Ma's aproval rating?

Hey all. Here’s a fun fact. Ma’s approval rating is only at 9%.

And this article here says the DPp has a tough battle in central Taiwan. taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003573046

That makes no sense. With 91% of the country against A-Jeou and only 9% supporting him, it should be the KMT facing tough battles everywhere. Not the DPP.

Taiwan is the one country where a President can shoot himself in the foot thousands of times and people still vote for him.

So many anti ma protests and yet A-Jeou still wins a 2nd term. Mind boggling.

As soon as someone says Ma has only a 9% approval rating, show them the article above. His approval rating must be higher than 9%.

I have no idea about Taiwanese politics.

However, I do feel that only idiots vote for a person in any democracy. The whole point is the administration.

You don’t understand Taiwan political culture.

It’s not like America where people vote for one (hero) guy.

In Taiwan, you vote for the person in your area who gives you most guanxi; like a free lunch box and stuff like that.

Of course he has connections. They are all within the ccp. Ma hasn’t been giving people free lunch boxes. He’s been selling out the country to china. A new economic pact gives china more power over taiwan and many people got furious with him.

Well if you are against a particular politician. Be pro his opponent. Be for the opposing party.

In many respects, taiwan’s economy did worse than it was before 2008 because all ma really did was strike deals with china to have so many factories relocate to china. That’s all he did.

He did nothing at all for the taiwan economy. Or the people except lie to them.

Yes ma has guanxi.they’re all in beijing.

taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003572668
These people in this article here are gonna protest against ma. But in the next election, those same people are gonna vote for him.

Whatever.

[quote=“Charlie Phillips”]
In Taiwan, you vote for the person in your area who gives you most guanxi; like a free lunch box and stuff like that.[/quote]
And since we have so many anti ma protests scheduled, well with that being the case al ma yas to do is give them free lunch boxes and then those angry protestors will be happy

[quote=“Alias1983”][quote=“Charlie Phillips”]
In Taiwan, you vote for the person in your area who gives you most guanxi; like a free lunch box and stuff like that.[/quote]
And since we have so many anti ma protests scheduled, well with that being the case al ma yas to do is give them free lunch boxes and then those angry protestors will be happy[/quote]

Sure, it’s more than just a lunch box. I hope the people of Taiwan can manage and overcome this ferocious beast disguised as a Trojan Horse.

Here’s another thing I was wondering. I once condemned Tsai Ing Wen for stepping down from DPP chairmanship after she lost the election. I argued she should’ve never stepped down. But instead gear up to challenge ma again in 2016.

I was then told that in a situation like that, when a presidential candidate loses. He or she must step down. Take responsibility for the loss. It’s just the way asian cultures are in that respect.

So here’s my question. If that is the case, how come Lien Chan did not step down after his 2000 loss? Why did he run again in 2004?.

Oh and Soong ran in 2000. How come he didn’t step down? Why did he run again in 2012?

[quote=“Alias1983”]Here’s another thing I was wondering. I once condemned Tsai Ing Wen for stepping down from DPP chairmanship after she lost the election. I argued she should’ve never stepped down. But instead gear up to challenge ma again in 2016.

I was then told that in a situation like that, when a presidential candidate loses. He or she must step down. Take responsibility for the loss. It’s just the way Asian cultures are in that respect.

So here’s my question. If that is the case, how come Lien Chan did not step down after his 2000 loss? Why did he run again in 2004?.

Oh and Soong ran in 2000. How come he didn’t step down? Why did he run again in 2012?[/quote]
DPP has a term limit for both chairmanship and chairwomanship. Tsai stepped down for that reason, not for Asian culture.

[quote=“Alias1983”]Here’s another thing I was wondering. I once condemned Tsai Ing Wen for stepping down from DPP chairmanship after she lost the election. I argued she should’ve never stepped down. But instead gear up to challenge ma again in 2016.

I was then told that in a situation like that, when a presidential candidate loses. He or she must step down. Take responsibility for the loss. It’s just the way Asian cultures are in that respect.

So here’s my question. If that is the case, how come Lien Chan did not step down after his 2000 loss? Why did he run again in 2004?.

Oh and Soong ran in 2000. How come he didn’t step down? Why did he run again in 2012?[/quote]

Welcome to Taiwan politics.

Let’s start with the start: Don’t get your news from Taipei Times. If you must read that paper, balance it out with the horribly written but blue-leaning China Post (shudder) or the government-run CNA or foreign media such as AFP and AP. The Taipei Times is nothing more than pro-green propaganda. It’s fine if you’re into that, but don’t mistake it for actual news.

About the 9% and Taichung being a battleground: Many Californians are unhappy with Obama, but that does NOT mean the dependably Democrat-leaning state will go Republican in 2016. The DPP cannot rely on a “we’re the lesser of two evils” strategy – that model is entirely unsustainable. You won’t inspire voters to rally to your cause just by being less terrible.

