A diagram visualizing the public opinion on the need for a special counsel investigation into the June 3 disenfranchisement incident. 84.8% of the total respondents supported the need for a special counsel, with high approval rates across conservative, moderate, and progressive groups. [Photo=Hanmi Ilbo Graphic]
Public opinion favoring a special counsel investigation into the June 3 local election disenfranchisement incident was overwhelmingly high, regardless of political affiliation—conservative, moderate, or progressive. A total of 84.8% of respondents answered that a special counsel was necessary. By ideological leaning, 93.3% of conservatives, 84.6% of moderates, and 78.3% of those identifying as progressive in the survey supported the measure.

The results of this survey hold significance beyond mere polling numbers. 

Until now, some political circles attempted to frame the June 3 disenfranchisement issue as an "election non-acceptance" campaign. However, the poll results show the exact opposite trend. It was neither a demand solely from conservatives nor an issue raised only by supporters of a specific political party. 

The majority of the public is demanding an independent fact-finding mission with investigative authority into the case where voters' right to cast ballots was actually suspended or restricted on election day.

In a survey conducted by Korea Information Research at the request of the Cheonji Ilbo on the 22nd and 23rd, targeting 1,004 men and women aged 18 and older nationwide, 84.8% of respondents said a special counsel is "necessary." 

Of these, 69.7% said it is "very necessary," while 15.1% said it is "somewhat necessary." In contrast, only 12.6% replied that it is "unnecessary." The survey was conducted via a 100% wireless RDD (Random Digit Dialing) automated response system, with a margin of error of ±3.1%p at a 95% confidence level.

The most noteworthy aspect is the cross-analysis. 

Support for a special counsel among conservatives was virtually absolute at 93.3%. However, 84.6% of moderates and 78.3% of those identifying as progressives also answered that a special counsel is necessary. 

Usually, high-intensity political and judicial agendas lead to sharp polarization based on ideological leanings. In this case, however, the boundaries between left and right have blurred significantly. It seems that factional logic is losing its grip in the face of the constitutional right to vote.

The results by party affiliation show the same trend. 

Among supporters of the People Power Party, 94.3% answered that a special counsel is necessary. Among supporters of the Democratic Party of Korea, 74.5% also supported the need for a special counsel. Supporters of the Rebuilding Korea Party (73.5%) and those with no party affiliation (87.2%) also agreed that an investigation is necessary. 

In particular, the fact that nearly three out of four Democratic Party supporters agree on the need for a special counsel is politically significant. It has become difficult to explain this issue simply as an offensive by the opposition or a complaint from the conservative base.

These figures are also unusual when compared to past cases. 

The special counsel bill for the "Marine Corps Cpl. Chae" case received high public support, but opinion was divided among ruling party supporters. Even during the impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye, while overall support was overwhelming, strong opposition remained among the then-conservative party supporters. In most high-intensity political agendas, factional barriers typically held firm. 

However, public opinion regarding the June 3 disenfranchisement incident was different. Beyond the 84.8% total, the demand for a special counsel was high across all groups: conservative, moderate, progressive, and across both ruling and opposition party supporters.

This signifies that the essence of this incident does not lie in political advantages for the administration or battles between parties. 

Elections cannot be justified by their results alone. If voters arrived at polling stations only to be unable to exercise their right to vote, the very foundation of democratic procedure has been shaken.

Disenfranchisement cannot be minimized as mere on-site confusion or administrative error. It is a national issue that requires uncovering who made the decisions, why they were made, and how the election site was allowed to fall into such a state.

The demand for a special counsel does not immediately imply a rerun of the election. Whether a rerun is necessary must be determined by comprehensively considering legal procedures, evidence, the scale of disenfranchisement, the impact on election results, and the overall illegality of election management. 

However, if a special counsel identifies specific problems in the election preparation process, on-site response, reporting chains, procedures for stopping and resuming voting, and the management of ballot boxes and counting, the argument for a rerun will carry significantly more legal and political weight than it does now.

This is precisely why the Democratic Party cannot afford to take this public sentiment lightly. 

With 74.5% of its own supporters calling for a special counsel, dismissing the issue unconditionally as "election non-acceptance" does not align with the actual flow of public opinion. 

What the public demands is not a political fight to overturn results. They want to verify whether the election was managed properly in accordance with the Constitution and laws, whether voters' rights were fully guaranteed, and whether state agencies fulfilled their responsibilities.

The People Power Party should also refrain from consuming this sentiment as mere fodder for political attacks. 

The 84.8% support for a special counsel is a reflection of both the scale of public anger and the demand for accountability. It is difficult to restore shattered trust through National Election Commission clarifications, political bickering, or parliamentary questioning alone. 

There must be an independent investigation into on-site records at affected polling stations, reporting lines, decision-making processes, the scale of damage to voters, and the legality of the ballot counting and transportation procedures.

Ultimately, the significance of this poll does not lie in a single number. 

The results—93.3% among conservatives, 84.6% among moderates, and 78.3% among those identifying as progressive—are a sign that the June 3 disenfranchisement incident has already transcended the concerns of any single camp. 

The factional barriers that persisted even during the Chae case special counsel and the Park Geun-hye impeachment have been profoundly shaken this time. Now, there is only one question for the political sphere to answer: Can they really suppress the call for a rerun while ignoring a special counsel investigation demanded by the vast majority of the public?