Comments on 2006 muni elections

If anyone is still following the Chen Chu mayoral shenanigans cases; both cases are still pending in the District Court. Nothing has been finalized (from a legal standpoint, I realize from a practical politics standpoint it is decided Grand Dame Chen Chu is the Queen of Kaoshiung)

Back to the law. I got a copy of the District Court Prosecutors motion to decline prosecution. What it said, in Brian summary, was “I (these decisions are made, for better or worse, by 'lone prosecutors”–in theory) was looking into the crime of ‘election connected slander’ (which is a separate crime from the normal crime of slander) and I decided there was insufficient evidence to charge the defendant". He devotes 4 pages to the reasons why, I must confess I have not translated the reasons yet. I am told the rationale(s) are mealy mouthed vagueness. Which is typical, they have a special class in Judge& Prosecutor College in how to write that way (no fooling-true fact)

The KMT ‘victim’ applied (as is his right) for the High Court Prosecutors Office to review the case. As is the norm, the High Court Prosecutor’s, acting like highly trained, responsibility dodging, civil servants, simply bounce the case back down to the District Court Prosecutors office with a memo saying, “you folks should investigate more”. The second look at the case will be by a different section in the Kaoshiung District Prosecutors Office.

Which is where we stand now. I asked around about what the consequences would be of a conviction; would it overturn the election or what. The answer seems to be;if the person is convicted and if they are sent to jail and if less than one third (or maybe one half) of the term has been served then that person is removed from the position and a new special election is run

This apparently happened over in Taitung sometime recently; where some thug got yanked out of his chair and they held a special election and his wife Mrs. Thug slid into his chair. So much for the deterrent effect of jail. If over half the term has been served then the vice whatever it is moves up to take the empty position.

Now turning to the civil case, that case too, is still pending in the District Court. The manual recount was long ago finished and the two sides have stipulated (i.e. agreed through negotiation, not via fact finding/decision by a judge) that 328 of the ballots are “jacked up” (I use a street term because I can not quite tell if they are saying those ballots as invalid, or questionable or what exactly). In any event the margin for Chen Chu has increased not decreased. But—the District Court has not issued a verdict yet because (I think, I am not sure of this) they are waiting to see what happens on the criminal election slander case.

So—that seems to be where we are on all that.

Take care,
Ballot Master Brian

Chen Chu is going to hang for destroying a national treasure. Her life will know no peace on Taiwan.

wanglu baomu

Vorkosigan, a humble question if I may. Do you pride yourself on being part of the spin, or are really silly enough to think scandals on the eve of an election, like vote buying and presidential shootings, have no effect on the outcome. Especially when the final count is so close that a recount is requested?

You know, I lead this really, really weird life. Absolutely bizarro. You know what it is? It’s the evidence-driven life. Many people consult their prejudices, or “common sense,” and then jump to unsupported conclusions. Not me. I try to consult the evidence before I think about something. Weird, eh? I wish I could just be an insightful genius like you, and write without bothering to figure out what might be going on. It would save so much time and effort.

To answer your question, I have no idea whether such events affect the outcome, and how. “Common sense” arguments can be made in all directions. To draw conclusions, one would have to have facts of some kind, such as good survey data. Rhetorical questions, such as…

[ul]are really silly enough to think scandals on the eve of an election, like vote buying and presidential shootings, have no effect on the outcome.[/ul]

…simply indicate that the speaker has refused to do the hard work of digging out the numbers and trying to understand what they might mean.

Now the great thing about the numbers is that they are easy to find in this case. In the Kaohsiung election, they are

DPP: 379K
KMT: 378K
TSU: 7K

This means that the Green vote in 2002 and 2006 was exactly the same, 386K. But in '02, there was no TSU candidate, so the DPP got all the votes. Neat, eh?

So now we have to ask, if the vote-buying scandal drew votes from Huang, why didn’t the total Green vote increase? Maybe – I know it is hard to believe – maybe the vote buying scandal had no effect. Incredible, eh?

