相對多數決制下為何小黨能生存?－英國與日本的比較分析

Wei-Yuan Hsu; 徐維遠

請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件： http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6779

完整後設資料紀錄

DC 欄位	值	語言
dc.contributor.advisor	王業立
dc.contributor.author	Wei-Yuan Hsu	en
dc.contributor.author	徐維遠	zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned	2021-05-17T09:17:57Z	-
dc.date.available	2012-07-23
dc.date.available	2021-05-17T09:17:57Z	-
dc.date.copyright	2012-07-23
dc.date.issued	2012
dc.date.submitted	2012-07-19
dc.identifier.citation	參考書目壹、中文部分王業立，1994，〈相對多數決制下的政黨競爭：82年縣市長的選舉觀察〉，《理論與政策》，8（2）：14-28。王業立，1996，〈相對多數vs絕對多數：各國總統直選方式的比較研究〉，《選舉研究》，3（1）：49-67。王業立，2001，〈選舉制度對政黨合作的影響—一個制度面的分析〉，蘇永欽（編），《政黨重組：台灣民主政治的再出發》，台北：新台灣人文教基金會，頁 163-175。王業立、陳坤森，2001，〈聯合內閣的類型與成因之分析〉，蘇永欽（編），《聯合政府：台灣民主體制的新選擇？》，台北：新台灣人文教基金會，頁3-32。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。王業立，2011，《比較選舉制度》第六版，台北：五南。王國璋，1993，《當代美國政治論衡》，台北：三民書局。王國璋，1998，〈區域意識、政黨認同與加拿大選民投票行為之長期分析〉，《問題與研究》，37（12）：47-106。王鼎銘，2003，〈策略投票及其影響之檢測：二ＯＯ一年縣市長及立委選舉結果的探討〉，《東吳政治學報》，16：95-123。王鼎銘、郭銘峰、黃紀，2008，〈選制轉變過程下杜佛傑心理效應之檢視：從日本眾議院選制變革的經驗來觀察〉，《問題與研究》，47（3）：1-28。王鼎銘、郭銘峰，2009，〈混合式選制下的投票思維：台灣與日本國會選舉變革經驗的比較〉，《選舉研究》，16（2）：101-130。吳文程，2009，《政黨與選舉概論》，台北：五南。吳明上，2003，〈日北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）：79-92。吳明上，2008，〈日本聯合政權組成中公明黨關鍵少數之研究〉，《東吳政治學報》，26（1）：51-85。吳東野，1996，〈「單一選區兩票制」選舉方法之探討：德國、日本、俄羅斯選舉之實例比較〉，《選舉研究》，3（1）: 69-102。吳重禮，1998，〈美國「分立性政府」與「一致性政府」體制運作之比較與評析〉，《政治科學論叢》，9：61-90。吳重禮，2008，《政黨與選舉：理論與實踐》，台北：三民。李季山，2001，《英國第一次憲政改革》，南京市：南京人民出版社。李順德、陳洛薇，2012，〈總統、立委　可能不再合併選〉，聯合報， 6/7， http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT1/7143591.shtml 余君山，2011，〈日本眾議院議員選舉〉，張世賢（編），《各國選舉制度》，台北：五南，頁327-339。林繼文，1997，〈制度選擇如何可能：論日本選舉制度的改革〉，《台灣政治學刊》， 2：63-106 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）：1-35。林繼文，2008，〈以輸為贏：小黨在日本單一選區兩票制下的參選策略〉，《選舉研究》，15（2）：37-66。松村岐夫、伊藤光利、辻中豐等人著，吳明上譯，2005，《日本政府與政治》，台北：五南。譯自《日本の政治》，2001。亞洲選舉研究計畫，2009，〈選舉統計概況〉，亞洲選舉研究計畫資料庫，　　http://www.asianelections.org/cubekmcht/front/bin/home.phtml 張世賢，1996，〈日本眾議院議員選舉之研究〉，《中國行政評論》，6（1）：56-93。張世賢，2011，《各國選舉制度》，台北：五南。盛杏湲，2002，〈民主國家國會議員選制改革的經驗〉，陳健民、周育仁（編），《國會改革與憲政發展》，臺北：國家政策研究基金會，頁77-108。盛杏湲、蔡韻竹，〈政黨在國會的動員策略：集體性與選擇性誘因的運用〉，黃秀端（編），《黨政關係與國會運作》，台北：五南，頁19-58。盛治仁，2006，〈單一選區兩票制對未來台灣政黨政治發展之可能性探討〉，《台灣民主季刊》，3（2）：63-86。郭銘峰、黃紀、王鼎銘，2012，〈日本眾議院選舉政黨重複提名策略與效應：選區層次的分析〉，《政治科學論叢》，51：161-216。陳坤森，2010，《聯合內閣理論：內閣制下的多黨競爭》，台北：韋伯。陳陸輝、周應龍，2008，〈如何評估單一選區兩票制下候選人票與政黨票之間的連動關係〉，黃紀、游清鑫（編），《如何評估選制變遷：方法論的探討》，台北：五南，頁151-172。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。黃紀，2008，〈緒論：選舉制度的脈絡與效應〉，《如何評估選制變遷：方法論的探討》，黃紀、游清鑫（編），台北：五南，頁1-17。黃秀端，2002，〈單一選區與複數選區相對多數決制下的選民策略投票〉，《東吳政治學報》，13：37-75。黃秀端，2006，〈兩大黨對決局面儼然成形〉，《台灣民主季刊》，3（4）: 181-190。黃秀端、陳鴻鈞，2006，〈國會中政黨席次大小對互動之影響—第三屆到第五屆的立法院記名表決探析〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，18（3）: 385-415。黃德北，1996，〈英國歷來聯合政府之研究：政治制度、政黨聯合與政府組成〉，《問題與研究》，35（1）：56-72。黃偉峰，1997，〈「次級選舉」理論與歐洲議會選舉：英國經驗資料之檢證〉，《歐美研究》，27（4）：199-232。黃偉峰，1998，〈英國浮動選民與第三黨投票取向之研究〉，《歐美研究》，28（4）： 1-61。黃偉峰，2003，〈緒論〉，黃偉峰（編），《歐洲聯盟的組織與運作》，台北：五南，頁1-22。厲媞媞、陳麗華，2008，《考察英國地方分權與地方制度》，內政部。蔡韻竹，2009，《國會小黨的行動策略與運作》，國立政治大學政治學系博士論文。蔡學儀，2009，《單一選區兩票制新解》，台北：五南。蔡佳泓、王鼎銘、林超琦，〈選制變遷對政黨體系之影響評估：變異量結構模型之探討〉，黃紀、游清鑫（編），《如何評估選制變遷：方法論的探討》，台北：五南，頁197-222。謝相慶，1999，〈日本眾議院議員選舉制度及其政治效應－以1996 年選舉為例〉，《選舉研究》，6（2）：45-85。謝復生，1992，《政黨比例代表制》，台北：理論與政策雜誌社。劉從葦，2006，〈書評：The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States〉，《台灣民主研究季刊》，3（2）：191-196。蕭怡靖、黃紀，2010，〈單一選區兩票制下的一致與分裂投票—2008年立法委員選舉的探討〉，《台灣民主季刊》，7（3）：1-43。蘇子喬、王業立，2010，〈為何廢棄混合式選舉制度?－義大利、俄羅斯與泰國選制改革之研究〉，《東吳政治學報》，28（3）：1-81。蘇子喬，2010，〈憲政體制與選舉制度的配套思考〉，《政治科學論叢》，44：35-74。 Michael G. Roskin著，王業立、鄭又平、侯漢君、姚朝森、黃烈修、郭正亮、陳恆鈞、陳銘祥譯，2003，《最新各國政府與政治：比較的觀點》，台北：韋伯文化。譯自, Countries and Concepts: An Introduction to Comparative Politics. New York: Prentice Hall. 1998. 貳、英文部分 Alderman, Geoffrey, 1989. Britain: A One Party State? London: Christopher Helm. Beck, Paul Allen, Lawrence Baum, Aage R. Clausen, and Charles E. Smith. 1992. “Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting.” American Political Science Review 86(4): 916-928. Borisyuk, Galina, Colin Rallings, Michael Thrasher, and Henk van der Kolk. 2007. “Voter Supporter Minor Parties: Assessing the Social and Political Context of Voting at the 2004 European Elections in Greater London.” Party Politics 13(6): 669-693. Burden, Barry C., and David C. Kimball. 2002. Why Americans Split Their Tickets: Campaign, Competition, and Divided Government. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Butler, David, and Dennis Kavanagh. 2002. The British General Election of 2001. NY: Palgrave. Chhibber, K. Pradeep, and Ken Kollman. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coxall, Bill, Lynton Robin, and Robert Leach. 2003. Contemporary British Politics. Basingstoke, New Hampshire : Macmillan. Curtice, John. 1992. “The Hidden Surprise: The British Electoral System in 1992.” Parliamentary Affairs 45: 466-474. Curtice, John. 1996. “Who Votes For the Centre Now?” in The Liberal Democrats, ed. Davey MacIver. Prentice Hall: Harvester Wheatsheaf 191-204. Cutts, David. 2012. “Yet Another False Dawn? An Examination of the Liberal Democrats’ Performance in the 2010 General Election.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 14: 96-114. Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row. Duverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley. Ferrara, Federico, Eric Herron, and Misa Nishikawa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Fisher, Stephen L. 1974. The Minor Parties of the Federal Republic of Germany: Toward a Comparative Theory of Minor Parties. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Fiorina, Morris P. 1996. Divided Government. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. Freedman, Lawrence. 1996. Politics and Policy in Britain. New York: Longman. Freedom House. 2011. Freedom in the World 2011. http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/FIW_2011_Booklet.pdf.　Latest update 27 October 2011. Gerring, John. 2005. “Minor Parties in Plurality Electoral Systems.” Party Politics 11(1): 79-107. Gaines, Brian J. 2009. “Does the United Obey Duverger’s law?” in Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting : The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States, ed Bernard Grofman et al. New York : Springer-Verlag, 115-134. Gallagher, Michael. 1998. “The Political Impact of Electoral System Change in Japan and New Zealand.” Party Politics 4(2)：203-228. Garand, James C., and Marci Glascock Lichtl. 2000. “Explaining Divided Government in the United States: Testing An Intentional Model of Split-Ticket Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 30(1): 173-191. Grofman, Bernard, Blais Andre, and Bowler Shaun. 2009. Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting : The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. New York : Springer-Verlag. Hague, Rod, and Martin Harrop. 2007. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hall, A. Peter, and Rosemary C. R. Taylor. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism.” Political Studies 44: 936-957. Hanham, H. J. 1959. Elections and Party Management: Politics in Time of Disraeli and Gladstone. London: Longman. Heath, Anthony. 1991. Understanding Political Change: The British Voter 1964-1987. Oxford: Pergamon. Herron, Eric S., and Misa Nishikawa. 2001. “Contamination Effect and the Number of Parties in Mixed-Superposition Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies 20: 63-86. Huntington, Samuel. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. International IDEA. 2005. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA. Jacobson, Gary C. 1991. “Explaining Divided Government: Why can’t the Republicans Win the House.” Political Science and Politics 24(4): 640-643. Janda, Kenneth. 1980. Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: Collier Macmillan. Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. Lemieux, Peter H. 1977. “Political Issues and Liberal Support in the February 1974, British General Election.” Political Studies 25(3): 323–342. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Mackie, Thomas, and Richard Rose. 1991. The International Almanac of Electoral History. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Maeda, Ko. 2008. “Re-examining the Contamination Effect of Japan’s Mixed Electoral System Using Treatment-Effect Model.” Electoral Studies 27(4): 723-731. Maor, Moshe. 1995. “Intra-Party Determinations of Coalition Bargaining.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 7(1): 65-91. Margetts, Helen, and Gareth Smyth. 1994. Turning Japanese: Britain with a Permanent Party of Government. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Massiccote, Louis, and Andre Blais. 1999. “Mixed Electoral Systems: A Conceptual and Empirical Survey.” Electoral Studies 8: 241-366. Moser, Robert G., and Ethan Scheiner. 2004. “Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effect: Controlled Comparison and Cross-National Analysis,” Electoral Studies 23: 575-599. Moser, Robert G., and Ethan Scheiner. 2005. “Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30(2): 259-276. Norris, Pippa, and Joni Lovendusk. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race, and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering : Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norton, Philip. 1994. The British polity. 3rd ed. New York: Longman. 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. Peele, Gillian. 1995. Governing the UK. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell . Peters, P. G.1999. Institutional Theory in Political Science. London: Pinter. Panebiance, Angelo. 1988. Poliitcal Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pinard, Maurice. 1967. “One Party Dominance and Third Parties.” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 33: 358-373. Pontusson, J. 1995. “From Comparative Public Policy to Political Economy.” Comparative Political Study 28: 118-120. Rae, Douglas W. 1971. The Political Consequence of Electoral Laws. New Haven, Connectticut: Yale University Press. Ranney, Austin. 2001. Governing: An Introduction to Political. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Relf, Karlheinz and Hermann Schmitt. 1980. “Nine Second-Order National Election: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results.” European Journal of Political Science 8(1): 3-44 Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76:753-766. Roscoe, Douglas D. 2003. “The Choosers or the Choices? Voter Characteristics and the Structure of Electoral Competition as Explanations for Ticket Splitting.” The Journal of Politics 65(4): 1147-1164. Rosenstone, Steven J., Behr Roy L., and Lazarus Edward H.. 1996. Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Russell, Andrew. 2005. “The Liberal Democrat campaign”. In Britain Votes, eds. Pippa Norris, and Chris Wlezien. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 87-100. Russell, Andrew and Fieldhouse, Edwrd. 2005. Neither Left nor Right? The Liberal Democrats and the Electorate. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sartori, Giovanni. 1968. “Representational Systems”. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Crowell-Collier-Macmillan. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scarrow, Howard A. 1986. “Duverger’s Law, Fusion, and the Decline of American ThirdParties.” Political Quarterly 39(4): 634-647. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1944. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Smith, John. 1995. “The 1994 European Elections: Twelve into One Won’t Go.” West European Plotics 18(3): 199-217. Stevenson, John. 1993. Third Party Politics since 1945 : Liberals, Alliance and Liberal Democrats. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. Strom, Kaare. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shugart, Mathew Soberg, and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2001. “Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: A Definition and Typology.” Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both World? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taagepera, Rein, and Matthew Sobert Shugart. 1989. Seats & Votes: The Effects & Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Tsebelis, Georege. 2002. Veto Player: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Warwick, Paul. 1994. Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.uri	http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6779	-
dc.description.abstract	小黨（minor parties）或第三黨（third parties）存在於不同選舉制度，面臨的困境、挑戰和機會，且其生存方式也不盡相同。相對多數決制與並立制對於小黨的不友善，其制度誘因對選民產生「心理性因素」，驅使其進行策略投票，導致小黨生存不易。是以，本文欲從「建構小黨發展模式」出發，試圖從杜瓦傑法則的例外情形著手，並找尋是否存在此理論假設的「異例」，同時探討使之成為「例外」的理由以及其如何具體形塑之過程與機制。而本文作為小黨理論的開創性研究，係以「文獻分析法」為主要研究方法，輔以質性為主之「小樣本分析法」，將英國與日本之小黨發展情形作一比較，試圖勾勒出相對多數決制與並立制下的小黨發展模式。經研究發現，英國小黨其生存方式係以直接衝撞杜瓦傑法則為主，且小黨可分為區域性政黨與非區域性政黨，前者生存原因主要係該小黨選區與文化分歧區域高度重疊，致使文化分歧轉變成政治上對於小黨之支持；此外，由於英國小黨於區域議會與歐洲議會中佔有部份席次，在功能上成為小黨發聲的結構孔道與政治棲所，應得視為其突破杜瓦傑法則的制度性機制。而非區域性政黨－英國自民黨，則是以創造「後天分歧性」為主要原則，具體策略包含在特定選區參選、政策上保持彈性、競選時以「以人領黨」等，主要係以選舉策略來突破杜瓦傑法則。而日本小黨得以生存，如公明黨係與大黨形成「選舉型聯合內閣」，而主要脈絡性因素則是日本留有中選區的制度遺緒、日本政治保有強大的個人集票系統、政黨標籤不明、政黨結構鬆散與政治個人主義顯著等。而選制策略上，日本小黨利用存在於兩票結構的連動效果以獲得支持之外，也應增加選民成全「實現多元代表」之蓄意性動機或誘因，目的係積極促使選民進行分裂投票。最後，本文認為台灣目前如台聯、親民黨等小黨不僅應保持反執政黨之特性，且須積極把握因合併選舉而擴大的選票票基，更應戮力創造促使選民進行分裂投票的正當理由。	zh_TW
dc.description.abstract	The Duverger’s Law asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, there have few “anomalies” of such a law, for example, the United Kingdom and Japan, in which existed relatively influential minor parties even under separately the plurality system and parallel system, which possesses the similar effects to the minors. The study aims to answer the question why minor can survive under the tough election system in a comparative perspective. The author compares the living model of the minors between the United Kingdom and Japan, and then provides some suggestions and reflections to the minor parties in Taiwan. The author find out not only does the culture cleavage prompt some region-based parties such as Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymyu survive in United Kingdom, but the cleavage has been transformed into the political supports by regional assemblies and European Parliament. And such a mechanism will provide the minors with living space and as a step-stone toward another political arena except for the England Parliament. Moreover, the biggest third party in England, Liberal Democratic Party has tried hard to create some “artificial cleavage” which can help them to acquire more niches from voters. For example, the party strategically tends to be resilient and flexible, choose designated constituency to campaign, and sustain the anti-government status to attract the floating voters. Compared with the minor parties in United Kingdom which directly confront the Duverger’s Law, the ones in Japan have quite different approaches to make a living. The results show there are several strategies the minors have adopted to struggle for the seats. The first one is to form an electoral united