English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 75035/106099 (71%)
Visitors : 19429591      Online Users : 391
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112752


    Title: 選舉競爭程度、資訊與投票率-以2005-2014年直轄市/縣市議員選舉為例
    Electoral Competition, Information and Voter Turnout-The Case of the 2005-2014 Local Council Elections
    Authors: 陳宏哲
    Chen, Hung Che
    Contributors: 蔡宗漢
    Tsai, Tsung-Han
    陳宏哲
    Chen, Hung Che
    Keywords: 投票率
    選舉競爭程度
    資訊
    地方議員選舉
    固定效果模型
    Voter turnout
    Electoral competition
    Information
    Local councilor election
    Fixed effect model
    Date: 2017
    Issue Date: 2017-09-13 15:16:20 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 選舉參與是民主政治運作的重要條件之一,如果過多的選民不願意參與投票,會對於民主政治的運作造成負面的影響。因此本研究要回答的問題是,影響台灣地方議員選舉投票率高低的因素為何?雖然現存多數的文獻發現選舉競爭程度會影響投票率,然而,選舉競爭程度如何影響選民的選舉參與行為,卻存在三個迥異的看法。第一,有些研究指出選舉競爭程度愈高,會帶來愈高的投票率。第二,有些研究發現選舉競爭程度並不會影響投票率。第三,有些文獻認為,選舉競爭程度對於投票率的正向影響效果,在不同的條件之下會發揮不一樣的作用。本文延續第三種觀點,進一步主張選舉競爭程度對於選民投票參與的影響,會因為選民接收選舉資訊量的多寡而有不同的效果。
    本研究從理性抉擇的觀點出發,主要的論點是,因為地方層級選舉的資訊較不充足,選民須要仰賴政治菁英來提供資訊。在政治菁英較為積極地從事選舉動員,以及較為有效地進行選戰動員的時候,選民會更為容易掌握選舉資訊,亦即資訊成本愈低,在投票時愈容易做抉擇。當選舉競爭愈激烈時,則投票率會愈高。具體來說,因為在台灣的地方議員選舉是採用複數選區單記不可讓渡選制,本文分別從選區同黨候選人人數高低,以及現任者參選比例大小,來探討選舉競爭程度對於投票率的影響效果。本文認為,在較多位同黨候選人參與的選區裡,當選舉相當競爭時,因為同時牽涉黨際與黨內之間的競爭,所以候選人會更為積極地動員,在選舉時選民需要付出的資訊成本就較低,換言之,其對於選舉資訊的掌握度會較佳,愈容易做投票抉擇。本文的第一假設是,選舉競爭程度對於投票率的影響效果,在平均同黨候選人人數較高的選區中,會發揮更為明顯的正向影響作用。再者,本研究主張,在現任者參選比例較高的選區中,因為現任者掌握許多資源,在較為競爭的選戰中,現任者可以運用這些資源來競選,做較有效地動員,選民參與投票時須付出的資訊成本就較低,換句話說,選民對於選舉資訊的掌握度會較好,愈容易進行投票。本研究的第二個假設是,選舉競爭程度對於投票率的影響效果,在現任參選者比例較高的選區裡,會發揮更為明顯的正向影響作用。
    本研究以2005至2014年地方議員選舉縱橫資料,使用固定效果模型進行分析。首先,研究發現,選舉的競爭程度對於投票率的影響效果,在平均同黨候選人人數較高的選區中,會發揮更為明顯的正向影響作用,符合本文假設一的預期。其次,研究顯示,選舉的競爭程度對於投票率的影響效果,在現任者參選比例較高的選區裡,會發揮更為明顯的正向影響作用,與本研究假設二的預期一致。
    在研究的貢獻上,第一,目前國內的相關研究中,有關地方議員選舉投票率的文獻仍然較少,本文從選舉競爭、動員和資訊的角度解釋之,彌補過去研究的不足之處。第二,過去國內外的研究大多認為,在選舉競爭程度愈強的選舉中,有愈高的投票率,本文的理論貢獻在於,進一步強調選舉競爭程度對於投票率的影響,在選民更容易接收選舉資訊時,會有更為明顯的正向影響效果。第三,在資料蒐集的部分,本研究自不同的資料庫中(中央選舉委員會、政治大學選舉研究中心、政府資料開放平台、各縣市統計年報、中華民國人口統計年刊、台閩地區人口統計、中華民國統計資訊網縣市重要統計指標查詢系統、全國客家人口基礎資料調查研究、行政院主計總處農林漁牧業普查以及新竹市政府民政處各里里情沿革)整合政治、經濟以及社會層面的統計資料,這個資料庫可以提供給未來的研究使用與參考。第四,本研究建立一個可以應用在複數選區單記不可讓渡選舉制度下的競爭程度測量指標,相較於過去文獻所採用的測量指標只關注最後一名勝選者和第一名敗選者的得票率差距,本文建立的指標能考量到選區中每一位候選人的得票情形。第五,在統計方法上,有別於國內過去的研究大多使用單一年度的橫斷面資料進行分析,本文使用跨年度與跨選區的縱橫資料,並以固定效果模型進行分析,可以得到較為嚴謹的推論結果。第六,在實際政策的建議與政治意涵上,本研究認為,首先,因為複數選區單記不可讓渡選制的特殊性,導致黨內競爭和候選人主義興起,造成在選舉高度競爭時,有刺激投票參與的正面效果。建議往後政府單位或學界在進行選制調整或改革的討論時能關注與深思這個議題。其次,在台灣,這幾年國內的政治發展興起一股新人參政熱潮,有一派的說法認為,新人投入選舉可以激起對於既有政治人物不滿意的選民參與投票。然而本研究卻發現,因為現任參選者掌握一定的資源,有利於進行動員,當現任者參選比例愈高時,在高度競爭的選舉中,有促進投票參與的正向效果。換言之,很多的新人參與選舉是否能必然導致選民參與投票,這個說法有待更進一步觀察與討論。
