Tough for any party to win clear majority: EC

[rooster59]

Tough for any party to win clear majority: EC

By KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN 
THE NATION 

 

 

ELECTION COMMISSION (EC) officials yesterday admitted that it would be difficult for any party to win more than half of the seats in the House of Representatives under the new election method proposed by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

 

To gain more than half of all the seats, a party must win more than half of the total votes nationwide, said Simira Lekphrom, deputy director of the EC’s department of election and referendum administration.

 

In cases where by-elections result in changes in the number of constituency MPs, the number of party-list MPs would also be affected, causing some to lose their seats, she added.

 

Simira Lekphrom

 

CDC spokesman Norachit Sinhaseni, however, said that according to the Constitution, although some party-list MPs could lose their positions following a by-election, they would not have to return or repay their salaries and privileges received while in office. The charter also said a recalculation as a result of any by-elections would only be allowed within the first year and after that there would be no more changes, he stressed.

 

The EC officials also spelled out how the MP seats would be calculated under the new Mixed-Member Apportionment (MMA) election system.

 

 

Under the MMA system, the sum total of votes cast for all parties nationwide would be divided by 500 – the number of the seats in the Lower House – to find the mean number for apportioning the seats. 

 

The total number of votes polled by a party would be divided by the mean number. The resulting figure would be the total number of seats the party could have in Parliament.

 

If a party does not already have enough constituency MP candidates, the vacancies could be filled by its party-list candidates.

In the event that a party wins more constituency MPs than the seats apportioned in the House, it would keep the extra MPs. The remaining seats would be redivided for other parties, proportionate with the votes they had polled. 

 

Despite the complicated formula and the fact that it would make it difficult for any party to have a majority in the House, the CDC insisted that the MMA system or the single-ballot system would make every vote count.

 

Norachit said that the organic law on the election of MPs, which also dealt with the election method, would be submitted to the National Legislative Assembly on November 27, along with the organic law on the Senate.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30331909

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-18

[greenchair]

The goal is and always has been to confuse. 

It's going to take years to figure it all out, only to realise it's not working, then years to fix. 

Good luck 

[Samui Bodoh]

There are several different ways to decide how members of a parliament are chosen and allocated, and each has pluses and minuses.

 

Thailand had a reasonable system (no system is perfect) which was widely understood by the populace and had most, if not all, the kinks worked out.

 

Now, it has been changed to a MUCH more complicated system which is NOT widely understood for the express purpose of preventing ONE specific party from winning a majority. 

 

Progress, Thai-style...

 

Do we laugh or cry?

[trogers]

Good. Don't get into the system of the US where the populace ended up with Sophie's choice.

[YetAnother]

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

officials yesterday admitted that it would be difficult for any party to win more than half of the seats in the House of Representatives under the new election method proposed by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

the entire intent

[Somtamnication]

Of course it will be hard. The winning party will have to accept a military approved coalition. 

[Thailand]

Impossible I would think with the military guaranteed a large proportion of the seats. If all the "opposition" parties joined together there would be a chance,no chance of that happening. 

Simply don't see any "election" making any difference as to who will be running the country- basically no change.

[Becker]

Duh, that's the whole point! Can't have a system where the rabble elect the wrong people again and again and restrict the ammart's access to the trough.

[Get Real]

It should be tough to win an election, but I can see the protests coming. Here people don´t think it´s funny if they not already know where the right card in memory is placed. Then they just don´t want to play.

[robblok]

Has anyone actually read this and found anything wrong with it. 

Sound logical to me to make sure a party gets the number of MP seats based on how many people voted on them. They only made sure that now its based on how many people vote on them. Not on constituencies. So no matter how things end its always about the number of votes. Seems totally fair to me. Sounds better then the US system where you can win even if you have less votes. 

[robblok]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

There are several different ways to decide how members of a parliament are chosen and allocated, and each has pluses and minuses.

 

Thailand had a reasonable system (no system is perfect) which was widely understood by the populace and had most, if not all, the kinks worked out.

