首波針對國民黨24位立委以及新竹市長高虹安的罷免案，在今天完成投開票。儘管整體投票率平均突破五成，最終全部遭到否決。其中，得票差距最小者為葉元之，僅差3,560票。包括王鴻薇、李彥秀、徐巧芯、葉元之、羅廷瑋、傅崐萁、鄭正鈐在內，雖然其贊成罷免票數達到通過門檻，但因為贊成票少於反對票，仍宣告失敗。

這一系列罷免案的失敗，對民進黨而言無疑是一場政治挫敗，也反映出多層次的民意反彈。其主因並非單一事件，而是長期積累的民生不滿與政治信任危機。首先，民生經濟問題未獲妥善處理，成為民進黨失勢的最大關鍵。房價高漲、物價上升，早已成為社會普遍焦慮。年輕世代面對低薪困境無解，對未來失去信心，逐漸對執政黨的承諾感到麻木與厭倦。此外，國民黨在選戰期間提出「全民發放一萬元現金」的政見，雖遭批評為民粹手段，但的確有效吸引到部分中低收入及經濟壓力大的選民支持，強化藍營基層動員力，也為罷免案的反制戰役增添能量。

更值得關注的是，社會上逐漸形成一股「需要制衡力量」的共識。不少選民擔心，在民進黨完全執政的情況下，行政預算與重大政策缺乏有效監督，容易滋生官僚體系內部的效率低落與貪腐風險。像能源政策長年無法有效解決缺電問題，正是民眾對執政黨能力的實際觀察。

在罷免行動本身，民進黨也未能說服足夠民眾參與投票。許多人質疑：立委任期原為四年，為何才剛當選就啟動罷免？若缺乏具體且重大失職事由，這種高度政治操作的罷免，很容易讓人反感，甚至激起「反罷免」的選票效應。這次投票也反映出年輕選民的熱情流失。與過去選舉相比，年輕族群不再積極支持民進黨，部分人選擇投廢票或乾脆不出門投票。這種「冷處理」式的消極抵制，其實是對執政黨最沉重的無聲抗議。

自陳水扁時代起，民進黨選戰策略多以「抗中保台」為主軸。然而在經濟壓力、生活困境面前，這套動員模式漸漸失去說服力。當執政表現乏善可陳時，再怎麼操作中國議題，也難以轉移選民對政府無能的憤怒與失望。

整體而言，這次罷免案的全軍覆沒，不僅是一場選舉上的挫敗，更是一面鏡子，反映出台灣社會當下對民進黨的不滿與疲憊。當民意期待改革與穩定生活，執政者若仍沉溺於政治鬥爭與口號治國，恐怕將面臨更嚴峻的信任危機與選票懲罰。

The first wave of recall votes targeting 24 Kuomintang (KMT) legislators and suspended Hsinchu City Mayor Ann Kao (Kao Hung-an) was held today. Despite an average voter turnout exceeding 50%, all recall attempts were ultimately rejected. Among them, legislator Yeh Yuan-chih saw the narrowest margin, losing by only 3,560 votes. Several others, including Wang Hung-wei, Lee Yen-hsiu, Hsu Chiao-hsin, Lo Ting-wei, Fu Kun-chi, and Cheng Cheng-chien, all reached the required threshold of supporting votes, but the number of opposing votes exceeded those in favor, resulting in failure. The final results are subject to confirmation by the Central Election Commission.

For the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), this represents a significant political setback and reflects a broader discontent among the public. The reasons for this failure are complex and multifaceted, but at the core lies deep dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of livelihood issues.

Housing prices and the cost of living have continued to rise, while stagnant wages persist, leaving many young people feeling hopeless about their future. The government’s inability to address these long-standing problems has eroded public confidence, especially among the younger generation, who once served as a key support base for the DPP.

At the same time, the KMT’s promise of a NT$10,000 cash handout to every citizen, though criticized as populist, proved effective in mobilizing support from economically stressed voters. This helped galvanize strong turnout from the pan-Blue camp and played a crucial role in countering the recall efforts.

Another key factor was the growing public sentiment that Taiwan needs a balance of power. Many citizens expressed concern that with the DPP in complete control of the executive and legislative branches, government spending and policymaking could go unchecked. Persistent energy shortages and unresolved infrastructure issues have only deepened doubts about the administration’s competence.

Critically, the recall campaigns themselves were seen by many as politically motivated and premature. Voters questioned the legitimacy of launching recall efforts against legislators who had barely begun their four-year terms. The absence of clear, compelling grounds for these recalls backfired, drawing public backlash and even inspiring “anti-recall” mobilization.

This election also revealed a significant drop in enthusiasm among younger voters. Compared to past elections, the youth were noticeably less engaged. Many chose to spoil their ballots or simply abstained, sending a silent but powerful message of disillusionment with the ruling party. Their apathy represents perhaps the DPP’s most serious challenge moving forward.

Since the presidency of Chen Shui-bian, the DPP has repeatedly leaned on the “anti-China, protect Taiwan” narrative as a rallying cry. But in the face of everyday economic hardship, this messaging has lost much of its resonance. Voters are no longer swayed by ideology alone when their daily lives remain difficult and uncertain.

In conclusion, the failure of these recall votes is more than just a tactical defeat — it is a warning. It reflects the public’s growing frustration with a government that seems more focused on political maneuvering than on solving real problems. If the DPP continues to ignore this mounting dissatisfaction, it risks facing even greater backlash in future elections. The message from voters is clear: slogans cannot replace solutions, and unchecked power invites deep skepticism.