A Comparison of U.S. and Taiwan Elections in English and Chinese

A Comparison of U.S. and Taiwan Elections in English and Chinese

地圖與數學的對決：美台選舉制度大解析

The U.S. System: A Game of Territory:

In the United States, the president isn’t chosen by a single national tally, but through 50 separate state races happening simultaneously.

1. Winner-Take-All: The "All or Nothing" Rule

In almost every state, if you win by one vote or one million, you take all of that state’s "points" (Electoral Votes).

• Example: Candidate A wins California by 5 million votes and gets 54 points.

• Example: Candidate B wins Florida by only 500 votes and gets 30 points.

Even though Candidate A has a massive lead in the total number of actual humans who voted for them, Candidate B remains competitive by capturing a large block of points from a different territory.

2. The Map Strategy: Safelands vs. Battlegrounds

Because of the "points" system, candidates view the country like a game board:

• Safe States: Everyone knows California will lean Democrat and Tennessee will lean Republican. Because those points are "guaranteed," candidates rarely visit them.

• Swing States: This is where the election is won. In states like Pennsylvania (19 points) or Arizona (11 points), the margin is razor-thin. Candidates spend 90% of their time and money here because "stealing" these points is the only path to victory.

3. The Small State "Weight" Advantage

The U.S. system gives a slight mathematical boost to smaller populations to ensure they aren't ignored by big cities.

• The Math: In Wyoming, there is 1 electoral point for every 190,000 people. In Florida, there is 1 point for every 700,000 people.

• The Result: A single voter in a rural, low-population state carries more "weight" in the points system than a voter in a major metropolis.

The Bottom Line: The U.S. President is the leader of a federation of states. You win by winning the map.

The Taiwan System: A Race of Pure Math:

If the U.S. system is a strategic game of capturing territory, the Taiwanese system is a straightforward popularity contest. There are no points, no "safe zones," and no middlemen.

1. Direct Popular Vote: First-Past-The-Post

In Taiwan, whoever gets the most votes across the entire island wins. Period.

• Plurality Wins: If Candidate A gets 40%, Candidate B gets 35%, and Candidate C gets 25%, Candidate A is the winner.

• No Second Chances: Unlike some systems that require a 50% majority or a "runoff" election, the person with the highest number on election night takes office immediately.

2. Every Vote Counts (Literally)

In Taiwan, there is no such thing as a "wasted" vote in a safe area.

• Maximizing Turnout: In the U.S., a Republican in California might feel their vote doesn't matter. In Taiwan, a KMT supporter in a DPP stronghold (like Tainan) still votes because their specific ballot helps cancel out a DPP vote in Taipei.

• The "Ground War": Because a win can be decided by a 1% margin nationally, candidates cannot ignore any village. A farmer's vote in Pingtung is mathematically identical to a CEO’s vote in a Taipei skyscraper.

3. Total Equality: No Regional Buffers

Taiwan’s system does not give "bonus points" to smaller islands or rural counties.

• One Person, One Vote: Whether you live in the remote Penghu Islands or the dense urban sprawl of New Taipei City, your ballot has the exact same impact on the final total.

• Demographics over Geography: Instead of worrying about "swing states," candidates focus on voter groups—like the youth vote, retirees, or specific professional sectors.

The Bottom Line: The Taiwan President is the leader of the people directly. You win by winning the math.

In Chinese:

美國制度：一場「領土爭奪戰」

在美國，總統並非由全國總票數直接決定，而是透過 50 個州同時進行的獨立選戰來決定。

1. 「贏者全拿」：全有或全無的規則

在幾乎所有的州，無論你是贏一票還是贏一百萬票，你都能拿走該州所有的「積分」（即選舉人票）。

• 範例： A 候選人在加州贏了 500 萬票，獲得 54 分。

• 範例： B 候選人在佛羅里達州僅贏了 500 票，獲得 30 分。

雖然 A 候選人在「實際投票人數」上大幅領先，但 B 候選人只要攻下其他領地的積分，依然能與之抗衡。

2. 地圖策略：鐵票區 vs. 搖擺州

基於「積分制」，候選人將國家視為一個棋盤：

• 鐵票區（Safe States）： 大家都知道加州偏向民主黨，田納西州偏向共和黨。因為這些分數是「囊中之物」，候選人幾乎不會去那裡造勢。

• 搖擺州（Swing States）： 這才是決定勝負的地方。在賓州（19 分）或亞利桑那州（11 分）等地區，兩黨差距極小。候選人會把 90% 的時間和金錢砸在這裡，因為「搶下」這些分數是通往勝利的唯一路徑。

