臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘 要
根據Gary Cox提出的「M + l法則」（M表示選區的應選席次數），在單記非讓渡投票制下，因為機械性因素與心理性因素，每個選區中的選票會集中在M+1位候選人身上。但相關的實證結果卻顯示選票並不是完全匯集於M+1位候選人身上，而是大多有程度不等的偏離。然而，經驗證據呈現的偏離仍然可以從理性抉擇理論的觀點加以解釋，而非M+1法則在理論上有根本的錯誤。

本研究以實際有效候選人數與M+1法則的偏差量為依變數。對於造成偏差的影響因素，本文認為應該考量完整的選舉過程，亦即從進入選舉（獨立候選人參選與政黨提名策略）、選舉活動與策略（政黨配票與棄保）、到最後的選民抉擇（供作棄保判斷的資訊是否充分），而同時這每一個階段又都會受到選舉制度的影響。在理論探討之後並以實證資料檢驗所提出的解釋。

本文以台灣1992至2004年五屆區域立委選舉的總體資料為基礎，檢驗影響各選區有效候選人數偏離M+1法則的因素。依據理性抉擇理論的推演，研究結果發現：（a）選區規模越大，則有效候選人數與M+1法則間的偏差量越大。（b）政黨在選區中過度提名，則傾向於增加偏差量；政黨若在選區中低度提名或成扒i行棄保操作，則會明顯縮減有效候選人數與理論預期的差距。（c）選區競爭越激烈、新進候選人數越多，選民資訊品質越差，則偏差量越大。（d）在各政黨與選民逐漸熟悉單記非讓渡投票制的情況下，在政黨競爭型態類似的選舉中，傾向減少有效候選人數與M+1法則的偏差量。

關鍵詞：M+1法則、有效候選人數、選區規模、 政黨協調問題、選舉情境、
學習效果

Abstract
According to the “M+1 rule” proposed by Gary Cox, under the single non-transferable vote system the number of effective candidates tends to be M+1 (M stands for district magnitudes) as a result of mechanical and psychological factor. However, the empirical studies show that votes are not received by M+1 candidates, but there are various degrees of deviations. The deviations do not demonstrate the mistakes inherent in the theory of M+1 rule. Instead, the empirical deviations can be explained by the rational choice theory.
In this research, the dependent variable is the differences between the effective numbers of candidates and the numbers predicted by the M +1 rule. When discussing the explanations for the deviations, this research argues that the entire electoral procedure should be considered, namely from entering elections (the participation of independent candidates and party nomination strategies), the campaigning effort (votes distributions within party candidates), to choices made by voters at the final step (whether to vote strategically based on the information available). Besides, all of each stage is influenced by the electoral system. After the theoretical deduction, the hypotheses are examined against the empirical data.
The data used in this research are the aggregate data at district level in the Legislative Yuan Elections in Taiwan from 1992 to 2004. The results of empirical examination are: (a) The larger the district magnitude, the greater the deviation of the effective number of candidates from the M +1 rule. (b) Overnominations by parties in districts tend to increase the bias. Undernominations or successful votes distributions within parties can reduce the disparity between the effective number of candidates and theoretical expectation. (c) The more competitive among candidates and the greater the number of candidates, the worse the voters’ information quality, and therefore the greater the deviation. (d) When the parties and voters are getting familiar with SNTV, the deviations are decreasing in similar party systems.

Keywords: M+1 rule, the effective number of candidates, district magnitude, problems of coordination, election context, learning effects.

第一章 緒 論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與重要性 3
第三節 章節安排 5
第二章 文獻回顧與理論探討 6
第一節 機械因素：選舉制度 7
第二節 心理因素：選民的策略性投票 12
第三節 M+1法則與相關實證研究 15
第四節 政黨協調問題 22
第五節 學習效果 30
第六節 有效候選人數的測量問題 32
第七節 小 結 38
第三章 研究設計 40

第一節 研究範圍 40
第二節 研究架構與變數 42
第三節 待驗假設 45
第四節 變數的定義與測量 46
第五節 資料來源與分析方法 54
第四章 M+1法則的實證分析 56
第一節 M+1法則與台灣立委選舉結果的相符程度 56
第二節 有效候選人數偏離M+1法則成因的實證分析 63
第三節 實證結果的檢討 70
第五章 結 論 85
第一節 研究發現 85
第二節 研究限制 87
第三節 研究展望 88
參考文獻 90
《附 錄》 101

參考文獻
一、中文書目：
王保進，2003，《視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究》第二版，台北市：心理出版社。

