99/11pp.

35-69

2008 *
**

2005 2008
(IV)

**

E-mail: wangjong@mail.mcu.edu.tw

36

(independent voter)
(partisans)
(Keith et al. 1992)

(ticket splitter)(Campbell et al. 1960; DeVries and Tarrance

1972; Key 1966; Sorauf and Beck 1988)

2000
2008
4 3 1 4

(pure independents)
(independent leaners)
2003, 126

(Dennis 1988, 84; Keith et al. 1992; Miller and Wattenberg 1983)2
1

http://esc.
nccu.edu.tw/newchinese/data/partyID.htm2009

Yu(2004)

2003, 109, 126

 2008 37

Campbell (1960) The American Voter

(political independence)

(Dennis 1988, 80)

(image) (conceptualization)

38

(Dennis 1988, 91; Keith et al. 1992, 6-7, 38-39)

Campbell 1960 The American Voter
4
(civic virtue) (Campbell
et al. 1960, 143)
Key(1966) (switchers) 5
The American Voter
(Burnham 1970)
(Asher 1980; Pomper 1975; RePass 1971)
Burnham(1970, 127-130) 1964 NES
The American
Voter (old
independents) The American Voter
(new independents)
(the structure of electoral politics)
4

Campbell (1960) NES

Keith (1992) Dennis(1988)

Key(1966) switcher
independent voter

 2008 39

Keith (1992) NES

(Keith et al. 1992, 41-56)

Dennis(1988, 84-86; 1992, 263) NES 1980 6

Dennis

(Independent partisan supporters)

(Ordinary independents) (Ordinary partisan supporters)
(Unattached)7

(independent leaners)

(pure independents) Dennis

(Dennis 1988, 88-90)

NES 1980 1950

(Partisan supporter
typology, PST)

Dennis(1988, 82-83)

40

Dennis(1988, 108)
(closet partisans)
Miller Wattenberg(1983) (coding)
(nonpartisans)

(no preference)

(Miller and
Wattenberg 1983, 109-110) (Apolitical)8 (No preference
neither, NPN) (No preference leaner) Miller Wattenberg
(Independent
neither) (Independent leaner)
Miller Wattenberg

9 Miller
Wattenberg

1964

10

10

Miller Wattenberg(1983, 109)

Miller Wattenberg(1983, 108-109)

Wolnger(1995) Keith (1992)

(independent leaners) (pure independents)

 2008 41

(Miller and Wattenberg 1983, 119)

1960
(ticket-splitting)

(splitters) (party switcher)

(floater) (swing voter)(Campbell and Miller 1957; Converse 1962; Daudt
1961; Key 1966)11
(Prior 2007)
1950
(Dennis 1988; Mayer 2008)12 (selfidentification)

NES
1952 NES
(independent)

11

12

Mayer(2008) NES 1972 2004

Mayer(2008)
19942001

42

(closer to)

partisan independents independent leaners

(Strong Democrat) (Weak Democrat)

(Independent Democrat) (Pure independents) (Independent
Republican) (Weak Republican) (Strong
Republican) Keith (1992) NES 1952 1990

The American Voter

(concealed partisans)

(Campbell et al. 1960, 123-125;

Keith et al. 1992, 15) 1970 Petrocik(1974)

independents leaning towards a party leaning independents

(weak partisans)Keith (1986; 1992)
(covert partisans)

Dennis(1988;
1992) Miller Wattenberg(1983)
NES

The
American Voter

 2008 43

1970

(Burnham 1970, 123; Pomper 1975, 34; Saeger 1982, 228)

(Converse 1976;
Jennings and Markus 1984)
Weisberg
The American Voter

(alienated)
(Weisberg 1980, 36)Dennis
(antipartyism)

(partisan neutrality)
(political autonomy)

(partisan variability)
(Dennis 1988; 1992; Kamieniecki 1988, 367)

2000 2006

2004
2003200520011994

2001, 103
2003, 1251994
1999

44

200319942004
2001
20042009
2003 (conceptualization)

13
2001
2000
2004

2005
14

13
14

2005, 54-55

 2008 45

(Keith et al. 1992, 24; Miller and Wattenberg 1983)

1.

