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Sheng, Shing-Yuan. 1996. “Electoral Competition and Legislative Participation: The Case of Taiwan.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Shomer, Yael. 2009. “Candidate Selection Procedures, Seniority, and Vote-Seeking Behavior.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (7): 945–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414008330600.Shomer, Yael. 2017. “The Conditional Effect of Electoral Systems and Intraparty Candidate Selection Processes on Parties’ Behavior: Electoral Systems and Selection Processes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 42 (1): 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12141.Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 2001. “Electoral ‘Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems.” Electoral Studies 20 (2): 173–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00007-X.Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. “Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330600739413.Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. “Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag.” Electoral Studies 29 (3): 484–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.012.Sieberer, Ulrich, and Tamaki Ohmura. 2021. “Mandate Type, Electoral Safety, and Defections from the Party Line: The Conditional Mandate Divide in the German Bundestag, 1949–2013.” Party Politics 27 (4): 704–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819881637.Stein, Robert M., and Kenneth N. Bickers. 1994. “Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel.” The Journal of Politics 56 (2): 377–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132144.Stratmann, Thomas. 2006. “Party-Line Voting and Committee Assignments in the German Mixed-Member System.” In Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy: Analysis and Evidence, edited by Roger D. Congleton and Birgitta Swedenborg, 111–30. Cambridge: MIT Press.Strøm, Kaare. 2000. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 261–90. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007064803327.Thames, Frank C. 2001. “Legislative Voting Behaviour in the Russian Duma: Understanding the Effect of Mandate.” Europe-Asia Studies 53 (6): 869–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130120078531.Yu, Ching Hsin, Chen Hua Eric Yu, and Kaori Shoji. 2014. “Innovations of Candidate Selection Methods: Polling Primary and Kobo under the New Electoral Rules in Taiwan and Japan.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 15 (4): 635–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109914000280.Zittel, Thomas, and Thomas Gschwend. 2008. “Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections.” West European Politics 31 (5): 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380802234656.Zittel, Thomas, and Dominic Nyhuis. 2019. “Two Faces of Party Unity: Roll-Call Behavior and Vote Explanations in the German Bundestag.” Parliamentary Affairs 72 (2): 406–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx076. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
107252007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107252007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 楊婉瑩 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yang, Wan-Ying en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 徐嘉謙 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) HSU, CHIA-CHIEN en_US dc.creator (作者) 徐嘉謙 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) HSU, CHIA-CHIEN en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2023 15:36:13 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Sep-2023 15:36:13 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2023 15:36:13 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107252007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147080 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 政治學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 107252007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文探討選舉安全對立法委員於記名表決時之投票背離行為有何影響？並對於過去研究中所闕漏處進行增補，藉由近期研究中的觀點，認為立法者的行為差異不僅存在於制度間，於相同制度之下亦可能有多樣的型態。故本文旨在探究國內於新選制（SMD）下的選舉因素對區域立法委員的「跑票」行為有何影響？在本文中將「選舉安全」拆分為二：一是候選人的「個人實力」；二則是政黨於選區中長期的「政黨實力」，並預計二者對於立法委員的背離行為有不同影響。 本文採用東吳大學政治學系國會研究中心（CLS）提供之「國會資料庫」中關於第八屆立法院的記名表決資料，與楊婉瑩教授主持之科技部計畫研究案之「政黨提名資料庫」。藉由「二元勝算對數模型」（binary logit model）進行檢證，探討選舉因素如何影響立法委員在記名表決時之背離行為。實證結果顯示本文將選舉安全的拆分對於立法背離確有不同影響：首先，在「個人實力」上，相較無個人實力的立法委員，有個人實力者於記名表決之時，背離政黨的機率會降低；反之，在「政黨實力」上，政黨實力則對於立法背離未有顯著影響。 此外，本文認為「個人實力」與「政黨實力」可能相互產生矛盾，二者關係並非為一成不變的相同方向，而是有競合關係，故透過在模型之中加入交互項以檢驗之。後續結果顯示「個人實力」與「政黨實力」確不相互獨立。為釐清不同選舉實力組合下對於投票背離的效應，本文提出四種不同的實力組合，並以預測機率將背離機率排序，發現耐人尋味的結果：反而不是同時擁有個人優勢與政黨優勢者最不會背離政黨，而是僅有個人優勢但政黨弱勢者最不會背離政黨。此一結果代表「個人實力」確有決定性的地位，亦即，在同為政黨弱勢的條件之下，相較於個人弱勢者，個人優勢者較不會背離其所屬政黨。