Taiwan's Stolen Election
In this Chu gem, he tries to claim that the Chen presidential campaign waged a campaign of deceit and stole the presidential election from the Taiwanese people. However, the truth shows that it was the Lien campaign that waged one of the most hateful campaigns in history and their actions following the election were those that are contemptuous of democracy. Then again, the KMT doesn't have a history of democracy, either here in Taiwan or over in China, does it?
The Original Article:[Part 1]
[Part 2]
[Part 3]
The text of the original article is on normal face while my responses (AKA: the truth) are in bold.
On March 20, 2004, 13 million registered voters on Taiwan elected Lien Chan and James Soong president and vice-president of the Republic of China. Their margin of victory over incumbents Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu was an estimated 1.3 million votes, or 10%. So why did the numbers posted by the Central Election Committee indicate that Lien/Soong lost by 29,000 votes, or 0.2%? Simple. Because the Central Election Committee had long ceased being a referee. It was a player. It was the government's star quarterback, its Secret Weapon. Central Election Committee Members of conscience such as former legislator Wang Ching-feng had resigned in disgust the month before, because they saw what Chen was doing to the Central Election Committee, transforming it into Chen Shui-bian's Reelection Committee.
First of all, Taiwan does not have voter registration. All eligible voters are permitted to vote. They are sent notices to the addresses listed on their household registrations, something that all citizens of Taiwan (and their foreign spouses who are residents of the country I might add) are required to be listed on. The people of Taiwan did not elect Lien and Soong to run Taiwan, they elected Chen Shui Bien to be re-elected to a second four-year term as the President of Taiwan. Anyone who knows anything about Taiwan's elections knows that the grunt work of the election is done at the local level, and that the level of transparancy is so great, any large scale ballot manipulation would be nearly impossible. This whole article is an exercise in sour grapes for a party that can't win a nation-wide election in Taiwan.
Referendum/Election Linkage
Consider this common sense, shorthand way of making some sense of the final result.
Both referenda failed because 55% of the voters who went to the polling stations on election day boycotted them. Only 45% of the voters who went to the polling stations on election day obtained referenda ballots.
This is not exactly true. It is 55% of all ELIGIBLE voters who did not take part in the referenda, NOT 55% of those who showed up on election day. 80.28 percent of eligible voters turned up on election day. So, it is clear that a majority of people who actually went to the polls on the day of the election took referenda ballots, not a 45% minority.
What does this fact mean to the Central Election Committee's "official version" of the presidential vote outcome?
What facts? I have just shown your "facts" to be nothing more than another Pan-Blue bald faced lie!
It means the Central Election Committee's presidential vote tallies were a lie.
It means that you are even more mathematically challenged than I am.
As everyone, Blue (KMT), Yellow (NP), Orange (PFP), Green (DPP), and Purple ("Naderite") knows, A-Bian's media campaign explicitly bound voting Yes! on the referenda to voting 1 in the presidential election. It was part and parcel of his reelection strategy. He was determined to exploit antipathy for Beijing to boost his reelection prospects.
Lien was also trying to tap into the anti-Beijing sentiment during the campaign as well. He was moving further and further from the idea of Taiwan being a part of China during the course of the campaign because even he realizes that most people in Taiwan consider themselves Taiwanese and ONLY Taiwanese!
Pan Green voters were instructed to vote "100," meaning for president vote 1, for referendum one vote YES, and for referendum two, vote YES.
Pan Blue supporters responded with their own, mirror image binding of the referenda and election. The Pan Blue catechism, which rhymes in Chinese and was memorized by all Pan Blue voters was "For president vote 2! Boycott the referendum!"
Probably the only bit of truth in your whole diatribe.
Official Election Results page
Chen's heavy-handed publicity campaign polarized the voters exactly as he intended. None of the above is disputed by anyone across the ROC political spectrum.
Is anyone was using heavy handed tactics, it was Chen. Instead of having the courage to allow the majority of voters have their will determined, they organized a boycott of the referenda, knowing full well that the 50% threshold would never be met if they did. They further tied the hands of poll workers, who were not allowed to remind people about the referenda in case they had forgotten about it on the way out, which numerous people all around Taiwan had done.
Furthermore, it was the KMT who ran an ad comparing Chen to Hitler in a major national daily. It was the KMT who was running anti-Chen ads in Taichung with images of Hussein, bin Laden, and the WTC buring on 9/11. It seems pretty obvious here who was running the inflamatory, polarizing campaign!
Election Day
On election day, 55% of the voters -- Pan Blue voters, obtained presidential ballots, stamped the 2 box for Lien/Soong, then walked out the door, boycotting both referenda.
