臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

制衡觀，是政治文化中發展與鞏固自由民主的重要價值，一種相信妥協是必要且可欲的信念。台灣民眾心中有制衡觀嗎？欲研究制衡觀，應然面與實然面為何？問卷測到的制衡觀，是原本欲測的民主價值嗎？假如我國民眾間具有不同程度的制衡觀，哪些原因可以解釋這些差異？在2004年與2008年的總統與立委選舉中，泛藍與泛綠陣營分別提倡「分權制衡」或是「貫徹政策」的對立民主價值，並在兩次大選間立場互換，提供一個良好的研究機會研究台灣民眾制衡觀的穩定與變遷。
透過文獻檢閱，本研究區分機關制衡與政黨制衡的差異：憲法將權力分立並互相制衡的機關制衡，在當代政黨政治高度發展下，需透過政黨掌握不同憲政機關的政黨制衡方能落實。接著，本文將現有制衡觀調查題目區分為機關制衡、政黨制衡、以及現況制衡三類，並說明政黨制衡型的題組在概念與邏輯上最接近理論上的制衡觀。
本研究進一步藉由心理學中民眾議題態度強弱之分，區分出「政黨制衡觀」、「情境制衡觀」(Conditional Balancing)、「其他類」三種次類型，建立偏好排序，說明2004至2008年第二次政黨輪替的特殊事件，導致三種選民在態度與行為上的差異，顯示過往制衡觀測量的偏差、及定群資料的必要性。本研究提出三種民眾政黨制衡觀來源，包括民眾經驗主動支持、統獨立場相對趨中、以及具雙重族群認同，建立七個研究假設。
本研究以TEDS2008L與TEDS2008P兩波定群資料進行分析。列聯表與折線圖顯示，民眾的制衡觀並不穩定，但非無態度：民眾的政黨認同越強，越會隨著支持政黨的興替而改變立場。ANOVA分析與迴歸模型(MNL)分析顯示，政黨制衡、情境制衡、其他類選民分別約佔20%、30%、50%。年紀較輕、教育程度較高、女性、具有一定的政治政黨認同與政治知識的選民，較有可能有政黨制衡觀。情境制衡觀者，則是政黨認同強烈、政治知識高。研究結果指出了過往分裂投票研究未考量的內生性問題，也預示未來我國政黨制衡觀選民增加的趨勢。本研究最後也針對制衡觀調查題目給予修正建議。

Citizen’s support of checks-and-balances (CB) is one of the most important democratic values in developing and consolidating democracy, a belief that compromise is both necessary and desirable. Do Taiwanese voters support the idea of CB? What are the theoretical and practical issues in analyzing attitude toward CB? Are those CB attitudes measured nowadays the same as what they apparently are? What are the origin and explanation of diverse types of CB support among Taiwanese voters?
Taiwan had just experienced the first split-government during 2000-2008. In 2004 congressional election, the incumbent pan-green camp attracted voters by the slogan of “unified and then efficient government”, while the opposite pan-blue camp appealed to voters for the value of constitutional balances. Yet, once the pan-blue camp won back both of the congress and president seats in 2008, the two camps opted for the government structure to which they previously opposed. The dramatic position switch is a rare and valuable case for analyzing Taiwanese people’s stability or change in attitudes toward CB.
In the beginning of literature review, this thesis distinguishes the “party balancing” from the “institution balancing:” institution balancing is the constitutional separation of powers, but it cannot be realized without the split party control of power, the so-called party balancing or cognitive-Madisonianism, under today’s fierce partisan competition.
Second, this article categorizes current survey questions about CB into three groups: institution balancing, party balancing, and reality balancing, the middle one surpasses the other two in focusing on the topic of researching CB in Taiwan. Thanks to the psychological theory of attitude strength, three types of CB attitudes and their preferences for party control of government are established, including “party balancing attitude,” “conditional balancing attitude,” and “others”. Furthermore, the article hypothesizes three possible and empirically testable origins of strong CB attitudes: citizen’s personal experience, the relatively mild cross-strait issue position, and dual nationality.
