[EAI 22nd General Election Conference] The 22nd National Assembly Election and Midterm Evaluation: What Was Evaluated?

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbyopu3nYl8

Video Script

Hello, this is Kang Won-taek. I would first like to express my gratitude for the opportunity provided by EAI to conduct election research. As this is a costly project, it is difficult to continue without strong commitment. Therefore, I would like to first thank Director Son for his generous support. I will discuss the parts I wrote, but I will also convey messages from those who could not attend today. We have Mr. Shin Yul and Dr. Sung Hee-jin among today's presenters. I will shorten my presentation slightly to allow them about 5 minutes each to briefly present the parts they wrote. The research team put in a great deal of effort. This is because the election was just 14 days away, and we had to conduct our research after the election. It took several days to gather the data, and then we had to analyze and write based on it, so it was a very short period of time.

Therefore, please consider this not as a completed work, but as a summary focused on the most important points. Overall, my impression after reviewing our research findings is that while the victory and defeat were decided, it was a very unhappy election. Regardless of which party received their vote, it seems that more people voted without happiness or for negative reasons than for positive ones. This is the overall analysis result. I will now go over the individual details one by one.

Withdrawal of Presidential Support Alliance and Election Results

The core of my paper is that the last presidential election was a close contest with a margin of 0.73%. Ultimately, a coalition of support for the president was formed, and I hypothesized that many defectors emerged from this coalition. Our analysis actually showed a significant number of defections among Lee Jae-myung's voters. Some supported the Democratic Party or moved to other parties, while according to other researchers' analyses, there were more abstentions among Yoon Suk-yeol's voters. This was about 10% higher. In other words, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration failed to provide a positive image or hope to those who voted two years ago. When we look at the actual survey, one of the questions we asked was whether to 'empower the Yoon Suk-yeol government' or 'what is the meaning of this election,' and 'empower the opposition party.' Of course, those who voted for the People Power Party answered that they were empowering the Yoon Suk-yeol government, but the overall trend showed a higher preference for empowering the opposition party. This was true for the centrist group and for defectors as well. The timing of the voting decision is important. If one decided long in advance which party to vote for, a strong coalition is formed or there is a sense of satisfaction. However, if the decision is made closer to election day, that coalition may not be as strong, and there is a possibility of making an unsatisfactory choice. In fact, about 60% of those who defected were undecided until a week before the election. More than 60% of those who defected from Yoon Suk-yeol's supporters were undecided until a week before the election. Although the Democratic Party won by a large margin, it does not seem that voters were satisfied with the Democratic Party. Looking at the overall results, it can be said that this election was much more influenced by the push factors of the People Power Party and President Yoon Suk-yeol, pushing voters away, rather than the pull factor of the Democratic Party drawing them in.

Issues significantly influenced favorability towards the president. The expansion of medical school admissions seemed to have a positive impact, and Dr. Sung will discuss this later, but it turned out well. Unexpectedly, the Yoon Suk-yeol-Han Dong-hoon conflict did not have a major impact. However, the controversy surrounding Lee Jong-sup during the election period did have an impact.

negatively. There was also the controversy over green onions, but overall inflation appears to have had an impact. Interestingly, the controversy over First Lady Kim Keon-hee's luxury bag remained an issue. It had a negative effect even on the centrist group, excluding the core supporters. Overall, this election seems to have been, in essence, a 'Yoon Suk-yeol election.' What is interesting is that this was a mid-term evaluation of a president in their second year in office, and it seems to be the first time such a mid-term evaluation has focused on a specific president without significant policy failures or debates about policy direction. Instead, the president's governing style and leadership became the main focus of evaluation in this general election.

Sentiment to Judge the Yoon Suk-yeol Administration and Election Issues

Those who left simply judged him without question. It seems that emotional factors, such as simply disliking him regardless of the outcome, played a strong role. Consequently, short-term issues affected the results, and in the swing regions where the victory margins were narrow, they significantly impacted the election outcomes. As Dr. Sung will mention later, the president's job performance evaluation, which can influence outcomes by about 30%, showed a considerable difference in closely contested races. The reason I called it a somber election is explained in Professor Yoo Sung-jin's article on page 128. Among Yoon Suk-yeol's voters who abstained from the general election, the hope and expectation towards the People Power Party or the Yoon Suk-yeol government were very low.