But now we have another problem. You see, in 2002, the KMT polled just 361K votes. In 2006, it got 378K. So despite the obvious and horrible effects of the vote buying, clear to all right-thinking people, the KMT saw a 17K increase in votes. Wow!

Well, thanks for setting me straight, Mick. I was terribly fooled by those vote numbers and other meaningless and stupid statistics, when I could have just emailed you and found out how to think about the problem, effortlessly! Gosh thanks!

Hey, listen, the next time you get a communication on what to think about the election from that radio in your tooth, you let me know, OK? It will save me lots of trouble analyzing numbers and trying to think about stupid things like voter behavior, voting patterns, public policy, history, and other nonsense.

Thanks, man!

Vorkosigan

[quote=“brianlkennedy”]I

This apparently happened over in Taidong sometime recently; where some thug got yanked out of his chair and they held a special election and his wife Mrs. Thug slid into his chair. So much for the deterrent effect of jail. If over half the term has been served then the vice whatever it is moves up to take the empty position.

Now turning to the civil case, that case too, is still pending in the District Court. The manual recount was long ago finished and the two sides have stipulated (i.e. agreed through negotiation, not via fact finding/decision by a judge) that 328 of the ballots are “jacked up” (I use a street term because I can not quite tell if they are saying those ballots as invalid, or questionable or what exactly). In any event the margin for Chen Chu has increased not decreased. But—the District Court has not issued a verdict yet because (I think, I am not sure of this) they are waiting to see what happens on the criminal election slander case.

So—that seems to be where we are on all that.

Take care,
Ballot Master Brian[/quote]

LOL. Thanks for the update man.

You know, I lead this really, really weird life. Absolutely bizarro. You know what it is? It’s the evidence-driven life. Many people consult their prejudices, or “common sense,” and then jump to unsupported conclusions. Not me. I try to consult the evidence before I think about something. Weird, eh? I wish I could just be an insightful genius like you, and write without bothering to figure out what might be going on. It would save so much time and effort.

To answer your question, I have no idea whether such events affect the outcome, and how. “Common sense” arguments can be made in all directions. To draw conclusions, one would have to have facts of some kind, such as good survey data. Rhetorical questions, such as…

[ul]are really silly enough to think scandals on the eve of an election, like vote buying and presidential shootings, have no effect on the outcome.[/ul]

…simply indicate that the speaker has refused to do the hard work of digging out the numbers and trying to understand what they might mean.

Now the great thing about the numbers is that they are easy to find in this case. In the Kaohsiung election, they are

DPP: 379K
KMT: 378K
TSU: 7K

This means that the Green vote in 2002 and 2006 was exactly the same, 386K. But in '02, there was no TSU candidate, so the DPP got all the votes. Neat, eh?

So now we have to ask, if the vote-buying scandal drew votes from Huang, why didn’t the total Green vote increase? Maybe – I know it is hard to believe – maybe the vote buying scandal had no effect. Incredible, eh?

But now we have another problem. You see, in 2002, the KMT polled just 361K votes. In 2006, it got 378K. So despite the obvious and horrible effects of the vote buying, clear to all right-thinking people, the KMT saw a 17K increase in votes. Wow!

Well, thanks for setting me straight, Mick. I was terribly fooled by those vote numbers and other meaningless and stupid statistics, when I could have just emailed you and found out how to think about the problem, effortlessly! Gosh thanks!

Hey, listen, the next time you get a communication on what to think about the election from that radio in your tooth, you let me know, OK? It will save me lots of trouble analyzing numbers and trying to think about stupid things like voter behavior, voting patterns, public policy, history, and other nonsense.

Thanks, man!

Vorkosigan[/quote]

Sorry Vorkosigan, the question stands. First page of this thread you were fanatically posting to one point 5 out of 6 posts were yours. You were talking about conspiracy theories akin to UFO enthusiasts.

I’ll take the numbers you posted as fact, DPP: 379K KMT: 378K, or a difference of around 0.002%. Now, fair enough, quantifying how a scandal might effect the outcome is impossible. But impartial (or sensible) people, will take note that the outcome might very well have been different, had a scandal not erupted the day before an election. Yet, you are arguing the very opposite, that you are certain due to your number analysis that the outcome is quite unaffected by a scandal. Bullshit.

