2009 年1 月離島建設條例博弈條款使賭博除罪化，並將爭議十餘 年觀光賭場交付地方性公民投票決定，同年9 月的澎湖博弈公投否決 了賭場進駐。這是自公投法實施以來，正反雙方最激烈動員的公投案 之一，觀光賭場是澎湖地方政治菁英長期爭取的經濟政策，反對方則 是由地方公民團體訴諸守護家園。本研究分析贊成方與反對方各自如 何進行集體動員？研究結果顯示，像博弈公投這類的政策公投，贊成 方在動員過程受益於地方政府，享有較多專屬的在地資源。反觀，反 對方則須自行生產資源或汲取無專屬性的文化資源與道德資源，以致 於衍生出「小蝦米對大鯨魚」的不對等競爭。其次，該次公投仍受到 在地政治生態的影響。澎湖博弈公投案的小蝦米固然搏倒大鯨魚，但 是基於上述兩點討論，本文指出公民投票（政策公投）對公民參與政 治仍有侷限。

The enactment of Offshore Islands Development Act in January 2009 paved way for the tourist casino, which can be legalized with the positive result of a local referendum. In Penghu, where the casino dispute has lasted for nearly a decade, local people voted against the gaming industry in a referendum in September 2009. While local political elites are the proponent of tourist casino, the opponents are made up of civil-society organizations which vowed to protect hometown identity. This article researches the diverse patterns of mobilization between the two camps in the first casino referendum in Taiwan. In terms of resources, the pro-casino force outnumbered its rival. Moreover, my study reveals that local politics played an important role in affecting the referendum outcome as public participation was constrained in many ways.