3. 小州的「權重」優勢

美國制度在數學上稍微增加了小州人口的分量，確保大城市不會徹底忽略偏鄉。

• 數學題： 在懷俄明州，每 19 萬人就有 1 張選舉人票；但在佛羅里達州，約每 70 萬人才有 1 張票。

• 結果： 在積分制下，人口稀少州的一名選民，其「分量」比大都市選民更重。

核心邏輯： 美國總統是「聯邦（各州組成）」的領導人。想贏，就要贏下地圖。

台灣制度：一場「純粹的數學競賽」

如果說美國制度是策略性的領土爭奪，台灣制度就是直球對決的人氣競賽。這裡沒有積分、沒有「安全區」，也沒有中間人。

1. 全民直選：領先者當選

在台灣，誰在全島獲得最多票，誰就當選。就這麼簡單。

• 相對多數決： 如果 A 候選人得票 40%，B 拿 35%，C 拿 25%，則 A 直接勝出。

• 沒有二輪投票： 不同於某些需要過半票數或「第二輪投票」的國家，台灣在開票當晚票數最高的人就直接當選。

2. 每一票都算數（不折不扣）

在台灣，所謂「鐵票區的廢票」是不存在的。

• 催出投票率： 在美國，加州的共和黨選民可能覺得投了也沒用；但在台灣，即便是在民進黨票倉（如台南）的國民黨支持者也會去投票，因為他們的每一票都能抵銷掉台北的一張民進黨選票。

• 陸地戰： 由於勝負可能僅取決於全國 1% 的差距，候選人不敢忽視任何村莊。屏東農民的一票，在數學價值上跟台北摩天大樓 CEO 的一票完全相等。

3. 絕對平等：沒有區域加成

台灣的制度不會給離島或鄉村地區任何「加分」。

• 票票等值： 無論你住在偏遠的澎湖，還是人口稠密的新北，你的選票對最終總數的影響力完全一樣。

• 族群重於地理： 候選人不必擔心「搖擺州」，而是專注於「選民結構」——例如青年選票、退休人員或特定的職業工會。

核心邏輯： 台灣總統是「人民」直接選出的領導人。想贏，就要贏下總數。

Grassroots Sovereignty and the Precedent for Renewal

The Realist Framework: Power and Concession

While current polarization feels unprecedented, American history follows a cyclical pattern of "crisis and correction." This perspective is not blind/ naïve optimism; rather, it is an intuitive optimism rooted in historical precedent and a realist understanding of power. Leaders do not relinquish authority voluntarily. As historian Barbara Tuchman noted, “the strength of a Republic lies in its mechanical capacity for multi-faceted self-correction.” Systemic change is almost always a concession extracted by the public through sustained, strategic pressure.

Historical Precedents of "Righting the Ship”

When power drifts too far, the system possesses a "bottom-up" resilience that snaps the rudder back to center:

• The Labor Movement: Decades of grassroots strikes during the Gilded Age forced the codification of the 40-hour work week.

• The Suffrage & Civil Rights Movements: Strategic mobilization forced the Constitution to finally align with its own rhetoric of equality.

• Watergate: The intervention of the press and the courts reaffirmed that no individual sits above the law. 

•IMO, the press remains structurally resilient against wealthy influence for two main reasons:

• Market Demand: When legacy media compromises the truth, the resulting "information vacuum" creates a profitable incentive for independent outlets to emerge and capture that audience.

• Technological Decentralization: Near-zero distribution costs prevent any individual from gatekeeping information, as digital platforms allow decentralized whistleblowing to bypass traditional control.

State Sovereignty: The Constitutional Emergency Brake

[Author’s Note: As a California Law grad, I’ll admit my home-field bias. That said, I feel the following reasoning stands on its own as a merit-based look at how our constitutional "checks and balances" can and do function in practice.]

When the federal government attempts to consolidate power, California’s recent legal "playbook" (2025–2026) demonstrates how states act as emergency brakes through the 10th Amendment:

• Military Autonomy: Courts ruled the President cannot "commandeer" state troops for domestic policy without state consent.

• Fiscal Sovereignty: Litigation successfully released $168 billion in frozen federal funds, reaffirming Congressional "Power of the Purse."

• Anti-Commandeering: Defense of "Sanctuary" laws proved the federal government cannot force state police to act as federal agents.

• Regulatory Independence: California successfully defended its right to set independent environmental standards despite federal deregulation.

The path forward might, in-part, rely on a Multi-State Ballast

By functioning as sovereign entities, states ensure that even if the central authority drifts, the Republic remains anchored by its constituent parts.

In Sum

Ultimately, America is not, and never was, a "single-point-of-failure" experiment. It is not a fragile object that shatters upon impact, but a kinetic, compounding process. 

To view friction as terminal failure is hyperbolic, and it misunderstands the Republic’s design: it was built to be improved through tension, not maintained in stasis. 

Our current challenges are not the complete end of the entire experiment.

Anatomy of the Compliance Fallacy

The compliance fallacy treats survival in a coercive, chaotic encounter as a moral test rather than a probabilistic outcome shaped by power, stress, and ambiguity.