王鼎銘，2003a，〈策略投票及其影響之檢測：二○○一年縣市長及立委選舉結果的探討〉，《東吳政治學報》，第十六期，頁95-123。

王鼎銘，2003b，〈複數選區下的棄保效應：民調與選區資料的觀察比較〉，《理論與政策》，第十七卷，第一期，頁87-106。

王業立，1995，〈單記非讓渡投票制的政治影響：我國民意代表選舉制度的探討〉，《選舉研究》，第二卷，第一期，頁147-167。

王業立，1998，《比較選舉制度》，台北市：五南。

石之瑜，2003，〈政治科學中形式理論的運用與瓶頸—從賽局理論談起〉，《東吳政治學報》，17：頁1-19。

包正豪，1998，〈新黨平均配票效果之研究-以八十四年立法委員選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，第五卷，第一期，頁95-138。

柯惠真，2004，《「M+1法則」在複數選制下的檢測：以1998年與2001年立委選舉為例》，國立成奶j學政治經濟研究所碩士論文。


吳重禮，2002，〈SNTV的省思：弊端肇因或是代罪羔羊？〉，《問題與研究》，第四十一卷，第二期，頁45-59。

林水波，2002，〈第五屆立委選舉配票解析〉，《立法院院聞》，30（8），頁15-28。

林佳龍，2000，〈台灣民主化與政黨體系的變遷：菁英與群眾的選舉連結〉，《台灣政治學刊》，第四期，頁3-55。

林長志，2005，《民進黨候選人在北高兩市「聯合競選策略」之成因及效應》，國立中正大學政治研究所碩士論文。

林繼文，2005，〈虛假霸權：台灣政治學研究中的理性選擇〉，《政治科學論叢》，第25期，頁67-104。

洪永泰，1995，〈分裂投票：八十三年台北市長選舉的實證分析〉，《選舉研究》，第二卷，第一期，頁119-146。

洪永泰、林瓊珠、劉玉婷，2004，《2004年台灣政治紀實》，台北：韋伯文化。

徐永明、陳鴻章，2002，〈老狗學把戲：立委選舉政黨提名的有效性〉，《東吳政治學報》，第十五期，頁87-121。

徐永明、陳鴻章，2004，〈多席次選舉中政黨的分合：以台灣區域立委選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，第十一卷，第一期，頁127-169。

盛杏湲，1999，〈政黨配票與候選人票源的集散度：一九八三年至一九九五年台灣地區立法委員選舉的分析〉，《選舉研究》，第五卷，第二期，頁73-102。

陳坤森譯，Arend Lijphart著，1993，《當代民主類型與政治：二十一個國家多數模型與共識模型政府》，台北市：桂冠。

游清鑫，1995，〈台灣政黨競爭與體系之變遷〉，《政治學報》，25，頁181-206。

游清鑫，2000，〈競選策略的個案研究：1998年民進黨台北市南區立法委員選舉的探討〉，《選舉研究》，第六卷，第二期，頁163-190。

黃 紀，2000，〈實用方法論芻議〉，何思因、吳玉山主編《邁入二十一世紀的政治學》，台北市：中國政治學會。

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》，第十三期，頁37-75。

黃德福，1993，〈選舉制度與政黨政治-台灣地區解嚴候選舉競爭的觀察〉，《理論與政策》，第七卷，第四期，頁3-21。

黃德福、張佑宗，1994，〈邁向三黨競爭體系？-民主鞏固與台灣政黨體系的變遷〉，《政治學報》，23，頁197-225。

劉義周，1992，〈國民黨責任區輔選活動之參與觀察研究〉，《國立政治大學學報》，第64期，頁209-233。
劉義周，1995，〈台灣的新政黨體系〉，《問題與研究》，34（11），頁1-10。

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》，第一卷，第二期，頁131-161。

謝相慶，1995，〈選舉制度與選舉結果不比例現象-跨國性比較研究的檢討〉，《選舉研究》，第二卷，第二期，頁137-170。

二、英文書目：
Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based upon Insights from Behavioral Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Abramson, Paul R., John H.Aldrich, Phil Paolino and David W. Rohde. 1992 “Sophisticated Voting in the Presidential Primaries.” American Political Science Review 86: 55-69.

Agresti, Alan, and Barbara Finlay. 1997. Statistical Methods for the Social Science, 3rd ed. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Blais, Andre, and Richard Nadeau. 1996. “Measuring Strategic Voting: A Two-Step Procedure.” Electoral Studies 15 (1): 39-52.

Browne, Eric C. and Dennis Patterson. 1999. “An Empirical Theory of Rational Nominating Behaviour Applied to Japanese District Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 29: 259-289.

Cain, Bruce E. 1978. “Tactical Voting in Britain.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 639-655.

Carey, John M. and Matthew S. Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417-139.

Cox, Gary. 1984. “Strategic Electoral Choice in Multi-Member Districts: Approval Voting in Practice.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 722-738.

Cox, Gary. 1991. “SNTV and d’Hondt Are Equivalent” Electoral Studies 10 (2): 118-132.

