Human rationality–the ability to behave in order to maximize the achievement of their presumed goals (i.e., their optimal choices)–is the foundation for democracy. Research evidence has suggested that voters may not make decisions after exhaustively processing relevant information; instead, our decision-making capacity may be restricted by our own biases and the environment. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which humans in a democratic society can be rational when making decisions in a serious, complex situation–voting in a local political election. We believe examining human rationality in a political election is important, because a well-functioning democracy rests largely upon the rational choices of individual voters. Previous research has shown that explicit political attitudes predict voting intention and choices (i.e., actual votes) in democratic societies, indicating that people are able to reason comprehensively when making voting decisions. Other work, though, has demonstrated that the attitudes of which we may not be aware, such as our implicit (e.g., subconscious) preferences, can predict voting choices, which may question the well-functioning democracy. In this study, we systematically examined predictors on voting intention and choices in the 2014 mayoral election in Taipei, Taiwan. Results indicate that explicit political party preferences had the largest impact on voting intention and choices. Moreover, implicit political party preferences interacted with explicit political party preferences in accounting for voting intention, and in turn predicted voting choices. Ethnic identity and perceived voting intention of significant others were found to predict voting choices, but not voting intention. In sum, to the comfort of democracy, voters appeared to engage mainly explicit, controlled processes in making their decisions; but findings on ethnic identity and perceived voting intention of significant others may suggest otherwise.

The decisions voters make—and whether those decisions are rational—have profound implications on the functionality of a democratic society. In this study, we delineated two criteria in evaluating voter rationality and weigh evidence of voter rationality versus irrationality. Furthermore, we compared models in two different elections in Taiwan to explore the reasons behind the irrational choices voters can make. Survey questions and an implicit association test (IAT) were administered prior to both elections among 197 voters in Taipei. These voters then reported their actual votes post-election. Model testing suggests that voters often are rational, but are more likely to make irrational choices in more important elections. Our findings indicate that voters generally aim to be diligent and to optimize their choices, even if they make less rational choices in the end. Further implications regarding elections and human rationality are discussed.

Conventional belief suggests that the ruling party in the ‘single non-transferable voting’ (SNTV) system can often coordinate legislative candidates through the allocation of resources, and previous research shows that both local factions and budget distribution influence the process of candidate coordination. Modeling the seat shares of the Kuomintang (KMT) in the 1992, 1995, 1998 and 2001 legislative elections, this article contends that the number of local factions and chairmen in parliament largely determines the KMT’s seat gains. Evidence shows that the KMT was apt to coordinate candidates through the position of committee chairpersons in the Legislative Yuan, and its failure to do so in the 2001 election contributed to its fall.

No abstract

It is widely believed that identity with Taiwanese or Chinese is the major cleavage in Taiwan. People who hold Taiwanese identity tend to vote for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and those who identify themselves as both Chinese and Taiwanese are likely to vote for the Kuomintang. As the proportion of Taiwanese identifiers increases, the geographical difference seems to persist. Whether national identity is associated with regional line and why they are correlated is a pressing question. This paper uses the 2012 presidential election survey data to explore the extent to which regional divide accounts for national identity. Using generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMM), this research finds minor regional divide in terms of ethnicity concentration and economic structure. However, ethnic background is influential on national identity while retrospective evaluation and democratic value are significant predictors. This mixed result suggests that people in Taiwan have united national identity should geographical difference remain or even decrease, and that we should remain watchful about the influence of democratic value and economic concern.