 

Now, it has been changed to a MUCH more complicated system which is NOT widely understood for the express purpose of preventing ONE specific party from winning a majority. 

 

Progress, Thai-style...

 

Do we laugh or cry?

What do you think is wrong with a system where MP seats are based on the amount of votes.. In my book its the most fair way there is. Just look what happened in the US, you had more people voting for Hillary but still Thrump got in power i find that a strange system. 

[trogers]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

What do you think is wrong with a system where MP seats are based on the amount of votes.. In my book its the most fair way there is. Just look what happened in the US, you had more people voting for Hillary but still Thrump got in power i find that a strange system. 

Nothing strange. Just like gravity from dark matter. Money has weight.

[Chris Lawrence]

Particularly the Shins. 

[pornprong]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

What do you think is wrong with a system where MP seats are based on the amount of votes.. In my book its the most fair way there is. Just look what happened in the US, you had more people voting for Hillary but still Thrump got in power i find that a strange system. 

The system has been designed, not to reflect the will of the voters, but to deny PTP a majority.

There are two major issues.

 

Look at the even distribution of Constituency seats shown below - each of the 6 regions has a percentage of seats that closely reflects their populations...... i.e. it is a fair distribution

 

 

Now look below at the distribution of Party List seats, notice anything different???

 

Hint: The NORTH region (strong PTP support base) has 16% of the population yet only 8.8% of the Party List seats and UPPER CENTRAL region (strong Democrat base) has 17.5% of the population yet mysteriously has 24.4% of the Party List seats.

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

UPPER CENTRAL and SOUTH (Suthep?) between them have 33.3% of the population and 40.5% of the Party List seats whilst NORTH and UPPER NORTHEAST have 32.7% of the population and just 22.5% of the Party List seats.

 

Coincidence???

 

 

The second issue is that the system is designed to award Party List seats to the losers of the Constituency Seat elections. What this means is the more Constituency seats PTP wins, the less Party List seats it will get. Basically if you vote for the winning candidate of the Constituency seat your vote is essentially neglected in the Party List seat vote (because there is only one ballot per person).

 

Look at the math in the article above.

Lets assume the 13,132,563 votes are for PTP.

Because they have won 187 Constituency seats, their 13+ million votes only gets them 35 Party List seats.

This equates to PTP getting 1 Party List seat for every 375,216 votes

Meanwhile, another party that happens to win ZERO Constituency seats but still gets at least 59,143 votes across several Constituencies will get 1 Party List seat

When it comes to the Party List, the Junta has created a system where 1 minor party vote is worth up to 6.3 PTP votes

 

Why do you think the Junta don't want people to cast two ballots?

One for their choice in the Constituency election and one for their choice in the Party List election?

Is it to save money on printing ballot papers or is it to distort the will of the people in an attempt to deny PTP another landslide victory?

 

Would you, Robblok, support a system that valued 1 PTP vote the same as 6.3 non PTP votes?

If not, then why support this dodgy set up?

Edited November 18, 2017 by pornprong

[Samui Bodoh]

47 minutes ago, pornprong said:

The system has been designed, not to reflect the will of the voters, but to deny PTP a majority.

There are two major issues.

 

Look at the even distribution of Constituency seats shown below - each of the 6 regions has a percentage of seats that closely reflects their populations...... i.e. it is a fair distribution

 

 

Now look below at the distribution of Party List seats, notice anything different???

 

Hint: The NORTH region (strong PTP support base) has 16% of the population yet only 8.8% of the Party List seats and UPPER CENTRAL region (strong Democrat base) has 17.5% of the population yet mysteriously has 24.4% of the Party List seats.

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

UPPER CENTRAL and SOUTH (Suthep?) between them have 33.3% of the population and 40.5% of the Party List seats whilst NORTH and UPPER NORTHEAST have 32.7% of the population and just 22.5% of the Party List seats.

 

Coincidence???

 

 

The second issue is that the system is designed to award Party List seats to the losers of the Constituency Seat elections. What this means is the more Constituency seats PTP wins, the less Party List seats it will get. Basically if you vote for the winning candidate of the Constituency seat your vote is essentially neglected in the Party List seat vote (because there is only one ballot per person).