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study examined the effect of electoral safety on the voting defection behavior of legislators during roll-call votes. In addition, it addressed gaps in prior research and supplemented them by incorporating new research findings. This modern perspective argues that differences in legislator behavior extend beyond the realm of distinct institutional frameworks and may manifest themselves in different patterns even within the same institutional context. In light of Taiwan`s new Single-Member District (SMD) electoral system, the objective of this study was to determine the impact of electoral factors on the "vote against the party line" conduct of regional legislators. This analysis disaggregated "electoral safety" into two distinct components: first, the "personal strength" of individual candidates, and second, the enduring "party strength" exerted by political parties within their respective districts. It was hypothesized that these two factors have distinct effects on the propensity of legislative members to commit defections. This study utilized roll-call voting data from the eighth Legislative Yuan, sourced from the "Congressional Database" provided by the Center for Legislative Study (CLS) within the Department of Political Science at Soochow University, and data from the "Party Nomination Database," derived from a research project supervised by Professor Yang Wan-Ying and funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Using a "binary logit model," the investigation examined how electoral factors affect legislators` defection behaviors during roll-call voting. As outlined in this study, empirical findings have revealed nuanced effects resulting from the subdivision of electoral safety. In terms of "personal strength," legislators endowed with personal strength are less likely to deviate from their party`s position during roll-call voting than their counterparts who lack personal strength. In contrast, there is no statistically significant relationship between "party strength" and legislative defection, indicating that party strength has a negligible effect on such behavior. In addition, this study hypothesized that a potential conflict could develop between "personal strength" and "party strength." These two factors would not have a static, unidirectional relationship; rather, they would engage in a dynamic, competitive interplay. To investigate this, the model should include an interaction term for empirical examination. The results have revealed a significant relationship between "personal strength" and "party strength. "This study has introduced four distinct configurations of electoral strength in order to elucidate the effects of various electoral strength combinations on voter defection. Using predictive probabilities to rank defection likelihood, intriguing findings emerge: Contrary to popular belief, those who possess both personal and party advantages are not the least likely to deviate from their party`s position. Rather, individuals who possess only personal advantages but face party disadvantages are the least likely to defect. This result emphasizes the importance of "personal strength." In particular, in the context of comparable party vulnerabilities, individuals with greater personal strengths are less likely to deviate from their party`s position than those with fewer personal strengths. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究問題 3第二章 文獻檢閱 6 第一節 選舉競爭與立法行為 6 第二節 立法行為與政黨團結 10 第三節 選舉安全與選舉實力 16 第四節 小結 21第三章 研究設計 23 第一節 理論與假設建構 23 第二節 變數測量與操作化 33 第三節 資料來源 42 第四節 資料分析方法 43第四章 資料探析 47 第一節 投票背離行為與立法委員特性 47 第二節 投票背離與立法委員之相關性 56 第三節 小結 60第五章 模型分析 61 第一節 立法背離模型 61 第二節 詮釋交互模型 64 第三節 模型穩健檢測 73第六章 結論 78 第一節 研究發現與討論 78 第二節 研究貢獻與限制 84參考文獻 87 一、中文書目 87 二、外文書目 89附錄 97 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3693375 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107252007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 選舉安全 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 立法背離 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 個人實力 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政黨實力 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 立法行為 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Electoral Safety en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Legislative Defection en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Personal Strength en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Party Strength en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Legislative Behavior en_US dc.title (題名) 選舉安全與立法背離 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Electoral Safety and Legislative Defection en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文書目《立法院公報》，2012，〈委員會紀錄〉，101（37）：215–17。中央選舉委員會，2023，〈選舉資料庫（選舉區資料）〉，政府資料開放平臺網站：https://data.gov.tw/dataset/13119，查閱時間：2023/04/25。內政部國土測繪中心，2021，〈鄉鎮市區界線（TWD97經緯度）〉，政府資料開放平臺網站：https://data.gov.tw/dataset/7441，查閱時間：2023/04/25。