The argument for absolute compliance often ignores the reality of high-stress encounters where instructions are frequently:

(1) Contradictory: One officer screams "Hands up!" while another shouts "Get on the ground!"

(2) Physically Impossible: Commands that require supernatural composure while under the threat of lethal force.

(3) Illegal: Orders that violate the Fourth Amendment but are defended post-hoc by a "bootlicking" culture that values the quietude of the status quo over the messiness of constitutional rights.

The cultural defense of dubious orders often isn’t about legality; it’s about quiet. 

Rights are tolerated as long as they don’t interrupt authority’s rhythm. Once asserted in real time, messy, loud, inconvenient etc. they’re reframed as provocation. 

That’s how Fourth Amendment violations get laundered into “officer safety.”

Example:

A police officer asks to search your car. You calmly say, “I don’t consent.”

Nothing illegal about that. But now things slow down. The officer feels challenged. Suddenly you’re told to step out “for safety,” the car gets searched anyway, and later it’s described as “officer safety concerns.”

Your right wasn’t the problem. Using it out loud was.

In this example, Fourth Amendment rights are tolerated by authority, specifically, the police institution and the officer in that moment.

They tolerate the idea of your rights:
You’re allowed to have the Fourth Amendment. It exists in policy, training, and court language.

But that tolerance depends on you not actively using it in a way that disrupts the officer’s control of the situation. The moment you say “I don’t consent,” the right stops being treated as normal and starts being treated as resistance or suspicion.

Legally Documented Examples:

1. Refusing a search → “officer safety”

• In many traffic stops, people calmly say “I don’t consent to searches.”
• Officers then order them out of the car, detain them longer, or call a K-9, often saying it’s for “officer safety.”
• Courts have repeatedly found this improper (for example, Rodriguez v. United States, 2015), but it still happens routinely.
• The right is accepted in theory; using it causes escalation.

2. Recording police → “interference”

• Courts have ruled that recording police in public is legal (e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 2011).
• Yet people who do so are often detained, threatened, or arrested for “obstruction” or “officer safety.”
• The right is tolerated as long as no one actually uses it during the encounter.

3. Remaining silent → “suspicious behavior”

• You have the right to remain silent.
• In real stops, invoking it (“I choose not to answer questions”) is frequently treated as suspicious, leading to longer detention or searches.
• Silence is fine on paper, but disruptive when exercised live.

Pattern across all cases:
Authority accepts rights abstractly. When someone asserts them in the moment, causing delay, friction, or loss of control, the right is reframed as a threat, inconvenience, or safety issue.

ICE SHOOTING: Relevant Legal Standards and Case Law

The use of deadly force by law enforcement, whether state or federal, is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. 

Deadly force is constitutionally permissible only where an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Courts across multiple circuits have repeatedly held that an officer may not unreasonably create a dangerous situation and then rely on that self created danger to justify the use of deadly force. This principle is often applied in cases involving vehicles, where officers step into or remain in the path of a moving car and then claim fear for their safety as justification for firing.

Relevant cases include Estate of Starks v. Enyart, Adams v. Speers, Thompson v. Hubbard, Abraham v. Raso, and Kirby v. Duva. These cases emphasize that pre seizure conduct matters, that officers cannot provoke or escalate a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created, and that the mere presence of a moving vehicle does not automatically justify deadly force.

There is no absolute rule prohibiting officers from firing into moving vehicles. However, courts frequently find such force unreasonable where the officer had the ability to disengage or where the threat was largely the product of the officer’s own tactical decisions.

Modern law enforcement training and policy commonly instruct officers not to fire into moving vehicles and to disengage where feasible. While policy violations alone do not establish liability, courts often treat them as relevant evidence when assessing objective reasonableness.

Federal officers do not have blanket immunity from state criminal law. Under Supremacy Clause immunity, a federal agent is protected from state prosecution only if the conduct was authorized by federal law and necessary and proper to carry out federal duties. If charged, the case may be removed to federal court, where a judge determines whether that standard is met. If immunity is denied, state law applies.

Whether the use of force in this incident was lawful depends on a careful factual analysis, including officer positioning, available alternatives, the immediacy of any threat, and whether the danger was self created. 

Those determinations should be made through a proper investigative and judicial process, not social media speculation.

Reclaiming Inner Agency

The Quiet Return of What Never Belonged:

Nothing others do is because of you in the way the ego assumes.
People act from their own histories, fears, unmet needs, beliefs, and emotional conditioning.
You may be the context in which their reactions appear, but you are rarely, if ever, the cause.

When you internalize others’ words or behavior, you take responsibility for forces that were forming long before you arrived.
Doing so confuses empathy with ownership.

Understanding this does not mean indifference or lack of accountability, it means discernment.
You respond where responsibility is truly yours and release what was never meant for you to carry, “if it’s not yours, put it down.”

Freedom comes from knowing the difference.