Taiwan's 2012 Presidential Election

Sullivan, Jonathan

doi:10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00289.x

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tsai was defeated by the incumbent Ma Ying-Jeou from the Kuomintang (KMT hereafter). It is believed that Tsai's loss could be attributed to people's perception of her pro-independence attitude on the cross-strait relationship with China, even though she claimed that she espoused the moderate position (Sullivan 2013).…”

Section: Case Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extreme Candidates as the Beneficent Spoiler? Range Effect in the Plurality Voting System

Wang

Chen

2018

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the entrance of radical candidates influence election results? Conventional wisdom suggests that extreme candidates merely split the votes. Based on the range effect theory in cognitive psychology, we hypothesize that the entrance of an extreme candidate reframes the endpoints of the ideological spectrum among available candidates, which makes the moderate one on the same side to be perceived by the voters as even more moderate. Through two survey experiments in the United States and Taiwan, we provide empirical support for range effect in the vote choice in the plurality system. The results imply that a mainstream party can, even without changing its own manifesto, benefit from the entrance of its radical counterpart; it explains why the mainstream party may choose cooperation strategically. Our findings also challenge the assumption in regression models that the perceived ideological positions of candidates are independent of each other.

show abstract

Section: Case Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extreme Candidates as the Beneficent Spoiler? Range Effect in the Plurality Voting System

Wang

Chen

2018

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the KMT's vote and seat reductions, it had retained a working majority in parliament, which meant that Taiwan would see another four years of unified government, with the presidency and parliament in KMT hands. This paper builds upon earlier analyses of the 2012 elections by Gunter Schubert (2012) and Jonathan Sullivan (2013), with the two following main objectives. Firstly, we seek to compare the 2012 elections with some of the more recent national-level campaigns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons of Defeat and Success: Taiwan's 2012 Elections in Comparative Perspective

Fell¹,

Chen²

2014

Journal of Current Chinese Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In early 2011, the Kuomintang (KMT, Guomindang) government appeared to be in danger of losing power in the upcoming presidential elections. The DPP had recovered sufficiently from its disastrous electoral performance in 2008 to pose a real challenge to Ma Ying-jeou (Ma Yingjiu) and had matched the KMT's vote share in midterm local elections. Ma also faced the challenge of an independent presidential candidate, James Soong (Song Chuyu), who had come a close second in 2000 and now threatened to divide the pro KMT vote. Nevertheless, the KMT was able to win reduced majorities in both the presidential and legislative elections in January 2012. This article seeks to explain how the KMT was able to hold on to power by comparing the campaign with earlier national-level elections. We are interested in identifying the degree to which the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP, Minjindang) learnt from its electoral setbacks in 2008 and whether the KMT employed a similar campaign strategy to the one that had been so effective in returning it to power in 2008. Our analysis relies of an examination of campaign propaganda and campaign strategies as well as participant observation and survey data from 2012 and earlier contests.

show abstract

“…As the possibility of such an election-driven change of ruling parties is one of the most important features distinguishing democracies from authoritarian states, attention in Taiwan usually centres on the shifting of power from one party to another, as well as on the island's electoral system, party politics, election campaigns, national identity and political behaviour (e.g. Fell 2006Fell , 2011Rawnsley 2003;Rigger 1999Rigger , 2001Rigger , 2006Sullivan 2013aSullivan , 2013b. There are an impressive number of studies which compare and contrast the social, cultural, political and economic conditions in Taiwan before and after democratisation (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%