政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/37492

政大典藏 > College of Social Science > Graduate Institute of Development Studies > Theses > Item 140.119/37492

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37492

Title:	選舉制度與結果的比例性偏差：以台灣立法委員選舉制度為例（1992-2008） The disproportionality of electoral system: the case of legislative election in Taiwan (1992-2008)
Authors:	張佑丞 Chang, Yu-Cheng
Contributors:	隋杜卿 Swei, Duh-Ching 張佑丞 Chang, Yu-Cheng
Keywords:	選舉制度杜瓦傑法則比例性偏差複席單記非讓渡投票制並立式混合制聯立式混合制 Electoral System Duverger’s Law Disproportionality SNTV-MMD MMM MMP
Date:	2008
Issue Date:	2009-09-19 14:02:49 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	選舉制度的設計與評估，主要有兩方面的考量，一是可治理性；二是分配的比例性。以台灣的情況為例，新選制的選舉結果，理論上政府的運作將趨向穩定；相較之下，在制度替換的過程中，改革者通常只看見舊制度的缺失，舊制度本身所具有的優點－比例性，在改革過程中往往被忽視。本文的研究目的即是重拾對比例性的視野，透過Loosemore-Hanby D指數測量選制改革前後的比例性偏差程度，檢視1992至2008年間比例性偏差數值的變化，並從五個面向－選區規模、席次分配、法定門檻、席次總數、選票結構－解釋比例性偏差發生的原因，發現所有的選制設計皆不利於比例性，導致新選制的比例性偏差與舊制度產生極大的落差。此外，透過比較其他可能的比例性狀況可以發現，無論是聯立制的模擬或是票源模擬的結果，皆顯示有助於提升小黨的代表性；另一方面，同樣採用並立制的日本，四次的選舉經驗可以做為我國參考的對象，但是由於選舉制度的各項要素不盡相同，也使得兩國選舉結果的比例性和小黨代表性呈現差異性。最後，混合制固然同時融合了相對多數決制和比例代表制的特性，但是由於制度上選制要素以及非制度上國情與社會狀況的不同，很難期待一個完美的選舉制度出現，因此，我們只能尋求一個理想的選舉制度，且善用混合制所具有的彈性，做出適度的調整。 Upon the evaluation of an electoral system, the main concerns are the governability and proportionality. In Taiwan’s case, the electoral system of Legislative Yuan altered from SNTV to mixed-member system; however, the reformers invariably accentuated the stability of governance but ignored the semi-proportionality of SNTV. Hence, the result of election in 2008 got unbalance between governability and proportionality. This article tends to measure the degree of disproportionality by Loosemore-Hanby index from 1992 to 2008 and tries to explain how disproportionality occurred from five dimensions－district magnitude, levels of seat allocation, threshold, number of total seats, and ballot structure. In addition, the results could be quite different when it compared with of other situations. According to this paper, the representation of small parties and the degree of proportionality will be enhanced while adopting MMP and redistributing the votes. Moreover, this paper is going to make a comparative study with Japan which have adopted MMM and have experienced four times elections since 1996. Finally, although mixed systems combine some features of both plurality and PR, there is still no perfect electoral system in the world. However, by making good use of flexibility of mixed systems, we might have an “ideal” system which can be regularly updated to suit changing needs and political conditions.
