一個雙層雙重式比例代表制：從演化觀點啟發的選制改革提議

A Two-tier Dual Proportional Representation System: An Electoral Reform Proposal Inspired by Evolutionary Perspective

郭定(Ting Kuo)

比例代表制 ； 策略投票 ； 黑爾／尼邁耶最大餘數法 ； 選舉制度 ； 優生學 ； 單記非讓渡制 ； Proportional Representation System ； Strategic Voting ； Hare-Niemeyer Largest Remainders Method ； Electoral System ； Eugenics ； Single Non- Transferable Vote

德明學報

39卷1期（2015 / 06 / 01）

1 - 25

繁體中文

在複數選區採用「類別選票」的情況下，為了減少策略投票，除了要追求政黨層次比例代表性外，也應追求候選人層次比例代表性。因此，根據優生學的概念，本文提出一個使用黑爾／尼邁耶最大餘數法的雙層雙重式比例代表制，透過區域與不分區之雙層設計達成政黨與候選人之雙重比例代表性。作法是，藉由分散且開放式的不分區名單，取代現行集中且封閉式的政黨不分區名單；將政黨所贏得之不分區席次，根據該政黨內所有跨越分席門檻之候選人在低層次選區之得票數，按比例分配給與其搭配的不分區候選人，以達成候選人層次之比例代表性，並落實「票票等值」的精神。簡言之，雙層雙重式比例代表制就各個低層次選區而言（即區域代表之分配方式），政黨間（含獨立參選人）採取的是比例代表制而政黨內採取的是相對多數決制；就高層次選區而言（即不分區代表之分配方式），政黨間（跨越政黨分席門檻者）與政黨內（跨越候選人分席門檻者）均採取比例代表制。透過電腦模擬，以第六屆立法委員選舉的實際資料為依據，結果顯示新選制確實比單記非讓渡制更具政黨層次的比例代表性，且具有相當程度的候選人層次比例代表性。

In multi-member district with categorical ballots, for reducing strategic voting, what we should aspire to is not only party-level proportionality but also candidate-level proportionality. According to the concept of eugenics, we propose a two-tier dual proportional representation system. The ＂two-tier＂ means lower level district versus higher level district, and the ＂dual＂ refers to party-level versus candidate-level. By using a distributed open list that is comprised of several candidate-affiliate lists to supersede a centralized closed list that is under control by the political party, the proposed electoral system applies the Hare-Niemeyer Largest Remainders (HNLR) method, according to the votes received by those candidates who crossed threshold in a lower level district, to apportion the supplementary seats a party has won among individual(s) of the candidate-affiliate lists to ensure candidate-level proportionality and to fulfill “one vote, one value” esprit. In short, in lower level districts, the new electoral system applies proportional representation system to inter-party (including those independent candidates) and applies plurality system to intra-party; in higher level district, the proposed electoral system applies proportional representation system to both inter-party (have to cross a threshold) and intra-party (have to cross a threshold). That is why we call it a two-tier dual proportional representation system. By using computer-aided simulations with the voting data of the sixth legislative election, we demonstrate that the proposed electoral system possesses more party-level proportionality than the SNTV does and that the proposed electoral system exhibits candidate-level proportionality to a certain high degree.