I've been over and had a look at your homepage,  which is impressive(but far from impartial, even had me wondering if you get funding), and of course on your homepage feel free to spout as much partisan crap as you feel like. Your space, you can do what you like with it. Forumosa is an open forum, when you talk nonsense expect someone to hold you to account for it. 

Here it is again , you are saying in an election with an outcome of less than 0.002% with a scandal emerging the day before an election. You are trying to say that scandal had no effect on the outcome.

Sounds to me its you doing the divining or putting the spin on it, or are plain stupid. Sorry man, maybe you should think before you post next time.

Nope. I ain’t saying that. Here’s my official position.

[ul]I don’t know whether the scandal had any effect on the outcome. I don’t know of any good numbers that show anything clear and unequivocal. The votes as they came in do not appear to show anything one way or another.[/ul]

If you wish to claim that it did, stop making rhetorical claims, and start coming up with numbers.

I’m just as impartial and sensible as you are, Mick. The difference is that I actually know something about politics here, and don’t carry around naive premises in my head like “vote buying scandal tied to KMT must have negatively impacted KMT vote” because that’s an ethnocentric way of thinking about the issue. Having been here a while, I’ve actually noticed the reality…

Taitung County Chief, indicted, resigns, games system to have wife stand for him in by-election. Public sends message: he wins in landslide.

Yen Ching-biao: gangster, attempted murder, bribery of public officials: elected while in jail

James Soong: accepted enormous $400 million bribe from France, was given largest fine for tax evasion last year, does well in two presidential elections, is hugely popular, was elected provincial governor

Hsu Tai-li, elected mayor of Keelung while indicted, wins by landslide, KMT city council speaker convicted of vote buying selected as alternative when Hsu dies while in office, dirty speaker easily wins election to Keelung mayorship.

Chen Shui-bian, connected to specious slopeland deals in TPI, twice elected president.

Ma Ying-jeou, salted away government funds, other corrupt acts, twice elected mayor of Taipei, currently widely popular among Blues

Lee Teng-hui, well known connections to Black Gold, elected by landslide in 1996

…are you seeing a pattern here? Sure, allegations of corruption may have impacted the election. The problem is the premises you are working under, Mick, are the profoundly naive ones that voters prefer clean candidates. ROFL. All evidence suggests the opposite – that if voters had felt that Huang was corrupt, they would have come out in droves for him.

What really happened in Kaohsiung? Well, the first thing to note is low turnout. Chen Chu was a meh candidate whom no one would mistake for a hard bitten fire in the belly campaigner like Frank Hsieh and who didn’t inspire much voter interest. And Huang of the KMT was even worse, a university president with no real experience of politics who was unknown outside of Kaohsiung. Despite the low turnout, Huang made up 17,000 votes on his previous performance, while Chen Chu, with the TSU poaching votes on her right, lost ground. She was saved not by some strange vote buying incident the night before (no effect has ever been demonstrated either way for that one) but because her friend and saint Lin Yi-hsiung and other notables came down to campaign for her. Meanwhile Ma Ying-jeou got out the vote for Huang. Really well, too.

So, if you really want to know how the vote buying claims affected the vote, just look at the hard numbers: the KMT made a 17K rise, while the DPP had a 7K fall. What does the prima facie evidence suggest? Being accused of vote buying helped the KMT. Note that I am not making that conclusion, I merely observe that the numbers cannot be made to support any other case.

There are two reasons why claims of vote buying could have led to a surge in KMT votes. First, voters have demonstrated again and again that they prefer corrupt candidates to clean ones. Second, the “native son” effect – they’re attacking our boy! – might have made voters come out. I observed this effect among the respective supporters of Ma and Chen when they were accused of corruption.

Again, that is not my analysis of the vote buying incident – I don’t believe the vote buying claims had any effect on the vote, it came out too late. Maybe if the DPP had released it four days earlier, so that the police had been given time to connect the vote buyers back to the Huang campaign, it might have made a hit with some voters. But I sort of doubt it. Both sides are highly polarized and routinely discount such attacks as partisan attacks on their man.