2.

Keith (1992)Dennis(1988; 1992)Green(1999)

Miller Wattenberg(1983)

NES

Green(1999)

Keith (1992) Green(1999)

Miller Wattenberg(1983)

46

15
Miller Wattenberg(1983)
(no preference)

(Keith et al. 1992)Dennis(1988; 1992) (PST)

16 Dennis
Keith
TEDS NES

17 (political information)

Zaller 2004;
2005, 149-151

18
15
16
17

18

(sociological afliations) (Berelson,

Lazarsfeld, and McPhee 1954; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1944) (social
psychological attachment) (Campbell et al. 1960)
(Downs 1957; Fiorina 1981; Key
1966; Popkin 1994; Riker and Ordeshook 1968)

 2008 47

(retrospective voting) (prospective voting)19

2005 2008
(IV)(TEDS2008P) 97
6 8 1,905

(raking)
20

T
(Independent samples T-test)

(Binary logistic regression)

19

20

Sniderman
Glaser Grifn(1990)
Downs(1957)

Lanoue(1994, 204)
2007
2008, 36

48

21
22 (interaction)

(44.2%) 29.5%

23

21

22

23

TEDS2008P

Abramowitz(1985)Kuklinski West(1981) Lockerbie(1991)

20002005
2005
T

 2008 49

937

51.5

302

16.6

579

31.8

1,818

100.0

2008

276(47.7%)

150 (49.7%)

303(52.3%)

152 (50.3%)

146(25.3%)

33 (11.0%)

260(45.1%)

135 (44.9%)

69(12.0%)

38 (12.6%)

101(17.5%)

95 (31.6%)

75(13.3%)

41 (13.9%)

451(79.7%)

228 (77.3%)

40 (7.1%)

26 (8.8%)

230(39.7%)

138 (45.8%)

153(26.4%)

83 (27.6%)

168(29.0%)

77 (25.6%)

28 (4.8%)

3 (1.0%)

20-29

121(20.9%)

84 (27.8%)

30-39

114(19.7%)

73 (24.2%)

40-49

128(22.1%)

61 (20.2%)

50-59

101(17.4%)

50 (16.6%)

60

115(19.9%)

34 (11.3%)

2=0.318
n=881
df=1

2=37.514***
n=877
df=3

2=0.973
n=861
df=2

2=10.999*
n=880
df=3

2=15.075**
n=881
df=4

2008
(column percentage)n df (degree of freedom)
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

50

40

20-39
(life-cycle effect)

(Achen 1992; Campbell et al. 1960, 161; Converse 1966)

2
(cohort effect)
2

Keith (1992)

 2008 51

3 T
n

579

1.818

0.790

302

2.199

0.778

565

2.707

0.856

300

2.987

0.768

461

2.329

0.450

275

2.369

0.488

579

0.431

0.354

302

0.574

0.354

422

2.130

0.402

262

2.116

0.435

471

2.120

0.784

289

1.970

0.785

527

2.970

1.465

294

3.480

1.337

t
-6.824***
-4.961***
-1.114
-5.684
0.407
2.488*
-4.997***

2008
n ***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

52

212(41.2%)

137(47.4%)

94(18.3%)

86(29.8%)

4 (0.8%)

1 (0.3%)

184(35.8%)

62(21.5%)

20 (3.9%)

3 (1.0%)

287(49.7%)

166(55.0%)

152(26.3%)

102(33.8%)

139(24.0%)

34(11.3%)

253(48.2%)

158(53.6%)

243(46.3%)

135(45.8%)

29 (5.5%)

2 (0.7%)