王業立，2016，《比較選舉制度》（第七版），臺北：五南。李冠成，2014，〈兩岸經濟整合與簽署ECFA對臺灣民眾統獨立場的影響：2008至2012定群追蹤樣本的實證分析〉，臺北：國立政治大學政治學系博士論文。李冠成、楊婉瑩，2013，〈性別相關制度與政策對於兩性政治涉入的效果：33個民主國家的經驗研究〉。《問題與研究》，52（4）：33–69。https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.201312_52(4).0002。東吳大學政治學系國會研究中心，2019，〈國會資料庫〉，國會研究中心網站：https://cls.idc.scu.edu.tw，查閱時間：2021/11/15。俞振華，2018，〈變或不變？2016年總統立委選舉主要政黨的候選人甄補機制〉。陳陸輝主編，《2016年臺灣大選：新民意與新挑戰》，25–52。臺北：五南。高偉綸，2011，〈區域與不分區立委代表行為之差異〉，臺北：國立政治大學政治學系碩士論文。盛杏湲，1999，〈立法問政與選區服務：第三屆立法委員代表行為的探討〉。《選舉研究》，6（2）：89–120。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.1999.06.02.89-120。盛杏湲，2000，〈政黨或選區？立法委員的代表取向與行為〉。《選舉研究》，7（2）：37–73。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2000.07.02.37-73。盛杏湲，2008，〈政黨的國會領導與凝聚力─2000年政黨輪替前後的觀察〉。《臺灣民主季刊》，5（4）：1–46。https://doi.org/10.6448/TDQ.200812.0001。盛杏湲，2014，〈選制變革前後立委提案的持續與變遷：一個探索性的研究〉。《臺灣政治學刊》，18（1）：73–127。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201406.18(1).73-127。盛杏湲、黃士豪，2017，〈黨團協商機制：從制度化觀點分析〉。《東吳政治學報》，35（1）：37–92。黃秀端，2004，〈政黨輪替前後的立法院內投票結盟〉。《選舉研究》，11（1）：1–32。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2004.11.01.01-32。黃秀端、陳鴻鈞，2006，〈國會中政黨席次大小對互動之影響─第三屆到第五屆的立法院記名表決探析〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》，18（3）：385–415。https://doi.org/10.6350/JSSP.200609.0385。黃紀，2000，〈質變數之計量分析〉。謝復生、盛杏湲主編，《政治學的範圍與方法》，387–411。臺北：五南。黃紀、王德育，2016，《質變數與受限依變數的迴歸分析》。臺北：五南。楊婉瑩，2020，〈不只是茶壺裡的風暴？初選分歧的大選效應〉。《政治學報》，70：121–55。https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.202012_(70).0004。楊婉瑩，2021，《輸在起跑點？從政治需求面探討女性參政》，科技部專題研究計畫，計畫編號：MOST 106-2410-H-004-088-MY3，臺北：科技部。楊婉瑩、林珮婷，2010，〈她們為什麼投給馬英九？探討2008年總統大選的性別差距〉。《選舉研究》，17（1）91-128。https://doi.org/10.6612/tjes.2010.17.01.91-128。蕭怡靖、黃紀，2010，〈2008年立委選舉候選人票之分析：選民個體與選區總體的多層模型〉。《臺灣政治學刊》，14（1）：3–53。https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201006.14(1).3-53。 二、外文書目Abramowitz, Alan I., Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning. 2006. “Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00371.x.André, Audrey, Sam Depauw, and Shane Martin. 2015. “Electoral Systems and Legislators’ Constituency Effort: The Mediating Effect of Electoral Vulnerability.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (4): 464–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014545512.André, Audrey, Sam Depauw, and Shane Martin. 2016. “The Classification of Electoral Systems: Bringing Legislators Back In.” Electoral Studies 42: 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.01.011.Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, and Charles Stewart. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669290.Ascencio, Sergio J., and Yann P. Kerevel. 2021. “Party Strategy, Candidate Selection, and Legislative Behavior in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (3): 713–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12300.Batto, Nathan F. 2009. “Change and Continuity in the Personal Vote after Electoral Reform in Taiwan.” Issues & Studies 45 (2): 99–123. https://doi.org/10.7033/ISE.200906_45(2).0005.Batto, Nathan F. 2012. “Differing Mandates and Party Loyalty in Mixed-Member Systems: Taiwan as a Baseline Case.” Electoral Studies 31 (2): 384–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.02.001.Berry, William D., Michael B. Berkman, and Stuart Schneiderman. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94 (4): 859–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586212.Bowler, Shaun. 2010. “Private Members’ Bills in the UK Parliament: Is There an ‘Electoral Connection’?” The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (4): 476–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2010.519457.Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014.Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Campbell, James E. 1981. “Electoral Competition & the Congressional Connection: The Marginality Hypothesis Reconsidered.” Political Methodology 7 (2): 55–70.Carey, John M. 2007. “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00239.x.Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810077.Carey, John M, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2.Carson, Jamie, Michael H. Crespin, Carrie P. Eaves, and Emily O. Wanless. 2012. “Constituency Congruency and Candidate Competition in Primary Elections for the U.S. House.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (2): 127–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440012438892.Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 478–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111633.Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1991. “On the Decline of Party Voting in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (4): 547–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/440017.Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Crisp, Brian F. 2007. “Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: General Election Laws, Candidate Selection Procedures, and Cameral Rules.