Fraud and the lawsuits for the 2004 Pres. election

Was the 2004 Pres. election rigged by the ruling party?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Maybe, but there’s cheating on both sides so who cares.

0 voters

[quote=“ScottSommers”]Like Feiren I swore I would never again be dragged into this ridiculous topic. I have not read through the pages of posts in this rebirth of Taiwan lunacy because I don’t think a rehash of the same conspiracy theory is worth it.

Something I can’t help wondering when I read about election irregulaties in 2004 is how many people here have first-hand knowledge of elections. Honestly, has anyone here ever worked in an election campaign or an election scrutineer in their home country?

There are 2 issues at stake here: vote buying and ballot fraud. Everyone knows that in Taiwan parties buy loyalty. Whether or not this has an effect on major elections like presidential campaign is not at all clear, but it certainly does happen.

The major issue is whether or not there was ballot fraud. Ballot fraud is not the same as what frequently gets called irregularities. There are always irregularities in an election. What makes them fraud is if they are systematic and motivated. Betelnut seems to be implying that he has secret knowledge about these irregularities that makes them fraud. He would have start that other thread to convince anyone of this since not even the pro-Blue media seemed to know about them.[/quote]

ScottSommers,

regarding the election fraud, my film has many stories of intentional election fraud committed by election staff throughout the country in many ways. You can brush that off as heresay if you wish.

Remember, the evidence of supposed fraud is in the voter lists, and not the ballots. The ballots can be fixed, so there is no evidence there. The recount does not reveal much of anything.

And rememeber, the voter lists could not be copied by the opposition lawyers in the lawsuit, and the judges declined to review the voter lists in the lawsuits. Therefore if a voting station had 900 ballots and only 700 entries of people voting, that is considered to be okay to the judge because the voter list must have just been misused. The judges used this kind of logic to determine that nothing counts as fraud in the voter lists. Therefore, they didn’t even look at them.

Finally, as far as my film is concerned, I have video evidence of fraud being committed in Sanchong, Taipei County.

All of the election staff are either doing it or watching it happen.

They are counting and moving the ballots around. Getting rid of Lien ballots that have not been counted yet. They have to count the ballots to make sure the total is still correct otherwise you can tell something funny happened in the voting station just by the total votes not matching the voter list.

This video has been played on talk shows and at the 327 Rally, but I have it in slow motion in my film.

Once I release my film, no one can say that no election fraud took place in that election unless you want to interpret that several election staff sorting through piles of ballots to remove a certain candidate’s ballots to a pile of ballots which are votes that have been counted already, doesn’t qualify as fraud.

Finally, during the process of making the film, I learned that a DPP county commission who was promoted soon after the election did admit to someone who isn’t green that the government had prepared the election fraud and that the DPP would win for sure.

He said that the voter lists had been analyzed to see who would not vote, so that their ballots could be cast for them. He said that the government had utilized all the government resources to commit fraud. He said that there was nothing to worry about because the DPP would win for sure.

I’ve heard either first or second hand these kinds of things while making the film, that the government had planned the fraud.

Betelnut; first some free advice, if you want to be taken seriously–use your real name.

Secondly, I, as an attorney and as a member of the Executive Yuan

That really made laugh. It’s so true. Those phrases are like red flags for questionable assertions rather than supported conclusions.

Although to be fair, if you strip away those phrases and do a little reorganization the logic can actually surface sometimes. Working between languages as different as English in Chinese, one of the first things that gets lost is logic. I’m not saying there are different logics, because there aren’t. But it does get lost in translation easily.

Precisely

Yup. The Blue camp would be welll advised to follow Ma’s example and stop whining about the past and being cheated. No one likes a sore loser. Ma is putting on a great show of looking to the future and moving on.

AWWWWW! You mean poor old Betelnut’s movie is a total waste of time? But he’s spent so much time on it! Surely SOMEONE will want to see it?
Won’t they? :laughing:

Sandman:

AWWWWW! You mean poor old Betelnut’s movie is a total waste of time? But he’s spent so much time on it! Surely SOMEONE will want to see it? Won’t they?

jwar:

It’s a little bothersome that someone who has yet to view the film has already developed an opinion on it. Shouldn’t you at least suspend judgment until after you see the film? If you aren’t even planning to see the film, then why post anything about it?

A Robert Frost quote seems appropriate here:

“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.”

brianlkennedy:

The locals are so “unique” in how they think and how they operate and how they “problem solve” (to the extent they problem solve at all)…

jwar:

Can you explain what you mean with these words exactly?