There was no motivation to vote in the general election for the future of the People Power Party. The abstention was not due to a negative evaluation of the president, nor anger towards the opposing party, but simply a lack of hope or expectation. This was the reason for abstention or non-participation. The People Power Party's election campaign failed to understand the complex and sensitive emotions of these voters towards the future. They found no incentive to go to the polls because they had no hope at all.

Some people in Daegu switched their support to the Democratic Party or other parties. Of course, many also moved to parties like the Cho Kuk Party for proportional representation, but as mentioned earlier, the presidential factor was very important in this election. Another point I would like to make is about voters in their 20s. This is the provisional conclusion from Professor Gu Bon-sang's study on page 31.

Political Perceptions and Voting Behavior of Voters in their 20s

Voters aged 20 and below generally have a negative view of current political parties and politicians. There are parties and politicians they strongly dislike, which is particularly observed among young women. A strong aversion to male politicians, including the president, and negative feelings towards conservative parties seem to have spread among young women in general, leading to a shift in support towards the Democratic Party. This is consistent with the presidential election two years ago, but it is not out of preference. It appears that these voters are not actively embracing the Democratic Party emotionally, but rather accepting it as an alternative to politicians and parties they detest. The Cho Kuk Innovation Party did not serve as an alternative for them. The events of the previous election among 20-somethings seem to have continued in this election.

Some young men defected along with the Lee Jun-seok incident, and the negative sentiment of young women towards the People Power Party was maintained. This difference is considered one of the important factors. Finally, I would like to mention something related to the People Power Party. On page 54, you can see that there was a difference in voting choices based on assets. This is a pattern where conservative parties tend to perform well in certain districts. In the 20th presidential election, a difference in voting propensity based on assets was confirmed in the Seoul metropolitan area, and it is still evident. Housing prices were a major factor. In the Seoul metropolitan area, a difference in voting propensity based on assets was confirmed during the presidential election, and it is still evident.

Asset Gap and Warning Signs for the People Power Party

What does this signify? I believe this is a significant warning sign for the People Power Party. It has become a party for the wealthy. Because it has become a party for the wealthy, as long as the People Power Party and the Yoon Suk-yeol administration cannot shed the negative image of conservatism, they will inevitably face similar challenges in the future. Social polarization is increasing, and the proportion of people with assets in society cannot be that large. Therefore, the more asset-related factors become prominent in voting behavior, the greater the difficulties the conservative party will face.

This should be seen as a significant warning sign that emerged this time. Lastly, I will discuss the final part of my paper, pages 19 and 20. There is also a problem with the way election systems are decided in our country's politics. The Democratic Party's introduction of a semi-proportional representation system last time was a mistake, and this time it was also handled in a way that suggests a solo run by the opposition party. This is a matter of game rules, and a specific team is deciding them. The setting of the rules itself, for the first time since democratization, occurred without bipartisan agreement. Furthermore, the issue of disproportionality, where a significant gap emerged between vote share and seat share, was keenly felt this time, along with issues of minor party participation and the two-party system. When asked, 73.2% of respondents believe the election system needs to be changed. This is the highest percentage among our surveys. I believe a significant national consensus has been formed on this issue. Regardless of party affiliation, 66.2% of Democratic Party supporters also agreed. The reasons cited for the need for systemic reform include the belief that the current polarized party politics is unsustainable and concerns about future intense conflicts. Strengthening socioeconomic representation and overcoming the gap between vote share and seat share also emerged with higher-than-expected support. I believe this is the right time to actively engage in social discussions about reforming the election system, using the recent general election as an opportunity. The issue of disproportionality, where a significant gap emerged between vote share and seat share, was keenly felt this time, along with issues of minor party participation and the two-party system. When asked, 73.2% of respondents believe the election system needs to be changed. This is the highest percentage among our surveys. I believe a significant national consensus has been formed on this issue. Regardless of party affiliation, 66.2% of Democratic Party supporters also agreed. The reasons cited for the need for systemic reform include the belief that the current polarized party politics is unsustainable and concerns about future intense conflicts. Strengthening socioeconomic representation and overcoming the gap between vote share and seat share also emerged with higher-than-expected support. I believe this is the right time to actively engage in social discussions about reforming the election system, using the recent general election as an opportunity.

Public Demand for Electoral System Reform

This is a significant warning sign that emerged this time. Lastly, I will discuss the final part of my paper, pages 19 and 20. There is also a problem with the way election systems are decided in our country's politics. The Democratic Party's introduction of a semi-proportional representation system last time was a mistake, and this time it was also handled in a way that suggests a solo run by the opposition party. This is a matter of game rules, and a specific team is deciding them. The setting of the rules itself, for the first time since democratization, occurred without bipartisan agreement. Furthermore, the issue of disproportionality, where a significant gap emerged between vote share and seat share, was keenly felt this time, along with issues of minor party participation and the two-party system. When asked, 73.2% of respondents believe the election system needs to be changed. This is the highest percentage among our surveys. I believe a significant national consensus has been formed on this issue. Regardless of party affiliation, 66.2% of Democratic Party supporters also agreed. The reasons cited for the need for systemic reform include the belief that the current polarized party politics is unsustainable and concerns about future intense conflicts. Strengthening socioeconomic representation and overcoming the gap between vote share and seat share also emerged with higher-than-expected support. I believe this is the right time to actively engage in social discussions about reforming the election system, using the recent general election as an opportunity.

This is a significant warning sign that emerged this time. Lastly, I will discuss the final part of my paper, pages 19 and 20. There is also a problem with the way election systems are decided in our country's politics. The Democratic Party's introduction of a semi-proportional representation system last time was a mistake, and this time it was also handled in a way that suggests a solo run by the opposition party. This is a matter of game rules, and a specific team is deciding them. The setting of the rules itself, for the first time since democratization, occurred without bipartisan agreement. Furthermore, the issue of disproportionality, where a significant gap emerged between vote share and seat share, was keenly felt this time, along with issues of minor party participation and the two-party system. When asked, 73.2% of respondents believe the election system needs to be changed. This is the highest percentage among our surveys. I believe a significant national consensus has been formed on this issue. Regardless of party affiliation, 66.2% of Democratic Party supporters also agreed. The reasons cited for the need for systemic reform include the belief that the current polarized party politics is unsustainable and concerns about future intense conflicts. Strengthening socioeconomic representation and overcoming the gap between vote share and seat share also emerged with higher-than-expected support. I believe this is the right time to actively engage in social discussions about reforming the election system, using the recent general election as an opportunity.

This is a significant warning sign that emerged this time. Lastly, I will discuss the final part of my paper, pages 19 and 20. There is also a problem with the way election systems are decided in our country's politics. The Democratic Party's introduction of a semi-proportional representation system last time was a mistake, and this time it was also handled in a way that suggests a solo run by the opposition party. This is a matter of game rules, and a specific team is deciding them. The setting of the rules itself, for the first time since democratization, occurred without bipartisan agreement. Furthermore, the issue of disproportionality, where a significant gap emerged between vote share and seat share, was keenly felt this time, along with issues of minor party participation and the two-party system. When asked, 73.2% of respondents believe the election system needs to be changed. This is the highest percentage among our surveys. I believe a significant national consensus has been formed on this issue. Regardless of party affiliation, 66.2% of Democratic Party supporters also agreed. The reasons cited for the need for systemic reform include the belief that the current polarized party politics is unsustainable and concerns about future intense conflicts. Strengthening socioeconomic representation and overcoming the gap between vote share and seat share also emerged with higher-than-expected support. I believe this is the right time to actively engage in social discussions about reforming the election system, using the recent general election as an opportunity.

Professor Kang Won-taek of Seoul National University, in a comprehensive evaluation of the 22nd general election, stated that regardless of the victory or defeat of any particular party, it was an unhappy election. He analyzed that the cause was the disappearance of discourse on the results or direction of policies, and the overwhelming sentiment to judge President Yoon Suk-yeol determined the voting behavior. In particular, among the political landscape of Korean voters revealed by this election, the anti-Yoon Suk-yeol sentiment led to the choice of the Democratic Party of Korea without regard to ideology or policy as an alternative. Furthermore, in the context of economic polarization, the concentration of the People Power Party's support base among a small number of asset holders was discussed as a warning signal that the People Power Party must heed. He also suggested that since a high percentage of supporters from both major parties, the Democratic Party of Korea and the People Power Party, are in favor of electoral system reform, a public consensus for reform has been formed, and based on this, active social discussion for political system reform should commence.

f2e34dd1a320d063

Download: Full Presentation

Full Presentation

Full Presentation

Kang Won-taek (Professor, Seoul National University): I would first like to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to conduct election research on this occasion. As this is a project that requires significant funding, it is difficult to sustain without strong commitment. I would like to thank Director Son Yeol for his generous support.