 

Look at the math in the article above.

Lets assume the 13,132,563 votes are for PTP.

Because they have won 187 Constituency seats, their 13+ million votes only gets them 35 Party List seats.

This equates to PTP getting 1 Party List seat for every 375,216 votes

Meanwhile, another party that happens to win ZERO Constituency seats but still gets at least 59,143 votes across several Constituencies will get 1 Party List seat

When it comes to the Party List, the Junta has created a system where 1 minor party vote is worth up to 6.3 PTP votes

 

Why do you think the Junta don't want people to cast two ballots?

One for their choice in the Constituency election and one for their choice in the Party List election?

Is it to save money on printing ballot papers or is it to distort the will of the people in an attempt to deny PTP another landslide victory?

 

Would you, Robblok, support a system that valued 1 PTP vote the same as 6.3 non PTP votes?

If not, then why support this dodgy set up?

 

Many thanks for the analysis above; it is interesting reading and an interesting perspective.

 

I dislike the new system as well, but for a slightly different reason. It seems to me that the new system will deny the possibility of a strong majority government, or even just a strong elected government. The best way to weaken a legislature is to create a system where there are many parties with conflicting interests so that they spend all their time fighting each other rather than governing and looking outward. 

 

Moreover, the new constitution delivers exceptional powers to the 'Independent agencies' but provides little in the way of transparency, accountability or responsibility. I see the NACC as the worst; I have no idea how it decides which cases to investigate, which cases it prioritizes, which cases it declines, and who it is answerable to; it is classic case of a "Frankensteinian Government Agency". No real oversight, no accountability, and no soul. It serves the PTB and persecutes any or all perceived enemies. Don't believe me? How many PAD members are in jail for occupying the international airport? How many people in jail for the killings in 2009-2011? How many PDRC people in jail for helping to overthrow the government in 2013? And finally, in contrast, how long did it take to "convict" Yingluck? 

 

There are some who believe that strong, independent agencies outside the direct purview of an elected legislature are a good thing; I don't agree, but it is a debatable point. However, if you have powerful outside agencies, you need to have a strong legislature to counteract and counterbalance them, otherwise it is rule of the bureaucrat.

 

The old system in Thailand was flawed just as every other system is flawed. The onus is on those who change it to explain why the newer one is superior, and they have not done so.

 

The most believable explanation that I have heard, the most simple (bearing in mind 'Occam's Razor) is that it weakens the 'Reds'. Period. Changing a political system to weaken a political enemy is just an admission that you are unable to win fairly. And it looks very much like that is what has happened and why. 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Samui Bodoh

[robblok]

The system has been designed, not to reflect the will of the voters, but to deny PTP a majority.

There are two major issues.

 

Look at the even distribution of Constituency seats shown below - each of the 6 regions has a percentage of seats that closely reflects their populations...... i.e. it is a fair distribution

 

 

Now look below at the distribution of Party List seats, notice anything different???

 

Hint: The NORTH region (strong PTP support base) has 16% of the population yet only 8.8% of the Party List seats and UPPER CENTRAL region (strong Democrat base) has 17.5% of the population yet mysteriously has 24.4% of the Party List seats.

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

UPPER CENTRAL and SOUTH (Suthep?) between them have 33.3% of the population and 40.5% of the Party List seats whilst NORTH and UPPER NORTHEAST have 32.7% of the population and just 22.5% of the Party List seats.

 

Coincidence???

 

 

The second issue is that the system is designed to award Party List seats to the losers of the Constituency Seat elections. What this means is the more Constituency seats PTP wins, the less Party List seats it will get. Basically if you vote for the winning candidate of the Constituency seat your vote is essentially neglected in the Party List seat vote (because there is only one ballot per person).

 

Look at the math in the article above.

Lets assume the 13,132,563 votes are for PTP.

Because they have won 187 Constituency seats, their 13+ million votes only gets them 35 Party List seats.