At first glance, it seems a little condescending, as if “locals” lack both logic and motive. (But I don’t want to assume that this interpretation is your meaning, so please do explain.)

As a side note: Vote buying is an absolute reality of elections. Local candidates have given money directly to my own Family members.

“Bellyaching Blues” would be a good title for it.
jwar, I don’t have anything agaisnt Betelnut making a movie. But to suggest, after all he’s posted here, that I need to actually see it to know perfectly well that it’s nothing more than a biased pan-blue apologist rant with a splash of conspiracy kookiness thrown in for good measure is ludicrous. Or are you suggesting that Betelnut somehow comes across to you as a rational, objective critical thinker? :roflmao:

His subject matter was old and busted by June of 2004. It hasn’t become any fresher since then.

And you needn’t worry about either my temper or my self-confidence, thanks. This kind of pan blue/pan green nonsense doesn’t try my temper in the slightest. On the contrary, it makes a fine comedy show in the slapstick tradition of Buster Keaton or the Keystone Cops.

Sure vote-buying is real. But it much more common and much more effective on the local level.

And anyway, lots of people take the money and then vote for whomever they please.

sandman:

But to suggest, after all he’s posted here, that I need to actually see it to know perfectly well that it’s nothing more than a biased pan-blue apologist rant with a splash of conspiracy kookiness thrown in for good measure is ludicrous.

jwar:

Well, that was my question. How do you know “it’s nothing more than a biased pan-blue apologist rant with a splash of conspiracy kookiness thrown in for good measure” without having seen it?

There are several “official” stories release by ruling bodies all over the world that stretch to great lengths to avoid mentioning details that would reveal incriminating things about themselves. (I won’t list them here because then we’d be off topic.)

If you, or any of those reading this, could answer these questions, it would be helpful to all reading this thread:

  1. Which portion of Betelnut’s research has lead you to believe that it is how it was described above?

  2. Can an investigation/examination not be conducted without political bias?

  3. If not, would the same principle apply to the official investigation?

sandman:

Or are you suggesting that Betelnut somehow comes across to you as a rational, objective critical thinker?

jwar:

We all have a different frame of reference. If we only look at one side of an issue, that’s indoctrination, not education.

You’re beginning to get the picture. Good for you! :bravo:

[quote=“brianlkennedy”]Betelnut; first some free advice, if you want to be taken seriously–use your real name.

Secondly, I, as an attorney and as a member of the Executive Yuan

(1) How? No cameras are allowed in the voting rooms. If you really used one, you have committed a crime.

  1. When an election, especially a local election, can be bought so cheaply, why would anyone bother with ballot stuffing?

  2. The votes are counted publicly, and with many people watching. What you describe does not seem possible. For I watched the votes being counted in my local precinct in '00 and '04 and know how the process works.

Though I have to admit that there is nothing funnier than a KMT supporter accusing the Greens of cheating in voting. Kinda like Stalin accusing someone of being a murderer, or Jeff Dahmer saying that someone has no taste in food. One thing about listening to the pro-China types rant is the endless comedic potential.

Think hard, Betel. It might come to you why reviewing the voter lists is pointless once it is understood that there were fewer votes than total registered voters.

The usual signals: “I heard…”,. vague complaints, etc. Plus, of course, we’ve heard all this whining before. It’s part of the KMT mentality that any victory by the other side must be cheating, because that is how they came to and kept power. Hence, they can’t imagine anyone doing it any other way.

Vorkosigan

(1) How? No cameras are allowed in the voting rooms. If you really used one, you have committed a crime.

  1. When an election, especially a local election, can be bought so cheaply, why would anyone bother with ballot stuffing?

  2. The votes are counted publicly, and with many people watching. What you describe does not seem possible. For I watched the votes being counted in my local precinct in '00 and '04 and know how the process works.

Though I have to admit that there is nothing funnier than a KMT supporter accusing the Greens of cheating in voting. Kinda like Stalin accusing someone of being a murderer, or Jeff Dahmer saying that someone has no taste in food. One thing about listening to the pro-China types rant is the endless comedic potential.

Think hard, Betel. It might come to you why reviewing the voter lists is pointless once it is understood that there were fewer votes than total registered voters.

The usual signals: “I heard…”,. vague complaints, etc. Plus, of course, we’ve heard all this whining before. It’s part of the KMT mentality that any victory by the other side must be cheating, because that is how they came to and kept power. Hence, they can’t imagine anyone doing it any other way.