I will discuss the parts I authored, but I also intend to convey additional information regarding the research conducted by other members of the research team who are not present today. Two members of the research team are present today: Mr. Shin Jeong-seop and Dr. Sung Ye-jin. I will shorten my presentation slightly to provide them with approximately 5 minutes each to briefly present the sections they wrote. The research team members worked very hard. This is because the election was only 14 days away. Our surveys must be conducted after the election, and it takes several days to collect the data. We then need to receive and analyze this data to write our reports, which means we had to work within a very limited timeframe. Therefore, please consider this not as a fully completed work, but rather as a summary focused on the most critical points identified by the research team.

Overall, after reviewing the research findings of our team, my impression is that while the election's outcome—victory and defeat—has been determined, it was a very unhappy election. This is my overall assessment. Regardless of which party received their vote, it seems that more people voted without happiness or for negative reasons than for positive ones. This is the overall analytical result. I will now proceed to discuss the individual details one by one.

The core of my paper is that the previous presidential election was a close contest with a margin of 0.7%. Consequently, a coalition of support was formed during the election, and I hypothesized that many defectors emerged from this coalition. Our analysis actually showed more defections among Yoon Suk-yeol's voters compared to Lee Jae-myung's voters. Some supported the Democratic Party or moved to other parties, and according to other researchers' analyses, there were also more abstentions among Yoon Suk-yeol's voters. This was about 10% higher. This suggests that the Yoon Suk-yeol administration failed to provide a positive image or hope to those who voted two years ago. When asked whether to 'empower the Yoon Suk-yeol government' or 'empower the opposition party,' those who identified as conservative or voted for the People Power Party responded that they were empowering the Yoon Suk-yeol government. However, the overall trend showed a higher preference for empowering the opposition party. This was true for the centrist group and even more so for defectors.

The timing of the voting decision is also crucial. If one decided long in advance to vote for a particular party, it implies a strong coalition or a sense of satisfaction. Conversely, if the decision is made closer to election day, especially with many defectors, the coalition may not be as strong, and there is a higher possibility of making an unsatisfactory choice.

In fact, among those who defected, approximately 60% made their decision about a week before the election. This means that over 60% of those who defected from Yoon Suk-yeol's supporters were undecided until a week before the election. Therefore, although the Democratic Party won by a significant margin this time, it does not appear that voters were highly satisfied with the Democratic Party. Looking at the overall results, it seems that the influence of the push factors—the People Power Party and President Yoon Suk-yeol pushing voters away—was much greater than the pull factor of the Democratic Party drawing them in. This election was largely characterized by these push factors.

Issues significantly impacted favorability towards the president. The 'expansion of medical school admissions,' for instance, seemed to have a positive effect. Dr. Sung will elaborate on this later, but it yielded favorable results. Unexpectedly, the 'Yoon Suk-yeol-Han Dong-hoon conflict' did not have a major impact. However, the 'Lee Jong-sup and Hwang Sang-mo controversy' during the election period had a negative impact. Additionally, while there was the 'green onion controversy,' overall inflation appears to have been a significant factor. Interestingly, the 'First Lady Kim Keon-hee's luxury bag controversy' remained a significant issue. It had a negative effect not only on core supporters but also on the centrist group. Overall, based on my research findings, this election was, in essence, a 'Yoon Suk-yeol election.'

What is interesting is that this was a mid-term evaluation, occurring in the second year of the presidential term. It seems to be the first time such a mid-term evaluation has focused on a specific president without significant policy failures or debates about policy direction. Instead, the president's governing style and leadership became the primary focus of evaluation in this general election.

Those who left simply judged him without question. It seems that emotional factors, such as simply disliking him regardless of the outcome, played a very strong role this time. Consequently, as that coalition of support weakened, short-term issues influenced the election, and in the swing regions where victory margins were narrow, these issues significantly impacted the election outcomes. Since the president's job performance evaluation can influence outcomes by approximately 30%, it led to considerable differences in closely contested races. The reason I referred to this as a somber election is detailed on page 128 in Professor Yoo Sung-jin's analysis. I will read from the third line of Professor Yoo Sung-jin's findings.

Among Yoon Suk-yeol's voters who participated in the general election, the hope and expectation towards the People Power Party or the Yoon Suk-yeol government were very low. In other words, there was no motivation to vote in the general election for the sake of the People Power Party or its future. The abstention was not due to a negative evaluation of the president—a negative evaluation implies some level of attachment—nor was it due to anger towards the opposing party. It was simply a lack of hope or expectation. This sentiment manifested as abstention or non-participation.

The People Power Party's election campaign failed to understand the complex and sensitive emotions of these voters towards the future. This refers to the supporters of the People Power Party. They found no incentive to go to the polls because they had no hope at all, and my research suggests that some of them shifted their support to the Democratic Party or other parties.

Of course, many also moved to parties like the Cho Kuk Party for proportional representation, but as mentioned earlier, the presidential factor was a very significant element in this election, and I believe it played a role.

Another point I would like to make concerns voters in their 20s. This is the provisional conclusion on page 31, compiled by Professor Gu Bon-sang of Chungbuk National University. I believe it is appropriate to read this conclusion, as it appears to be a very important factor. Voters aged 20 and below generally have a negative view of current political parties and politicians. Furthermore, there are parties and politicians they strongly dislike, which is particularly observed among young women. A strong aversion to male politicians, including the president, and negative feelings towards conservative parties seem to have spread among young women in general, leading to a shift in support towards the Democratic Party. This is consistent with the presidential election two years ago, but it is not out of preference. It is an active embrace, meaning these voters are not emotionally embracing the Democratic Party but rather accepting it as an alternative to politicians and parties they detest. Conversely, the Cho Kuk Innovation Party did not serve as an alternative for them.

These dynamics, observed in the previous election among 20-somethings, seem to have continued in this election. Some young men also defected following the Lee Jun-seok incident, while the negative sentiment of young women towards the People Power Party was maintained. These differences are considered one of the key factors that led to the outcome.

Next, I would like to mention something related to the People Power Party. On page 54, it is evident that differences in voting choices based on assets emerged once again. For example, this pattern is seen in districts like Apgujeong-dong, where conservative parties tend to perform well. Kim Soo-in and I published a research paper analyzing the Seoul metropolitan area during the 20th presidential election. According to this study, voting propensity varied based on assets (not income, but the value of assets such as housing). A difference in voting propensity based on assets was confirmed in the Seoul metropolitan area during the presidential election, and it is still evident today. What does this signify? In my view, this is a significant warning sign for the People Power Party. It has become a party for the wealthy. Because it has become a party for the wealthy, as long as the People Power Party and the Yoon Suk-yeol administration cannot shed the negative image associated with conservatism, they will inevitably face similar challenges. This is because socioeconomic polarization is increasing, and the proportion of asset holders within society cannot be that large.

The more asset-related factors become prominent in voting behavior, the greater the difficulties conservative parties like the People Power Party will face. I believe this represents a significant warning sign that has emerged this time.

Finally, before concluding my presentation, I would like to mention the final section of my paper, on page 19 (pages 19 and 20). There is also a problem with the way election systems are decided in our country's politics. The Democratic Party's introduction of the so-called semi-proportional representation system last time was a rushed decision, and this time it was also handled essentially as a unilateral move by the opposition party. However, these are the rules of the game, and a specific team is deciding them. It's like saying, 'We'll set our goalposts here,' or 'We'll adjust the height of the goalposts.' The setting of these rules, for the first time since democratization, has historically been done through bipartisan agreement. However, this issue (the setting of game rules by a specific party) arose this time.

Furthermore, this issue has led to significant disproportionality, with a large gap between vote share and seat share. I believe many people have recognized the seriousness of this problem. There are also issues concerning the participation of minor parties and polarized party politics. Therefore, we conducted a survey.

The results show that 73.2% of respondents believe the election system needs to be changed. To my recollection, this is the highest percentage recorded in our surveys. This indicates that a significant national consensus has been formed on this issue. Regardless of party affiliation, even among Democratic Party supporters, about two-thirds agreed, which is a considerably high proportion. The reasons cited for the need for systemic reform include the belief that current polarized party politics is unsustainable and concerns about future intense conflicts. Additionally, the desire to 'strengthen socioeconomic representation' and 'overcome the gap between vote share and seat share' also received higher-than-expected support. I believe this is the opportune moment to actively engage in social discussions regarding the reform of the election system, using the recent general election as a catalyst. I will now conclude my presentation. Thank you. ■

■ Presenter: Kang Won-taek, Director of EAI Center for Democracy Studies. Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Kim Sun-hee, EAI Researcher

Inquiries: 02-2277-1683 (ext. 209) shkim@eai.or.kr