2018年民主進步黨市議員選舉提名機制之研究：以臺北市為例

民進黨在2018年臺北市地方選舉中，受到白綠分手、市長候選人缺乏母雞魅力、中央執政包袱、韓流、泛綠小黨夾擊之下，市議員席次創下實施全民調以來新低，促使本文回到政黨根本的「挑選候選人」功能，來反思全民調提名機制存在之目的及意義，同時關注政黨的角色轉變與制度適應。另一研究重點在於探討民進黨於當年首度實施「新人暨青年加權制度」之形成脈絡、理念思維及該制度之具體實踐。本研究採用深度訪談法，藉由受訪者的經驗及觀察加以分析，研究結果發現，全民調具有解決人頭黨員的弊端、維持黨內和諧、考驗候選人動員能力等多元目的，並符合「民主」、「公平」、「效率」價值，但在「勝選」的檢驗上，受到同黨候選人的操作及選民自主配票等因素，可能導致民調與勝選間之落差。然而全民調仍存在來自制度規則、選民心理、理念與選票之取捨、與政黨本質衝突等若干限制。另政黨在提名過程的權力及影響力雖不如以往強勢，不過仍能因時制宜來調整角色與功能。此外，受到近年來青年參政力道增強與泛綠小黨的競爭，民進黨祭出新人暨青年加權制度來鼓勵新人參政。本研究發現，參與初選的新人其實都有政治家族、派系與實務背景，並非一般理解的「新人」，另該制度亦隱含著提升政黨形象、監督現任者、吸引特定族群注意等多元目的；惟基於現任者優勢難以突破之現況，制度效果仍是鼓勵大於實質效益，未來在實施上，應慎防過程所衍生的「因人設事」爭議，方能增加制度的正面意義。最後，不論是全民調或新人加權制度均會受到外在環境影響，產生截然不同的實踐經驗，因此當年度臺北市議員選舉失利，並非提名機制的失靈或瑕疵，而是整體環境不理想所致。

關鍵字

SNTV ；政黨提名；全民調初選；新人加權；青年參政

並列摘要

In the 2018 Taipei local elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) claimed a record low number of seats in the Taipei City Council since the adoption of the general public poll due to the following factors: the white-green breakup, no coattail effect from its mayoral candidate, poor performance of the central government, the Han Kuo-yu phenomenon, intense competition from the pan-green parties, etc. This election result, however, kindled the author’s interest to explore the fundamental function of candidate selection of political parties, allowing the author to ponder over the purpose and the meaning of the all-opinion-poll-based nomination mechanism, as well as the role change and the institutional adaption of political parties. Meanwhile, in this thesis, the author sought to explore the significance and implementation of DPP’s Newcomers and Youths Weighting System by focusing on its adoption from the historical context. In terms of the research methods, the author conducted in-depth interviews to make analyses based on the interviewees’ experiences and observations. The findings suggest that the general public polls serve several purposes, such as solving the drawbacks of nominal party members, maintaining harmony within the party, and testing candidates’ abilities to mobilize. Moreover, they are consistent with the core values of democracy, fairness, and efficiency. However, when it comes to election victory, factors like the campaign maneuvers of the candidates from the same party and the voluntary allocation of votes by voters may lead to some discrepancy between the polls and the election results. Furthermore, there are several additional restrictions in the polls, such as election rules, voters’ inner thoughts, conflicts between ideals and votes, and conflicts with the nature of the party, etc. In addition, although the power and influence of political parties in the nomination process are not as strong as they once were, the parties can still adjust their roles and functions according to current conditions. Due to the increase of youth participation in politics in recent years and the competition from small pan-green parties, the DPP has introduced a special weighting system to encourage newcomers and young people to engage in politics. This study finds that the newcomers competing in the primary elections in fact have backgrounds being part of a political family and having party affiliations. In reality, they were not newcomers as we thought in the realm of politics. In addition, this weighting mechanism served the purposes of enhancing the image of the party, monitoring incumbents, and attracting the attention of specific social groups. However, the fact is that incumbents have such a stronghold that it’s difficult for newcomers to break through. Therefore, this weighting system actually has more benefits psychologically than practically. In future implementations, the DPP should be cautious of the controversies arising from the process in order to increase the positive significance of this mechanism for candidate selection. Finally, both the general public polls and this newcomers and youths weighting system will be affected by the external environment and produce completely different practical experiences. In this sense, DPP’s failure in the Taipei City Council election of 2018 is not a failure of the nomination mechanism, but one caused by the social and political environment as a whole.