Your assumption is that voters in Taiwan prefer candidates who are clean. That assumption is not supported by any voting reality in Taiwan, save perhaps for certain elections in the 1990s. Also, your assumption is that there is some Middle that can be swayed at election time. That assumption, while popular among academics working with western theories of political behavior, is also not supported by local political behavior. Instead, we see more of identity politics and voter disgust interacting.

I do not know whether voters in Taiwan prefer candidates who are dirty, I can only observe that they vote for such candidates in droves. If you feel like doing the necessary survey work to assess the preferences of voters, I’d be glad to help in any way.

Vorkosigan

[quote=“Vorkosigan”][quote=“Mick”]
Here it is again , you are saying in an election with an outcome of less than 0.002% with a scandal emerging the day before an election. You are trying to say that scandal had no effect on the outcome.
[/quote]

Nope. I ain’t saying that. Here’s my official position.

[ul]I don’t know whether the scandal had any effect on the outcome. I don’t know of any good numbers that show anything clear and unequivocal. The votes as they came in do not appear to show anything one way or another.[/ul] [/quote]

But didn’t you say [quote] As Taipei Dawg pointed out, no one has any evidence that the vote buying influenced that campaign, and the fact that the Green vote remained the same from 2002 to 2006 is evidence that it didn’t. [/quote] That sounds like you are trying to draw conclusions. At no point do you bring up the scandals surrounding president Chen and that this election (and the one in Taipei) was seen as an important test of how voters might have been effected. Instead you are looking at voter numbers from 2002 and 2006 and drawing conclusions based on their sizes. Two and two in your book equals 22 no doubt.

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
I’m just as impartial and sensible as you are, Mick. The difference is that I actually know something about politics here, …….I’ve actually noticed the reality… [/quote]

Ah so, Obi-Wan Kenobi. And what would that reality be…this was really good, so top marks for imagination…

Right, the dirtier and sleazier the more they like them. Now that’s some top class spin.

Did you notice after your 5 post spree on the first page, there was like a collective groan. No one was rushing up to enter debate with you. However you shouldn’t mistake having won an argument with a reticence to enter debate with a fanatic who refuses to look at an issue objectively. Oh wait, yes you are the one who can see the reality here.

That’s your opinion, and one I am sure many disagree with. I suggest you phase it as opinion and not fact.

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
So, if you really want to know how the vote buying claims affected the vote, just look at the hard numbers: the KMT made a 17K rise, while the DPP had a 7K fall. What does the prima facie evidence suggest? Being accused of vote buying helped the KMT. Note that I am not making that conclusion, I merely observe that the numbers cannot be made to support any other case. [/quote]
And the no need for the scandals surrounding president Chen or anything else need to be put into your neat little equation.

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
I don’t believe the vote buying claims had any effect on the vote, it came out too late. Maybe if the DPP had released it four days earlier, so that the police had been given time to connect the vote buyers back to the Huang campaign, it might have made a hit with some voters. [/quote]
That’s the whole point of releasing a scandal so late, so there isn’t time to control the damage from the party being accused of something. Except in your world when Taiwan candidates are accused of corruption their popularity goes up. Keep the postings coming Vorkosigan, I never realized you were so fun.

As to whether event “a”, “b” or “c” effected the outcome of any specific election; from a pure science standpoint that can never be determined. Because to prove it from a hard science standpoint you would have to turn back the hands of time, reset everything as it was, change the one factor (i.e. do not have Greaseball shot/shoot himself or do not have Grand Dame Chen Chu release the tape) then see the outcome.

Because this can not be done we can never know about any specific election. And asking voters after the fact if the event influenced their choice is not likely to tell you much. Self reports about what the subject would have done are notoriously inaccurate.

Science and statistics are far more helpful on the issue of:
In general terms do events happening right on the eve of elections influence voters.

The answer seems to be yes. I base that not on some extenstive review of political science articles but rather on the fact that tons of money are spent on last minute media blitzes (at least back in California). I presume the political science whiz kids who are running elections have some proof that the last word (so to speak) matters or they would not dump the dough into last minute media blitzes. As a side note that is why the plaintiff or prosecutor has the final word to juries in American trials; the belief that the final word has the most impact (and the party that is bearing the burden of poof needs the advantage).