Two panel data are used to test the hypotheses, TEDS2008L and TEDS2008P, both of which are conducted during the second turnover period. Analysis of contingency tables and line charts reveal that Taiwanese people attitudes toward CB are not stable, but not non-attitude neither; the stronger one’s party identification is, the more possible he or she changed his or her CB attitude along with the party leader or candidate. Moreover, ANOVA and Multinomial logit regression analysis show that the proportion of party balancing, conditional balancing, and others are about 20%, 30%, and 50%. Moreover, Taiwanese people those who are young, female, highly educated, identified with party, and knowledgeable about politics, are more likely to hold the real party balancing. In contrast, people with the strongest party identification and the highest political knowledge tend to hold conditional balancing attitude. The results pinpoint the statistical problem of endogeneity that had been neglected by previous studies, and forecast the trend that the number of Taiwanese people with party balancing attitude would gradually increase in the future. In the last part of this article, the improvements of current survey question about CB are also suggested.

第壹章、緒論 1
第貳章、文獻整理 6
第一節、制衡的起源及分化 6
第二節、制衡觀的重要性及其來源 9
第三節、機關制衡、政黨制衡及其測量方式 16
第四節、制衡觀與分裂投票 19
第五節、態度強度、意識型態、與概念化程度 21
第六節、制衡觀為依變數的相關文獻 26
第七節、討論與小結 29
第參章、研究架構與分析方法 30
第肆章、制衡觀選民類型與研究假設 35
第一節、政黨制衡者之政黨認同者偏好排序 35
第二節、情境制衡觀之政黨認同者偏好排序 37
第三節、討論與假設 38
第伍章、資料處理方式 44
第一節、制衡觀 44
第二節、政黨認同與政黨認同強度 44
第三節、政黨制衡觀與情境制衡觀 45
第四節、政治知識 46
第五節、教育程度、年齡、性別 46
第六節、受訪者統獨立場與認知兩大黨統獨立場 47
第七節、受訪者雙重族群認同 50
第陸章、資料分析 51
第一節、初探我國民眾的制衡觀 51
第二節、政黨認同強度與制衡觀 58
第三節、制衡觀強度及其影響因素：個別分析 61
第四節、制衡觀強度及其影響因素：迴歸模型分析與討論 65
第柒章、結論 74

參考文獻 79
壹、中文部分 79
貳、西文部分 82


圖目錄：
圖3-1 研究架構圖 34
圖5-2整體民眾制衡觀變化圖 52
圖5-3臺灣泛藍民眾制衡觀變化圖 54
圖5-4臺灣泛綠民眾制衡觀變化圖 55
圖5-5臺灣非藍綠民眾制衡觀變化圖 57
圖5-6 藍綠認同強度與支持制衡百分比變化圖 2004-2008 60
圖5-7 選民年齡與制衡觀強度機率變化 68
圖5-8 選民政黨認同強度與制衡觀強度機率變化 70
圖5-9 臺灣人/中國人 族群認同趨勢圖 1992-2011(資料來源：國立政治大學選舉研究中心) 71

表目錄：
表2-1制衡觀問卷題目類型比較 17
表5-2整體民眾制衡觀變化列聯表分析 53
表5-3泛藍民眾制衡觀變化列聯表分析 54
表5-4泛綠民眾制衡觀變化列聯表分析 56
表5-5非藍綠民眾制衡觀變化列聯表分析 57
表5-6民眾政黨認同強度分類表 58
表5-7 政黨認同強度與支持制衡遞移性檢測 60
表5-8制衡觀類型及其影響因素：個別變數分析 62
表5-9制衡觀類型及其影響因素：MNL迴歸模型分析(統獨趨中FB) 66
表5-10制衡觀類型及其影響因素：MNL迴歸模型分析(統獨趨中CL) 67

壹、中文部分
王鼎銘，2012，〈類別依變項的迴歸模型〉，瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞（編），《社會及行為科學研究法：資料分析（三）》，台北：東華書局，85-131。
李少軍、杜麗燕、張虹譯，2006，《正義論》，台北：桂冠出版社。譯自John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press. 1971.