    Electoral participation is vital in the favorable performance of a democratic political system; therefore, if an excessive amount of voters is absent from voting, the function of a democratic political system will be impacted negatively. Hence, the research question is that, what factors influence the voter turnout in the Taiwanese local council elections during the period from 2005 to 2014. The existing literature indicates three different point of views: some scholars claim that, the higher the degree of competition, the higher the voter turnout; some deny the relation between the degree of electoral competition and voter turnout; and still some literature points out that, under some specific conditions, the degree of electoral competition will have a more positive influence on voter turnout. This paper agrees with the last view by arguing that the fact that voter turnout are influenced differently by electoral competition in varying circumstances has to do with the amount of electoral information voters receive.
    From the view of rational choice, because the local elections are generally low- information, it is important for voter to acquire information from political elites, the main argument of this research is that, voters will be more likely to master information, and that is, the information costs are lower, when political elites are more active and effective in electoral mobilization; consequently, the voters can make the decision more easily. The more intense elections are, the higher the voter turnout will be. Specifically, under the single-nontransferable vote(SNTV)electoral system in Taiwan, this paper discusses the effect of electoral competition on the turnout by the number of constituency candidates in the same party and the proportion of the incumbent candidates. This paper consider, when there are more candidates from the same party in a constituency and the degree of competition is higher, the candidates will face more inter-party and intra-party competition, and therefore, will devote to electoral mobilization more actively, and the information costs of the voters will be lower. In other words, voters with more electoral information can vote easily. Basically, the first hypothesis of this article is that the effect of competition on voter turnout will obviously occur when the number of constituency candidates in the same party is higher. In addition, when there are more incumbent candidates in a constituency and the degree of competition is higher, they are with more resources to campaign and to inform and mobilize voters. In other words, voters with more electoral information can vote easily. Therefore, the second hypothesis is that the effect of competition on voter turnout will obviously occur when the proportion of the incumbent candidates is higher.
