This paper will use political discussion programs in Taiwan as an example and use the research method of experimentation to attempt to establish a way of research that is both quantitative and qualitative. By using a correlation analysis of audience evaluation and ratings, an investigation will be carried out as to whether Taiwan¡¦s political discussion programs are in fact public forums that are a paradigm of a deliberative democracy. In order to test the hypothesis that states there is a correlation between audience evaluation and ratings, this paper made audience evaluation (in other words the topics discussed on the programs, their hosts, guests, producers and their negative effects) an independent variable and made the AGB Nielsen television rating numbers a dependent variable. It was discovered that audience evaluation does in fact affect ratings and that there is a positive correlation between audience evaluation and ratings. For example, the higher an audience¡¦s evaluation of the topics discussed on a certain program and its hosts, guests and producers were, the higher that particular program¡¦s ratings were. If on the other hand, audiences believe that a certain political discussion program has negative effects such as encouraging opposition within society or defaming a certain person or group, the lower the ratings of that particular program were. From the results of the correlation analysis of audience evaluation and ratings, it can be seen that there is a huge difference between what viewers expect from political discussion programs and what our current political discussion programs are like. It was also discovered that whilst today¡¦s political discussion programs claim they are public forums; they are in reality primarily aimed at making commercial profit. This means that these programs are still a long way away from becoming a paradigm for a deliberative democracy and making Taiwan a more democratic society.