林聰吉、王淑華，〈臺灣民眾政治知識的變遷與來源〉，《東吳政治學報》，25(3): 93-129。
周陽山，2010，〈「善治」與五權憲法的制度運作：以監察權為軸心的分析〉，《孫學研究》，8: 1-20。
吳重禮，2000，〈美國「分立性政府」研究文獻之評析：兼論臺灣地區的政治發展〉，《問題與研究》，39(3): 75-101。
吳宜芳，2004，〈國小學童政治態度之研究—以台南市高年級學童為例〉，台南：國立台南大學社會科教育學研究所碩士論文。
吳重禮、王宏忠，2003，〈我國選民「分立政府」心理認知與投票穩定度：以2000年總統大選與2001年立法委員選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，10(1): 81-114。
吳重禮，2008，〈政黨偏好、制衡認知與分裂投票—2006年北高市長暨議員選舉的實證分析〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(2): 27-58。
胡佛，1998，《政治學的科學探究（二）：政治文化與政治生活》，台北：三民書局。
張佑宗，2011，〈選舉結果、政治學習與民主支持—兩次政黨輪替後臺灣公民在民主態度與價值的變遷〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，8(2): 99-137。
許增如，1999，〈一九九六年美國大選中的分裂投票行為：兩個議題模式的探討〉，《歐美研究》，29(1): 83-126。
許勝懋，2000，〈台北市選民的分裂投票行為：一九九八年市長選舉之分析〉，台北：國立政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
許勝懋，2009，〈台北市選民具有制衡觀嗎？一九九八年及二○○二年市長選舉之比較研究〉，《選舉評論》，7: 69-96。
徐火炎，1995，〈選民的政治認知與投票行為〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，7(1): 247-288。
徐火炎，2005，〈認知動員、文化動員與臺灣2004年總統大選的選民投票行為—選舉動員類型的初步探討〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，2(4): 31-66。
徐永明，2004，〈公投民主與代議民主的關係—以臺灣經驗為例〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，1(2): 1-25。
張卿卿，2010，〈競選廣告與議題／特質所有權認知〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，11(1): 31-70。
陳文政，2001，〈近代政治分權理論及其在憲法上的應用：以洛克、孟德斯鳩、孫中山分權理論為例〉，《三民主義學報》，23: 69-103。
陳光輝，2010，〈民主經驗與民主價值—兩個世代臺灣大學生之比較〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，7(4): 1-45。
陳宏銘、梁元棟，2007，〈半總統制的形成和演化—台灣、法國、波蘭與芬蘭比較研究〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，4(4): 27-69。
陳陸輝、周應龍，2004，〈臺灣民眾統獨立場的持續與變遷〉，《東亞研究》，35(2): 143-186。
陳陸輝、游清鑫，2002，〈民眾眼中的分立政府：政黨的府會互動與首長施政滿意度〉，《理論與政策》，15(3): 61-78。
楊泰順，2008，〈分權制衡—民主的守護或虛幻的理想？〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，5(1): 171-180。
黃秀端，1998，〈我國大學生對政治權力態度之分析〉，《東吳政治學報》，9: 171-202。
黃秀端，2006，〈兩大黨對決局面儼然成形〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，3(4): 181-190。
黃紀、王德育，2009，〈立委選舉對總統選舉的影響：鐘擺效應？西瓜效應？〉，國立政治大學選舉研究中心（編），《臺灣選舉與民主化調查2009國際學術研討會文集（上）》，台北：國立政治大學，1-27。
盛杏湲、黃士豪，2006，〈臺灣民眾為什麼討厭立法院？〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，3(3): 85-128。
盛杏湲，2010，〈臺灣選民政黨認同的穩定與變遷：定群追蹤資料的應用〉，《選舉研究》，17(2): 1-33。
盛治仁，2003，〈臺灣民眾民主價值及政治信任感研究—政黨輪替前後的比較〉，《選舉研究》，10(1): 115-169。
盛治仁，2005，〈用調查研究法測量受訪者價值的限制—以臺灣民眾民主價值題目為例〉，《東吳政治學報》，20: 47-81。
蕭怡靖，2009，〈「臺灣選舉與民主化調查」之政黨認同測量的探討〉，《選舉研究》，16(1): 67-93。
游清鑫，2004，〈分裂投票解釋觀點與臺灣選舉之應用：以2002年高雄市長與市議員選舉為例〉，《臺灣政治學刊》，8(1): 47-98。
游清鑫，蕭怡靖，2007，〈以新選民的政治態度論臺灣民主政治的未來〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，4(3): 191-151。
劉嘉薇、耿曙、陳陸輝，2009，〈務實也是一種選擇—臺灣民眾統獨立場的測量及商榷〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，6(4): 141-168。
謝復生，2011，〈分歧社會與憲政選擇〉，「歐美憲政制度與變革研討會論文」（11月25日），台北：中央研究院歐美研究所。
傅恆德，2005，〈政治知識、政治評價與投票選擇：第五屆立法委員選舉研究〉，《選舉研究》，12(1): 39-68。
蘇子喬，2011，〈憲政體制、國會選制與總統選制的配套組合〉，「歐美憲政制度與變革研討會論文」（11月25日），台北：中央研究院歐美研究所。

貳、西文部分
Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2011. “It Feels Like We’re Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy.” Paper presented at Academia Sinica, June 14, Taipei, Taiwan.
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Allport, Gordon W. 1935. “Attitudes.” In A Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Carl Murchison. Worcester. Massachusetts: Clark University Press, 798-844.
Alvarez, R. M., and Matthew M. Schousen. 1993. “Policy Moderation or Conflicting Expectation? Testing the Intentional Models of Split-Ticket Voting.” American Politics Quarterly 21(4): 410-438.
Boudreau, Cheryl, and Arthur Lupia. 2011. “Political Knowledge.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 171-186.
Born, Richard. 1994. “Split-Tickey Voters, Divided Government, and Fiorina Policy-Balancing Model.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19: 95-115.
Born, Richard. 2000. “Policy Balancing Models and the Split-Ticket Voter: 1972-1996.” American Politics Quarterly 28(2): 131-162.
Brady, David W. 1993. “The Causes and Consequences of Divided Government: Toward A New Theory Of American Politics?” American Political Science Review 87(1): 189-194.
Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Cantril, Hadley. 1934. “Attitudes in the Making.” Understanding the Child 4: 13-15.
Carsey, Thomas M., and Geoffrey C. Layman. 2004. “Policy Balancing and Preferences for Party Control of Government.” Political Research Quarterly 57(4): 541-550.
Cassel, Carol A. 1984. “Issue in Measurement: The Levels of Conceptualization Index of Ideological Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science 28(2): 418-429.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen, J. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement For Nominal Scales.” Educational Psychological Measurement 20: 37-46.
Converse, P. E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Public.” In Ideology and Discontent, eds. D. E. Apter. New York: Free Press, 206-261.
Converse, P. E. 1970. “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, eds. E. R. Tufte. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 168-189.
Dahl, R. A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy Toward Consolidation. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dow, Jay K., and James W. Endersby. 2004. “Multinomial Probit and Multinomial Logit: a Comparison of Choice Models for Voting Research.” Electoral Studies 23: 107-122.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken Shelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes.Texas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Everitt, Brian S. 1992. The Analysis Of Contingency Tables. London: Chapman and Hall.
Feigert, Frank B. 1979. “Illusions of Ticket-Spliting.” American Politics Quarterly 7(4): 470-488.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1990. Divided Government. Boston: Allyn & Bacon A. Simon & Schuster Company.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1994. “Response to Born.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19, 1: 117-125.
Freese, Jemery, and J. Scott Long. 2006. “Test for Multinomial Logit Model.” http://www.indiana.edu/~jslsoc/spost.htm.
Garand, James C., and Marci Glascock Lichtl. 2000. “Explaining Divided Government in the United States: Testing and Intentional Model of Split Ticket Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 30(1): 173-191.
Geer, John G., Amy Carter, James McHenry, Ryan Teten, and Jennifer Hoef. 2004. “Experimenting With the Balancing Hypothesis.” Political Psychology 25(1): 49-63.
Gerber, A., and D. Green. 1999. “Misperceptions about Perceptual Bias.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 190-210.
Hausman, J. A., and D. McFadden. 1984. “Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model.” Econometrica 52: 1219-1240.
Hovland, Carl I. 1959. “Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived from Experimental and Survry Studies of Attitude Change.” American Psychologist 14(1): 8-17.
Hsieh, John Fuh-sheng, and Emerson M. S. Niou. 1996. “Salient Issues in Taiwan’s Electoral Politics.” Electoral Studies 15(2): 219-235.
Huang, Chi, and Todd G. Shields. 2000. “Interpretation of Interaction Effects in Logit and Probit Analysis: Reconsidering the Relationship between Registration Laws, Education, and Voter Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly 28(1): 80-95.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government. Boulder: Westview Press.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Richard E. Petty. 1995. “Attitude Strength: An Overview.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-24.