2=30.708***
n=803
df=4

2=21.436***
n=880
df=2

2=12.829**
n=820
df=2

2008
n df ***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

(Keith et al. 1992, 47-48; Miller and Levitin

1976, 99)
Keith NES 1958 1988
2008
80.6% 85.4% Keith
2008

2004 2008

 2008 53

121(19.4%)

44(14.6%)

466(80.6%)

257(85.4%)

94(39.7%)

34(18.5%)

143(60.3%)

150(81.5%)

2=3.071
n=879
df=1
2=21.968***
n=421
df=1

2008
n df ***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

The American Voter

54

24
1

2 3

3
4 5

24

 2008 55

6
=1 =0

2.252

1.632

=0

0.003

0.369

0.001

0.017

-0.609

0.587

1.626

1.280

-1.079

0.680

-0.935

0.832

-0.731

0.862

=0

=0

=0

2.434**

0.912

-1.122

0.635

-0.256

0.357

-0.844***

0.203

0.838***

0.196

1.223

1.890

-1.784*

0.746

0.647*

0.306

=0

1
=0
2
=0
3
=0

-0.225

0.277

0.361

1.432

-1.296

0.991

4
=0
5
=0
n=454
Nagelkerke R square=0.782
Cox & Snell R square=0.565
Percent Correct=90.9%
P-value<0.001
2008
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

56

1960

25

The American Voter

25

2004

200312 23 http://www.libertytimes.
com.tw/2003/new/dec/23/today-p6.htm2009 9 25

 2008 57

(cross-sectional)
NES NES

TEDS2008P

(Miller and Wattenberg 1983)

NES

(cross-sectional data)

58

* * *
98.10.2999.01.2599.04.14

 2008 59

S1
97

S180 1

S4 1
2
3 4

S2
1 2 3

City 1
2 3
4

B1 1
2 3 4

B2 1
2 3 4

D11
2 3 4
D21
2 3 4

60

D3
1 2 3 4

D41 2
3 4
D51
2 3 4
D6
1 2 3 4

D7
1 2 3 4

G1
G2
G3
3 1 0 3

C1 1 2
3 4

F3

1
5

1 5 1
5

 2008 61

F1
1
2 3
4 5

F5 1
2
3

F2
1 2
3

H1
0 1

H32004 3 1
2 3
H1a2008 1 2
3
H3 H1a 0

N2 0 10 0
10

N2a
N2 N2a
0

62

J5 0 10
0 10
J5a 0 10

J5 0 10
0 10
J5b
0 10

N1
1 2

N1a
1 2
N1b 1 2 3 4 5
2

N1 1 N1b 1~5 N1 2
N1a 2 N1 2 N1a 1
N1b

 2008 63

I.
20042000 2004

(Chu, Shiau-yu. 2004. The Research of Independent Voters Voting Behavior: Comparison and
Analysis of 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections. Masters thesis. Ming Chuan University.)
1999
3: 53-85
(Wu, Nai-teh. 1999. Family Socialization and Ideology: The Generational Difference of
Voters Party Identification in Taiwan. Taiwanese Sociological Review 3: 53-85.)
2003 2001
18: 101-140
(Wu, Chung-li, and Wen-pin Hsu. 2003. Who Are Partisans and Independent Voters? The Factors
Affecting Taiwan Voters Party Identification 2001. Political Science Review 18: 101-140.)
2000
2000 10 21-22
(Li, Kuan-fang, and Jun-sheng Zheng. 2000. The Nature of Independent Voters: The Difference
and Voting Behavior of Positive and Negative Independent Voters. Presented at the 2000
Conference on Electoral Study, Taipei.)
2009 2008
2009 5 22-23
(Lin, Kah-yew. 2009. How Do They Choose? The Voting Behavior of Independent Voters
in 2008 Presidential Election. Presented at the 2009 International Conference on Taiwans
Election and Democratization Study, Taipei.)
2009
http://esc.nccu.edu.tw/newchinese/data/partyID.htm2009 9 10
(Election Study Center of National Chengchi University. 2009. The Trend of the Distribution
of Important Political Behaviors. Election Study Center Website. http://esc.nccu.edu.
tw/newchinese/data/partyID.htm [accessed September 10, 2009].)
20052002

64

(Zhang, Jia-lun. 2005. The Study of Independent Voters Vote Choice in Taipei and Gaoshiong
Mayoral Elections 2002. Masters thesis. National Chung Cheng University.)
2000
7(2): 75-105
(Sheng, Emile Chih-jen. 2000. The Prediction of Presidential Election: Using Feeling
Thermometer to Predict Those Who Do Not Show Their Preferences. Journal of Electoral
Studies 7(2): 75-105.)
2001 (1989-1999) 8(1):
71-115
(Chuang, Tien-lien. 2001. The Development and Change of Independent Voters in Taiwan,
1989-1999. Journal of Electoral Studies 8(1): 71-115.)
2003 2001

(Hsu, Wen-pin. 2003. Who Are Partisans and Independent Voters? The Factors Affecting
Taiwan Voters Party Identification 2001. Master s thesis. National Chung Cheng
University.)
20082005 2008 (IV)
NSC96-2420-H004-017

(Yu, Ching-hsin. 2008. A Four-Year Research Project for Taiwan s Election and
Democratization Study (2005-2008): In-Person Interview in 2008 Presidential Election.
NSC96-2420-H004-017. Taipei: National Science Council Research Project Report.)
2005
2(4): 1-30
(Hawang, Shiow-duan. 2005. Candidates Image, Candidates Feeling Thermometer, and
Presidential Voting Behavior. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 2(4): 1-30.)
1994
(Yeh, Ming-yuan. 1994. The Research of Independent Voters in Taiwan. Masters thesis.
National Chengchi University.)
20052005
2(4): 147-153

 2008 65

(Liu, I-chou. 2005. A Typical Retrospective Voting: Analyzing the Three-in-One Election in
2005. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 2(4): 147-153.)
20052004
2(2): 31-70
(Cheng, Su-feng, Lu-huei Chen, and Jia-wei Liu. 2005. Candidate Factors in Taiwans 2004
Presidential Election. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 2(2): 31-70.)
2005223: 41-70
(Su, Chien-chou, and Shin-wu Liang. 2005. The Study of the Indicator for Independence among
Voters. Public Opinion Research Quarterly 223: 41-70.)
II.
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1985. Economic Conditions, Presidential Popularity, and Voting Behavior
in Midterm Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 47(1): 31-43.
Achen, Christopher. 1992. Social Psychology, Demographic Variables, and Linear Regerssion:
Breaking the Iron Triangle in Voting Research. Political Behavior 14(3): 195-211.
Asher, Herbert. 1980. Presidential Elections and American Politics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New
York: Norton.
Campbell, Angus, and Warren E. Miller. 1957. The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split
Ticket Voting. American Political Science Review 51(2): 293-312.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The
American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Converse, Philip E. 1962. Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes. Public
Opinion Quarterly 26(4): 578-599.
------. 1966. The Concept of a Normal Vote. In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Angus
Campbell. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
------. 1976. The Dynamics of Party Support. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Daudt, Harry. 1961. Floating Voters and the Floating Vote: A Critical Analysis of American and
English Election Studies. Leiden: H.E. Stenfert Kroese.
DeVries, Walter, and Lance Tarrance. 1972. The Ticket-Splitter: A New Force in American

66

Politics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Dennis, Jack. 1988. Political Independence in America, Part I: On Being an Independent
Partisan Supporter. British Journal of Political Science 18(1): 77-109.
------. 1992. Political Independence in America, III: In Search of Closet Partisans. Political
Behavior 14(3): 261-296.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Green, Steven. 1999. Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach. Political
Psychology 20(2): 393-403.
Jennings, M. Kent, and Gregory B. Markus. 1984. Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul:
Results from the Three-Wave Political Socialization Panel Study. American Political Science
Review 78(4): 1000-1018.
Kamieniecki, Sheldon. 1988. The Dimensionality of Partisan Strength and Political
Independence. Political Behavior 10(4): 364-376.
Keith, Bruce, David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and
Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1986. The Partisan Affinities of Independent Leaners. British
Journal of Political Science 16(2): 155-184.
------. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Key, V.O. Jr. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936-1960.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kuklinski, James H., and Darrell M. West. 1981. Economic Expectations and Voting Behavior in
United States House and Senate Elections. American Political Science Review 75(2): 436-447.
Lanoue, David J. 1994. Retrospective and Prospective Voting in Presidential-Year Elections.
Political Research Quarterly 47(1): 193-205.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard R. Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The Peoples Choice: How the
Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lockerbie, Brad. 1991. Perspective Economic Voting in U.S. House Elections, 1956-88.
Legislative Studies Quarterly 16(2): 239-261.
Mayer, William G. 2008. What Exactly Is a Swing Voter? Definition and Measurement. In The
Swing Voter in American Politics, ed. William G. Mayer. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution.

 2008 67

Miller, Arthur H., and Martin P. Wattenberg. 1983. Measuring Party Identification: Independent
or No Partisan Preference? American Journal of Political Science 27(1): 106-121.
Miller, Warren E., and Teresa E. Levitin. 1976. Leadership and Change: Presidential Elections
from 1952 to 1976. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Petrocik, John R. 1974. An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification.
Political Methodology 1(1): 31-47.
Pomper, Gerald M. 1975. Voters Choice. New York: Harper and Row.
Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential
Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in
Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
RePass, David E. 1971. Issue Salience and Party Choice. American Political Science Review
65(2): 389-400.
Riker, William, and Peter Ordeshook. 1968. A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. American
Political Science Review 62(1): 25-42.
Saeger, Richard T. 1982. American Government and Politics. New York: Scott, Foresman.
Sniderman, Paul M., James M. Glaser, and Robert Griffin. 1990. Information and Electoral
Choice. In Information and Democratic Processes, eds. John A. Ferejohn and James H.
Kuklinski. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sorauf, Frank J., and Paul A. Beck. 1988. Party Politics in America. New York: Longman
Higher Education.
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1980. A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification.
Political Behavior 2(1): 33-60.
Wolfinger, Raymond E. 1995. The Promising Adolescence of Campaign Surveys. In
Campaigns and Elections American Style, eds. James A. Thurber and Candice J. Nelson.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Yu, Ching-hsin. 2004. Direction and Strength of Voters Party Identification in Taiwan after
2000. Soochow Journal of Political Science 19: 39-70.
Zaller, John. 2004. Floating Voters in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948-2000. In Studies in
Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, eds. Willem E.
Saris and Paul M. Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

68

The Types of Independent Voters and Their

Voting Behavior:
Some Observations from Taiwans 2008
Presidential Election
Jong-tian Wang*
Abstract
This study aims to examine the dispute within literature concerning
independent voters, differentiate independent voters in Taiwan, and therefore
explore factors affecting their vote choices. Through analysis of the data
from Taiwans Election and Democratization Study, 2008(TEDS2008P):
Presidential Election, the preliminary ndings are as follows: rst, there are
at least three major disputes in the literature, including the conceptualization
and typology of independent voters, the measurement and operationalization
of independent voters, and the explanation of why and how people become
independent voters. Second, there is indeed a substantial distinction
between pure independents and independent leaners in Taiwan. Third,
short-term party preference and the overall evaluation of candidates are
the two most significant factors affecting independents vote choices. In
addition, retrospective voting exerts different level of effect on these two
independents. Specically, while satisfaction with the incumbent plays more
important role on independent leaners than on pure independents, overall
evaluation of candidates seems to affect pure independents more than its

Assistant Professor, Department and Graduate School of Public Affairs, Ming Chuan University.

 2008 69

counterpart. The explanatory power of party preference, however, is uniform

to both kinds of voters.

Keywords: pure independents, independent leaners, party identification,

retrospective voting