Reference:	一、學位論文王維芳（2003），《半總統制新興民主國家的制度設計與政治穩定：蒙古及波蘭的比較分析》，國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所博士論文。吳振嘉（2003），《選舉制度變革的影響因素─以日本、台灣為例》，國立政治大學政治研究所碩士論文。李鳳玉（2001），《半總統制下的總統干預與政府穩定─威瑪德國、法國第五共和、後共波蘭與台灣》，國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。沈靜倫（2001），《單一選區兩票制於台灣之適用性探討》，國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。劉世康（1997），《我國立法委員選舉制度改革之研究》，東海大學政治學研究所碩士論文。謝相慶（1996），《選舉制度與選舉結果的不比例性之比較研究》，國立政治大學政治學研究所博士論文。二、中文書目王中天（2008），〈SNTV的政黨失誤類型之探討、測量與運用：以台灣立法院選舉為例（1992-2004）〉，《選舉研究》，第15卷，第1期，頁51-72。王業立（1991），〈我國現行中央選舉制度的理論與實際〉，《政治科學論叢》，第2期，頁135-152。王業立（1995），〈單記非讓渡投票制的政治影響：我國民意代表選舉制度的探討〉，《選舉研究》，第2卷，第1期，頁147-167。王業立（1996），〈我國政黨提名政策之研究〉，《政治學報》，第27期，頁1-36。王業立（1999），〈立委選舉制度改革之探討〉，《理論與政策》，第50期，頁143-159。王業立（2008），《比較選舉制度》，第6版，台北：五南。任德厚（1990），〈制度研究與當代政治學之發展〉，《政治科學論叢》，第1期，頁1-30。吳玉山（2000），《俄羅斯轉型1992-1999：一個政治經濟學的分析》，台北：五南。吳玉山（2001），〈制度、結構與政治穩定〉，《政治學報》，第32期，頁1-30。吳明上（2003），〈日本眾議院議員選舉制度改革之探討：小選區比例代表並立制〉，《問題與研究》，第42卷，第2期，頁79-93。吳東野（1996），〈「單一選區兩票制」選舉方法之探討─德國、日本、俄羅斯選舉之實例比較〉，《選舉研究》，第3卷，第1期，頁69-102。吳重禮（2008），《政黨與選舉：理論與實踐》，台北：三民。呂世昌（2002），〈德國選舉制度之演變及其運作〉，《中山學報》，第23期，頁167-192。林瓊珠（2008），〈議題、候選人評價、黨派意識─2006年台北市長選舉投票行為研究〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第5卷，第2期，頁59-87。林繼文（1997a），〈制度選擇如何可能：論日本之選舉制度改革〉，《台灣政治學刊》，第2期，頁63-106。林繼文（1997b），〈政黨重組與選舉制度改革〉，《國家政策雙周刊》，第162期，「日本選舉制度改革的回顧與檢討」專輯，頁2-4。林繼文（1999），〈單一選區兩票制與選舉制度改革〉，《新世紀智庫論壇》，第6期，頁69-79。林繼文（2001），〈選舉制度：國會改革的基礎工程〉，《當代》，第171期，頁58-77。林繼文（2008），〈以輸為贏：小黨在日本單一選區兩票制下的參選策略〉，《選舉研究》，第15卷，第2期，頁37-66。施正鋒（1999），《台灣政治建構》，台北：前衛出版社。若林正丈（2004），《台灣：分裂國家與民主化》，台北：新自然主義。徐永明、陳鴻章（2002），〈老狗學把戲：立委選舉政黨提名的有效性〉，《東吳政治學報》，第15期，頁87-121。袁訟西等編（1985），《中華民國選舉罷免制度》，台北：中央選舉委員會。高永光（1995），〈台灣選舉中之不比例性的分析─八十三年地方自治大選之個案研究〉，《中山人文社會科學期刊》，第4卷，第1期，頁47-76。張隆義（1996），〈日本眾議院選舉與今後政局的走向〉，《問題與研究》，第35卷，第12期，頁59-68。盛杏湲（2009），〈台灣選民政黨偏好的持續與變遷：定群追蹤資料的應用〉，「TEDS 2008L 台灣選舉與民主化調查計畫」學術研討會（國立台灣大學社會科學院主辦），台北。陳光輝（2009），〈「台灣選舉與民主化調查」受訪者藍綠支持的維持與變動〉，「TEDS 2008L 台灣選舉與民主化調查計畫」學術研討會（國立台灣大學社會科學院主辦），台北。陳儔美（1997），〈從第四十一屆眾議院選舉看日本的新選舉制度〉，《問題與研究》，第36卷，第4期，頁63-75。陳儔美（2001），〈日本第四十二屆眾議院選舉研析〉，《問題與研究》，第40卷，第5期，頁23-37。游清鑫（1996），〈論兩票制的政治效果〉，《國家政策雙周刊》，第154期，「政經生態之重整」專輯，頁5-7。游清鑫（1997），〈1996年日本眾議院選舉結果之探討〉，《國家政策雙周刊》，第162期，「日本選舉制度改革的回顧與檢討」專輯，頁8-10。游清鑫（2000），〈選舉機制與民主化〉，「兩岸立法制度」學術研討會（國立政治大學政治學系、中山人文社會科學研究所主辦），7月22日，台北。游清鑫（2003），〈單一選區兩票制：成分與政治影響〉，收錄於社團法人台灣法學會主編，《台灣法學新課題（四）》，台北：元照，頁1-30。隋杜卿（2002），〈立委選制改革對政治運作之影響─以「單一選區兩票制」為例〉，收錄於陳建民、周育仁主編，《國會改革與憲政發展》，台北：國家政策研究基金會，頁143-189。隋杜卿（2003），〈「單一選區」選制改革對比例性的影響：第五屆立法委員投票結果的模擬〉，「憲政民主與國家發展」學術研討會（國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所主辦），6月24日，台北。黃秀端（2000），〈選民的策略投票：單一選區與SNTV制度的比較〉，「台灣政治學會第七屆年會」（國立中山大學政治學研究所主辦），高雄。黃德福（1993），〈選舉制度與政黨政治─台灣地區解嚴後選舉競爭的觀察〉，《理論與政策》，第7卷，第4期，頁3-21。楊鈞池（2005），〈一九九○年代日本選舉制度改革及其影響之分析〉，《高大法學論叢》，頁3-50。潘誠財（2007），〈日本眾議院新選舉制度對政黨體系形成之影響─1996~2005眾議院選舉之分析〉，《復興崗學報》，頁411-438。蔡子強（1997），〈第八章選舉制度與投票行為〉，收錄於鄭宇碩、羅金義，《政治學新論：西方學理與中華經驗》，香港：中文大學，頁171-196。蔡佳泓等（2008），〈選制變遷對政黨體系之影響評估：變異量結構模型之探討〉，「如何評估選制變遷：方法論的探討」學術研討會（國立政治大學選舉研究中心主辦），台北。蔡增家（2004），《日本轉型：九○年之後政治經濟體制的轉變》，台北：五南。蔡學儀（2003），《解析單一選區兩票制》，台北：五南。鄭夙芬（2008），〈選民對新選制的認知與評價：焦點團體研究法的運用〉，「如何評估選制變遷：方法論的探討」學術研討會（國立政治大學選舉研究中心主辦），台北。鄧志松等（2008），〈選區劃分與席位扭曲：第六、七屆立委選舉為例〉，「台灣政治學會年會暨研討會」（國立暨南國際大學主辦），南投。謝相慶（1999），〈日本眾議院議員新選舉制度及其政治效應─以1996年選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，第6卷，第2期，頁45-87。謝復生（1992），《政黨比例代表制》，台北：理論與政策雜誌社。三、譯著 Dahl, Robert A.原著；李柏光、林猛合譯（1999），《論民主》，台北：聯經。 Neuman, W. Lawrence原著；王佳煌等合譯（2002），《當代社會硏究法 : 質化與量化途徑》，臺北市 : 學富文化。 Nohlen, Dieter (1996), 〈拉丁美洲的選舉制度與選舉改革〉, Arend Lijphart and Carlos H. Waisman (eds.),《新興民主國家的憲政選擇》，蔡熊山、陳駿德、陳景堯譯，1999，第三章，台北：韋伯文化。沖野安春原著；曹瑞泰譯（2000），《現代日本政治：制度與選舉過程》，台北：國立編譯館。四、報紙資料中時晚報，1995年1月2日，2版。自立早報，1995年10月25日，2版。青年日報，1995年10月25日，2版。聯合晚報，1995年12月6日，1版。中央日報，1995年12月7日，2版。