    This study uses the fixed effect model to analyze the time series cross section data in the Taiwanese local council elections during the period from 2005 to 2014. First of all, the study discovers that, the effect of competition on voter turnout will obviously occur when the number of constituency candidates from the same party is higher and thus, coincide with the first hypothesis. Second, the study shows that, the effect of competition on voter turnout will also obviously occur when the proportion of the incumbent candidates is higher, and therefore, coincide with the second hypothesis.
    As to the contribution of this study, first of all, this article discusses local council elections voter turnout in Taiwan by electoral competition, mobilization and information and to fill a gap. Second, many existing literature claims the higher the degree of competition, the higher the voter turnout. This paper argues that, voters are influenced differently by electoral competition under specific conditions, namely, varying amount of electoral information voters receive. Thirdly, in the part of the data collection, this study integrates political, economic and social data from several databases that can be useful references for future researches. Fourthly, compared to the measurement of the former literature, which only considers the percentage of votes obtained gap between last winner and the first loser, this study establishes a measure of the electoral competition, which, under the SNTV electoral system, takes the percentage of votes of all individual candidates in the same constituency into account. Moreover, different from the methodology of many former literature in Taiwan, the paper uses time series cross section data and the fixed effect model that can be get more rigorous research outcome. Last but not least, the paper proposes some policy suggestions and political implications. The features of SNTV electoral system result in intense intra-party competition and candidate-centric politics, and consequently, lead to higher voter turnout. The paper suggests that, it is essential to take this argument into account, when it comes to potential reform of electoral system. And moreover, some claim that, in the past few years, more and more new candidates participate in elections, which increases unsatisfied voters’ willingness to vote. However, the study finds out that, with the incumbent candidates possessing more resources, the effect of competition on voter turnout will obviously occur when the proportion of the incumbent candidates is higher. In other words, the argument that whether there are lots of new candidates to participate in the election would necessarily promote voters to participate in the election or not should be further observed and discussed.
    Reference: 一、中文部分
    王甫昌,2002,〈族群接觸機會?還是族群競爭?:本省閩南人族群意識內涵與地區差異模式之解釋〉,《臺灣社會學》,4:11-74。
    王甫昌,2005,〈由「中國省籍」到「台灣族群」:戶口普查籍別類屬轉變之分析〉,《臺灣社會學》,9:59-117。
    王金壽,2004,〈重返風芒縣:國民黨選舉機器的成功與失敗〉,《台灣政治學刊》,8(1):99-146。
    王泰俐,2013,〈「臉書選舉」?2012年台灣總統大選社群媒體對政治參與行為的影響〉,《東吳政治學報》,31(1):1-52。
    王業立,2016,《比較選舉制度》,台北:五南出版社。
    王靖興、黃桃芳,2009,〈選民的投票參與〉,陳陸輝、游清鑫與黃紀主編,《2008年總統選舉:論二次政黨輪替之關鍵選舉》:57-81,台北:五南出版社。
    吳重禮,2002,〈SNTV的省思--弊端肇因或是代罪羔羊?〉,《問題與研究》,41(3):45-60。
    吳重禮、李世宏,2005,〈政治賦權、族群團體與政治參與2001年縣市長選舉客家族群的政治信任與投票參與〉,《選舉研究》,12(1):69-115。
    吳重禮、鄭文智、崔曉倩,2006,〈交叉網絡與政治參與:2001年縣市長與立法委員選舉的實證研究〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,18(4):599-638。