Have you ever noticed how they’re great at ripping apart KMT policy (I really do mean that, I have a lot of respect for them as an opposition part), but they have done very little in terms of policymaking in the past 5 years? Frank Hsieh made an excessively incomprehensible statement yesterday that the DPP has agreed to engage with China on a basis of “constitutaional governance consensus” (憲政共識). Another political said such a consensus will become party policy, but “it’s still too early” (言之過早) at this point. What does any of that actually mean? Many have cited Tsai’s vagueness when it comes to China as something that cost her the election.

Lastly, Tsai Ing-wen stepped down not because it’s an “Asian” thing but because it’s a uniquely Taiwanese thing. As head of the party, she was accepting responsibility for failing to organize a campaign that could win over voters and offering to give up her seat at the head of the party to somebody else who maybe could. Unfortunately, Su Tseng-chang is probably not that somebody.

I don’t get the optimism about Tsai running again in 2016. She had a good showing in 2012, but she still lost, and since that time, she has not been directly involved in anything that would make her more qualified for the presidency. This is like reapplying year after year to a job that has declined to employ you but without first getting experience elsewhere. Tsai has never been elected to any office other than her own party’s leadership, with all of her governmental experience coming from appointment. There must be better choices within the DPP, but the party’s leadership remains dominated by the older generation despite having a huge amount of support among young voters.

I’m starting to think of politics in general as something that will always go against people. Heck with politics. Don’t get involved. Don’t even vote. No matter which country you are from, don’t waste your time. Just accept whatever priveleges your government gives you.

There is no such thing as rights. Only priveleges. And that goes for all countries world wide. Just be thankful for whatever Beijing allows Taiwan to have. Within the next 10 years, Taiwan will become a SAR and it’s just the way it is.

And all the promises Beijing makes under the one country two systems SAR format, they will only live up to half of them. And the priveleges Taiwans people have will only be temporary. So they should just be thankful that they have them for as long as they do.

Beijing is Taiwan’s master. It’s just the way it is. And the DPP will never win another election ever again.

Now let’s just go have a few drinks and watch the football game.

The economic stuff pacts like ECFA and direct flights makes things more efficient, and the purchasing power from China helps Taiwan in certain industries. The phenomenon of factories going to China has been going on since the early 90’s and has nothing to do with Ma’s economic policies. That sort of thing was going on under CSB even though he was trying to stop it from occurring.

The investment from China has helped in some ways, but most of Taiwan doesn’t directly benefit that much from all the closer economic ties. But that doesn’t mean that privileged trade agreements and direct flights and all that are bad for Taiwan.

We also need to think about what would have happened if the DPP had stayed in power in 2008. If the PRC doesn’t agree to direct flights with a DPP president in power, EVA airlines might be bankrupt now, and we would only have China Airlines which hurts our economy. The EVA airlines owner who was very pro CSB, has basically kept his mouth shut since 2008, and kept his company afloat with direct flights. More flights to China mean more business. Just as any other industry that benefits with easier access to the China market.

But outside of certain industries that benefit from purchasing and tourism, things are basically the same. Not really getting better. The higher housing prices has definitely been a problem for the general population, but that comes with investment from the mainland.

So should we go backwards, and be cut out of the action like we were in the past? That might help lower the real estate market, but it basically makes Taiwan less competitive, and all it really helps is a bunch of people who want to say they are Taiwanese and not Chinese like they believe its true. As long as the ROC government governs the island and the U.S. has their intelligence in place here, it will remain the same with just greater economic control from across the strait.

And yes, the DPP will probably never win a national election whether legislative or presidential because they don’t have the support and as time goes on it will not change just because more and more voters are purely born and raised in Taiwan and not originally from mainland China. If that was enough for the DPP to have over 50% without cheating, they’d be world beaters every time out. The majority of the population that votes is already born in Taiwan not mainland China, so this “as time goes by” theory is not really happening.

In the 2001 legislative elections, the DPP had lower than half the vote. Like around 46%. I am quoting 2001 because it was not rigged like 2000 and 2004 pres. elections. In 2012, Tsai gets 45.6% of the vote. It’s clear that the voting rate for the 2 parties is fairly consistent and unlikely to change even with Ma’s low approval rating.

Betelnut, you don’t seem to realize that if it is true that the parties have some steady ratio of the percentage of the vote, then this is not a democracy. It is not possible in a free two party system that the parties are naturally at 46-54. There must be swing voters, independents, and the changes due to old people dying and young people starting to vote, and also disgruntled supporters staying home or switching sides.

The fact that we see so little variation argues that the system is rigged. And if it is true that the DPP got 50.1% through cheating then it follows that the KMT must cheat even more to always attain around 54%.

Just to add to the above. In 2000, approximately 12,600,000 voted.

In 2012 approximately 13,350,000.

In 2016 we should see a rise again. Is it really credible that with nearly a million more voters we are going to see the DPP get exactly their 46%? No, it’s not rational to believe this could happen in a free two-party system.