Lacy, Dean, and Philip Paolino. 1998. “Voting and Separation of Powers.” American Journal of Political Science 42,4: 1180-1199.
Ladd, Everett C. 1990. “Public Opinion and The ‘Congress Problem.’” The Public Interest 100: 1-11.
Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurements of Observer Agreement For Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33: 159-174.
Levinson, Daryl J., and Richard H. Pildes. 2006. “Separation of Parties, Not Powers.” Harvard Law Review 119(8): 2312-2385.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Richard Nadeau. “Split-Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism.” Journal of Politics 66(1): 94-112.
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy In Plural Societies: A Comparative Explorative. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lin, Jih-wen. 2012. “Positioning Taiwan on the Global Map of Electoral Systems.” Paper presented for Lecture Series at Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica, Apr. 12, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, Tse-min, Yun-han Chu, and Melvin J. Hinich. 1996. “Conflict Displacement and Regime Transition in Taiwan: A Spatial Analysis.” World Politics 48(4): 453-481.
Long, J. Scott, and Jemery Freese. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd. College Station: A Stata Press Publication.
Marcus, Geroge E. 1988. “Democratic Theories and the Study of Public Opinion.” Polity 21(1): 25-44.
Mueller, Carol M. 1988. The Politics of the Gender Gap: The Social Construction of Political Influence. Newbury Park: Sage.
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2005. “The Jeffords Switch and Public Support for Divided Government.” British Journal of Political Science 35(2): 343-356.
Nie, Norman H., Sidney Verba, and John R Patrick. 1979. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Petrocik, John R. 1974. “An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification.” Political Methodology 1(1): 31-47.
Petrocik, John R. 1991. “Divided Government: Is It All In the Campaigns?” In The Politics of Divided Government, eds. Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell. Boulder: Westview Press, 13-38.
Petrocik, John R., and Joseph Doherty. 1996. “The Road to Divided Government: Paved without Intention.” In Divided Government: Change, Uncertainty, and the Constitutional Order, eds. Peter F. Galderisi and Roberta Q. Herzberg. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Petrocik, John. R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Election, with a 1980 Case Study.” The American Journal of Political Science Vol. 40, No. 3: 825-850.
Petrocik, John R., William L. Benoit, Glenn J. Hansen. 2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning.” Political Science Quarterly 118, 4: 599-626.
Reilly, Benjamin. 2001. Democracy In Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering For Conflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reilly, Benjamin. 2007. “Political Engineering in the Asia-Pacific.” Journal of Democracy 18(1): 58-72.
Riker, William H. 1985. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confront Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sigelman, L., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and Emmett H. Buell Jr. 1997. “Vote Choice and the Preference for Divided Government: Lessons of 1992.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 879-894.
Small, K. A., and C. Hsiao. 1985. “Multinomial Logit Specification Tests.” International Economic Review 26: 619-627.
Smith, Charles E. Jr., Robert D. Brown, John M. Bruce, and L. Marvin Overby. 1999. “Party Balancing and Voting for Congress in the 1996 National Election.” American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 737-764.
Smith, Eric R. A. N. 1980. “The Level of Conceptualization: False Measures of Ideological Sophistication” American Political Science Review 74(3): 685-696.
Straw, Christopher M. 2008. “The Role of Electoral Accountability in the Madisonian Machine.” Legislation and Public Policy 11: 321-364.
Stewart III, Charles H. 1991. “Lessons From the Post-Civil War Era.” In The Politics of Divided Government, eds. Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell. Boulder: Westview Press, 203-238.
Wyckoff, Mikel L. 1987. “Issues of Measuring Ideological Sophistication: Level of Conceptualization, Attitudinal Consistency, and Attitudinal Stability.” Political Behavior 9(3): 193-224.
Yu, Ching-hsin. 2004. “Direction and Strength of Voter’s Party Identification in Taiwan after 2000.” Soochow Journal of Political Science 19: 39-70.
Yu, Eric Chen-hua, Chi Huang, and Yi-Ching Hsiao. 2010. “Who Wants Checks and Balances? Endogeneity of the Balancing Perspective.” Paper presented for the Conference Group of Taiwan Studies at the 2010 Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Sep. 1-4, Washington DC.