    汪志忠、鄭雅云,2011,〈空間、治理、政治競爭性與縣市長選舉投票率關係之研究〉,《中國行政評論》,18(2):91-112。
    林啟耀,2015,〈選舉制度對投票參與的影響:跨國比較與台灣個案分析〉,台 北:國立政治大學政治學研究所博士論文。
    徐永明、林昌平,2009,〈選舉縱橫資料中地區效果的測量:以民進黨得票率的變化為例 1986-2004〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,21(3):431-465。
    崔曉倩、吳重禮,2011,〈年齡與選舉參與:2008年總統選舉的實證分析〉,《調查研究》,26:7-44。
    盛杏湲,1999,〈立法問政與選區服務:第三屆立法委員代表行為的探討〉,《選舉研究》,6(2):89-120。
    黃信豪,2006,〈政治功效意識的行動效果(1998-2003)〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,3(2):119-158。
    黃紀、林長志,2013,〈併選對投票率的影響:因果效應分析〉,陳陸輝主編,《2012年總統與立法委員選舉:變遷與延續》:47-83,台北:五南出版社。
    楊孟麗,2004,〈投票意願與經濟不景氣:台灣的情形〉,《選舉研究》,10(2):159-191。
    廖益興,2006,〈台灣選民投票參與行為的研究〉,《中華行政學報》,3:185-202。
    蔡奇霖,2010,〈別訪問我!我對政治沒興趣:主題效應與TEDS高估投票率之研究〉,《選舉研究》,17(2):135-175。
    蕭怡靖,2009,〈選制認知與投票參與-2008年立法委員選舉的多層分析〉,《政治學報》,47:29-58。
    蕭怡靖、黃紀,2010,〈2008 年立委選舉候選人票之分析:選民個體與選區總體的多層模型〉,《台灣政治學刊》,14(1):3-53。
    二、英文部分
    Aarts, Kees, and Holli Semetko. 2003. “The Divided Electorate: Media Use and Political Involvement.” Journal of Politics 65 (3): 759-784.
    Abramowitz, Alan. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Politics 53 (1): 34-56.
    Abrams, Samuel, Torben Iversen, and David Soskice. 2011. “Informal Social Networks and Rational Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 229-257.
    Abramson, Paul, and John Aldrich. 1982. “The Decline of Electoral Participation in America.” American Political Science Review 76 (3): 502-521.
    Aldrich, John. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 246-278.
    Angrist, Joshuam, and Jorn-Steffen Pischk. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Ansolabehere, Stephen, and David Konisky. 2006. “The Introduction of Voter Registration and Its Effect on Turnout.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 83-100.
    Baek, Mijeong. 2009. “A Comparative Analysis of Political Communication Systems and Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 376-393.
    Barzel, Yoram, and Eugene Silberberg. 1973. “Is the Act of Voting Rational?” Public Choice 16: 51-58.
    Beck, Nathaniel, and Jonathan Katz. 1995. “What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 634-647.
    Bendor, Jonathan, Daniel Diermeier, and Michael Ting. 2003. “A Behavioral Model of Turnout.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 261-280.
    Berdiev, Aziz, and Chun-Ping Chang. 2011. “Explaining Voter Turnout in Taiwan Legislative Elections.” International Economic Journal 27 (4): 645-661.
    Berinsky, Adam, and Gabriel Lenz. 2011. “Education and Political Participation: Exploring the Causal Link.” Political Behavior 33 (3): 357-373.
    Birch, Sarah. 2010. “Perceptions of Electoral Fairness and Voter Turnout.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (12): 1601-1622.
    Blais, André, and Agnieszka Dobrzynska. 1998. “Turnout in Electoral Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 33 (2): 239-261.
    Blais, André, and Ignacio Lago. 2009. “A General Measure of District Competitiveness.” Electoral Studies 28: 94-100.
    Blais, André, and Simon Labbé St-Vincent. 2011. “Personality Traits, Political Attitudes and the Propensity to Vote.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (3): 395-417.
    Blais, André, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2004. “Where does Turnout Decline Come from?” European Journal of Political Research 43 (2): 221-236.
    Blais, André. 2000. To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    Blais, André. 2006. “What Affects Voter Turnout?” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 111-125.
    Blais, André. 2007. “Turnout in Elections.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, eds. Russell Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Bobo, Lawrence, and Franklin Gilliam. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 377-393.
    Brambor, Thomas, William Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63-82.
    Bratton, Michael, Yun-Han Chu, and Marta Lagos. 2010. “Who Votes? Implications for New Democracies” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 107-136.
    Bullock, Charles. 1990. “Turnout in Municipal Elections.” Policy Studies Review 9: 539-549.
    Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1984. “The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for U. S Representatives and British Members of Parliament.” American Political Science Review 78 (1): 110-125.
    Caldeira, Gregory, and Samuel Patterson. 1982. “Contextual Influences on Participation in U. S. State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (3): 359-381.
    Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.
    Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    Caren, Neal. 2007. “Big City, Big Turnout? Electoral Participation in American Cities.” Journal of Politics 29 (1): 31-46.
    Carey, John, and Matthew Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417-439.
    Carr, Jered, and Antonio Tavares. 2014. “City Size and Political Participation in Local Government Reassessing the Contingent Effects of Residential Location Decisions Within Urban Regions.” Urban Affairs Review 50 (2): 269-302.
    Carreras, Miguel, and Néstor Castañeda-Angarita. 2014. “Who Votes in Latin America? A Test of Three Theoretical Perspectives.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (8): 1079-1104.
    Cox, Gary, and Michael C. Munger. 1989. “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 217-231.
    Cox, Gary, Frances M. Rosenbluth, and Michael F. Thies. 1998. “Mobilization, Social Networks, and Turnout: Evidence from Japan.” World Politics 50 (3): 447-474.
    Cox, Gary. 1988. “Closeness and Turnout: a Methodological Note.” Journal of Politics 50 (3): 768-775.
    Cox, Gary. 1999. “Electoral Rules and the Calculus of Mobilization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (3): 387-419.
    Cox, Gary. 2015. “Electoral Rules, Mobilization, and Turnout.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 49-68.
    Crewe, Ivor. 1981. “Electoral Participation.” In Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competitive National Elections, eds. David Butler, Howard Penniman, and Austin Ranney. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
    Cutler, Neal, and Vern Bengtson. 1974. “Age and Political Alienation: Maturation, Generation and Period Effects.” American Academy of Political and Social Science 415: 160-175.
    Daniel, Kermi, and John Lott Jr. 1997. “Term Limits and Electoral Competitiveness: Evidence from California's State Legislative Races.” Public Choice 90: 165-184.
    De Benedetto, Marco Alberto, and Maria De Paola. 2016. “The Impact of Incumbency on Turnout. Evidence from Italian Municipalities.” Electoral Studies 44: 98-108.
    Delli Carpini, Michael, and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Dettrey, Bryan, and Leslie Schwindt-Bayer. 2009. “Voter Turnout in Presidential Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (10): 1317-1338.
    Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
    Dreyer Lassen, David. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 103-118.
    Eggers, Andrew. 2015. “Proportionality and Turnout: Evidence From French Municipalities.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (2): 135-167.
    Evans, Jocelyn, and Gilles Ivaldi. 2012. “Deriving a Forecast Model for European Election Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (4): 855-867.
    Feddersen, Timothy, and Wolfgang Pesendorfer. 1996. “The Swing Voter's Curse.” The American Economic Review 86 (3): 408-424.
    Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
    Ferejohn, John, and Morris Fiorina. 1974. “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis.” American Political Science Review 68 (2): 525-536.
    Fiva, Jon, and Daniel Smith. 2017. “Local Candidates and Voter Mobilization: Evidence from Historical two-round Elections in Norway.” Electoral Studies 45 : 130-140.
    Foos, Florian, and Eline de Rooij. 2017. “All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks—A Spillover Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 289-304.
