I have made a correction in the post to read: “whomever is projected to lose the primary will be tempted to leave the party and try his or her hand in the general election.”

공직선거법 2007.1 19 법률 제 8244 호
제6장의2 정당의 후보자 추천을 위한 당내경선
제57조의2 (당내경선의 실시) ①정당은 공직선거후보자를 추천하기 위하여 경선(이하 “당내경선”이라 한다)을 실시할 수 있다.

②정당이 당내경선[당내경선의 후보자로 등재된 자(이하 "경선후보자"라 한다)를 대상으로 정당의 당헌·당규 또는 경선후보자간의 서면합의에 따라 실시한 당내경선을 대체하는 여론조사를 포함한다]을 실시하는 경우 경선후보자로서 당해 정당의 후보자로 선출되지 아니한 자는 당해 선거의 같은 선거구에서는 후보자로 등록될 수 없다. 다만, 후보자로 선출된 자가 사퇴·사망·피선거권 상실 또는 당적의 이탈·변경 등으로 그 자격을 상실한 때에는 그러하지 아니하다.

③「정당법」 제22조(발기인 및 당원의 자격)의 규정에 따라 당원이 될 수 없는 자는 당내경선의 선거인이 될 수 없다.
[본조신설 2005.8.4]

‘In the end, to become a second Rhee Inje under current conditions, one of the two [candidates] would have to not participate in the GNP primary from the start, but directly announce his participation in the general election.’

I’ve done a little sleuthing. Here is a little information in Korean about the so-called ‘이인제 방지법’ (’Rhee Inje Prevention Law’).

http://www.ijworld.or.kr/netiz.....l?idx=8922

The salient points are : ‘우선 2005년 선거법이 개정돼 당내 경선에 참여했던 사람이 당을 뛰쳐나와 대선에 참여하는 것이 불법이 됐다’ (’First, as the election law was revised in 2005, it’s become illegal for one who participates in a party primary election to then leave the party and participate in the general election.’)

And ‘결국 지금의 조건에서 제2의 이인제가 되려면 둘 중 어느 한 명이 처음부터 한나라당 경선에 참여하지 않고 바로 대선 출마를 선언해야 한다.’

In the end, to become a second Rhee Inje under current conditions, one of the two [candidates] would have to not participate in the GNP primary from the start, but directly announce his participation in the general election.

I hope this helps.

As far as I know, this is impossible as there exists the ‘Lee In-je Law’ to prevent a repeat of the 1997 debacle. According to this law, a candidate cannot bolt and run independently after losing in the party primary.

Dear Prof. Sean Hayes: An issue that has suddenly been proposed by President Roh Moohyun is the amendment of the Constitution to give the future president a four-year one-time renewable term and also to align the presidential election with the National Assembly elections. Currently, the president has a five-year non-renewable term and the presidential election is not held on the same date as the National Assembly elections, since Assemblypersons have four-year terms. Is Roh’s proposal worth trying? Proud Korean citizen

Dear Proud: The system of two four-year renewable terms was proposed to lessen the cost of elections by aligning the dates of elections; to keep government policy consistent by allowing presidents the possibility of an eight-year term; to help eliminate the present system’s lameduck year; and for a variety of other reasons.

Whether it is a good idea or not may depend on your political leanings and ideology , since the system may bring forth more liberal and younger candidates.

First, aligning the presidential election with the National Assembly Election will lead to a larger number of voters voting in the National Assembly elections.

The presidential elections have larger voter turnouts than the National Assembly elections and hence aligning the election days will lead to a higher voter turnout. Traditionally, the well established in society vote in every election, while the younger and less established tend not to vote as often and often tend only to vote in the “major” elections.
The well established tend to be more conservative, while the less established tend to be more liberal.

Hence, the system may lead to more liberal voters voting in National Assembly elections, thus benefiting more liberal candidates.

Secondly, having the possibility of an eight-year term may lead voters and parties to consider older candidates not acceptable, since they may be considered too old to successfully complete their last term. I think under the proposed system the age and health of former President Kim Dae Jung, for instance, may have become a more significant issue.

I haven’t heard this issue mentioned in the newspapers. Therefore, I think neither party has considered these issues, but I bet many opposing party members, if they consider this issue, may be opposed to the seemingly logical change.

American Attorney Sean Hayes is a professor at Kookmin University School of Law and a researcher for the Constitutional Court. Direct questions to SeanHayes@ahnse.com.
01-31-2007 17:13
http://www.ahnse.blogspot.com