Vorkosigan[/quote]

I’ll just respond to this post, and I need to take a break from this thread also.

  1. I’m just saying that there was a video shown of what I interpret as fraud taking place in Sanchong. Video camera have only become illegal in the voting stations for this past election. They weren’t illegal for the Presidential Election in 2004. They changed the law after getting caught last time. In the Taipei County election, the police were harassing us not to bring in camera to the voting stations. But later on, they told us that we didn’t need to try to stop fraud this time, because they were not going to cheat this time. Yes, the cop actually told us that. He said that the Taipei County election was a small election, and not like the Pres. election.

  2. To guarantee victory in an election, election fraud is the best way. It’s the only way to guarantee victory for Chen. Why do you think Chiou I-Jen would tell us beforehand that the DPP would win and by a small amount when Chen was behind by 10 points or so before the election?

  3. There are 13,000 voting stations in Taiwan. We must consider what happened at all of the voting stations, and not generalize from just a couple of clean ones we have seen. I have seen clean voting stations and I have seen dirty voting stations. There wasn’t fraud being committed at every voting station in the election. It happened in greener areas where the staff felt safe in doing so. But it also happened in places where there were blue people. Sanchong is a green area where all the DPP supporters were trying to prevent my friend from filming the fraud. There were plenty of people watching, but they supported what was going on.

There’s plenty of stories of fraud taking place and votes not being shown to the public, but nobody cares because everyone there watching is green. If there’s one blue person speaking up, their safety was threatened. But those are stories and you don’t have to believe them if you don’t want to. I’m just saying I have video evidence of one case of that.

Well, as far as the KMT making accusations against the DPP of fraud, I’ve found that this is the main reason why the KMT has no sympathy from a lot of the international community and Westerners that know that the KMT’s history of doing fraud and playing tricks also. I’m only challenging people to look at the DPP’s history of playing tricks also even when they weren’t in power.

My point about the voter lists, is not that the number of ballots is less than the registered voters, but that the voter list indicates that 700 people received ballots, but the voting station had 900 ballots cast. My point is not that there was less than 100% voting rate in the station.

Your last statement about the KMT is similar to the one I just referred to. Because the KMT has a bad rep with many people, they don’t have any credibility when they accuse others. The DPP clearly benefits from this. I would say that the main reason why the DPP must be so clean and cleared of all charges is because it’s the KMT that’s making them.

But if you take a look at election victories for the DPP in the last 10 years, the KMT has lost elections and not complained. It is not fair to say that they always cry fraud when they lose.

Both green and blue people can handle losing an election fairly, but neither side likes getting cheated.

http://thechinadesk.tripod.com/taiwan_at_the_crossroads_postscript.htm

Here is a summary of how the lawsuits were handled from author Huang Chi-Hsien who wrote a book Taiwan’s current political state and how things came to this point. It’s pretty interesting, as is looks into the mentality of the DPP supporter. It discusses how the government has tried to control the media as much as it can, and a lot of other general issues.

I know that that conept will be alien to people who always believe that the pan blue media is all owned by the KMT and is totally unfair.

The book has been translated into English, but I don’t know how you guys can get it.

That’s all for now. I have to retire for a while.[/url]

I do not have the time or interest in your posts to answer one by one all the points that you raise. The major confusion you show here is between voting irregularity and fraud. There are ALWAYS irregularities. Fraud implies that these irregularities are systematic and motivated. This is something that would be apparent to anyone who has worked on election campaigns or in voting polls conducted even in the most advanced democratic nations. Which leaves me wondering about the discrepancies in analysis between local Pan-Blue observers and experienced international observers.

I said I would take a break, but this post was too good to pass up.

This is a very good indication of how some Westerners perceive people in what they think of people in a developing democratic place like Taiwan.

There’s this strong belief that people in a developing democracy don’t understand a lot of things like the difference between simple mistakes and intentional vote fraud.

This belief prevents the Westerner from listening to the local who actually has intimate knowledge of how fraud is committed. However, since the Westerner is from an advanced democratic nation like the U.S., he/she thinks that they know better than the local in a sometimes most condescending fashion leaving the local when told about this perception befuddled.

Is it the local who does not understand democratic priniciples and needs 200 years to catch up, or is it the Westerner who does not give the local enough credit and is thus unable to understand his/her surroundings because of his/her “superior” background?

This is a common trend in Westerners who come to observe and to make comments about Taiwan.