五、英文書目 Balinski, Michel L. and H. Peyton Young (1982), Fair Representation, New Haven: Yale University Press. Blais, Andre and R. K. Carty (1991), “The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger’s Elusive Factor,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 79-93. Butler, David (1995), British General Elections since 1945, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Carstairs, A. McLaren (1980), A Short History of Electoral Systems in Western Europe, London: George Allen & Unwin. Cox, Gary W. (1991), “SNTV and d’Hondt are ‘Equivalent’,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 118-132. Cox, Gary W. (1996), “Is the Single Nontransferable Vote Superproportional? Evidence from Japan and Taiwan,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 740-755. Cox, Gary W. and Emerson Niou (1994), “Seat Bonuses under the Single Non-Transferable Vote System: Evidence from Japan and Taiwan,” Comparative politics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 221-236. Cox, Gary W. and Frances Rosenbluth (1993), “The Electoral Fortunes of Legislative Factions in Japan,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 577-589 Cox, Gary W. and Leonard J. Schoppa (2002), “Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Theory and Evidence from Germany, Japan, and Italy,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1027-1053. Dunleavy, Patrick and Helen Margetts (1995), “Understanding the Dynamics of Electoral Reform,” International Political Science Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 9-29. Duverger, Maurice (1955), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, Translated by Barbara and Robert North, New York: Wiley. Duverger, Maurice (1984), “Which Is the Best Electoral System?” in Arend Lijphart and B. Grofman, Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives, New York: Praeger, pp. 31-39. Duverger, Maurice (1986), “Duverger’s Law: Forty Years Later,” in B. Grofman and A. Lijphart (eds.), Electoral Law and Their Political Consequences, New York: Agathon Press, pp. 69-84. Farrell, David M. (1997), Comparing Electoral Systems, New York: Prentice Hall. Farrell, David M. (2001), Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction, New York: Palgrave. Ferrara, Federico (2004), “Electoral Coordination and the Strategic Desertion of Strong Parties in Compensatory Mixed Systems with Negative Vote Transfers,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 391-413. Ferrara, Federico, Erik S. Herron, and Misa Nishikawa (2005), Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gallagher, Michael (1991), “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 33-51. Gallagher, Michael and Paul Mitchell (2005), “Introduction to Electoral Systems,” in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, The Politics of Electoral Systems, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-23. Golder, Matt (2005), “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946-2000,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 103-121. Grofman, Bernard (1999a), “SNTV, STV, and Single-Member-District Systems: Theoretical Comparisons and Contrasts,” in B. Grofman (eds.), Election in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 317-333. Grofman, Bernard (1999b), “SNTV: An Inventory of Theoretically Derived Propositions and a Brief Review of the Evidence from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Alabama,” in B. Grofman (eds.), Election in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 375-416. Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng (1996), “The SNTV System and It’s Political Implications,” in Hung-mao Tien (eds.), Taiwan`s Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 193-212. Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng (1999), “Manipulating the Electoral System under the SNTV: The Case of the Republic of China,” in B. Grofman (eds.), Election in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 65-84. Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng (2002), “Continuity and Change in Taiwan’s Electoral Politics,” in John Fuh-sheng Hsieh and David Newman (eds.), How Asia Votes, New York: Chatham House Publishers, Seven Bridges Press, pp. 32-49. Hurwitz, Leon (1971), “An Index of Democratic Political Stability: A Methodological Note,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (April), pp. 41-68. Johnston, R. J. and C. J. Pattie (2002), “Campaigning and Split-Ticket Voting in New Electoral Systems: the First MMP Election in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 583-600. Kaase, Max (1984), “Personalized Proportional Representation: The “Model” of the West German Electoral System,” in Arend Lijphart and B. Grofman, Choosing an electoral system: issues and alternatives, New York: Praeger, pp. 155-164. Katz, Richard (1980), A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Katz, Richard (2005), “Why Are There So Many (or So Few) Electoral Reforms?” Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, pp. 57-76. Kendall, M. G. and A. Stuart (1950), “The Law of the Cubic Proportion in Election Results,” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 183-196. Kostadinova, Tatiana (2002), “Do Mixed Electoral Systems Matter?: A Cross-National Analysis of Their Effects in Eastern Europe,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 23-34. Laakso, Markku (1979), “Should a Two-and-a-Half Law Replace the Cube Law in British Elections?” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 355-362. Laakso, Markku and Rein Taagepera(1979), “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 3-27. Lakeman, Enid and James D. Lambert (1955), Voting in Democracies: A Study of the Majority and Proportional Electoral Systems, London: Faber and Faber. Lijphart, Arend (1984a), “Trying to Have the Best of Both Worlds: Semi-Proportional and Mixed Systems,” in Arend Lijphart and B. Grofman, Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives, New York: Praeger, pp. 207-213. Lijphart, Arend (1984b), Democracy: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus of Government in Twenty-One Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University. Lijphart, Arend (1994), Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, 1945-1990. New York: Oxford University Press. Lijphart, Arend (1997), “The Difficult Science of Electoral Systems: A Commentary on the Critique by Alberto Penades,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 16, No. 17, pp. 73-77. Lijphart, Arend (1999), “SNTV and STV Compared: Their Political Consequences in Japan, Ireland, and Malta,” in B. Grofman (eds.), Election in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 289-299. Lijphart, Arend and Robert W. Gibberd (1977), “Thresholds and Payoffs in List Systems of Proportional Representation,” European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 219-244. Lijphart, Arend, Rafael Lopez Pintor, and Yasunori (1986), “The Limited Vote and the Single Nontransferable Vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish Examples,” in B. Grofman and A. Lijphart (eds.), Electoral Law and Their Political Consequences, New York: Agathon Press, pp. 154-169. Lin, Tse-min, Feng-yu Lee, and Chin-en Wu (2009), “The Spatial Organization of Elections and the Cube Law: Taiwan’s 2008 Legislative Elections,” in Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study International Conference, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Liu, I-Chou (1999), “Campaigning in an SNTV System: The Case of the Kuomintang in Taiwan,” in B. Grofman (eds.), Election in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 181-208. Loosemore, John and Victor J. Hanby (1971), “The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytic Expressions for Electoral Systems,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 467-477. Mackie, Thomas and Richard Rose (1991), The International Almanac Electoral History, Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Massicotte, Louis and Andre Blais (1999), “Mixed Electoral System: A Conceptual and Empirical Survey,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 341-366. Moser, Robert G. and Ethan Scheiner (2004), “Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effect: Controlled Comparison and Cross-National Analysis,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 575-599. Nishikawa, Misa and Erik S. Herron (2004), “Mixed Electoral Rules’ Impact on Party Systems,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 753-768. Norris, Pippa (1997), “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed System,” International Political Science Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.297-312. Norris, Pippa (2004), Electoral engineering: voting rules and political behavior, New York: Cambridge University Press. Rae, Dogulas (1967), The political consequences of electoral laws, New Haven: Yale University Press. Rae, Dogulas, et al. (1971), “Thresholds of Representation and Thresholds of Exclution,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol.3, pp. 479-488. Reed, Steven R. (2005), “Japan: Haltingly Towards a Two-Party System,” in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, The Politics of Electoral Systems, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 277-293. Reed, Steven R. and Michael F. Thies (2001), “The Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan,” in Matthew S. Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg, Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 380-403. Reeve, Andrew and Alan Ware (1992), Electoral Systems: A Comparative and Theoretical Introduction, New York: Routledge. Riedwyl, Hans and Jurg Steiner (1995), “What Is Proportionality Anyhow?” Comparative Politics, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 357-369. Riker, William H. (1982), “The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science,” The American Political Science Association, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 753-766. Riker, William H. (1986), “Duverger’s Law Revisited,” in B. Grofman and A. Lijphart (eds.), Electoral Law and Their Political Consequences, New York: Agathon Press, pp. 19-42. Rose, Richard (1984), “Electoral System: A Question of Degree or of Principle?” in Arend Lijphart and B. Grofman, Choosing an electoral system: issues and alternatives, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 73-81. Schaap, Ross D. (2005), “The House of Representatives’ election in Japan, November 2003,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 123-160. Shugart, Matthew S. (2005), “Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of Field and New Challenges Ahead,” in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, The Politics of Electoral Systems, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 25-55. Shugart, Matthew S. and Wattenberg (2001), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taagepera, Rein (1984), “The Effect of District Magnitude and Properties of Two-Seat Districts,” in Arend Lijphart and B. Grofman, Choosing an electoral system: issues and alternatives, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 91-101. Taagepera, Rein (1998), “Effective Magnitude and Effective Threshold,” Electoral Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 393-404. Taagepera, Rein and Matthew S. Shugart (1989), Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thies, Michael (2002), “Changing How the Japanese Vote: The Promise and Pitfalls of the 1994 Electoral Reform,” in John Fuh-sheng Hsieh and David Newman (eds.), How Asia Votes, New York: Chatham House Publishers, Seven Bridges Press, pp. 92-117. Tufte, Edward R. (1973), “The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 540-554. Winckler, Edwin A. (1999), “Electoral Equilibria on Taiwan,” in B. Grofman (eds.), Election in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 266-286. Yu, Ching-Hsin (2009), “Changes in Party System under the Mixed-Member Majoritarian System in Taiwan,” in International Conference on Elections in Taiwan, Japan, and Korea under the Mixed-Member Electoral Systems, Election Study Center at National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學國家發展研究所 96261008 97
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0962610081
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Development Studies] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
008101.pdf	101Kb	Adobe PDF2	964	View/Open
008102.pdf	137Kb	Adobe PDF2	960	View/Open
008103.pdf	124Kb	Adobe PDF2	1045	View/Open
008104.pdf	111Kb	Adobe PDF2	886	View/Open
008105.pdf	137Kb	Adobe PDF2	955	View/Open
008106.pdf	108Kb	Adobe PDF2	949	View/Open
008107.pdf	105Kb	Adobe PDF2	1200	View/Open
008108.pdf	93Kb	Adobe PDF2	963	View/Open
008109.pdf	390Kb	Adobe PDF2	1215	View/Open
008110.pdf	682Kb	Adobe PDF2	4621	View/Open
008111.pdf	634Kb	Adobe PDF2	1815	View/Open
008112.pdf	643Kb	Adobe PDF2	2248	View/Open
008113.pdf	242Kb	Adobe PDF2	1226	View/Open
008114.pdf	179Kb	Adobe PDF2	1438	View/Open
008115.pdf	159Kb	Adobe PDF2	942	View/Open
008116.pdf	119Kb	Adobe PDF2	813	View/Open
008117.pdf	211Kb	Adobe PDF2	845	View/Open
008118.pdf	164Kb	Adobe PDF2	982	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...