One question I would ask Mike is, if Chen Chu and her crew thought it would not make a difference in the election why did they time it for exactly the 11th hour to release it? And let me be quick to add, I know you and your family posed for pictures with Chen Chu (if I am remembering right from your blog) and as far as that goes back when she was Labor Headperson of Taipei City I had a friendly chat with her about Amnesty International’s work on her case.

So I have no personal ax to grind with her. I place her along with all Taiwanese politicos as vermin which should be hunted down and shot on sight. Just kidding, although I am tired of the jerkoffs stealing my tax money every stinking chance they get. It pleases me to no end to think I helped Greaseball and the County Hag buy a grocery store in Los Angeles. If I ever get back to the City of the Angels I will be sure to stop in and buy a six pack of Taiwan Beer. But now I am digressing, this thread must stay on topic!

Adieu,
Brian

Brian, you know as well as I do that the issue is not what Chen Chu thought about whether it would have an effect, but whether it actually did. So far no one has proffered any evidence that it had any effect. What did they have to lose by holding it and releasing it?

Again, just look at the numbers. Huang made a 17K gain over 2002. If the video had a negative effect on Huang, where is it in the vote?

Here’s the nub of the issue – it is that you and Mick are both trying to assess what happens here in terms of what happens in the US, where there is a large bloc of swing voters – well, there used to be. LOL. But in Taiwan those swing voters don’t exist in the same way they exist in the US – if they exist at all. In local elections people vote for who they know or who has paid for them, in the bigger elections it’s all about identity politics + voter disaffection. Voter behavior in Taiwan won’t fit into the patterns it exhibits in the US.

Yes, I’m sure you’re right. I must have no idea what I am talking about. I can’t imagine what possessed me to use facts and give a nuanced view of things. I must have been insane.

Michael

Oh yeah, personally she’s great. My wife is a huge fan of hers. But I never liked her overmuch as a candidate for Kaohsiung mayor, and apparently neither did the Green electorate.

Michael

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]

Yes, I’m sure you’re right. I must have no idea what I am talking about. I can’t imagine what possessed me to use facts and give a nuanced view of things. I must have been insane.

Michael[/quote]

I not sure what facts you’re using to support your conclusions. It seems you are suggesting I am looking at the issue through the eyes of a westerner, and if only I had attained the level of wisdom of such learned scholar such as yourself, I might realize what? that Taiwanese people actually prefer corrupt candidates?

I don’t know about you, but my experiences with the Taiwanese have been kind, honest, hardworking and loving people that would wish their leaders to be the same. Its part of the reason I love Taiwan and the Taiwan people and have chosen Taiwan to be my home.

I didn’t see Chen Shui Bians popularity go up when he was surrounded by scandals or Ma Ying Jeou or Wu Shu Chen’s. According to your “facts” their popularity would have gone up.

You have adopted an over simplistic view of interpreting the numbers. You take 2002 numbers compare them to 2006 and immediately draw an erroneous conclusion. You are suggesting that because there is only a small shift in voter numbers that there is no movement and the dynamics of the swing voter is negligible. I believe this is incorrect assumption, it is akin to driving a car a hundred miles and then parking it a couple of meters from where you started and an observer stating it has in fact only moved a couple of meters.

A lot happened between 2002 and 2006, scandals surrounding President Chen, scandals surrounding Ma Ying Jeou, street protests by Shih Ming-the. Your “facts” don’t seem to make allowances for what the effects of these scandals may have been.

Based on your facts you ascertain that “in Taiwan those swing voters don’t exist in the same way they exist in the US – if they exist at all. “ Yet look at the rising popularity of the DPP from 1996 presidential elections 21%, to 2000 presidential elections 39% to the 2004 elections 50.11%, the facts show people large percentages of the public switching to vote DPP and no doubt could switch back again. What’s that you’re saying , swing voters don’t exist and you support this by “facts” ?