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (12): 1460–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007301703.Crisp, Brian F., Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon, Bradford S. Jones, Mark P. Jones, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2004. “Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies.” The Journal of Politics 66 (3): 823–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00278.x.Depauw, Sam, and Shane Martin. 2009. “Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective.” In Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments, by Daniela Giannetti and Kenneth Benoit. London: Routledge.Dingler, Sarah C., and Lena Ramstetter. 2021. “When Does She Rebel? How Gender Affects Deviating Legislative Behaviour.” Government and Opposition, September, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.40.Dodd, Lawrence C. 1977. “Congress and the Quest for Power.” In Congress Reconsidered, by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, 269–307. New York: Praeger Publishers.Ferrara, Federico. 2004. “Frogs, Mice and Mixed Electoral Institutions: Party Discipline in Italy’s XIV Chamber of Deputies1.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 10 (4): 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357233042000322454.Ferrara, Federico, Erik S. Herron, and Misa Nishikawa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Fiorina, Morris P. 1973. “Electoral Margins, Constituency Influence, and Policy Moderation: A Critical Assessment.” American Politics Quarterly 1 (4): 479–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X7300100403.Fleming, Thomas G. 2020. “Partisan Dealignment and Personal Vote-Seeking in Parliamentary Behaviour.” Political Studies, September, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720953506.Herron, Erik S. 2002. “Electoral Influences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems: Evidence from Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 27 (3): 361–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/3598568.Hix, Simon. 2004. “Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament.” World Politics 56 (2): 194–223. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2004.0012.Hurley, Patricia A. 1989. “Parties and Coalitions in Congress.” In Congressional Politics, edited by Christopher Deering, 113–34. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-82.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1): 126–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111327.Jacobson, Gary C. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 8th ed. Pearson Classics in Political Science. Boston: Pearson.Jang, Jinhyeok, and Nick C. N. Lin. 2019. “Personal Votes, Electoral Competitiveness of Parties, and Legislative Representation in Taiwan under SNTV.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 20 (1): 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109918000397.Johannes, John R. 1980. “The Distribution of Casework in the U. S. Congress: An Uneven Burden.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 5 (4): 517–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/439572.Johnson, Gregg B., Meredith-Joy Petersheim, and Jesse T. Wasson. 2010. “Divisive Primaries and Incumbent General Election Performance: Prospects and Costs in U.S. House Races.” American Politics Research 38 (5): 931–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X09345823.Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576614.Kam, Cindy D., and Robert J. Franzese. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Kellermann, Michael. 2016. “Electoral Vulnerability, Constituency Focus, and Parliamentary Questions in the House of Commons.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (1): 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12075.Lauermann, Robin M. 2014. Constituent Perceptions of Political Representation: How Citizens Evaluate Their Representatives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2005. “Unintended Consequences: Anticipation of General Election Outcomes and Primary Election Divisiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (3): 435–61. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298005X201626.Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2009. “Party, Electoral Vulnerability, and Earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives.” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1050–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090872.Levendusky, Matthew S., Jeremy C. Pope, and Simon D. Jackman. 2008. “Measuring District-Level Partisanship with Implications for the Analysis of U.S. Elections.” The Journal of Politics 70 (3): 736–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080729.Macrae, Duncan. 