I interviewed some foreign journalists after the Presidential election, and they feel the same way as a lot of people on this forum do. They give people in Taiwan (the blue side) very little credit for being able to make judgements in what is fair or unfair and what is democratic and undemocratic.

It’s almost like people here are lower life forms to them who don’t know that you can win elections and you can lose elections in a democracy. Like, “If the other guy gets more votes than you, you lose! That’s what an election is. After that you’re supposed to say that you lost and accept it.”

Democracy lesson 101 for the Taiwan local who doesn’t understand the ups and downs of democracy.

So from my point of view, the Westerner who basically doesn’t like the KMT and thinks their supporters can’t tell what the difference between outright vote fraud (like closing the doors to a voting station at 4 P.M. and not showing the ballots publicly) and irregularities (like a few small mistakes in the count and voter list) thinks the local does not understand his surroundings, while the local thinks the Westerner is being ridiculous when making such assertions.

Because Westerners have the power to write about Taiwan in English and thus impact the international perception of what is going in Taiwan, your opinions do matter on that level. Please keep in mind that from the local point of view, when a Western journalist or a professor comes to Taiwan and perceives things in this fashion, the local feels like he/she is being harmed by that Westerner.

In making this film, I’ve talked to a lot of Taiwan experts that live in the States, and by living here for a while, I’ve interacted a lot with locals (well educated ones that know 1+1=2) who have looked into how the fraud is done.

About 9 times out of 10 the Westerner almost always thinks he/she knows better, but from what I’ve found, it’s precisely the opposite.

Some of you spend so much time judging the people who live here, but have you contemplated reflecting on yourselves and how much of the truth you are really taking in?

After participating, hands-on, in a city council race in the United States, I am personally embarassed that the United States claims to be qualified to judge what a “fair” election is in any country. The things I saw and heard first-hand in that race and others being run at the same time made me sick to think that people actually believe “anyone can be elected to office in a democracy”. Sheesh.

Two words: money talks. Can’t see where it would be any different in Taiwan. Judges, courts, officials, police, you name it – like they aren’t either on the take or know where their rice bowl lies (i.e., how to get ahead or at least how to keep their jobs)?

I said I would take a break, but this post was too good to pass up.

This is a very good indication of how some Westerners perceive people in what they think of people in a developing democratic place like Taiwan.

There’s this strong belief that people in a developing democracy don’t understand a lot of things like the difference between simple mistakes and intentional vote fraud.

This belief prevents the Westerner from listening to the local who actually has intimate knowledge of how fraud is committed. However, since the Westerner is from an advanced democratic nation like the U.S., he/she thinks that they know better than the local in a sometimes most condescending fashion leaving the local when told about this perception befuddled.

Is it the local who does not understand democratic priniciples and needs 200 years to catch up, or is it the Westerner who does not give the local enough credit and is thus unable to understand his/her surroundings because of his/her “superior” background?

This is a common trend in Westerners who come to observe and to make comments about Taiwan.

I interviewed some foreign journalists after the Presidential election, and they feel the same way as a lot of people on this forum do. They give people in Taiwan (the blue side) very little credit for being able to make judgements in what is fair or unfair and what is democratic and undemocratic.

It’s almost like people here are lower life forms to them who don’t know that you can win elections and you can lose elections in a democracy. Like, “If the other guy gets more votes than you, you lose! That’s what an election is. After that you’re supposed to say that you lost and accept it.”

Democracy lesson 101 for the Taiwan local who doesn’t understand the ups and downs of democracy.

So from my point of view, the Westerner who basically doesn’t like the KMT and thinks their supporters can’t tell what the difference between outright vote fraud (like closing the doors to a voting station at 4 P.M. and not showing the ballots publicly) and irregularities (like a few small mistakes in the count and voter list) thinks the local does not understand his surroundings, while the local thinks the Westerner is being ridiculous when making such assertions.

Because Westerners have the power to write about Taiwan in English and thus impact the international perception of what is going in Taiwan, your opinions do matter on that level. Please keep in mind that from the local point of view, when a Western journalist or a professor comes to Taiwan and perceives things in this fashion, the local feels like he/she is being harmed by that Westerner.

In making this film, I’ve talked to a lot of Taiwan experts that live in the States, and by living here for a while, I’ve interacted a lot with locals (well educated ones that know 1+1=2) who have looked into how the fraud is done.

About 9 times out of 10 the Westerner almost always thinks he/she knows better, but from what I’ve found, it’s precisely the opposite.

