Ballot Flashing: An Angel's Cry for Help, or the Devil's Trill?

Ballot Flashing: An Angel's Cry for Help, or the Devil's Trill?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2014

Executive Summary: We would like to offer a reminder to the ruling and opposition parties. To be meaningful the political process must be universal in its nature. They cannot cater only to their own partisan interests. They cannot blow hot or cold based on short-sighted political calculations. They cannot dance with the devil out of self-interest. They cannot portray themselves as angels only when they are the ones seeking justice. Who will believe them? To solve the ballot flashing dispute the blue and green camps must set aside their political calculations, and share responsibility for the nation's governance.

Full Text Below:

The DPP election victory in the nine in one elections was too great a surprise. The DPP soon snatched defeat from the jaws of victory during the county council and city council speaker elections. Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly issued orders requiring ballot flashing. Yet party members defected nonetheless. She blasted them, saying "Selling your votes is a blot on democracy." The DPP responded by demanding the expulsion of party members who defected. Tsai Ing-wen also harangued Eric Chu, demanding that he co-sponsor an amendment making local speaker and deputy speaker elections “open ballot” systems “just like the Legislative Yuan elections.”

Tsai Ing-wen's diatribe betrayed her confusion and panic. Legislative Yuan elections have always used “secret ballots” rather than "open ballots". Tsai Ing-wen demanded reform, then unwitting demanded the opposite of what she said she wanted. So just exactly what reform did she want? Blue camp legislators fired back. They said she served as a legislator yet was ignorant of these simple facts. Her term as a legislator was clearly a farce.

Several issues must be clarified. One. Vote buying is a fact of life in local county and city council elections. It undermines local democracy and good government. But is "ballot flashing" really the solution? Two. The DPP has long opposed KMT ballot flashing during elections. But when their own ox is being gored, they do not hesitate to invoke party disciplinary measures to ensure that DPP members flash their ballots. Are they not contradicting themselves? Three. The DPP says it wants speaker elections to use "secret ballots." But why stop there? Why change only the local council elections? Why not change the Legislative Yuan elections as well? Should this be applied to Examination Yuan and Control Yuan monitoring authority as well? Four. When confronted with the "will of the party," do party members really have no right to exercise independent judgement?

The DPP has long opposed ballot flashing. Yet It now vehemently and uncharacteristically demands ballot flashing. It even demands that party members sign "ballot flashing pledges!" No matter what the rationale, the DPP is going to find it hard to justify its flip-flop. True. Local council elections have the taint of vote buying, which undermines the DPP's dream of “total governance” in many counties and municipalities. But resorting to illegal ballot flashing to rein in their own party members merely proves green camp talk of party discipline is empty rhetoric. When the DPP opposed ballot flashing it denounced it as “selling one's soul to the devil.” Now that the DPP supports ballot flashing, it lauds ballot flashing as an "angel of mercy" in its fight against “black gold.” In fact, ballot flashing is neither an "angel's cry for help" or the "Devil's Trill". It is merely the sound of the DPP flapping its lips.

For the DPP, ballot flashing went from being "intolerable" to being the DPP's "party ethic". Why? Because the motivation for ballot flashing changed. In the past, technical ballot flashing was proof that “See, I voted the way you bribed me to” or “See, I voted the party line, as ordered.” The DPP's demand for ballot flashing is a way to force party members to toe the party line, to make them prove that "See, I voted as the party ordered me to.” Take this a step further. Weigh the rule of law against the will of the party. The bottom line is the party must amend the law. It cannot blindly praise "ballot flashing" as necessary. After all, defecting during a vote is merely a violation of party discipline. But ballot flashing is a violation of the law.

Ballot flashing and vote buying are intertwined. In fact, there is no simple solution. Any solution must be three-pronged. Consider the legislative aspect. One can amend the law to require "secret ballots". One can maintain the status quo, but add penalties to punish ballot flashing. Consider the judicial aspect. Prosecutors must heed the unified opinion of the Supreme Court or ask the Grand Justices for a constitutional interpretation. There cannot be different standards for different parties. Consider the political aspect. The ruling and opposition parties must maintain consistent discipline. They must not flip-flop based on perceived short-term advantage.

First of all, changing the "Local System Act" for speaker and deputy speaker elections to enble "open ballots" is a drastic move. Council protocol for personnel elections usually adopt " secret ballots" for good reasons. It is true that open ballots help ensure political responsibility. But they are not a panacea. They cannot prevent intervention by monied interests and criminal elements. They cannot compensate for half-hearted party discipline or a criminal justice system that is all thunder but no rain. These will all allow the drama to repeat itself. This amounts to de facto legalization of ballot flashing. It merely affords monied interests and criminal elements stronger assurances. Lest we forget, the constitution specifies secret ballots for the Legislative Yuan elections. The purpose was to ensure legislators' freedom of conscience. This transcends any “will of the party.”

Secondly, amending the Criminal Law to provide punishments for ballot flashing is more in line with the constitution and the laws and regulations pertaining to "secret ballots". If a party has trouble convincing its members to support its nominees, why must party members fall in line? Of course, if the criminal penalties for ballot flashing are too light, council members will simply ignore it, Sophisticated ballot flashing techniques make the law a dead letter, especially in the absence of independent judicial opinions. All this gets lost amidst ruling vs. opposition party squabbling. The parties merely want to have it both ways, or deliberately pull their punches. Repeated flip-flopping undermines any semblance of justice and turns the law into mere window dressing.