1952. “The Relation Between Roll Call Votes and Constituencies in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 46 (4): 1046–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952111.Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6 (3): 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931.Mitchell, Paul. 2000. “Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 335–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007025105144.Ohmura, Tamaki. 2014. “When Your Name Is on the List, It Is Time to Party: The Candidacy Divide in a Mixed-Member Proportional System.” Representation 50 (1): 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2014.902215.Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503.Preece, Jessica Robinson. 2014. “How the Party Can Win in Personal Vote Systems: The ‘Selectoral Connection’ and Legislative Voting in Lithuania: Legislative Voting in Lithuania.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (2): 147–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12040.Ranney, Austin. 1951. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Commentary.” American Political Science Review 45 (2): 488–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951475.Rich, Timothy S. 2014. “Party Voting Cohesion in Mixed Member Legislative Systems: Evidence from Korea and Taiwan: Party Voting Cohesion.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (1): 113–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12035.Riera, Pedro, and Francisco Cantú. 2018. “Determinants of Legislative Committee Membership in Proportional Representation Systems.” Party Politics 24 (5): 524–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816668678.Saalfeld, Thomas. 1995. Parteisoldaten Und Rebellen: Eine Untersuchung Zur Geschlossenheit Der Fraktionen Im Deutschen Bundestag (1949-1990). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Sheng, Shing-Yuan. 1996. “Electoral Competition and Legislative Participation: The Case of Taiwan.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Shomer, Yael. 2009. “Candidate Selection Procedures, Seniority, and Vote-Seeking Behavior.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (7): 945–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414008330600.Shomer, Yael. 2017. “The Conditional Effect of Electoral Systems and Intraparty Candidate Selection Processes on Parties’ Behavior: Electoral Systems and Selection Processes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 42 (1): 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12141.Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 2001. “Electoral ‘Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems.” Electoral Studies 20 (2): 173–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00007-X.Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. “Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330600739413.Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. “Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag.” Electoral Studies 29 (3): 484–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.012.Sieberer, Ulrich, and Tamaki Ohmura. 2021. “Mandate Type, Electoral Safety, and Defections from the Party Line: The Conditional Mandate Divide in the German Bundestag, 1949–2013.” Party Politics 27 (4): 704–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819881637.Stein, Robert M., and Kenneth N. Bickers. 1994. “Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel.” The Journal of Politics 56 (2): 377–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132144.Stratmann, Thomas. 2006. “Party-Line Voting and Committee Assignments in the German Mixed-Member System.” In Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy: Analysis and Evidence, edited by Roger D. Congleton and Birgitta Swedenborg, 111–30. Cambridge: MIT Press.Strøm, Kaare. 2000. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 261–90. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007064803327.Thames, Frank C. 2001. “Legislative Voting Behaviour in the Russian Duma: Understanding the Effect of Mandate.” Europe-Asia Studies 53 (6): 869–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130120078531.Yu, Ching Hsin, Chen Hua Eric Yu, and Kaori Shoji. 2014. “Innovations of Candidate Selection Methods: Polling Primary and Kobo under the New Electoral Rules in Taiwan and Japan.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 15 (4): 635–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109914000280.Zittel, Thomas, and Thomas Gschwend. 2008. “Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections.” West European Politics 31 (5): 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380802234656.Zittel, Thomas, and Dominic Nyhuis. 2019. “Two Faces of Party Unity: Roll-Call Behavior and Vote Explanations in the German Bundestag.” Parliamentary Affairs 72 (2): 406–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx076. zh_TW