Some of you spend so much time judging the people who live here, but have you contemplated reflecting on yourselves and how much of the truth you are really taking in?[/quote]
OK. I read this rant twice and still couldn’t find any actual evidence, be it heresay or a link to another source, of fraud. I’ll take that to mean that you have none. Good evening, sir.

I have to resist the urge to respond to your posts because the details are endless and do continually miss the important points. I wasn’t talking about journalist. While they were here, most representatives of the English-language media got their information directly from English-speaking Pan-Blue spokespeople. Nevertheless, it is virtually impossible to find Anglo-American media criticism of the fairness of the polling. In fact, English-language comments on the fairness of polling are hard to find and what is available is positive.
taiwandc.org/wstand-2004-03.htm
international.ucla.edu/artic … entid=9435
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 560355.stm
apdrc.org.tw/apdrc/web/election_story.htm

What I did not notice in your response was any attempt to claim experience or personal knowledge of how elections and polling are done in advanced democratic nations. Honestly, do you know what an election in the USA, Canada, or Britain is like?

BNut,

If you had approached this issue with an open mind and become convinced upon investigation that ‘Chen dun it’ or whatever, then I’d be cheering you on from the sidelines. I lean green it’s true, but I hate liers and cheats, and would have joined in the howls of protest against Chen if the shit could have been proven to stick. The trouble is, based on what you have presented in these threads, all you appear to have done is cast doubt on the circumstances surrounding the 2004 presidential election. Most of us who have engaged with this issue before - I was here during the 2004 election, and with my journalist hat on covered it for a foreign media agency - already knew it was a troubled ballot. That’s a legitimate starting point for a research project (and a doco even), but that’s not the end of the story. The next step, as I was trying to get across to you in the earlier thread is to elaborate the alternative explanations, and subject them all to a consistent and fair review of the facts. What is your theory, and why should I accept it over the competing approaches? You simply haven’t answered these questions fully. I WILL go and see your doco, but I suspect it will just be a continuation of the critique of ‘the green line’ presented here (which, by the way, is boardering closely on a strawman argument - another no-no in good research). In cases such as this, it aint enough to demonstrate the place stinks like shit. You have to show us why. Once you do that we can subject YOUR theory to the kind of scrutiny that you seem only too keen to visit upon the Chen administration or the DPP.

And what do I think? Echoing an earlier post, I think a series of screw-ups can explain just about all the issues you have a brought to light. Shooter misses his target because he’s a lousy shot, security personell drag Chen off to the wrong hospital, local cops are so excited they forget to seal-off the crime scene, hospital staff get Chen’s shirt mixed up with a guy suffering from an exploding abdominal cyst… and so it goes on down the line.

But this is pure conjecture, as it isn’t my job to provide an explantion. That’s your responsibility. If, that is, you want your work to rise above the partizan bile.

I have a stronger concern, BNut’s postings are full of detail and sources that are supposed to be informed. Closer reading points to him being neither well-informed about the relevant issues nor backed up by credible outside sources. Dealing with him is just a wild goose chase of unrelated facts, rumours, and conspiracy theories.

On the whole, voter fraud will not become a large issue unless it is systemic and widespread, in which case the fraud will allow one party a moderate margin over the other. When the election is too close to call, if there was any voter fraud, it was not done well enough. A recent example in the Ukraine of “concerted and forceful” fraud demonstrate that the world will take notice of election intervention. But unless there is clear evidence, as demonstrated in the Philippines, even the elected President and her party are innocent unless proven guilty, and that means she can keep her title. Of course, next election they will use the issue whip up frenzy against her party. And of course, elections will soon take place in Taiwan, and needing a diversion away from reunification, the blue party needs to invigorate their population without awakening the green party; to such end they can cry wolf against the evils of voter fraud and “mock” assassinations.

The KMT’s many decades of dictatorial rule over this country made enemies of what are now countrymen, and increasingly the younger generation is less supportive of it, feeling more and more that they are Taiwaness, not Chinese. The neutral policy that maintains the status quo is the most supported position in Taiwan, and the party that best shows that their goal will either maintain the status quo and/or shows the other party will change things, that will be the party that wins the election for many decades to come. Whether that means that the blue camp must demonstrate that they are not trying too hard to reunite with China, or that the green party shows the same by its desire to keep Taiwan separate from the mainland, the political agenda that each group ascribes to will be what the people vote for, not the color or the $500 voting gifts.