Either the system is free and the DPP stand a chance to win the popular vote as they did in 2004, or the system is rigged with each side more or less having bought off a percentage of the vote. I personally think it is a combination.

How about comparing the number of votes from 2004 to 2008? In 2004, 13.1 million ballots were officially cast, and in 2008, 12.8 million ballots were cast. Why were there more ballots cast in 2004 than in 2008 and why is the invalid ballot rate so abnormally distributed and high in 2004 and not in 2008?

Having a higher voting rate does not prove fraud, but it raises an eyebrow that the voting rate could go down after 4 years of new voters coming of age. Or you could just say that 2008 was not a hot election because it was a foregone conclusion after the Legislative election months before.

My point is that the DPP support rate or Pan Green support rate has been about the same from 2001 to 2012. I compare the presidential support rate in 2012 to legislative support rate in 2001 because the 2000 and 2004 election results are not credible. The population should have grown or at least gotten younger in those 10 years, and the DPP support rate is still the same.

Of course, I can’t predict what will happen over the next 10 or 20 years, but until I see the trend change, I am stating the mere fact that the DPP support rate has been the same for about the last 10 years or so.

Sure I can see that there is swing in the voting. In 2004, it was about 55-45 before swinging to 53-47 after the 319 incident before good old fashion election fraud made it 50-50 in favor of Chen. In 2008, the typical 55-45 or 54-46 swung all the way to 58-42, and in in 2012 it swung back to 54.3% and 45.6%.

And 2001 and 2004 legislative elections are about the same and both of those elections were held under normal circumstances without widespread cheating.

I can’t comment on the impacts of vote buying, but we will just have to see if the new voters that come of age between 2012 and 2016 swing more on way or the other. I know that younger people in their 20’s tend to vote more DPP, but as people get older, it swings back in the KMT’s favor. So younger voters in the past will also get older as the years go by. It’s not like all new voters are green and stay green.

The ROC voting system can be rigged and both parties want to be able to do it when they need to, but my point is that the KMT has not needed to rig a national election in its favor because it has enough support to do win without cheating.

If you look at 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, both parties have 2 wins a piece, and there was widespread election fraud reported in 2 of those elections and mostly in 2004. In 2000, less fraud was initially reported because it was done by both the KMT and DPP parties against Soong. But in 2004, it was a straight up blue vs. green election so it was reported right away.

Now you could say that the DPP party knows how to lose an election without getting into a fuss, and the KMT doesn’t, or you could say that 2000 and 2004 were rigged. It should also be noted that in 2008 and 2012 there weren’t widespread reports of fraud.

It’s not true that the DPP or the Dangwai don’t get upset when they get believe they have been cheated. They have had a history of getting very upset and violent when the KMT has stolen elections from them in the past. They can also accept it when they lose normally. As the KMT does.

Nope. Not interested in reading what you wrote after “how about comparing…”.

You had your chance. Your line of reasoning that the DPP have a natural 46% support rate and can’t go above that is ridiculous. As is the notion the KMT will always have a greater than 50% support rate (without cheating) no matter how demographics change or how unpopular the party is. No other democratic system works like this.

Sure, it can change in the future. It’s just that it has not changed in the past 10 years. That’s all.

How come you’re not interested in my paragraph about comparing the 2004 vote rate to the 2008? Because the number of ballots mysteriously went down in 2008 even though the number of voters should have increased and not decreased?

[quote=“Betelnut”]Sure, it can change in the future. It’s just that it has not changed in the past 10 years. That’s all.
[/quote]

But it did. Except you attribute the 2004 change to cheating so how can anyone have a debate with you?

[quote]
How come you’re not interested in my paragraph about comparing the 2004 vote rate to the 2008? Because the number of ballots mysteriously went down in 2008 even though the number of voters should have increased and not decreased?[/quote]

Because this is tinfoil hat territory and I do not enter such grounds.

Weren’t you the one that pointed out that the number of voters increased in 2012 so the support rate for the parties can change? And I was pointing out that the number of voters decreased from 2004-2008 which goes against the number of voters increasing every 4 years. It’s just strange because it shouldn’t be like that. It should increase slightly every 4 years because of new voters. And you’re calling it tinfoil hat territory? You’re the one who brought up up the issue to support your argument.

You could debate the 2004 election by looking at some of the same data as I have. Starting with the Central Election Commission results and how they are statistically irregular. You can look at interviews of people who witnessed fraud from Southern to Northern Taiwan. You can look at the video of the election staff cheating in Sanchong. These are all things that people who are open to the truth can do.

Let’s not be disingenous. Ma Ying-jeou is one of the most politically incompetent Presidents I’ve seen in awhile. He deserves getting whatever is coming to him for being so stupid in his handling of Wang Jyn-ping.

Voter turnout was 4% less in 2008 which explains the lower numbers. Registered voters increased as per usual.

From 1996 to 2000 the number of voters increased by nearly 2,000,000. Wow, what fraud was inherent in that?

You see, in itself your numbers mean nothing. Just tinfoil nonsense.