Taiwan election, 2012: KMT re-elected, and unusual alliance behavior

In elections Saturday, the Taiwanese president, Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang (KMT), was reelected with 51.8% of the vote. Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came second with 45.6%, and James Soong of the People First Party won 2.8%.

The election is by plurality, so it was not especially close.

These were the first concurrent elections in Taiwan, the electoral cycle having been modified recently. As is to be expected with concurrent elections, the presidential and legislative votes were quite similar. The KMT-led alliance won 51.5% of the legislative votes, and will continue to control a majority of seats, with 67 of 113. (This is a decline from 85 at the previous, non-concurrent, election of 2008.)

These elections feature an unusual example of two parties competing in presidential elections but allied in concurrent legislative elections. Soong’s People First Party is part of the Pan Blue alliance, and whereas Sung himself managed only 2.8% of the vote, his party contributed 5.5% of the Pan Blue legislative vote.

Taiwan’s electoral system is mixed-member majoritarian (or parallel), with 79 district races decided by plurality, and 34 nationwide seats elected by proportional representation. People First won one single-seat contest, and 2 list seats. I assume the parties in alliance run common candidacies in the single-seat districts (and hence that the KMT stood down in the one contest won by the PFP, and the PFP did not contest many other districts), but that they run separate party lists. I hope someone can confirm that.

The only other case I know of where two parties competed in a presidential election but were allied in a concurrent legislative election would be Chile, 2005. At the time of the Chilean example of this sort of unusual alliance behavior, I remarked that the electoral rules of Chile made it advantageous for the parties to remain in their legislative alliance even after they chose to compete in the presidential race. In Chile, these rules are two-seat D’Hondt open lists. Taiwan’s MMM provides similar, if distinct, incentives to cooperate.

What is more surprising about the Taiwanese case is that by running separate presidential candidates, the alliance risked splitting the vote, given the use of plurality rule. In Chile, on the other hand, the presidency is elected through majority runoff. That Soong’s vote for president, where a split of the alliance vote was risky, was so much lower than his party’s legislative votes can be scored as a victory for Duverger.

8 thoughts on “Taiwan election, 2012: KMT re-elected, and unusual alliance behavior

  1. There is anther example of a case where two partiescompete in a presidential election, but are allied in concurrent legislative elections: that is France. The Socialists and the Greens have an electoral alliance and common candidacies for the next 2012 legislative elections, but they compete for the 2012 presidentiel election with François Hollande as socialist candidate and Eva Joly as green candidate

    • French elections are not concurrent, although the point about France as a case of differential alliance choices in elections conducted in temporal proximity is well taken.

  2. Kinda off-topic, but Écolo (the Greens) has a list of their candidates for the expatriate districts. Are you sure they have common candidacies with the Parti Socialiste?

  3. Europe Ecologie/Les Verts and the Socialist Party have agreed on a stand down agreement from the first round in 60 constituencies, if I recall correctly. They are however free to run candidates in the others, which is why you see a Green candidate in French Abroad constituency.

    They have also agreed to not compete in the second round of legislative contests against each other (who ever is ahead where there are candidates from both groups will remain the sole candidate). They also agree that whichever of their presidential candidates do not get to the second round of the presiential election will endorse the survivor, assuming the otehr qualifies of course. Its unlikely to be the Green.

  4. The 2012 election is very special (or maybe not, the two parties started to be competitors since then) for both Pan-Blue parties and Pan-Blue supporters. For parties, People First apparently competed with the KMT to earn Pan-Blue supporters, so there were actually no common candidates, and People First nominated its own candidates based on the chances of being elected in the single member districts. In fact, although Taiwan has adopted the MMM system, two special districts—lowland aborigine and highland aborigine—still use SNTV. The only People First’s non-party-list candidate who was elected is from the district of lowland aborigine.

    • Tzu, do you think that there is anything in particular motivating this decision by the People First Party? I can only think that it might have something to do with the PFP being more anti-communist than the Kuomintang, and thus being opposed to Ma Ying-Jeou’s policies regarding cross-strait relations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s