    Fornos, Carolina, Timothy Power, and James Garand. 2004. “Explaining Voter Turnout in Latin America, 1980 to 2000.” Comparative Political Studies 37 (8): 909-940.
    Franklin, Mark. 2004. Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Garmann, Sebastian. 2016. “Concurrent Elections and Turnout: Causal Estimates from a German Quasi-experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 126: 167-178.
    Gerber, Alan, and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653-663.
    Green, Donald, and Alan Gerber. 2008. Get Out the Vote How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
    Grofman, Bernard, and Peter Selb. 2009. “A Fully General Index of Political Competition.” Electoral Studies 28: 291-296.
    Hadjar, Andreas, and Michael Beck. 2010. “Who does not Participate in Elections in Europe and Why is this? A Multilevel Analysis of Social Mechanisms Behind Non-voting.” European Societies 12 (4): 521-542.
    Hajnal, Zoltan, and Jessica Trounstine. 2005. “Where Turnout Matters: The Consequences of Uneven Turnout in City Politics.” Journal of Politics 67 (2): 515-535.
    Hajnal, Zoltan, and Paul Lewis. 2003. “Municipal Institutions and Voter Turnout in Local Elections.” Urban Affairs Review 38 (5): 645-668.
    Holbrook, Thomas, and Aaron Weinschenk. 2014. “Campaigns, Mobilization, and Turnout in Mayoral Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 42-55.
    Holbrook, Thomas. 2010. “Do Campaigns Really Matter?” In The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice, eds. Stephen Craig and David Hill. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
    Hsiao, Cheng. 2003. Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Jackman, Robert, and Ross Miller. 1995. “Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies during the 1980s.” Comparative Political Studies 27 (4): 467-492.
    Jackman, Robert. 1987. “Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies.” American Political Science Review 81(2): 405-424.
    Jacobs, Kristof, and Niels Spierings. 2010. “District Magnitude and Voter Turnout a Multi-level Analysis of Self-reported Voting in the 32 Dominican Republic Districts.” Electoral Studies 29: 704-718.
    Jusko, Karen, and Phillips Shively. 2005. “Applying a Two-Step Strategy to the Analysis of Cross-National Public Opinion Data.” Political Analysis 13 (4): 327-344.
    Karp, Jeffrey, Susan Banducci, and Shaun Bowler. 2008. “Getting Out the Vote: Party Mobilization in a Comparative Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 91-112.
    Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
    Kostadinova, Tatiana. 2003. “Voter Turnout Dynamics in Post-Communist Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 42 (6): 741-759.
    Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “The "Effective" Number of Parties: a Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3-27.
    Larcinese, Valentino. 2007. “Does Political Knowledge Increase Turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British General Election.” Public Choice 131: 387-411.
    Lijphart, Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1-14.
    Matsusaka, John. 1993. “Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot Propositions.” Public Choice 76: 313-334.
    Matsusaka, John. 1995. “Explaining Voter Turnout Patterns: An Information Theory.” Public Choice 84: 91-117.
    Milligan, Kevin, Enrico Moretti, and Philip Oreopoulos. 2004. “Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom.” Journal of Public Economics 88: 1667-1695.
    Morin-Chassé, Alexandre, Damien Bol, Laura Stephenson, and Simon Labbé St-Vincent. 2017. “How to Survey About Electoral Turnout? The Efficacy of the Face-Saving Response Items in 19 Different Contexts.” Political Science Research and Methods 5 (3): 575-584.
    Nagler, Jonathan. 1991. “The Effect of Registration Laws and Education on U.S. Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1393-1405.
    Nalder, Kimberly. 2007. “The Effect of State Legislative Term Limits on Voter Turnout.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 187-210.
    Niemi, Richard, and Herbert Weisberg. 1993. “Is it Rational to Vote?” In Classics in Voting Behavior, eds. Richard Niemi and Herbert Weisberg. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
    Norris, Pippa. 2000. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Oliver, Eric. 2000. “City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 361-373.
