淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0207201315054000
中文論文名稱 選舉輸家政治態度與行為之探討:以台灣2012年總統選舉為例
英文論文名稱 A Study of Election Loser’s Political Attitudes and Behavior:A Case Study of Taiwan 2012 Presidential Election
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 公共行政學系公共政策碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Public Administration
學年度 101
學期 2
出版年 102
研究生中文姓名 林昭揚
研究生英文姓名 Chao-Yang Lin
學號 699640362
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2013-06-14
論文頁數 93頁
口試委員 指導教授-林聰吉
委員-蕭怡靖
委員-游清鑫
中文關鍵字 選舉輸家  選舉公平性  多數統治  多數專制 
英文關鍵字 election losers  election fairness  majority rule  tyranny of majority 
學科別分類
中文摘要   自1980年代以來,台灣逐漸由威權政體轉變為民主政體的國家。而成為民主政體的首要條件,普遍認為必須具備選舉的功能。選舉提供了候選人公平競爭的管道,並且賦予民眾基本的政治參與權利。不過,選舉必然會產生選舉輸家,過去有學者便認為,若選舉輸家產生不服輸的心態將可能對民主體制的存續產生嚴重威脅。因此,探究選舉輸家的政治後果將是政治學界與實務界中非常重要的議題。
  本研究認為2012年的總統選舉是競爭激烈的一個年度,相當適合作為輸家研究的案例。藉由檢閱過去輸家研究的文獻,本研究發現,輸家將可能對選舉的公平性產生質疑,甚至不認同多數統治的運作模式。另外,基於對執政黨的不滿,輸家亦將可能參與較激進的政治參與行為。
  研究結果顯示,敗選確實是影響民眾各種政治態度與行為的關鍵因素。過去文獻所指,輸家比起其他選民,將會在政治態度與行為上出現顯著差異的論點,亦應證在我國2012年總統選舉的案例中。另外,本研究亦發現影響民眾政治態度與行為的關鍵因素,亦可能來自於對「多數專制」的擔憂。
英文摘要   Since the 1980s, the political system in Taiwan has gradually transformed from authoritarian to democracy. The key to democracy is election. Election not only provides a fair competition for candidates but also gives the basic right of political participation to the public. However, the elections will inevitably produce election losers. Some scholars argue that if the losers disagree with the election’s results, they might be a serious threat to the survival of democratic institutions. Therefore, the discussion of the political consequences of the election loser is an important issue in the academic and practice fields.
  This study suggests that the presidential election in 2012 in Taiwan is an appropriate case for discussion. According to the past literature, election losers tend to question the fairness of the election and even the mode of operation for the majority rule. In addition, based on dissatisfaction with the incumbent government, the losers will have more political participation behaviors.
  The results demonstrate that, defeat is really affecting people's political attitudes and behaviors. Literature mentioned that losers’ political attitudes and behaviors will be significantly differences with other voters. This argument agrees with the 2012 presidential election. In addition, the study also finds that "tyranny of majority" will affect people's political attitudes and behaviors.