cabinet during the campaign for the exchange of nominations from minor and they will get the support of PR vote from major party as feedback. The second one is foster the voter’s motivation to take on the ticket-splitting behavior by strengthening the connecting effect under the mixed-member two-vote structure. And finally, the minors should promote the images such as “multiple representations” to shape the voter’s behavior’s to intentionally realize the ideal situation by their votes. In the end, the author considers the minor parties in Taiwan should maintain the anti-government status like the Lib-Dem in England to broaden the vote basis. Besides, the enhancing voting ratio after the combination of president and legislator in 2012 does give an applicable niche for the minors to forge themselves to be viable, usable and competitive.	en
dc.description.provenance	Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-17T09:17:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R99322058-1.pdf: 1805020 bytes, checksum: 1c9df6575f6d3b8a02b070077b5e8938 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012	en
dc.description.tableofcontents	口試委員審定書------------------------------------------------------------------I 謝辭--------------------------------------------------------------------------------II 中文摘要--------------------------------------------------------------------------IV 英文摘要--------------------------------------------------------------------------V 第一章緒論----------------------------------------------------------------------1 第一節研究動機與目的--------------------------------------------------1 第二節研究範圍界定、概念定義與研究限制-----------------------7 第三節研究方法、研究問題與章節安排----------------------------20 第四節各國資料之初步分析與歸納----------------------------------28 第二章文獻回顧---------------------------------------------------------------33 第一節政黨體系及其影響因素----------------------------------------34 第二節混合選制中的連動性-------------------------------------------43 第三節分裂投票與小黨生存之關聯----------------------------------45 第四節小黨在政黨政治中的可能利基－誘因、行動原則與政黨聯盟---------------------------------------------------------------51 第三章個案分析：英國小黨之生存探討---------------------------------55 第一節從歷史、民族與文化分歧到政治分野----------------------57 第二節超國家組織成為小黨溫床?－歐洲議會和英國小黨之關聯 -----------------------------------------------------------------------71 第三節最大的小黨：英國自民黨成功與生存之道-----------------81 第四章並立制的小黨生存分析：以日本為例----------------------------91 第一節「選舉型」聯合政權對小黨生存之影響--------------------97 第二節兩票連動效果－小黨生存的祕密花園----------------------103 第三節分裂投票與連動效果：兼論「以輸為贏」策略成功之關鍵----------------------------------------------------------------108 第五章研究發現與結論------------------------------------------------------115 第一節研究發現與未來研究建議-------------------------------------116 第二節小黨之崛起？台灣2008與2012年兩次選舉之分析----123 第三節反思台灣小黨的未來-------------------------------------------128 附錄一三十國下（眾）議院各黨席次數統整表------------------------135 附錄二英國自民黨政黨發展紀要------------------------------------------149 參考文獻--------------------------------------------------------------------------153
dc.language.iso	zh-TW
dc.title	相對多數決制下為何小黨能生存?－英國與日本的比較分析	zh_TW
dc.title	Why Can Minor Parties Survive under the Plurality System? The United Kingdom and Japan in Comparative Perspective	en
dc.type	Thesis
dc.date.schoolyear	100-2
dc.description.degree	碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee	吳重禮,蘇子喬
dc.subject.keyword	小黨,第三黨,杜瓦傑法則,相對多數決制,並立制,	zh_TW
dc.subject.keyword	MINOR PARTIES,THIRD PARTIES,DUVERGER’S LAW,PLURALITY SYSYEM,PARALLEL SYSTEM,	en
dc.relation.page	164
dc.rights.note	同意授權(全球公開)
dc.date.accepted	2012-07-19
dc.contributor.author-college	社會科學院	zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept	政治學研究所	zh_TW
顯示於系所單位：	政治學系

文件中的檔案：

檔案	大小	格式
ntu-101-1.pdf	1.76 MB	Adobe PDF	檢視/開啟

顯示文件簡單紀錄

系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。