Cox, Gary W. and Frances Rosenbluth. 1993. “The Electoral Fortunes of Legislative Factions in Japan.” American Political Science Review 87: 577-589.

Cox, Gary W. and Frances Rosenbluth. 1994. “Reducing Nomination Errors: Factional Competition and Party Strategy in Japan.” Electoral Studies 13 (1): 4-16.


Cox, Gary. 1994. “Strategic Voting Equilibria under the Single Nontransferable Vote.” American Political Science Review 38: 608-621.

Cox, Gary. 1996. “Is the Single Non-transferable Vote Superproportional? Evidence from Japan and Taiwan.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 740-755.

Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Gary W. and Emerson Niou. 1994. “Seat Bonuses under the Single Non-transferable Vote System: Evidence from Japan and Taiwan.” Comparative Politics 26:221-236.

Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.

Farrell, David. 2001. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. New York. NY: Palgrave Press.

Farquharson, Robin. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fey, Mark. 1997. “Stability and Coordination in Duverger’s Law: A Formal Model of Pre-election Polls and Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 135-147.

Gallagher, Michael. 1992. “Comparing Proportional Represntation Electoral Systems: Quotas, Thresholds, Paradoxes and Majorities.” British Journal of Political Science 22: 469-496.

Galbraith, John W. and Nicol C. Rae. 1989. “A Test of the Importance of Tactical Voting: Great Britain, 1987.” British Journal of Political Science 19: 126-136.

Gallagher, Michael and Michael Marsh ed. 1988. Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. London: Sage.

Green, Donald P. and Ian Shapiro. 1994. Pathologied of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Hew Haven: Yale University Press.

Heath, Anthony, Roger Jewell, John Curtice, Geoffrey Evans, Julia Field, and Sharon Witherspoon. 1991. Understanding Political Change: The British Voter 1964-1987. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hsieh, John Fuh-Sheng, and Richard G.. Niemi. 1999. “Can Duverger’s Law be Extended to SNTV? The Case of Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan Elections.” Electoral Studies 18: 101-116.
Jesse, Neal. 1999. “Candidate Success in Multi-Member Districts: An Investigation of Duverger and Cox.” Electoral Studies 18: 323-340.

Johnston, R. J., and C. J. Pattie. 1991. “Tactical Voting in Great Britain in 1983 and 1987: An Alternative Approach.” British Journal of Political Science 21: 95-128.

Lakkso, Markku. and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27.

Lijphart, Alistair. 2001. “Advance in The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems.” World Politics 36 (12): 41-73.

Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lijphart, Arend, Ragal Lopez Pintor and Yasunori Sone. 1986. “The Limited Vote and The Single Non-transferable Vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish Examples.” In Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart eds. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press.

Lijphart, Arend. 1990. “The Political Consequence of Electoral Laws, 1945-85.” American Political Science Review 84: 481-496.


Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liu, Tsung-Wei. 2003. “Does Contextual Rationality Really Advance the Study of Rational Nomination Strategies under the Single Non-Transferable Vote?” Japanese Journal of Political Science 4 (1): 113-120.

Molinar, Juan. 1991. “Counting The Number of Parties: An Alternative Index.” The American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1383-1391.

Neto, Octavio Amorim and Gary W. Cox. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 149-147.

Niemi, Richard, Gary Whitten, and Mark N. Franklin. 1992. “ Constituency, Characteristics, Individual Characteristics and Tactical Voting in the 1987 British General Election.” British Journal of Political Science 22: 229-254.

Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ordeshook, Peter. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Ordeshook, Peter C. and Olga V. Shvetsova. 1994. “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 100-123.

Palfery, Tomas. 1989. “A Mathematical Proof of Duverger’s Law.” In Peter Ordeshook eds. Models of Strategic Choice in Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Rae, Douglas. 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Reed, Steven. 1990. ”Structural and Behavior: Extending Duverger’s Law to the Japanese Case.” British Journal of Political Science 29: 335-356.

Riker, William and Peter Ordeshook. 1968. “A Theory of Calculus Voting.” The American Political Science Review 25: 753-766.

Riker, William. 1982. “The Two Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” The American Political Science Review 76 (4): 753-766.

Riker, William. 1986. “Duverger’s Law Revisited.” In Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart eds. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York, NY: Agathon Press.

Sartori, G.iovanni 1976. Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shively, W. Phillips. 1970. “The Elusive Psychological Factor.” Comparative Politics 3 (October): 129-134.

Taagepera, Rein and Matthew S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Vote: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral System. New Haven: Yale University Press.

三、網路資料：
中央選舉委員會：〈選舉資料庫網站〉，2005，網址：http://210.69.23.140/cec/cechead.asp，取用時間2005/6/2。

國立政治大學選舉研究中心：〈台灣選舉類別與結果線上瀏覽〉，2005，網址：http://vote.nccu.edu.tw/cec/vote4.asp，取用時間2005/6/2。