論文目次 第一章 研究動機與目的 1
第二章 文獻檢閱 6
第一節 選舉輸家的概念與測量 6
第二節 選舉輸家所造成的政治後果 17
第三節 研究問題與研究方法 42
第三章 選舉輸家對政治態度評價之效果評估 48
第一節 選舉輸家對選舉公平性之效果評估 48
第二節 選舉輸家對多數統治之效果評估 54
第四章 選舉輸家對政治參與行為之效果評估 64
第一節 各類選民其政治參與行為之分布趨勢 65
第二節 選舉輸家對政治參與行為之影響效果 70
第五章 結論 75
第一節 研究發現 76
第二節 研究限制與建議 79
附錄一 電話訪問研究方法 80
附錄二 測量題目 81
參考文獻 86
圖目錄
圖 2-1 選舉公平性之研究架構圖 ................................ ................................ .............. 45
圖 2-2 多數統治正當性之研究架構圖 多數統治正當性之研究架構圖 ................................ ................................ ...... 46
圖 2-3 政治參與行為之研究架構圖 政治參與行為之研究架構圖 ................................ ................................ .......... 47
表目錄
表 2-1 2012 年台灣民眾對多數專制擔憂之情況 年台灣民眾對多數專制擔憂之情況 ................................ ..................... 43
表 2-2 對多數專制憂慮三組變之信度分析 對多數專制憂慮三組變之信度分析 ................................ ......................... 44
表 3-1 2012 年總統選舉民投票對象與公平性評價交叉分析 年總統選舉民投票對象與公平性評價交叉分析 年總統選舉民投票對象與公平性評價交叉分析 ...................... 49
表 3-2 2012 年總統選舉影響民公平性評價的因素 年總統選舉影響民公平性評價的因素 年總統選舉影響民公平性評價的因素 .............................. 53
表 3-3 2012 年總統選舉民投票對象與馬英九領導正當性之交叉分析 年總統選舉民投票對象與馬英九領導正當性之交叉分析 年總統選舉民投票對象與馬英九領導正當性之交叉分析 .............. 56
表 3-4 2012 年總統選舉民投票對象與 年總統選舉民投票對象與 多數統治原則評價之交叉分析 多數統治原則評價之交叉分析 .............. 59
表 3-5 2012 年總統選舉影響民對多數治的因素 年總統選舉影響民對多數治的因素 ................................ ...... 63
表 4-1 2012 年總統選舉民投票對象與政治參方式交叉分析 年總統選舉民投票對象與政治參方式交叉分析 年總統選舉民投票對象與政治參方式交叉分析 .......................... 69
表 4-2 2012 年總統選舉影響民政治參與意願的因素 年總統選舉影響民政治參與意願的因素 年總統選舉影響民政治參與意願的因素 ................................ .. 74
參考文獻 中文部分
王甫昌,1998,〈族群意識、民族主義與政黨支持:1990年代台灣的族群政治〉,《台灣社會學研究》,2:1-45。
王業立,1998,《比較選舉制度》。台北:五南圖書出版社。
王鵬捷、魏郁桄,2004,〈410府前對峙爆衝,群眾突破封鎖線,警方口袋戰術驅離,部分民眾推倒鷹架、衝撞拒馬引發肢體衝突〉,4月11日,《中央日報》,版3。
李酉潭,1998,《民主與多數專制:麥迪遜、托克維勒與約翰彌勒觀點之分析》,國科會研究計畫 (計畫編號:NSC87-2414-H-004-014)。
李酉潭,2000,〈約翰彌勒論民主的問題及其解決〉,《中山人文社會科學期刊》,8(1):121-164。
吳乃德,1993,〈省籍意識、政治支持和國家認同-台灣族群政治理論的初探〉,載於《族群關係和國家認同》, 張茂桂編,台北:國家政策研究中心。
吳重禮、許文賓,2003,〈誰是政黨認同者與獨立選民?以2001年台灣地區選民政黨認同因素為例〉,《政治科學論叢》,18:101-140。
吳凱琳,2013,〈馬來西亞民主已死?大選爭議2大導火線〉,《天下雜誌》網站,5月6日。http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5048940。2013/5/21。
林聰吉,2007a,〈解析台灣的民主政治:以民主支持度與滿意度為觀察指標〉, 《選舉研究》, 14(1):61-84。
林聰吉,2007b,〈政治支持與民主鞏固〉 , 《政治科學論叢》,34:71-104。
林聰吉,2013,〈換了位置就換了腦袋嗎?—探索台灣總統大選的選舉輸家〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,10(1):1-34。
胡佛,1998,《政治參與與選舉行為》,台北:三民。
徐火炎,1991,〈政黨認同與投票抉擇:台灣地區選民對政黨的印象及偏好與黨派的投票行為分析〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,4(1):1-57。
徐火炎,1993,〈選舉競爭與政治分歧結構的變遷:國民黨與民進黨政治勢力的消長〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,6(1):37-74。
張佑宗,2009,〈選舉輸家與民主鞏固:台灣 2004 年總統選舉落選陣營對民主的態度〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,6(1):41-72。
張佑宗,2011,〈選舉結果、政治學習與民主支持—兩次政黨輪替後台灣公民在民主態度與價值的變遷〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,8(2):99-137。
張傳賢,2009,〈民主的脆弱性與鞏固:一個敗者同意的視角〉,《政治科學論叢》,42:43-84。
陳文政,2003,〈多數統治與少數權利之調和:美國聯邦最高法院司法審查權之民主基礎〉,南華大學《政策研究學報》,3期,頁 95‐116。
陳陸輝,2000,〈台灣選民政黨認同的持續與變遷〉,《選舉研究》,7(2):109-141。
陳陸輝,2006,〈政治信任的政治後果─以2004年立法委員選舉為例〉,《台灣民主季刊》,3(2):39-63。
陳義彥,1994,〈我國選民的集群分析及其投票傾向的預測─從民國81年立委選舉探討〉,《選舉研究》,1(1):1-37。
盛杏湲,2002,〈統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為:1990年代的分析〉,《選舉研究》,9(1):41-80。
盛杏湲、陳義彥,2003,〈政治分歧與政黨競爭:2001年立委選舉的分析〉,《選舉研究》,10(1):7-40。
楊孟麗,2003,〈投票意願與經濟不景氣:台灣的情形〉,《選舉研究》,10(2):159-91。
蔡榮祥、陳宏銘,2012,〈總統國會制的一致政府與憲政運作:以馬英九總統第一任任期為例〉,《東吳政治學報》,30(4):121-176。
英文部分
Abramson, Paul R. 1983. Political Attitudes in American: Formation and Change. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company Press.
Almond, Gabriel A, and Sidney Verba, 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University.
Anderson, Christopher J., and Silvia Mendes. 2005. “ Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential.” British Journal of Political Science, 36: 91-111.
Anderson, Christopher J., Silvia Mendes, and Yuliya V. Tverdova . 2004. “Endogenous Economic Voting: Evidence from the 1997 British Election. ” Electoral Studies, 23(4): 683–708.
Anderson, Christopher J., Andre Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug. 2005. Loser's Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, John W. 1957. “Motivational Determinants of Risk-Taking Behavior” Psychological Review, 64(4): 359–72
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes . 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Chang, Eric C. C., and Yun-han Chu. 2006. “Corruption and Trust: Exceptionalism in Asian Democracies.” Journal of Politics, 68(2): 259-271.
Cigler, Allan J. and Russell Getter . 1977. “Conflict Reduction in the Post-Election Period: A Test of the Depolarization Thesis.” Western Political Quarterly, 30(3): 363-76.
Citrin, Jack . 1974. “ Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government. ” American Political Science Review, 68(3): 973-988.
Craig, Stephen C., Richard G.. Niemi, and Glenn E. Silver. 1990. “Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items.” Political Behavior, 12(3):289-314.
Craig, Stephen C., Michael D. Martinez, Jason Gainous, and James G. Kane . 2006. “Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly, 59(4): 579-92.
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Heaven, CT:Yale University Press.
Dennis, Jack . 1970. “Support for the Institution of Elections in the Mass Public.” American Political Science Review, 64: 819-36.
Dewey, John. 1939. Freedom and Culture. New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons.
Easton, David . 1953. The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Easton, David . 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
Easton, David . 1975 .“A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science, 5(4):435-37.
Erber, Ralph, and Richard R. Lau . 1990. “ Political Cynicism Revisited: An Information-Processing Reconciliation of Policy-Based and Incumbency-Based Interpretations of Changes in Trust in Government. ” American Journal of Political Science, 34(1): 236–53.
Festinger, Leon . 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Finkel, Steven E. 1987. “The Effect of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support: Evidence from a West German Panel.” Journal of Politics, 49(2): 441- 64.
Gerber, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Morton . 1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , 14(2): 304–24.
Gamson , William A. 1968. Power and Discontent. Home wood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
Gibson, James L. 2003. “The Legacy of Apartheid: Racial Differences in the Legitimacy of Democratic Institutions and Processes in the New South Africa.” Comparative Political Studies, 36(7): 772-800.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, and Robert, Weisberg. 1978. “Elections and the Mobilization of Popular Support. ”American Journal of Political Science, 22(1): 31–55.
Granberg, Donald . 1993 . “ Political Perception, ” in Explorations in Political Psychology, ed. Shanto Iyengar and William J. McGuire. Durham: Duke University Press.
Gunther, Richard, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, and Hans-Jurgen Puhle. 1996. “O’Donnell’s ‘Illusions’: A Rejoinder.” Journal of Democracy, 7(4): 151-159.
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Huber, John . 1989. “Values and Partisanship in Left–Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology.” European Journal of Political Research , 17(5): 599–621.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman and Lond: University of Oklahoma Press.
Kaase, Max, and Kenneth Newton . 1995 . Beliefs in Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kornhauser, William. 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. Glencoe: Free Press.
Kuenzi, Michelle. 2005. “The Role of Nonformal Education in Promoting Democratic Attitudes: Finding From Senegal.” Democratization, 12(2): 223-44.
Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan . 1996 . Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “ Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review, 53: 68-105.
McAuley, E., D. Russell, and J. B. Gross . 1983 . “ Affective Consequences of Winning and Losing: An Attributional Analysis. ” Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(1): 167–76.
Millbrath, Lester, M.L. Goel. 1977. Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Moehler, Devra C. 2009 . “Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects: Election Losers and Winners in Africa.” British Journal of Political Science, 39(2):345-66 .
Muller, E. N. 1979. Aggressive Political Participation . Princeton: N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Nadeau, Richard, and Andre Blais. 1993. “Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect on Participation on Losers’ Consent.” British Journal of Political Science, 23(4): 553-63.
Neilson, William S. 2000. “Victory and Defeat in a Model of Behavior in Games and Toward Risk” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Norris, Pippa. 1999. “ Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens? ” In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. Pippa Norris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-27.
Riker, W. H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalition. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Riker, W. H. 1965. “Theory and Science in the Study of Politics: A Review.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 93: 375-80.
Riker, W. H. 1983. “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics.” In Political Science: the State of the Discipline, ed. A. W. Finifter. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association APSA.
Riker, W. H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rosenberg , Milton J. 1956. “ Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect. ” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 53(4): 367–72.
Rowen, Henry S. 2007 . “When Will the Chinese People Be Free?” Journal of Democracy, 18(3): 38-52.
Schedler, Andreas . 1998 . “What Is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy, 9(2): 91-107.
Schneider, Ben Ross . 1995 . “Democratic Consolidations: Some Broad Comparisons and Sweeping Arguments.” Latin American Research Review, 30(2):215-34.
Shepsle, K. A. 2003. “Losers in Politics and How They Sometimes Become Winners: William Riker’s Heresthetic.” Perspective on Politics, 12: 307-315.
Skach, Cindy. 2005. Borrowing Constitutional Designs: Constitutional Law in Weimar Germany and the French Fifth Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis De. 1945,1954. Democracy in American. 2 volumes. New York: Vintage Books.
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1968. “ A Causal Model of Civil Strife. ” American Political Science Review, 62: 1104-1124.
Verba, S., Burns, N., and K. L. Schlozman, 1997, “Knowing and Caring about politics: Gender and Political Engagement.” The Journal of Politics, 59(4): 1051-72.
Verba, S., Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 2002 . Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics . Harvard University Press.
Weiner, W. 1971. “ Political Participation : Crisis of Political Process. ” In Crisis and Sequences in Political Development, ed. L. Binder . Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press.
Wilson, George V., and John H. Kerr . 1999. “ Affective Responses to Success and Failure: A Study of Winning and Losing in Competitive Rugby. ” Personality and Individual Differences, 27(1): 85–99.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2013-07-03公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-07-03起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信