Split-Ticket Voting: An Analysis of the 1994 Tapei Elections

Issues and Studies

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 75-83

  Hung, Yung Tai ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHENGCHI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Party identification; Split ticket voting; The 1994 taipei elections

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242287743     PISSN: 10132511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Huang Teh-fu, "A Preliminary Study of Split-Ticket Voting in the 1989 Taiwan Elections: Using Taipei County, Yunlin County, and Kaohsiung County as Cases," Zhengzhi xuebao (Political Science Journal), no. 19 (1991): 55-80; Huang Teh-fu, "Split Voters in the 1994 Elections on Taiwan: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan Province and Taipei City" (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 31-September 3, 1995).
2. Huang Teh-fu, "A Preliminary Study of Split-Ticket Voting in the 1989 Taiwan Elections: Using Taipei County, Yunlin County, and Kaohsiung County as Cases," Zhengzhi xuebao (Political Science Journal), no. 19 (1991): 55-80; Huang Teh-fu, "Split Voters in the 1994 Elections on Taiwan: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan Province and Taipei City" (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 31-September 3, 1995).
3. Paul Allen Beck, Lawrence Baum, Aage R. Clausen, and Charles E. Smith, Jr., "Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting," American Political Science Review 86, no. 4 (December 1992): 916-28.
4. Huang, "A Preliminary Study of Split-Ticket Voting."
5. Chen Yi-yen, "An Analysis of Split-Ticket Voting by Taipei City Voters"; Huang Teh-fu, "The Sources of Votes for the Mayoral Candidates of Taipei"; and Hung Yung-tai, "An Analysis of Aggregate Data" - all in Hung Yung-Tai, Taibeishi minzhong shizheng yixiang zhi yanjiu (A study of Taipei residents' intention about municipal administration) (Unpublished report of the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, 1995).
6. Chen Yi-yen, "An Analysis of Split-Ticket Voting by Taipei City Voters"; Huang Teh-fu, "The Sources of Votes for the Mayoral Candidates of Taipei"; and Hung Yung-tai, "An Analysis of Aggregate Data" - all in Hung Yung-Tai, Taibeishi minzhong shizheng yixiang zhi yanjiu (A study of Taipei residents' intention about municipal administration) (Unpublished report of the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, 1995).
7. Chen Yi-yen, "An Analysis of Split-Ticket Voting by Taipei City Voters"; Huang Teh-fu, "The Sources of Votes for the Mayoral Candidates of Taipei"; and Hung Yung-tai, "An Analysis of Aggregate Data" - all in Hung Yung-Tai, Taibeishi minzhong shizheng yixiang zhi yanjiu (A study of Taipei residents' intention about municipal administration) (Unpublished report of the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, 1995).
8. Chen Yi-yen, "An Analysis of Split-Ticket Voting by Taipei City Voters"; Huang Teh-fu, "The Sources of Votes for the Mayoral Candidates of Taipei"; and Hung Yung-tai, "An Analysis of Aggregate Data" - all in Hung Yung-Tai, Taibeishi minzhong shizheng yixiang zhi yanjiu (A study of Taipei residents' intention about municipal administration) (Unpublished report of the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, 1995).
9. Huang, "Split Voters in the 1994 Elections on Taiwan."
10. The quantity of ticket splitters is usually estimated in two ways, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages; the results of both are not definitively correct. The first way is to base the estimate on aggregate data, such as the all candidates' voting gains as provided by polling stations, but only the minimum amount of ticket splitters can thus be obtained. As an example, one can assume that there are ten voters, numbered from 1 to 10. Voters 1, 2, 3, and 4 vote for the mayoral candidate of party A; voters 5, 6, and 7 for the mayoral candidate of party B; and voters 8, 9, and 10 for the mayoral candidate of party C. At the same time, voters 1 and 2 cast their city councilor votes for the candidates of party A; voters 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the candidates of party B; and voters 7, 8, 9, and 10 for the candidates of party C. Thus, according to voting records, in the mayoral election, party A wins 40 percent of the votes, and parties B and C 30 percent each; in the city councilor election, party A wins 20 percent, while parties B and C each win 40 percent. Therefore, the difference of the voting percentage in these two elections is 20 percent for party A, 10 percent for party B, and 10 percent for party C. We can deduct from these figures that at least 20 percent of voters voted for candidates of different parties during these elections. However, in reality, there were a total of three ticket splitters (voters 3, 4, and 7), accounting for 30 percent of the voters. Theoretically, using polling stations' records to estimate the quantity of ticket splitters has a risk: we may obtain a "zero" estimate while split-ticket voting is present in reality. If the ten voters from the previous example voted the same in the mayoral election but differently in the city councilor election (voters 1, 2, and 3 vote for the candidates of party C; voters 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the candidates of party A; and voters 4, 9, and 10 for the candidates of party C), then the percentage of votes for party A, party B, and party C would be 40, 30, and 30 percent in both elections. No signs of split-ticket voting would be detected, but in reality, all voters are ticket splitters. The second way is to base the estimate on a sampling survey during which every respondent is questioned directly about his/her votes. This method has the reliability and validity problems that all sampling surveys have. In addition, indefinite answers, which usually account for 20 to 30 percent, are sufficient to affect all related deductions.