Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101178


Title: 趨中或極端?選制改革前後立委候選人在兩岸議題的政治立場
Centripetal and Centrifugal: Legislator Candidates’ Position in the Issue of the Cross-Strait Relations before and after the Electoral Reform
Authors: 蔡幸芳
Tsai, Hsin Fang
Contributors: 盛杏湲
蔡幸芳
Tsai, Hsin Fang
Keywords: 選制改革
單一選區相對多數決
複數選區單記不可讓渡投票制
中位選民定理
single nontransferable vote under multi-member district system
mixed-member majoritarian system
electoral reform
median voter theorem
spatial theory of voting
Date: 2016
Issue Date: 2016-09-02 01:03:15 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 民主國家中選舉是獲得政治職位、聲望或權力的主要途徑之一,有許多因素會影響選舉結果,其中選舉制度是決定在位者與挑戰者去留的關鍵,決定如產生當選者,選舉制度往往會影響候選人的參選動機、競選方式、選民的投票行為,甚至會造成不同類型的政黨政治。本研究主要探究立委選舉從第七屆開始實行單一選區兩票制後,區域立委候選人的政治立場相較於過去在複數選區單記不可讓渡投票制下,是否有所不同或發生改變。本研究以兩岸議題為例,以第五屆及第七屆區域立法委員候選人為分析單位,並依其選舉公報採內容分析法為研究焦點。本研究有幾個研究發現:首先、選制改革有相當程度反映在屆別的差異上,對立委候選人兩岸立場造成影響;其次、雖然新選制下立委候選人提出更多的兩岸政見,但所提出的兩岸政見,新選制相較於舊選制,不但統獨立場趨中,且論述語氣略微和緩,此一發現支持中位選民定理,也就是說,在單一選區相對多數決制之下,立委候選人的兩岸議題不管在方向或是程度上,相較SNTV制度均有往中間靠攏的趨勢,意即新選制下的立委候選人在政見立場方向,是符合理論預期往意識形態光譜中間移動,傾向提出方向趨中且統獨維持現狀或中立的兩岸政見。
In democratic country, election is the main approach for the politicians to receive position, reputation, and power. Many factors affect the result. Electoral system is one of the key causes to determine who-incumbent and challenger- will win the election. In addition, electoral systems also affect the process of producing winner, the candidates’ motive and campaign, the electorate’s voting behaviors. and even different types of party politics. This paper targets on the district legislators’ behaviors. Do their behaviors change after the electoral reform transiting from SNTV to Single-District Two-Votes System? To be more specific, I focus on the fifth and seventh terms of legislators as the analysis unit, and explore their attitudes or campaign platform on Cross-Strait issue, which are published on the campaign communique. I used the content analysis to analyze the campaign communique. There are several findings implied from this research. First, electoral system indeed affects legislators’ positions on Cross-Strait issues. There is significant difference between the fifth and seventh terms of legislators. Second, comparing with the fifth term, although the seventh term of legislators propose more Cross-Strait-related campaign platform, their attitudes are more moderate. This finding supports the median voter theorem. Under the Single-District System, comparing with SNTV, legislators will stand on moderate position on Cross-Strait issue, no matter on direction or intensity. In conclusion, the findings fit to my expectation that the seventh term of legislators stand on moderate position on the political spectrum. They are incline to propose more neutral campaign platform. They prefer maintaining the status quo to unification or independence.
Reference: 壹、中文部分
王業立,2008,《比較選舉制度》,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
王鼎銘,2003a,〈策略投票其及影響之檢測:2001 年縣市長及立委選舉結果的探討〉,《東吳政治學報》,16:125-153。
王鼎銘,2003b,〈政策認同下的投票效用與選擇:空間投票理論在不同選舉制度間的比較〉,《選舉研究》,10(1):171-206。
王鼎銘,2005,〈「新中間路線」在2000 年總統選舉的意義與作用:中位選民定理的應用分析〉,《臺灣政治學刊》,9(1):39-81。
王鼎銘、郭銘峰、黃紀,2008,〈選制轉變過程下杜佛傑心理效應之檢視:從日本眾議院選舉變革的經驗來觀察〉,《問題與研究》,47(3):1-28。
吳文程,2001,〈杜弗傑假設的再檢視與修正〉,《東吳政治學報》,12:41-73。
吳重禮,2002,〈SNTV 的省思:弊端肇因或是代罪羔羊?〉,《問題與研究》,41(3):45-60。
林繼文,2003,〈單一選區兩票制與選舉制度改革〉,《全國律師》,7(8):93-104。
俞振華、林啟耀,2013,〈解析台灣民眾統獨偏好:一個兩難又不確定的選擇〉,《台灣政治學刊》,17(2):165-230。
徐永明,2002,〈單一選區兩票制政治衝擊的模擬〉,《新世紀智庫論壇》,17:6-16。
盛杏湲,2002,〈統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為:一九九0年代的分析〉,《選舉研究》,9(1):41-80。
盛杏湲,2005,〈選區代表與集體代表:立法委員的代表角色〉,《東吳政治學報》,21:1-40。
盛杏湲,2008,〈如何評估選制變遷對區域立委的代表角色與行為的影響〉,黃紀、游清鑫(編),《如何評估選制變遷:方法論的探討》,台北:五南出版社。
陳陸輝、周應龍,2004,〈台灣民眾統獨立場的持續與變遷〉,《東亞研究》,35(2):143-186。
陳義彥、陳陸輝,2003,〈模稜兩可的態度還是不確定的未來:台灣民眾統獨觀的解析〉,《中國大陸研究》,46(5):1-20。
黃秀端,1994,《選區服務:立法委員心目中連任之基礎》,台北:唐山。黃秀端,2001,〈單一選區與複數選區相對多數制下的選民策略投票〉,《東吳政治學報》,13:37-75。

貳、西文部份
Batto, Nathan F. 2005. “Electoral Strategy, Committee Membership, and Rent Seeking in the Taiwanese Legislature, 1992-2001.” Legislative Studies Quarterly
30(1): 43-62.
Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.”
American Journal of Political Science 34: 903-935.
Cox, Gary W. 1994. “Strategic Voting Equilibria under the Single Nontransferable Vote.” American Political Science Review 88(3): 608-621.
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s
Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Duverger, Maurice. 1951. [translated by Barbara and Robert North, 1964, 3rd English edition] Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1994. “A Test of the Predictive Dimensions
Model in Spatial Voting Theory.” Public Choice 78: 155-69.
Matthews, S. 1979. “A simple directional model of electoral competition.” Public Choice 34: 141-156.
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Merrill, Samuel, III, and Bernard Grofman. 1997. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Sakamoto, Takayuki. 1999. “Explaining Electoral Reform: Japan versus Italy and New Zealand.” Party Politics 5(4): 419-438.
Sheng, Shing-Yuan. 2009. ”The Dynamic Triangles among Constituencies, Parties, and Legislators: A Comparison Before and After the Reform of Electoral System.”
Presented at American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, American Political Science Association.September 3-6, Toronto, Canada.
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57: 368-77.
Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart E. Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83(1): 93-121.
Riker, William H. and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus ofVoting.” American Political Science
Review 62(1): 25-42.
Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76(4):753-766.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
99252005
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099252005
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
200501.pdf1453KbAdobe PDF3View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing