English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 51510/86705 (59%)
Visitors : 8274077      Online Users : 113
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU 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://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/34013


    Title: 選區劃分之理論與實踐 : 以立法委員選舉為例
    Other Titles: The theory and practice of electoral district delimitation : a case study of legislator election in Taiwan
    Authors: 林亮宇;Lin, Liang-yu
    Contributors: 淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班
    蔡宗珍;Tsai, Tzung-jen
    Keywords: 立法委員;選區;選區劃分;傑利蠑螈;複數選區不可讓渡投票制;單一選區二票制;公告;Legislator;Electoral District;Electoral District Delimitation;Gerrymandering;Single Non-Transferable Vote- Multi Member District (SNTV-MMD);Single Member Districts System and Two Votes System;Proclamations
    Date: 2006
    Issue Date: 2010-01-11 04:46:38 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 憲法施行以來立法委員的選舉方式幾經變化,於2005年修正通過之憲法增修條文第4條第2項規定,區域代表係由「按應選名額劃分同額選舉區選出之」,憲法增修條文並未明文規定該如何劃分此一同額選舉區,而在2006年2月3日修正公布之公職人員選舉罷免法第42條規定是否妥當?而如果民眾對於劃分之結果有所不服,有無可能救濟?如果得以救濟,則該循何種方式救濟?對此問題,本文從探討選區劃分之關連要素開始,包括參政權與選舉權、選舉制度與席次配置、選區之意義與劃分標準、選區劃分機關與傑利蠑螈等議題,深入研究2005年修憲前後立法委員之選舉制度與選區劃分相關問題,對於選區劃分結果不服時,則試圖建構完整的救濟制度,並提出修法建議。
    本文發現1、選舉制度改革並不成功,因未一併考量行政區劃之合理性。2、憲法增修條文有關選舉制度之規定仍待商榷。3、因未精確計算分配政黨比例席次之門檻,可能與所得席次之比例差距過大。4、政黨比例代表如允許未含僑民代表,則將使僑民代表之規定失去意義。5、選區劃分標準未以法律規定,使現行之劃分標準無強制力,也未區分首次劃分與重劃之差別。6、對選區劃分結果不服之救濟規定不完備,如果有人民對其表示不服,將發生極多問題。
    對於諸多問題,本文提出下列建議:1、首次實施SNTV-MMD,選區劃分應以人口數相等為首要劃分標準。2、配合行政院每10年的人口普查,明定以10年為選區重劃的時點。3、選舉公告部分則應明定選區內參選之政黨或候選人得對公告內容提起行政訴訟。4、應設立專責的選區劃分機關,其組成成員應經國會同意。5、應該要考量行政區劃是否應重新調整,或至少考慮打破縣市界線的劃分方式。6、應於選罷法中規定,對於選區劃分不服之訴訟,設計非常的訴訟程序。
    Since the Constitution is executed, the electoral method of legislator has passed through several changes. In the Additional Articles of the Constitution passed in 2005, the local representatives are selected among the same size of electoral district by dividing the elected quota. In the Amendment of the Constitution, it does not stipulate explicitly on how to divide such a same volume of electoral district. Is the Election And Recall Law remodeled and published on 3rd February, 2006 appropriate? If the citizens do not satisfied with the result, is there any way to remedy? If there is a way, what kind of remedy we should follow?Regarding this question, we start to discuss from the correlation element of electoral district, including Suffrage and Voting right, System of Election and the allocation of seat, the meaning of electoral district and the standard dividing, the origination of dividing election district and Gerrymandering. We will go down to the system of election for legislator and relevant problem of dividing electoral district in around year 2005. If disagreeing with dividing result of electoral district, you can try to construct a completed remedy system and propose remodeling the regulation.
    We found 1. The revolution of electoral system did not succeed because the rationality of administrative divisions is not considered. 2. The regulation of electoral system in the Additional Articles of the Constitution is still open to discussion. 3. The ratio and seat allocation of political party is not calculated accurately, the ratio of possible and gained seat may have big difference. 4. If the foreign residents are excluded from the representative selected according to the ratio of political party, the regulation for foreign residents is not meaningful any more. 5. Standard of electoral district delimitation is not regulated by law, causing the un-compulsory of current division standard; it does not differentiate the different of first division and re-division. 6. The uncompleted regulation of the remedy for disagreement of the electoral district delimitation result; if the citizens refuse to accept it, so many problems will occur.
    We propose below suggestion in regards with so many questions: 1. The first execution of SNTV-MMD. Electoral district delimitation should take the equivalence of population as the priority standard. 2. Cooperating with Executive Yuan census-taking every ten years; regulating 10-year as a circle of time for re-division of electoral district. 3. In the election proclamation, we should regulate that the political party or candidate participated in the election within the electoral district can propose Administrative proceedings toward the contents of proclamation. 4. We should establish an origination specifically responsible for electoral district delimitation, whose member should be approved by parliament. 5. We should consider that if the administrative division should be re-adjust or at least considering breaking through the division method based on county and city. 6. We should create a new regulation, which is to design an extraordinary procedure of lawsuit, and the lawsuit are proposed by citizens disagree with electoral district delimitation.
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系暨研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    0KbUnknown135View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback