本研究旨在探討2024年台灣立法委員選舉中，選區特徵對分裂投票行為的影響。相較於過往文獻多聚焦於選民的個人特質與政黨認同等因素，對於選區層級結構性條件的探討仍相對不足。為彌補此一研究缺口，本研究結合2024年「台灣選舉與民主化調查」（TEDS2024 ）之個體層級資料，並引入各選區的社經變數與政治結構指標，透過二個模型進行邏輯斯迴歸分析：模型一作為基準模型，模型二則加入「台灣民眾黨是否提名區域候選人」的變數，以捕捉第三黨效應。最後採用邏輯斯迴歸模型進行實證分析。研究結果顯示，分裂投票行為受到多層次因素影響，
實證結果顯示，失業率較高的選區與分裂投票呈正向關聯，而第一部門就業比例與都市化程度則呈負向關聯。不分區立委選舉的競爭度對分裂投票有正向影響，但區域立委選舉的競爭度則無顯著作用。至於候選人層級變數，包括現任、地方出身、與市長同黨或候選人數量，皆未呈現一致的效果。
整體而言，結構性的經濟與選舉因素展現出穩定的影響力，而候選人層級因素則較依賴情境。雙模型的設計不僅提升了研究結論的穩健性，也顯示了台灣混合制下分裂投票的複雜性。

This research systematically examines whether district-level characteristics influence split-ticket voting in Taiwan's 2024 legislative election by integrating both individual-level and district-level variables into the analysis. Using data from TEDS2024, the study employs logistic regression models with two specifications: Model 1 as the baseline and Model 2 including a binary indicator for whether the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) nominated a district candidate, thereby capturing third-party effects.
The results reveal that districts with higher unemployment rates are positively associated with split-ticket voting. In contrast, those with larger proportions of primary sector employment and higher urbanization are negatively associated. At-large legislative election competitiveness shows a positive effect, whereas district-level competitiveness exerts no influence. Candidate-level factors such as incumbency, local origin, mayoral co-partisanship, and the number of candidates show no consistent effects across models.
Overall, the findings suggest that structural economic and electoral factors exert stable influences, whereas candidate-level variables are more context-dependent. The dual-model approach strengthens robustness and underscores the complexity of how district-level characteristics shape split-ticket voting under Taiwan's mixed-member system.

Acceptance Certificated i
論文公開授權書 ii
Acknowledgement iii
摘要 iv
Abstract v
Table of Context vi
Catalog of Tables vii
Introduction 8
Research Background 8
Research Motivation 11
Research Purpose 14
Literature Review 20
Definition of split-ticket vote 20
Motivation of the Split ticket vote 22
Electoral Geography 38
Mixed-member majoritarian representative system 40
Taiwan’s split-ticket vote research 46
Research Hypothesis 54
Competitiveness 56
Economic Condition 59
Candidates' Characteristics 69
Research Design 78
Data collection 78
Dependent variable 80
Independent variables 83
Control Variables 101
Research method 118
Research Results 119
Research findings 123
Conclusion 148
Discussion 152
Reference 154
Appendix 166
Appendix 1: Individual Survey variables 166
Appendix 2:District variables 173

1. Afzal, M. (2014). Do barriers to candidacy reduce political competition? Evidence from a bachelor’s degree requirement for legislators in Pakistan. Public Choice, 161(1), 51-72.
2. Agnew, J. (1996). Mapping politics: how context counts in electoral geography. Political geography, 15(2), 129-146.
3. Ahmed, M. (2008). Voting Behavior in rural and urban areas of Punjab. J. Pol. Stud., 14, 45.
4. Aldrich, J. H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American journal of political science, 246-278.
5. Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, H. (1995). Partisan politics, divided government, and the economy. Cambridge University Press.
6. Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, H. (1996). A theory of divided government. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 1311-1341.
7. Allen, N., & Brox, B. J. (2005). The roots of third party voting: The 2000 Nader campaign in historical perspective. Party Politics, 11(5), 623-637.
8. Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder Jr, J. M. (2002). The incumbency advantage in US elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election law journal, 1(3), 315-338.
9. Arzheimer, K., & Evans, J. (2012). Geolocation and voting: Candidate–voter distance effects on party choice in the 2010 UK general election in England. Political geography, 31(5), 301-310.
10. Asher, H. B. (1983). Voting behavior research in the 1980s: An examination of some old and new problem areas. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 339-388.
11. Beck, P. A., Baum, L., Clausen, A. R., & Smith Jr, C. E. (1992). Patterns and sources of ticket splitting in subpresidential voting. American Political Science Review, 86(4), 916-928.
12. Blount, S. (2002). Unemployment and economic voting. Electoral Studies, 21(1), 91-100.
13. Born, R. (1994). Split-ticket voters, divided government, and Fiorina's policy-balancing model. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 95-115.
14. Bosco, J. (1994). Faction versus ideology: Mobilization strategies in Taiwan's elections. The China Quarterly, 137, 28-62.
15. Bossert, W., Clark, A. E., D’ambrosio, C., & Lepinteur, A. (2023). Economic insecurity and political preferences. Oxford Economic Papers, 75(3), 802-825.
16. Brady, D. W. (1993). The Causes and Consequences of Divided Government: Toward a New Theory of American Politics?-The Politics of Divided Government. Edited by Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. 270p. 25.00. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 189-194.
17. Burden, B. C., & Helmke, G. (2009). The comparative study of split-ticket voting. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 1-7.
18. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). A new approach to the study of ticket splitting. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 533-544.
19. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (2009). Why Americans split their tickets: Campaigns, competition, and divided government. University of Michigan Press.
20. Calcagno, P. T., & Lopez, E. J. (2012). Divided we vote. Public Choice, 151(3), 517-536.
21. Campbell, A. (1960). Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. Public opinion quarterly, 24(3), 397-418.
22. Campbell, A. (1980). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
23. Campbell, A., & Miller, W. E. (1957). The motivational basis of straight and split ticket voting. American Political Science Review, 51(2), 293-312.
24. Campbell, R., & Cowley, P. (2014). What voters want: Reactions to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political studies, 62(4), 745-765.
25. Chen, H.-H., & Zhou, Y.-L. (2014). Woguo nonglin yumuyu pucha zhi tuizhan yu yingyong [我國農林漁牧業普查之推展與應用]. Diaocha yanjiu—Fangfa yu yingyong [調查研究—方法與應用], 32, 159–185.
26. Clarke, H. D., & Stewart, M. C. (1987). Partisan inconsistency and partisan change in federal states: The case of Canada. American Journal of Political Science, 383-407.
27. Coffé, H., & Von Schoultz, Å. (2021). How candidate characteristics matter: Candidate profiles, political sophistication, and vote choice. Politics, 41(2), 137-155.
28. Collignon, S., & Sajuria, J. (2018). Local means local, does it? Regional identification and preferences for local candidates. Electoral studies, 56, 170-178.
29. Converse, P. E. (1963). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue.
30. Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Cambridge University Press.
31. Cox, G. W., Rosenbluth, F. M., & Thies, M. F. (1998). Mobilization, social networks, and turnout: Evidence from Japan. World Politics, 50(3), 447-474.
32. Cox, K., & Schoppa, L. (1998). The Consequences of" sticky Voting" in Mixed-member Electoral Systems. L. Schoppa.
33. Cunow, S., Desposato, S., Janusz, A., & Sells, C. (2021). Less is more: The paradox of choice in voting behavior. Electoral Studies, 69, 102230.
34. Cutler, F. (2002). The simplest shortcut of all: Sociodemographic characteristics and electoral choice. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 466-490.
35. DeFord, D., Duchin, M., & Solomon, J. (2020). A computational approach to measuring vote elasticity and competitiveness. Statistics and Public Policy, 7(1), 69-86.
36. Tarrance, V. L. (1972). The Ticket-Splitter: A New Force in American Politics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
37. Dey, S., & Sen, K. (2016). Is partisan alignment electorally rewarding? Evidence from village council elections in India. Evidence from Village Council Elections in India (August 1, 2016). Effective States and Inclusive Development (ESID) Working Paper, (63).
38. Domencich, T. A., & McFadden, D. (1975). Urban travel demand-a behavioral analysis (No. Monograph).
39. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of political economy, 65(2), 135-150.
40. Feigert, F. B. (1979). Illusions of Ticket-Splitting. American Politics Quarterly, 7(4), 470-488.
41. Ferrara, F., Herron, E., & Nishikawa, M. (2005). Mixed electoral systems: Contamination and its consequences. Springer.
42. Fiorina, M. P. (1992). An era of divided government. In Developments in American politics (pp. 324-354). London: Macmillan Education UK.
43. Fiorina, M. P. (1996). Divided government.
44. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2008). The state of food and agriculture 2008. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i0100e/i0100e.pdf
45. Forest, B. (2018). Electoral geography: From mapping votes to representing power. Geography Compass, 12(1), e12352.
46. Fouirnaies, A., & Hall, A. B. (2014). The financial incumbency advantage: Causes and consequences. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 711-724.
47. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American journal of political science, 1142-1164.
48. Gimpel, J. G., Lovin, N., Moy, B., & Reeves, A. (2020). The urban–rural gulf in American political behavior. Political behavior, 42(4), 1343-1368.
49. Grafstein, R. (2005). The impact of employment status on voting behavior. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 804-824.
50. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). Extend access to American Journal of Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
51. Gschwend, T. (2007). Ticket‐splitting and strategic voting under mixed electoral rules: Evidence from Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 46(1), 1-23.
52. Gschwend, T., Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (2003). Split-ticket patterns in mixed-member proportional election systems: Estimates and analyses of their spatial variation at the German federal election, 1998. British Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 109-127.
53. Hadley, C. D. (1985). Dual partisan identification in the South. The Journal of Politics, 47(1), 254-268.
54. Helgason, A. F., & Mérola, V. (2017). Employment insecurity, incumbent partisanship, and voting behavior in comparative perspective. Comparative political studies, 50(11), 1489-1523.
55. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619-631.
56. Hong, Y.-T. (1995). Fenlie toupiao: Bashi-san nian Taibei shi xuanju zhi shizheng fenxi [分裂投票: 八十三年臺北市選舉之實證分析].
57. Hsieh, J. F. S. (2005). Ethnicity, national identity, and domestic politics in Taiwan. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 40(1-2), 13-28.
58. Hsu, H.-Y. (2001). 1998 nian dier jie Taibei shizhang xuanju xuanmin toupiao xingwei zhi fenxi: Xuanmin de dangpai jueze yu fenlie toupiao [一九九八年二屆臺北市長選舉選民投票行為之分析: 選民的黨派抉擇與分裂投票].
59. Hsu, S.-M. (2001). Taibei shi xuanmin de fenlie toupiao xingwei: 1998 nian shizhang xuanju fenxi [台北市選民的分裂投票行爲: 一九九八年市長選舉分析]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 8(1), 117–158.
60. Huang, J. (2001). Yizhi yu fenlie toupiao: Fangfalun zhi tantao [一致與分裂投票：方法論之探討]. Renwen ji shehui kexue jikan [人文及社會科學集刊], 13(5), 541–574.
61. Huang, J., & Zhang, Y.-C. (2001). Yizhi yu fenlie toupiao: Jiayi shi 1997 nian shizhang yu liwei xuanju zhi fenxi [一致與分裂投票: 嘉義市一九九七年市長與立委選舉之分析]. Taipei: Weber Culture Publishing.
62. Huang, J., Lin, C.-Z., & Wang, H.-Z. (2013). Sanheyi xuanju zhong zhi yizhi yu fenlie toupiao: Yi 2010 nian Gaoxiong shi xuanju wei li [三合一選舉中之一致與分裂投票: 以 2010 年高雄市選舉為例]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 20(1), 1–45.
63. Huntington-Klein, N. (2021). The effect: An introduction to research design and causality. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
64. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press.
65. Jacobson, G. C. (2000). Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (Vol. 5, pp. 17-18).
66. Arellano, L. D. J. (2019). Split-Ticket Voting: Causes and Consequences (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University).
67. Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (2004). Electoral geography in electoral studies: Putting voters in their place. Spaces of democracy: Geographical perspectives on citizenship, participation and representation, 45-66.
68. Kiewiet, D. R. (1984). Macroeconomics and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Business Horizons, 27(5), 85-86..
69. Kwon, K. (2004). Regionalism in South Korea: Its origins and role in her democratization. Politics & Society, 32(4), 545-574.
70. Kyogoku, J. I., & Ike, N. (1960). Urban-rural differences in voting behavior in postwar Japan. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 9(1, Part 2), 167-185.
71. Lachat, R. (2011). Electoral competitiveness and issue voting. Political Behavior, 33(4), 645-663.
72. Lay, J. G., Yap, K. H., & Chen, Y. W. (2008). The transition of Taiwan's political geography. Asian Survey, 48(5), 773-793.
73. Lee, K.-B., Cai, Z.-H., & Li, K.-B. (2015). Xuanmin de zhengzhi maodun taidu yu fenlie toupiao: 2012 nian zongtong ji lifa weiyuan xuanju de shizheng yanjiu [選民的政治矛盾態度與分裂投票: 2012 年總統暨立法委員選舉的實證研究] (Doctoral dissertation, Li Kun-bin).
74. Lee, Y.-L. (2013). Difang zhengzhi shengtai yu xuanqu fuwu: Di qi jie liwei xuanju de duocengci fenxi [地方政治生態與選區服務: 第七屆立委選舉的多層次分析] (Doctoral dissertation).
75. Lewis-Beck, C., & Martini, N. F. (2020). Economic perceptions and voting behavior in US presidential elections. Research & Politics, 7(4), 2053168020972811.
76. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2004). Split-ticket voting: The effects of cognitive Madisonianism. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 97-112.
77. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2000). Economic determinants of electoral outcomes. Annual review of political science, 3(1), 183-219.
78. Lewis‐Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2008). The economic vote in transitional democracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(3), 303-323.
79. Lewis‐Beck, M. S., Nadeau, R., & Elias, A. (2008). Economics, party, and the vote: Causality issues and panel data. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 84-95.
80. Liao, Z.-J. (1997). Taiwan difang paixi de xingcheng fazhan yu zhibian [台灣地方派系的形成發展與質變]. Taipei: Yunchen.
81. Lieske, J. (1989). The political dynamics of urban voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 150-174.
82. Lin, C.-Y. (2018). Taiwan minzhong de zhihengguan yu fenlie toupiao: GSEM fangfa zhi yingyong [台灣民衆的制衡觀與分裂投票: GSEM 方法之應用]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 25(1), 75–116.
83. Lin, C.-Z., & Huang, J. (2007). Butong cengji xuanju zhong zhi yizhi yu fenlie toupiao: 2005 nian Taibei xian zhi fenxi [不同層級選舉中之一致與分裂投票: 2005 年台北縣之分析]. Issues & Studies, 46, 1.
84. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction (Vol. 2). New York: Free Press.
85. Mackie, T. T., & Rose, R. (2016). The international almanac of electoral history. Springer.
86. Maddox, W. S., & Nimmo, D. (1981). In search of the ticket splitter. Social Science Quarterly, 62(3), 401.
87. Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6(3), 295-317.
88. McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of public economics, 3(4), 303-328.
89. Menard, S. W. (2002). Longitudinal research (Vol. 76). Sage.
90. Miller, W. E. (1992). Generational changes and party identification. Political Behavior, 14(3), 333-352.
91. Mondak, J. J. (1990). Determinants of coattail voting. Political Behavior, 12(3), 265-288.
92. Moser, R. G., & Scheiner, E. (2005). Strategic ticket splitting and the personal vote in mixed‐member electoral systems. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(2), 259-276.
93. Moser, R. G., & Scheiner, E. (2009). Strategic voting in established and new democracies: Ticket splitting in mixed-member electoral systems. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 51-61.
94. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Harvard University Press.
95. Nyholt, N. (2024). Why Do voters prefer local candidates? Evidence from a Danish conjoint survey experiment. Political Behavior, 46(4), 2313-2332.
96. OECD (2010), OECD Factbook 2010: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2010-en.
97. Ogasawara, Y. (2013). 2012 nian Taiwan erheyi xuanju zhi fenxi: Tongri xuanju xiaoying he fenlie toupiao [2012 年台灣二合一選舉之分析: 同日選舉效應和分裂投票]. In Matsuda, Y., & Cai, Z.-J. (Eds.), Taiwan minzhuhua xia de liang’an guanxi yu Taiji guanxi [台湾民主化下的両岸関係與台日関係] (pp. 17–43).
98. Pappi, F. U., & Thurner, P. W. (2002). Electoral behaviour in a two‐vote system: Incentives for ticket splitting in German Bundestag elections. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 207-232.
99. Park, T., & Reeves, A. (2020). Local unemployment and voting for president: uncovering causal mechanisms. Political Behavior, 42(2), 443-463.
100. Petrocik, J. R., Doherty, J., & Galderisi, P. F. (1996). The road to divided government: Paved without intention. Divided government: Change, uncertainty, and the constitutional order, 85-107.
101. Powell Jr, G. B., & Whitten, G. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American journal of political science, 391-414.
102. Prescott, J. R. V. (1959). The function and methods of electoral geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 49(3), 296-304.
103. Reed, S. R. (1999). Strategic voting in the 1996 Japanese general election. Comparative Political Studies, 32(2), 257-270.
104. Rich, T. S. (2018). Coattails and mixed electoral systems: Evidence from Taiwan's 2016 election. Journal of East Asian Studies, 18(1), 47-66.
105. Schoen, H. (1999). Split-ticket voting in German Federal elections, 1953–90: an example of sophisticated balloting?. Electoral Studies, 18(4), 473-496.
106. Schulte-Cloos, J., & Bauer, P. C. (2023). Local candidates, place-based identities, and electoral success. Political Behavior, 45(2), 679-698.
107. Shugart, M. S. (1995). The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 327-343.
108. Sigelman, L., Wahlbeck, P. J., & Buell Jr, E. H. (1997). Vote choice and the preference for divided government: Lessons of 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 879-894.
109. Sundquist, J. L. (1988). Needed: A political theory for the new era of coalition government in the United States. Political Science Quarterly, 103(4), 613-635.
110. Tavits, M. (2010). Effect of local ties on electoral success and parliamentary behaviour: The case of Estonia. Party politics, 16(2), 215-235.
111. Tsai, T. H. (2017). A balance between candidate-and party-centric representation under mixed-member systems: The evidence from voter behavior in Taiwan. Electoral Studies, 49, 17-25.
112. Ventura, T. (2021). Do mayors matter? Reverse coattails on congressional elections in Brazil. Electoral Studies, 69, 102242.
113. Wang, Y.-L., & Cai, C.-M. (2004). Cong duili dao gongzhi: Taizhong xian difang paixi zhi zhuanbian [從對立到共治: 台中縣地方派系之轉變]. Zhengzhi kexue luncong [政治科學論叢], 21, 189–216.
114. Wang, Y.-L., & Peng, Y.-F. (2004). Fenlie toupiao: Yige zhidu mian de fenxi [分裂投票: 一個制度面的分析]. Taiwan zhengzhi xuekan [台灣政治學刊], 8(1), 3–45.
115. Westlye, M. C. (1983). Competitiveness of Senate seats and voting behavior in Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 253-283.
116. World Bank. 2009. The World Bank Annual Report 2009: Year in Review, Volume 1. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/4354 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO
117. Wu, C.-L. (2000). Meiguo fenlixing zhengfu yanjiu wenxian zhi pingxi: Jianlun Taiwan diqu de zhengzhi fazhan [美國「分立性政府」研究文獻之評析: 兼論台灣地區的政治發展]. Wenti yu yanjiu [問題與研究], 39(3), 75–101.
118. Wu, C.-L., & Wang, H.-Z. (2003). Woguo xuanmin fenli zhengfu xinli renzhi yu toupiao wendingdu: Yi 2000 nian zongtong xuanju yu 2001 nian lifa weiyuan xuanju wei li [我國選民「分立政府」心理認知與投票穩定度: 以 2000 年總統選舉與 2001 年立法委員選舉為例]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 10(1), 81–114.
119. Wu, C.-L., Xu, Y.-H., & Li, S.-H. (2004). Xuanmin fenli zhengfu xinli renzhi yu toupiao xingwei: Yi 2002 nian Beigao shizhang ji yiyuan xuanju wei li [選民分立政府心理認知與投票行為: 以 2002 年北高市長暨議員選舉為例]. Zhengzhi kexue luncong [政治科學論叢], 21, 75–115.
120. Wu, D.-Y. (1996). Bantongzheng zhi zhengfu tixi de lilun yu shiji [「半總統制」政府體系的理論與實際]. Wenti yu yanjiu [問題與研究], 35(8), 37–49.
121. Wu, Y.-M. (2001). Taibei shi xuanmin fenlie toupiao zhi yanjiu: Minguo 87 nian shizhang shiyiyuan xuanju zhi fenxi [台北市選民分裂投票之研究: 民國八十七年市長市議員選舉之分析]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 8(1), 159–209.
122. Xiao, Y.-J. (2009). Danyi xuanqu liangpiao zhi xia Taiwan xuanmin zhi toupiao xingwei: 2008 nian lifa weiyuan xuanju de duoceng fenxi [單一選區兩票制下台灣選民之投票行為: 2008 年立法委員選舉的多層分析] (Doctoral dissertation, Xiao Yijing).
123. Xiao, Y.-J. (2014). Cong zhengdang qinggan wenduji jiex Taiwan minzhong de zhengzhi jihua [從政黨情感溫度計解析台灣民眾的政治極化]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 21(2), 1–42.
124. Xiao, Y.-J. (2019). Taiwan minzhong de dangxing jihua ji qi dui minzhu taidu de yingxiang [台灣民衆的黨性極化及其對民主態度的影響]. Taiwan zhengzhi xuekan [台灣政治學刊], 23(2), 41–85.
125. Xiao, Y.-J., & Huang, J. (2010). Danyi xuanqu liangpiao zhi xia de yizhi yu fenlie toupiao: 2008 nian lifa weiyuan xuanju de tantao [單一選區兩票制下的一致與分裂投票: 2008 年立法委員選舉的探討]. Taiwan minzhu jikan [臺灣民主季刊], 7(3), 1–43.
126. Xu, S.-M., & Hong, Y.-T. (2003). 2001 nian Taiwan xuanju yu minzhuhua diaocha yanjiu chouyang sheji: Fenceng xiaoguo, chouyang wucha yu sheji xiaoguo zhi fenxi [「2001 年台灣選舉與民主化調查研究」抽樣設計: 分層效果, 抽樣誤差與設計效果之分析]. Xuanju yanjiu [選舉研究], 10(2), 59–91.
127. Yang, G., Chen, L.-H., & Yang, G. (2017). Zhengzhi ziyuan yihuo zhengzhi dongyuan: Zhongguo dalu toupiao canyu chengxiang chayi zhi yanjiu [政治資源抑或政治動員: 中國大陸投票參與城鄉差異之研究] (Doctoral dissertation, Yang Gui).
128. Yu, E. C. H., Huang, C., & Hsiao, Y. C. (2015). Who wants checks and balances? Endogeneity of the balancing perspective. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 2(3), 196-227.
129. Yu, Q.-X. (2004). Fenlie toupiao jieshi guandian yu Taiwan xuanju zhi yingyong: Yi 2002 nian Gaoxiong shizhang yu shiyiyuan xuanju wei li [分裂投票解釋觀點與台灣選舉之應用: 以 2002 年高雄市長與市議員選舉為例]. Taiwan zhengzhi xuekan [台灣政治學刊], 8(1), 47–98.