    Pacek, Alexander, Grigore Pop-Eleches, and Joshua Tucker. 2009. “Disenchanted or Discerning: Voter Turnout in Post-Communist Countries.” Journal of Politics 71 (2): 473-491.
    Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Powell, Bingham. 1982. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, NY: Harvard University.
    Powell, Bingham. 1986. “American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective.” American Political Science Review 80 (1): 17-43.
    Prior, Markus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 577-592.
    Prior, Markus. 2006. “The Incumbent in the Living Room: The Rise of Television and the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 68 (3): 657-673.
    Rainey, Carlisle. 2015. “Strategic Mobilization: Why Proportional Representation Decreases Voter Mobilization.” Electoral Studies 37: 86-98.
    Rainey, Carlisle. 2016. “Does District Magnitude Matter? The Case of Taiwan.” Electoral Studies 41: 202-212.
    Riker, William, and Peter Ordeshook. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25-42.
    Robbins, Joseph. 2010. “The Personal Vote and Voter Turnout.” Electoral Studies 29: 661-672.
    Rosenstone, Steven, and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and American Democracy. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
    Rosenstone, Steven. 1982. “Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science, 26 (1): 25-46.
    Sanz, Carlos. 2015. “The Effect of Electoral Systems on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Political Science Research and Methods Forthcoming DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.54
    Selb, Peter. 2009. “A Deeper Look at the Proportionality–Turnout Nexus.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (4): 527-548.
    Shugart, Matthew, Melody Valdini, and Kati Suominen. 2005. “Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 437-449.
    Snyder, James, and Michael Ting. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 90-110.
    Soderlund, Peter. 2017. “Candidate-centred Electoral Systems and Voter Turnout.” West European Politics 40 (3): 516-533.
    Southwell, Priscilla, and Justin Burchett. 2000. “The Effect of All-mail Elections on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research 28 (1): 72-79.
    Stein, Robert, and Kenneth Bickers. 1994. “Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel.” Journal of Politics 56 (2): 377-399.
    Stockemer, Daniel, and Patricia Calca. 2014. “Presidentialism and Voter Turnout in Legislative Elections.” Parliamentary Affairs 67 (3): 561-583.
    Stockemer, Daniel. 2015. “When Do Close Elections Matter for Higher Turnout? Gauging the Impact of the Interaction Between Electoral Competitiveness and District Magnitude.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25 (2): 178-194.
    Sudulich, Laura, and Siim Trumm. 2017. “A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns.” British Journal of Political Science Forthcoming DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000570
    Teixeira, Ruy. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
    Tsai, Chia-Hung. 2001. “Why Do Taiwanese Vote?” Journal of Electoral Studies 8 (2): 125-154.
    Tsai, Chi-Lin. 2015. “Too Far to Vote? A Preliminary Analysis of Residential Absentees’ Electoral Behaviour in Taiwan.” Journal of Electoral Studies 22 (1): 35-69.
    Verba, Sidney, and Norman Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. York, NY: Harper and Row.
    Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Verba, Sidney, Norman Nie, and Jae-On Kim. 1978. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Vowles, Jack. 2002. “Offsetting the PR Effect? Party Mobilization and Turnout Decline in New Zealand, 1996-99.” Party Politics 8 (5): 587-605.
    Wang, Yeh-Lih. 1996. “The Political Consequences of the Electoral System: Single Nontransferable Voting in Taiwan.” Issues & Studies 32 (8): 85-104.
    Wolfinger, Raymond, and Steven Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Wood, Curtis. 2002. “Voter Turnout in City Elections.” Urban Affairs Review 38 (2): 209-231.
    Wu, Chung-Li, and Xiaochen Su. 2016. “Vote Overreporting and a Survey Experiment: The Case of the Taiwan National Elections.” Issues & Studies 52 (1): 1-16.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    政治學系
    103252002
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1032520025
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    002501.pdf865KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback