選舉制度之不比例性與司法審查：從釋字第721號解釋談起

Disproportionality of Electoral System and Judicial Review: Beginning with Interpretation No. 721

呂炳寬(Bing-Kuan Lu)

《人文與社會學報》 3卷10期 (2021/05) Pp. 25-51

摘要

第七次修憲後，我國立法委員席次減半，從原本225席減為113席。席次減少，議席如何重新分配，選區如何劃分，成為各方關心的問題。2008年初立法委員選舉改採單一選區兩票並立制，選舉結果民進黨大敗，論者認為這跟選舉制度的議席分配、選區劃分以及政黨門檻等因素所造成之不比例性有關。有關政黨與個人有因此提起訴訟或釋憲，法院皆以原告敗訴駁回處理，釋字第721號解釋亦宣告政黨門檻合憲。美國、日本與德國的選舉制度亦有類似不比例性的結果，而司法機關也都進行審查，本文透過比較的方式，分析各國的差異以及司法見解，以提供台灣未來修改選舉制的參考。

關鍵字

選舉制度 ； 單一選區兩票並立制 ； 不比例性 ； 司法審查

並列摘要

After the seventh amendment of the Constitution, the number of legislators in our country has been reduced by half, from 225 to 113. The reduction and redistribution of seats and division of electoral districts have become issues of concern to all parties. At the beginning of 2008, the legislature election was changed to a Parallel Voting System of the Single Electoral Constituency with Two Votes system. This led to a major defeat for the Democratic Progressive Party. The critics believed that this was related to the disproportionality caused by factors such as distribution of seats in the electoral system, division of electoral districts, and the threshold of political parties. Relevant political parties and individuals filed lawsuits or requested interpretation of the constitution as a result; however, the court rejected the case as the plaintiff lost the case. Interpretation No. 721 also declared that the political party threshold was constitutional. The electoral systems of the United States, Japan, and Germany also had similar disproportionate results, and the judicial organizations all conducted reviews. This article analyzes the differences and judicial opinions of various countries through a comparative method to provide a reference for Taiwan's future revision of the electoral system.

並列關鍵字

Electoral System ； Parallel Voting System of the Single Electoral Constituency with Two Votes system ； Disproportionality ； Judicial Review

參考文獻

內中央選舉委員會，〈選舉資料庫網站〉，http://db.cec.gov.tw/，最後檢索：2020 年 11 月 1 日。

司法院大法官，〈釋字第 721 號「政黨比例代表選舉案」〉（解釋理由書），司法院大法官，https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/jcc/zh-tw/jep03/show?expno=721#secTwo，最後檢索：2015 年 12 月 10 日。

司法院大法官，〈釋字第 340 號解釋〉（理由書），司法院大法官，https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/jcc/zh-tw/jep03/show?expno=340#secTwo，最後檢索：2020 年 3 月 1 日。

司法院大法官，〈釋字第 371 號解釋〉，司法院大法官，https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/jcc/zh-tw/jep03/show?expno=371，最後檢索：2020 年 3 月 1 日。

司法院大法官，〈釋字第 499 號解釋〉，司法院大法官，https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/jcc/zh-tw/jep03/show?expno=499%20，最後檢索：2020 年 3 月 1 日。