The Economist has a "briefing" about Chen's situation: "Trouble in Taiwan." It doesn't have much new information, but there is some decent analysis. And it's interesting to see the "outside" perspective.

Taiwan's undemocratic referendums
by Chris

Traditionally, when someone threatens to recall the president or publicly considers a no-confidence vote against the premier, thoughtful pundits first decry the possibility of either motion succeeding, then go on to explain what success would actually entail.

In light of today's news, I'm going to go straight to the second one.¹

Both the KMT and PFP have indicated that a recall—rather than impeachment or a no-confidence vote²—will be the weapon of choice. That means that Taiwan may actually face a referendum on whether to recall its president (an impeachment vote would send Chen's case to the Council of Grand Justices).

On the face of it, a referendum is the truest and most intuitive form of democracy. It was, in fact, what the word democracy was coined to describe. But the structure of Taiwan's referendums effectively disenfranchises much of the electorate.

Most referendums, including a recall motion, need only a simple majority to pass, but they need a majority of eligible voters to show up at the polls in order to be declared "valid"—that is where the problem lies.

Because it's much easier to convince people to stay home than to go vote, opposition to Taiwan's referendums tends to take the form of boycotts. Theoretically, this means that all votes in the referendum will be "yes" votes—"no" voters will simply not vote. If 50.1% of the people show up and votes "yes," the referendum passes; if only 49.9% show up and votes "yes," the referendum fails, even though in both cases it had 100% support among those who actually voted.

One troubling aspect of this is that it makes it far easier to vote "no" than to vote "yes." It is sometimes argued that this ought to be the case. If people really want to change the status quo, the argument goes, they ought to get up off their caboose and vote. The problem is that votes are supposed to reflect the collective opinion of the electorate. The practice of making it easier for opponents to vote (by staying at home) than for supporters gives disproportionate voice to a select group—exactly the opposite of what a referendum is supposed to do.

How to vote with your backside—whether you want to or not
Tactics used in America's "Jim Crow" laws of the past, which sought to make it difficult for newly enfranchised blacks to vote, were more malicious in execution but similar in effect. In the 2004 US presidential election, election organizers in Ohio were accused of deliberately setting up polling places near people who were likely to vote Republican, making Democrats have to travel farther to vote.³

Voter turnout is a big deal. In most elections, "turning out the vote" (convincing supporters to spend the time and effort to go vote) is as important as getting people to agree with you.

This is especially problematic since Taiwan does not offer absentee ballots. In order to vote, supporters of a referendum must travel back to their home districts, sometimes from abroad, which is always expensive and sometimes impossible. In the 2004 presidential election, which also featured a referendum, the LA Times estimated that 7,000 returned to Taiwan from Los Angeles alone. That was a presidential election, so the burden may have been placed more-or-less equally on both sides; if there is a referendum to recall Chen, supporters from abroad will face huge hurdles before they can vote. Opponents need do nothing to have their voice count.

It gets much worse. By using a boycott strategy, the "no" camp converts all non-votes into "no" votes (and, ironically, "no" votes into "yes" votes—more on that later). Not only do supports have a harder time voting, but those who do not vote end up effectively voting for the other side. Opponents of the referendum automatically have a higher turnout, plus they get all the votes that supporters fail to produce.

Then there are those who do not vote because they don't want to: they may not feel well-enough informed, they may be disgusted with whole process, they may simply not care—or they may feel that abstaining best reflects their feelings. In any case, the choice not to vote is one that ought to be available. Under the current system is it not.

To sum up:

yes = yes
no = yes
staying at home and watching TV = no

The (not very) bright side
Two factors mitigate these problems (except the last) to some degree. One is that Taiwan has a very high voter turnout. In the 2004 presidential election, turnout was around 80%. The greater the turnout among the "yes" camp, the less the unfair advantage of the boycott strategy. But even if 100% of referendum supporters vote, the "no" camp still gets a boost from those who don't want to vote at all. And 80% is not 100%. The "no" camp still has a 20% head start.

The other factor is that a boycott campaign will not have a 100% success rate. In other words, some people will go to the polls and vote "no." Since the "yes" camp will always win the actual vote, and any vote pushes the overall turnout closer to 50%+1, a "no" vote is actually the same as a "yes" vote. In the 2004 referendum, 8.20% of the votes were "no" votes. Had another few hundred thousand people voted "no," the referendum would have passed.⁴

However, do not expect the small amount of people who vote "no" out of ignorance to go far toward offsetting the head start granted by the boycott strategy. That 8.20% "no" vote in 2004 represented only 3.5% of potential voters. That still leaves 16 or 17 points unaccounted for. Opponents of the referendum were probably over-represented in those votes. Nonetheless, it would have taken only about five points, less than a third of the "unaccounted" votes, to swing the referendum the other way.

And that was in a referendum that was simultaneous with a presidential election, so those "no" voters had a ballot in front of them anyway. In a special recall referendum, it would presumably be easier to keep Chen's supporters away from the polls. Besides, voters today are more educated than before about how and why a boycott works.

No means no
There are easy solutions to these problems. First, it should be easy to register to vote in a new city, no matter where you were born. There is no valid reason to make people go from Taipei to Tainan simply to participate in an election.

Second, absentee ballots need to be made available to those who need them, especially those who live abroad. In a country with as large a diaspora as Taiwan, it is appalling that this has not happened already.

Third, the "50%+1" requirement for referendums ought to be scrapped. It both unfairly privileges referendum opponents, forces many to vote who would rather not, and effectively makes others vote against their conscience.

Recalling a president is serious business, and, as objectors to this essay will point out, it shouldn't be easy. But there are plenty of legitimate, democratic means of making sure that leaders aren't sacked at the drop of a hat. Far better to require two-thirds or three-fifths support among those citizens who bother to show up. That way, yes means yes, no means no, and voting is left to those who actually have an opinion.

_______________________

¹The Taipei Times, which has uncharacteristically excellent coverage of the indictments, has compiled these numbers:

Occupied seats in LY: 220
Votes needed for recall or impeachment: 147 (2/3 of total)
KMT seats: 90
PFP seats: 22
TSU seats: 12
Non-Partison Solidarity Union: 8
Independent: 3

Both of the Non-Partison Solidarity Union and the three independents "tend to vote with the pan-blue parties," writes the TT.

"Therefore, a minimum of 12 of the 85 Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] legislators would also have to back a recall or impeachment motion in order for it to pass" (assuming all others vote for the recall). That isn't a given, but neither is it impossible, as DPP legislators seek to distance themselves from Chen or simply vote their conscience (it does happen from time to time).

²Which does not directly affect the president, and may lead to snap legislative elections, which may in turn cause one of those constitutional crises Taiwan is so fraught with.

³If "having to travel farther to vote" sounds like whining, it is not. Imagine two people: one passes a polling place on the way from her house to 7-11; the other needs to spend an hour on a bus (an American bus at that) after a long day at work. Even if this only makes a difference in a small percentage of potential voters, it has still been known to swing elections.

⁴Ironically, although the referendum did not pass, it may have been responsible for Chen's narrow victory. Supporters of the referendum, most of whom also supported Chen, had two reasons to vote: the presidential election and the referendum. Opponents of the referendum had only Lien Chan to lure them to the polls.