Well, I just gave a whole post full of them!

What I said was:

[ul]I do not know whether voters in Taiwan prefer candidates who are dirty, I can only observe that they vote for such candidates in droves. If you feel like doing the necessary survey work to assess the preferences of voters, I’d be glad to help in any way.[/ul]

Can you see what I am saying? I don’t know what lurks in the hearts of Taiwanese. I do know that whenever they are given a choice between a “corrupt” candidate and a clean one, they appear to prefer the corrupt one. Why? I have several theories, which I can go into if you like.

Nope. We’re talking about two different constructs here. You’re talking about popularity. That’s one construct. I’m talking about votes. The two may or may not overlap.

[quote]You have adopted an over simplistic view of interpreting the numbers. You take 2002 numbers compare them to 2006 and immediately draw an erroneous conclusion. You are suggesting that because there is only a small shift in voter numbers that there is no movement and the dynamics of the swing voter is negligible. I believe this is incorrect assumption, it is akin to driving a car a hundred miles and then parking it a couple of meters from where you started and an observer stating it has in fact only moved a couple of meters.

A lot happened between 2002 and 2006, scandals surrounding President Chen, scandals surrounding Ma Ying Jeou, street protests by Shih Ming-the. Your “facts” don’t seem to make allowances for what the effects of these scandals may have been.[/quote]

That’s because no effects are observable in the vote. I understand your point perfectly, and it is one I have entertained myself. But how can you demonstrate that the voter groups that gave 386K votes to the Greens in '06 were different from the ones in '02? There’s no survey data to support such a position.

And again, your point of view assumes that Chen’s scandals would have an effect on the Green vote, rather than looks for the effect of the scandals in the vote. I accept that as a possibility. Needs to be demonstrated, though. If you think that scandalous behavior negatively impact votes, can you give me a list of dirty politicians turned out of office for their bad behavior? Offhand I can’t think of any major figures. Instead, the pattern is that the more corrupt a politician is, the more likely they are to be elected.

Totally as an aside, I’m glad that you stopped insulting me and are starting to talk the language of analysis.

That’s almost good point, but it’s based on a misunderstanding which we’ll get to in a moment. In fact the DPP share of the vote rose all the way through the 1990s to the 2006 election. This I suspect was the great identity shift – voters at last could safely express their identity, which they didn’t feel safely doing in the 1990s. Something like four million votes shifted over that period.

But what I said was that the swing vote doesn’t swing on policy like it does in the US. It swings on identity. Which is what we saw in the Great Voter Shift from the mid 1990s to 2004. I’m taking issue with Brian’s claim that last minute appeals to voters work here in Taiwan because they work in California. In the US they do because voters remain undecided to the last few hours. But in Taiwan, few voters are undecided at the last moment. They vote their identities, except, I suspect, for the Very Light Greens who stay home when they aren’t turned on by the candidate. That is why both parties use identity as a get out the vote tactic. That is also because both parties are so close on so many public policy aspects, that the only difference is identity + China policy.

Thanks, I much prefer to engage in this mode of discourse.

Vorkosigan

The number of points raised are too many for one post, so to start with I would like to address one point.

[quote=“Vorkosigan”] [quote]You have adopted an over simplistic view of interpreting the numbers. You take 2002 numbers compare them to 2006 and immediately draw an erroneous conclusion. You are suggesting that because there is only a small shift in voter numbers that there is no movement and the dynamics of the swing voter is negligible. I believe this is incorrect assumption, it is akin to driving a car a hundred miles and then parking it a couple of meters from where you started and an observer stating it has in fact only moved a couple of meters.

A lot happened between 2002 and 2006, scandals surrounding President Chen, scandals surrounding Ma Ying Jeou, street protests by Shih Ming-the. Your “facts” don’t seem to make allowances for what the effects of these scandals may have been.[/quote]

That’s because no effects are observable in the vote. I understand your point perfectly, and it is one I have entertained myself. But how can you demonstrate that the voter groups that gave 386K votes to the Greens in '06 were different from the ones in '02? There’s no survey data to support such a position. [/quote]

Really? With four years between elections at the very least it can be determined that younger voters now eligible to vote would constitute at least several percent of total voters, and some older voters dying with yet still more having moved in and out of Kaohsiung. Yet with precision accuracy and even with the statement above that you have no way of determining if those who voted for green in ’02 were the same as in ’06 you said.