1. 王業立、彭怡菲(2004)。分裂投票：一個制度面的分析。台灣政治學刊，8(1)，3-45。
   連結：
2. 吳明上(2003)。日本眾議院議員選舉制度改革之探討：小選舉區比例代表並立制。問題與研究，42(2)，79-94。
   連結：
3. 吳東野(1999)。我國立法院全國不分區委員制度之研究。選舉研究，6(1)，143-174。
   連結：
4. 李柏諭(2006)。選舉制度對政黨體系之影響。政治科學論叢，27，69-112。
   連結：
5. 林繼文(2006)。政府體制、選舉制度與政黨體系：一個配套論的分析。選舉研究，13(2)，1-42。
   連結：
6. 游清鑫(2004)。分裂投票解釋觀點與台灣選舉之應用：以2002年高雄市長與市議員選舉為例。台灣政治學刊，8(1)，49-98。
   連結：
7. 黃旻華(2003)。政黨體系理論中的『過度確定』問題─結構、制度、策略及文化。問題與研究，42(4)，161-191。
   連結：
8. 蔡學儀(2002)。國會改造之選舉制度方案比較。選舉研究，9(2)，117-150。
   連結：
9. 謝相慶(1999)。日本眾議院議員新選舉制度及其政治效應─以1996年選舉為例。選舉研究，6(2)，45-87。
   連結：
10. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
11. Arrow, K.(1950).A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare.Journal of Political Economy,58(4),328-346.
12. Banducci, S. A.,Donovan, T.,Karp, J. A.(1999).Proportional Representation and Attitudes about Politics: Results from New Zealand.Electoral Studies,18(4),533-555.
13. Barkow, J. H.,Cosmides, L.,Tooby, J.(1992).The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.New York:Oxford Univ. Press.
14. Berson, M. J.,Cruz, B.(2001).Eugenics Past and Present: Remembering Buck v. Bell.Social Education,65(5),300.
15. Blais, A.,Carty, R. K.(1990).Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?.European Journal of Political Research,18(2),167-181.
16. Bogdanor, V.(ed.),Butler, D.(ed.)(1983).Democracy & Elections: Electoral Systems & Their Political Consequences.New York:Cambridge Univ. Press.
17. Dawkins, R.(1989).The Selfish Gene.Oxford, UK:Oxford Univ. Press.
18. De Jong, K.(1993).Editorial Introduction.Evolutionary Computation,1(1),3-5.
19. Dummett, M.A.E.(1997).Principles of Electoral Reform.Oxford, New York:Oxford Univ. Press.
20. Gallagher, M.(1991).Proportionality, Disproportionality & Electoral Systems.Electoral Studies,10(1),33-51.
21. Gallagher, M.(Ed.),Mitchell, P.(Ed.)(2005).The Politics of Electoral Systems.Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press.
22. Geller, C.(2005).Single Transferable Vote with Borda Elimination: Proportional Representation, Moderation, Quasi-chaos & Stability.Electoral Studies,24(2),265-280.
23. Goldberg, D. E.(1989).Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, & Machine Learning.Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
24. Golder, M.(2005).Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946-2000.Electoral Studies,24(1),103-121.
25. Grofman, B.(ed.),Lijphart, A.(ed.)(1986).Electoral Laws & Their Political Consequences.New York:Agathon Press.
26. Holland, J. H.(1975).Adaptation in Natural & Artificial Systems.Ann Arbor, MI:The Univ. of Michigan Press.
27. Karp, J. A.,Banducci, S. A.(1999).The Impact of Proportional Representation on Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand.Australian Journal of Political Science,34(3),363-377.
28. Koch, R.(2001).The Natural Laws of Business: Applying the Theories of Darwin, Einstein, & Newton to Achieve Business Success.New York:Currency/Doubleday.
29. LeDuc, L.(ed.),Niemi, R. G.(ed.),Norris, P.(ed.)(1996).Comparing Democracies: Elections & Voting in Global Perspective.Thous & Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.
30. LeDuc, L.(ed.),Niemi, R. G.(ed.),Norris, P.(ed.)(1996).Comparing Democracies: Elections & Voting in Global Perspective.Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.
31. Lijphart, A.(2001).Democracy in the 21st Century: Can We be Optimistic?.European Review,9(2),169-184.
32. Lijphart, A.(1994).Electoral Systems & Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945-1990.Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press.
33. Loosemore, J.,Hanby, V. J.(1971).The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytic Expressions for Electoral Systems.British Journal of Political Science,1,467-477.
34. Massicotte, L.,Blais, A.(1999).Mixed Electoral Systems: a Conceptual & Empirical Survey.Electoral Studies,18(3),341-366.
35. Matland, R. E.,Studlar, D.T.(2004).Determinants of Legislative Turnover: A Cross-National Analysis.British Journal of Political Science,34,87-108.
36. Nelson, R. R.,Winter, S. G.(1982).An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard Univ. Press.
37. Rae, D. W.(1971).The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws.New Haven, Conn.:Yale Univ. Press.
38. Reichley, A. J.(ed.)(1987).Elections American Style.Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.
39. Ruiz-Rufino, Rubén(2007).Aggregated Threshold Functions or How to Measure the Performance of an Electoral System.Electoral Studies,26(2),492-502.
40. Taagepera, R.,Shugart, M. S.(1989).Seats & Votes: The Effects & Determinants of Electoral Systems.New Haven Conn.:Yale Univ. Press.
41. Waldrop, M. M.(1992).Complexity: the Emerging Science at the Edge of Order & Chaos.NewYork:Simon & Schuster.
42. Workman, L.,Reader, W.(2004).Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge Univ. Press.
43. 王業立(2006)。比較選舉制度。台北市:五南。
44. 吳玉山(2001)。制度、結構與政治穩定。政治學報，32，1-30。
45. 吳東野(1987)。西德第十一屆國會選舉：穩定與轉變。問題與研究，26(6)，56-73。
46. 林繼文(1997)。制度選擇如何可能：論日本之選舉制度改革。台灣政治學刊，2，63-106。
47. 張明貴(2003)。最新政治學導論。台北市:商鼎。
48. 盛杏湲(1998)。政黨配票與立法委員候選人票源的集散度：一九八三至一九九五年台灣地區立法委員選舉的分析。選舉研究，5(2)，73-102。
49. 郭定(2008)。基因演算法成功的一個關鍵因素：何謂『適者』？。智慧科技與應用統計學報，6(1)，13-28。
50. 郭定(2014)。「優生型」產品設計系統。創新與管理，11(2)，91-120。
51. 陳新民(1996)。憲法學導論。台北市:三民。
52. 游清鑫(1999)。論當前國會選舉制度改革的一些問題。國策專刊，8，9-11。
53. 黃秀端(2001)。單一選區與複數選區相對多數制下的選民策略投票。東吳政治學報，13，37-75。
54. 黃紀(2001)。一致與分裂投票：方法論之探討。人文及社會科學集刊，13(5)，541-574。
55. 謝相慶(1994)。選舉結果不比例性的測量指數─方法論的評析。選舉研究，1(2)，131-167。
56. 謝復生(1992)。政黨比例代表制。台北市:理論與政策。