A big dispute in Taiwan over how the planned referendums are to be carried out alongside the Jan 12/08 legislative election. The KMT and their allies would like a two-step process, whereby voters would cast votes for the legislative election first, and then move to another room (or even another building!) to cast their referendum votes. The pro-independence parties however, prefer a one-step process, where voters are issued 4 ballots at once, which they then cast into 4 separate ballot boxes.
The arguments pro and con are these: The KMT claims the one-step process will lead to confusion and ballots being placed into the wrong ballot boxes; pro-independence parties say that the two-step process is flawed, because it allows KMT election monitors to observe which voters vote in a referendum the KMT disapproves of. In addition, the pro-independence parties believe a two-step process would reduce turnout for the referendum. (I just waited an HOUR to vote in the legislative election, and now you want me to wait ANOTHER hour to vote in the referendum, too?)
An editorial in Thurday’s Taipei Times heaped ridicule on the KMT’s argument:
The pan-blues insist on a two-step voting procedure, arguing that the one-step voting formula adopted by the [Taiwanese Central Election Commission] would create confusion for voters and result in disputes at polling stations on election day.
But what’s so confusing about it?
Under the one-step format, voters will receive two ballots for the legislative elections and two referendum ballots at the same time and then cast them into four different boxes. So, are the pan-blues saying that Taiwanese voters are too stupid to follow instructions as simple as picking up four ballots and casting them into four different boxes?
I agree that the one-step process is the way to go, but add that if the Taiwanese really want to idiot-proof this, they might want to consider color-coding the ballots and ballot boxes. White ballots, pertaining to issue 1, go into the white ballot box. Yellow ballots, concerning issue 2, go into the yellow box. Pink and brown ballots are cast into their respective boxes, too.
Now, if you’re really, REALLY concerned about voters goofing up (or the inhibitory effects of partisan election observers*), you’d keep the idea of color-coded ballots, but nix the multiple boxes. White, yellow, pink, brown ballots – have voters put ’em all together at once into A SINGLE ballot box. Sure, it’s a bit more work for vote counters to sort them out afterwards, but it’s not rocket science, either. Just remember everyone: White ballots go into the WHITE pile, yellow ballots go into the YELLOW pile…
* The KMT is particularly interested in reducing turnout on the referendum question of whether voters think national assets stolen by the KMT over 40 years of martial law should be recovered. By law, the results of the vote are invalidated if less than 50% of voters cast ballots on the issue.
Right on. Without the fear factor, more voters would participate in the referendum, and it would pass with little trouble.
BTW, did you see this piece?:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20071202.aspx
*
*
No, I didn’t see that, so thanks for the link. Contradictory stuff coming out of Beijing over the Kitty Hawk affair, and I guess there’s two possibilities here. Either there really IS a power struggle in the Chinese government (as Strategy Page says), or the Chinese are feigning a power struggle as a “polite” way of avoiding responsibility. Let’s face it, they’d really burn their bridges with the U.S. if they said outright, “Yes, we denied storm shelter to American ships and we’re glad we did so.”
Be interesting to read what Michael Turton thinks about this. My guess after reading some of his latest stuff on the incident (great, great posts, by the way) is that he believes the latter. But since I don’t even know what **I** think, I’d better refrain from putting words into other people’s mouths.