Lastly, we would like to offer a reminder to the ruling and opposition parties. To be meaningful the political process must be universal in its nature. They cannot cater only to their own partisan interests. They cannot blow hot or cold based on short-sighted political calculations. They cannot dance with the devil out of self-interest. They cannot portray themselves as angels only when they are the ones seeking justice. Who will believe them? To solve the ballot flashing dispute the blue and green camps must set aside their political calculations, and share responsibility for the nation's governance.

亮票：天使的呼救，或魔鬼的顫音？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.30 02:13 am

民進黨在九合一選舉勝得大出意料，卻旋即在縣市議長爭奪戰敗得張皇失措。蔡英文三令五申要求亮票，黨籍議員還是相繼跑票，她只能痛批「出賣選票，是民主之恥」。為此，民進黨除要求對跑票議員祭出「開除黨籍」之重懲，蔡英文也向朱立倫喊話，要求共同推動修法，將地方正副議長選舉「比照立法院長選舉」改為「記名投票」。

這段喊話，卻暴露了蔡英文的認知錯誤與急功近利。原因是，立法院長選舉一直是採取「不記名」的祕密投票，而非「記名投票」；蔡英文要求改革，卻提出了相反的範本，那麼她心裡想的是什麼改革？藍軍立委因此反脣相譏，說她當過立委卻不知其詳，根本是當假的。

於是，也就產生了幾個必須釐清的問題：一，地方議會選舉的賄選是事實，也傷害了地方民主和廉政，但「亮票」是不是正當的解決之道？二，民進黨長期在許多投票中反對國民黨亮票，到了自己利益攸關時刻卻動用黨紀要求黨員亮票，這沒有自相矛盾嗎？三，如果認為議長選舉應改為「記名投票」，那可以只改地方議會，卻不管立法院嗎？考試及監察院長的同意權行使是否也要比照辦理？四，在「黨意」面前，黨員果真沒有任何自由意志可言嗎？

民進黨從過去長期反對亮票，到如今一反常態強力要求亮票，甚至要求黨員簽下「亮票承諾書」，無論如何振振有詞，都很難自圓其說。不可否認，地方議會賄聲賄影，確實破壞了民進黨在許多縣市「完全執政」的大夢；但是，要用違法亮票的手段來約束黨籍議員的行為，只證明綠營談什麼黨紀威嚴、政治風格都是假的。在反對亮票時，把亮票說成是出賣靈魂的「魔鬼交易」；在要求亮票時，又把亮票形容為反制黑金的「天使救贖」。事實上，在「天使的呼救」與「魔鬼的顫音」之間，恐怕只有一片民進黨的如簧之舌在左右震動。

亮票之所以從「不可容忍」，到今天變成民進黨口中的「黨德」，主要原因在亮票的動機發生了變化。過去許多時候，技術性亮票是為了做給賄選或政治結盟的一方看，示意說「看，我投了你一票」；但在民進黨的規範下，亮票則是要做給同志看，說明自己「我遵照黨的指示投票」。然而，若要進一步辯證法制及黨意的高下，根本之道，恐怕還是得動手修法，而不能在那裡一味歌頌「亮票」之必要。畢竟，跑票只是違反黨紀，而亮票卻是觸法行為。

亮票及買票的糾纏，其實沒有簡單的解決之道，必須三管齊下。在立法部分，或者要修法改為「記名投票」，或者維持現狀但增訂罰則懲罰亮票行為；在司法部分，檢方非常上訴由最高法院統一見解，或者聲請大法官會議釋憲，不能標準不一各判各的；在政治部分，朝野維護黨紀要有一貫的價值，不可忽高忽低，只問如何有利於己。

首先，將《地方制度法》中有關正副議長選舉改成「記名投票」，不失為釜底抽薪的解決辦法；但必須提醒的是，議事學原理對「人事表決」通常採取「祕密投票」，並非無故。原因是，記名投票可以明政治責任，卻非解決金錢與暴力介入的萬靈丹，有心無力的黨紀，雷大雨小的司法，都會讓跑票與買票的戲碼不斷重演；形同「亮票合法化」的記名投票，更會是金錢與暴力遂行的保證。更別忘了，憲法規定立法院長選舉採「無記名投票」，是為了保障立委的自由意志，使其超乎黨意。

其次，修改刑法和地制法明訂處罰亮票行為，其實較符合憲法及相關法律規定「無記名投票」的原旨。試問，若黨提名的人選難以服人，黨員非要屈從嗎？當然，若法律對亮票的懲罰刑度不大，議員不以為意，精進的亮票技術很容易讓法律形同具文。尤其，司法部門若缺乏自主見解，卻迷失在朝野的政治口號之中，只想左右逢源或刻意放水，自我反覆的結果將無法彰顯任何正義或價值，只是讓法律成為裝飾。

最後，提醒朝野政黨要在政治過程中建立普遍、而有意義的價值，不能只憑自己的利益計算在那裡翻雲覆雨。若為了貪圖一點私利，便不惜與魔鬼共舞；而在需要正義時，卻又把自己說成天使，其誰能信？要解決亮票爭議，藍綠得拋開各自的算計，這是朝野必須共同承擔的責任。