Conversely, 45% of the voters -- Pan Green voters, obtained presidential ballots, stamped the 1 box for Chen/Lu, obtained both referenda ballots, stamped the Yes boxes in order to say "Yes! Taiwan."
So the obvious question staring everyone in the face, which has somehow eluded the notice of the international media is,
This, my mathematically challenged friend, is due to your own basic errors of math. Even a fifth grader should be able to see through your incompetance with numbers.
How did the 55% majority of Lien/Soong votes suddenly become a 48.6% minority of votes!?
And conversely, how did the 45% minority of Chen/Lu votes suddenly become a 48.8% winning plurality of votes!?
Because Chen really did win, not a plurality, but actually a 50.1 MAJORITY of the valid votes that were cast.
Furthermore, even some of those who took part in the referenda probably did so under duress. They felt pressured to take part in the referenda because local voting booths were staffed by people they knew, who might leak their failure to take part in the referenda to their superiors.
In principle this cuts both ways. In practice, the DPP is the ruling party and controls the machinery of government. Pan Blue public servants in particular might lose their rice bowls if they refused to at least go through the motions. These voters in the privacy of the voting booth stamped the NO box on the two referenda after stamping the 2 box for Lien/Soong on the presidential ballots.
In reality, the local poll workers were largely teachers. For much of the past five decades, the Chinese occupiers had the inside track on teaching jobs in Taiwan, so it is a pretty good bet that a large number of these teachers working the polling stations are actually Pan-Blue supporters, NOT Pan-Green. As for the idea that the DPP is the "ruling party", that phrase is only appropriate for Parliamentary systems of government. Taiwan has a Presidential system. The DPP controls the executive branch, but the KMT/PFP alliance controls the Legislative Yuan. It is almost impossible for ANYONE to fire a public servant. My sister-in-law is a public servant. She voted for Lien and did not vote in the referenda. I don't think she is worried that she is going to lose her job over it, even though she lives in a majority-Green county.
Among those who did not boycott the referendum, 20% voted NO. Did these voters vote for Chen/Lu or did they vote for Lien/Soong? You tell me.
In fact, some Chen voters DID vote no on the referenda because they don't want to have talks with China until the missles are removed, something that was not a pre-condition on the referenda questions. Others didn't want the large expense that the first refernda question would entail.
The TVBS/Mitofsky Exit Poll
Need more common sense, off-hand, rule of thumb corroboration of flagrant, bare-faced, shameless election fraud?
TVBS, one of Taiwan's largest cable TV companies, has a solid record for accuracy with its telephone polls. The TVBS 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll was conducted in association with America's largest exit polling company, Mitofsky International. The poll, drawing from a sample of 16,500 voters, with a margin of error of under 1%, revealed that Lien/Soong was leading Chen/Lu by approximately 6% just before the Chen administration "suggested" that TVBS discontinue announcing exit poll results.
I think Bevin is confused as to the difference between an exit poll and a telephone poll. An exit poll is done on the day of the election as voters are leaving the polling booth. How can they conduct an "exit poll" with a "result" and then afterward, Chen suggests the discontinuance of such "exit polls." Something is wrong with your logic here.
The most credible polls has been the China Times tracking poll. A year ago, it had Lien with a 20 some odd point lead. Chen had caught up as early as last October, and had a 2 point lead (within the margin of error) ten days prior to election day, when Taiwan's legal blackout on media polls begins.
The Gallup Poll
The internationally respected Gallup Market Survey Corp., aka Gallup Poll, showed Lien/Soong consistently in the lead right up to election day. One poll had Lien/Soong leading by 14%.
No citation. Again, no polls are permitted in the ten days leading to the election. How can they have Lien/Soong leading "right up to election day." I think Mr. Chu is making this up. Surprise, surprise.
The Secret National Security Bureau Poll
The National Security Bureau or NSB is the Republic of China's counterpart to America's FBI. Secret NSB polling data is known for its accuracy. Just before election day the results of a secret NSB poll leaked out. Lien/Soong was leading Chen/Lu by 1.2 million votes.
Source? Surprise, relying on secret 'polls' to make your case.
The Professional Oddsmakers
Professional oddsmakers on Taiwan, i.e. "bookies," had Lien/Soong widening the gap between themselves and Chen/Lu right up to election day. Lien/Soong were slated to win by a margin of 600,000 to 1 million votes.
So, let's dispense with elections. Let's let the oddmakers decide the presidency. Hmm. Heck, let's not have the Super Bowl next year. After all, the oddmakers can decide the winner far better. ABSURD Mr. Chu.
TO BE CONTINUED
[Bevin Chu's lies and distortions][Taiwan for Taiwanese]