[quote]Now the great thing about the numbers is that they are easy to find in this case. In the Kaohsiung election, they are

DPP: 379K
KMT: 378K
TSU: 7K

This means that the Green vote in 2002 and 2006 was exactly the same, 386K. But in '02, there was no TSU candidate, so the DPP got all the votes. Neat, eh? [/quote]

By your reckoning therefore the 379K + 7K votes made for the DPP and TSU = the 386K votes cast for the DPP in ’02. Even though as I demonstrated the voters casting their votes have changed by at least 5% and could quite easily be as high as 10% and doesn’t consider those who stayed home one year and came out the next or visa versa. Simply put there is no way to reach your conclusion that there has been no dynamics occuring in the vote as the numbers for '02 and '06 add up.

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
Totally as an aside, I’m glad that you stopped insulting me and are starting to talk the language of analysis. [/quote]

I have a lot of respect for you Michael and understand you have put in a lot of work and research into Taiwan politics. It’s not my intention to insult and please accept my apology if you felt offended. This is a good topic and I feel others would also like to add their views which I would also like to hear and I am also most happy to discuss in the language of analysis and look at the facts.

a little off topic: i think the voter dynamic in the US could also be seen in terms of identity: there is an ‘us vs them’ polarization that has taken place with many Republicans feeling the need to defend God, country , and tradition with their vote. How else can I explain why so many intelligent people irrationally still support Bush? An identity vote is an emotional vote. But at the local level where the candidates are known by reputation around town, party affiliation is much less important. Also issues are easier to grasp at the local level, so a more informed vote can be made. At the federal level voters can be mired in information which requires them to put their trust in ‘experts’- but which experts to listen to? Many choose their experts based on their identity and make decisions which they think are rational, but which turn out to be highly emotional/irrational. Obama is trying to purple up the red/blue division by showing that we have to stop thinking in terms of us vs them, because people really can’t be neatly packaged as red/blue, even though that is a common assumption. for example, i consider myself liberal, but i am for traditionally conservative ideas such as merit pay for teachers, accountabilty through national testing, and deportation of illegal immigrants ( as many as can be deported, that is).

so voting one’s identity at the federal level may have some universality to it.

v,

Sure Jersey has identity politics; just listen to The Jersey Guys show. To them East Asians and Indians will always be foreigner over-running the country.

But if we see the folly of identity politics in the USA, why support such campaigning strategies used in Taiwan. It doesn’t help Taiwan out as a whole, if a whole segment of the population is considered unauthentic and not deserving of opportunities.

i hate that station 101.5. almost all their people spew stupid stuff. the morning guy jim gerhardt is pretty good though. thank god i discovered npr. have you seen the hot pockets commercial with the old asian guy? me, trying to teach my daughters to watch tv critically, told them that this was showing asian people disrespectfully, but my daughters just think it’s hilarious.? anyway, i think all the people posting here will agree that making an emotional vote only based on identity, without consideration of qualifications, vision, or past behaviour, can have disasterous consequences. that is why i am not choosing any presidential candidate to support until i have more information about each of them. i won’t just go for hillary because she is a woman, or for barack, because he is so cute and uplifiting, or for guiliani because he is italian and knows how to impose law and order or for mccain because of his sacrifice as a soldier etc etc.

Exactly, but Taiwan presidential campaigns are runned almost exclusively on who is a native Hoklo and who isn’t a native Hoklo now.

ac, define native Hoklo…

I would say presidential campaigns are from one side that believes they have the right to a separate identity, to the other side who believes that they should be in the same situation as they are now or closer to China (either they are afraid that a vote on the other side will mean war with China, they believe in the KMT propaganda, or they seek unification with China). The only ones raising ethnic questions are always the latter ones, because it is convenient for them - even when they are arrested in US after running away with billions of dollars…