我國現行罷免投票-被罷免方策略與罷免投票結果分析

Abstract

本研究旨在探討我國現行罷免制度中，被罷免方在面對罷免投票時所採取的策略與結果的分析。因隨著2016年罷免門檻降低，罷免投票的頻率增加，而被罷免方的策略選擇是否是罷免能否通過的關鍵，成為各界關注的問題，也是本文所要探討的主題。 本研究透過文獻檢閱及深入訪談，將被罷免方的應對策略分為冷處理與熱處理。冷處理定義為政黨呼籲選民不要出來投票，表示不會進行政治動員，對於發動罷免方的攻擊皆不正面回應；熱處理定義為被罷免方或所屬政黨透過公開管道表示正面迎戰，並比照大選模式辦理造勢活動，邀請黨內或是社會賢達站台，以及政治動員呼籲支持者出來投下不同意票。 透過對7個個案的分析，本文發現，當被罷免方採取熱處理策略時，罷免都不會成功；而採取冷處理的策略，罷免都會通過；而冷轉熱的案例，案例僅2例，包含黃國昌是冷轉微熱，以及陳柏惟是冷轉熱，雖然這兩個個案的罷免結果不同，但其同意票與不同意票的差異，符合本文所預期。 本研究主要分析為罷免投票中，被罷免方的策略與罷免投票結果的分析，因2016年修法後罷免案例僅有7例，且本文尚未針對制度面及發動罷免方的策略深入探討，待未來若有修法或是有更多案例，值得各界進一步分析，本文也希望能成為其他研究者的參考。

This study aims to explore the strategies adopted by the targeted individuals during recall votes under Taiwan’s current recall system and analyze their outcomes. Following the reduction of the recall threshold in 2016, the frequency of recall votes has increased. Whether the targeted individual’s choice of strategy is critical to the success or failure of a recall vote has become a topic of public concern, which this study seeks to address.Through a literature review and in-depth interviews, this study categorizes the strategies of targeted individuals into two types: Passive Response and Active Response. A Passive Response refers to political parties urging voters not to participate in the vote, refraining from political mobilization, and avoiding direct responses to attacks by recall proponents. In contrast, an Active Response involves the targeted individual or their affiliated political party openly confronting the recall through public channels, organizing campaign-style events akin to those held during general elections, inviting prominent party members or respected societal figures to speak on their behalf, and mobilizing supporters to vote against the recall. Analyzing seven case studies, this study finds that when the targeted individual adopts an Active Response, the recall consistently fails. On the other hand, when the Passive Response is used, the recall consistently succeeds. In the cases of a shift from Passive to Active Response—specifically the cases of Huang Kuo-chang (a shift to a moderately Active Response) and Chen Po-wei (a shift to a fully Active Response)—the recall outcomes differed. However, the differences between the approval and disapproval votes align with the study’s expectations. This research primarily focuses on analyzing the strategies of targeted individuals during recall votes and their impact on recall outcomes. Given that only seven recall cases have occurred since the 2016 legal amendments, this study does not delve deeply into institutional factors or the strategies of recall proponents. Future amendments or additional cases could provide more data for analysis. It is hoped that this study will serve as a reference for other researchers.