This equates to PTP getting 1 Party List seat for every 375,216 votes

Meanwhile, another party that happens to win ZERO Constituency seats but still gets at least 59,143 votes across several Constituencies will get 1 Party List seat

When it comes to the Party List, the Junta has created a system where 1 minor party vote is worth up to 6.3 PTP votes

 

Why do you think the Junta don't want people to cast two ballots?

One for their choice in the Constituency election and one for their choice in the Party List election?

Is it to save money on printing ballot papers or is it to distort the will of the people in an attempt to deny PTP another landslide victory?

 

Would you, Robblok, support a system that valued 1 PTP vote the same as 6.3 non PTP votes?

If not, then why support this dodgy set up?

I support that the number of votes reflect the number of seats. So 50% of the votes get 50% of the seats. In my book that is fair. But if they can get more seats than 250 if they have less than 50% of the votes its unfair not sure if this is possible.

 

If you can paint me a scenario where that happens i will be against it. But as long as the number of votes represent the number of seats im all in favour.

 

Just look at the mess the US is in even though the democrats had more votes.

 

The whole constituency thing is just stupid it should always be about votes.

 

This is exactly how it is in the Netherlands all about votes nothing else

 

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[pornprong]

Just now, robblok said:

I support that the number of votes reflect the number of seats. So 50% of the votes get 50% of the seats. In my book that is fair. But if they can get more seats than 250 if they have less than 50% of the votes its unfair not sure if this is possible.

If you can paint me a scenario where that happens i will be against it. But as long as the number of votes represent the number of seats im all in favour.

Just look at the mess the US is in even though the democrats had more votes.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

The new Thai system does not allocate Party List seats in proportion to votes.

 

Again, look at the example given - PTP get 13+ million votes which would equate to somewhere in the high 40's as a percentage of total votes yet they will only get 35/150 Party List seats (around 23%).

 

If PTP get 13 million votes and just 35 seats that means the remaining 15 million votes will get 115 seats.

In this scenario who is getting the seats that should be going to PTP?

How is it fair?

 

 

[robblok]

The new Thai system does not allocate Party List seats in proportion to votes.
 
Again, look at the example given - PTP get 13+ million votes which would equate to somewhere in the high 40's as a percentage of total votes yet they will only get 35/150 Party List seats (around 23%).
 
If PTP get 13 million votes and just 35 seats that means the remaining 15 million votes will get 115 seats.
In this scenario who is getting the seats that should be going to PTP?
How is it fair?
 
 

In the example the ptp gets exactly the amount of seats in relation to the number of votes. That is 100% fair. Now small parties have a chance too.

Get 30% of votes get 30% of seats. Oh the horror of it. Now look at US democrat majority in votes but because of a strange system no democrat major.

In my country even small parties have a saying because its about votes. Far more fair.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[pornprong]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

In the example the ptp gets exactly the amount of seats in relation to the number of votes. That is 100% fair. Now small parties have a chance too.

Get 30% of votes get 30% of seats. Oh the horror of it. Now look at US democrat majority in votes but because of a strange system no democrat major.

In my country even small parties have a saying because its about votes. Far more fair.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Total voters = 29,571,126 (100% of the vote)

Hypothetical PTP vote = 13,132,563 (44.4% of the vote)

The rort is in the distribution of the 150 Party List seats.

44.4% of 150 Party List seats = 66.6 seats yet, in this case, PTP only get 35 seats (31.6 seats are distributed elsewhere)

 

How is it fair for the party winning 44.4% of the vote to only get 23% of the Party List seats?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RichardColeman]

Wouldn't it be funny if the reds and yellows agreed a joint power share to oust the military :)

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Wouldn't it be funny if the reds and yellows agreed a joint power share to oust the military :)

Unlikely. Dem’s Ahbisit is a weak military stooge, mid size party like Chart Thai Pattana is a chameleon and BJT has a leader that owns Sino Thai with many infrastructure projects. Even if that unlikely scenario happen, military will just stage a coup. Thailand is screwed.

[sjaak327]

A total disgrace, votes are being discarded this way. If I use the ludicrous formula on the 2011 elections, PT would have gained 242 seats, which is still close to a majority. If you feel the consitutency system is not good enough, simply get rid of it and use the party list system exclusively. 

[sjaak327]

56 minutes ago, pornprong said:

Total voters = 29,571,126 (100% of the vote)

Hypothetical PTP vote = 13,132,563 (44.4% of the vote)

The rort is in the distribution of the 150 Party List seats.

44.4% of 150 Party List seats = 66.6 seats yet, in this case, PTP only get 35 seats (31.6 seats are distributed elsewhere)

 

How is it fair for the party winning 44.4% of the vote to only get 23% of the Party List seats?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob knows full well what is on the table is anything but fair. 

[smutcakes]

The smaller parties must be licking their lips with the thought of their bargaining power and how they can get their hands on some choice ministries to scam. The Buriram lot must be giddy with excitement.

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Rob knows full well what is on the table is anything but fair. 

It is fair.. does the party that winst 44,4% of the votes get 44,4% of the MP seats in total or not ?

If not then sure I agree with you and then I interpreted it wrong.

If they do get 44,4% of the MP's then its totally fair and is how it goes in my country. It helps smaller parties to have a chance too. I guess your from a country where a 2 party system works and dominates it all. I come from a country with multiple parties, a much fairer system. In my country the Thrump victory would not have been possible because he had no majority in votes, Hillary would have won. I guess your ok with a system where when you got a majority of votes country wise you can still not win.

 

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

The smaller parties must be licking their lips with the thought of their bargaining power and how they can get their hands on some choice ministries to scam. The Buriram lot must be giddy with excitement.

Yes now he has some power too, guess your not used to a system like that but I am. Where I am from small parties have a say too, I guess that is so horrible because it does not favor your PTP. 

 

But guess what now everyone's vote count instead of making sure small parties have no say and larger parties have a advantage.

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

A total disgrace, votes are being discarded this way. If I use the ludicrous formula on the 2011 elections, PT would have gained 242 seats, which is still close to a majority. If you feel the consitutency system is not good enough, simply get rid of it and use the party list system exclusively. 

That is what should have happened and is what it now is in reality.. if you get 51% of the votes you have 51% of the MP's.. so horrible.. oh dear. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

Total voters = 29,571,126 (100% of the vote)

Hypothetical PTP vote = 13,132,563 (44.4% of the vote)

The rort is in the distribution of the 150 Party List seats.

44.4% of 150 Party List seats = 66.6 seats yet, in this case, PTP only get 35 seats (31.6 seats are distributed elsewhere)

 

How is it fair for the party winning 44.4% of the vote to only get 23% of the Party List seats?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do they have in total 44% of the MP's or not.. if less then 44% I am against it if its 44% then I totally support it as its fair. 

[smutcakes]

Just now, robblok said:

Yes now he has some power too, guess your not used to a system like that but I am. Where I am from small parties have a say too, I guess that is so horrible because it does not favor your PTP. 

 

But guess what now everyone's vote count instead of making sure small parties have no say and larger parties have a advantage.

My meaning Rob is that the small parties will be able to bargain themselves to bigger parties. Ie. It will increase corruption. I am not sure who you mean 'he'?

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

My meaning Rob is that the small parties will be able to bargain themselves to bigger parties. Ie. It will increase corruption. I am not sure who you mean 'he'?

(you were talking about the guy from Buriram) that is the he I referred too. Yes it could mean that there is more corruption, it could also mean there are more checks and balances as one party has not total power and they will check each-other. It could go either way.

 

But what is so wrong that every vote has the same value now and that smaller parties will be recognized too. In the old system you could theoretically have a majority MP's without having a majority in votes. The old system favored the bigger parties and favored a 2 party system. We have seen how well that worked in the past. I am actually quite happy with this system. Though I admit it could give small parties much power. We seen how Newin bargained with the Democrats that time to form a goverment and got all the nice ministeries. It certainly would break power of the big parties and make them far more careful about what they do as their partner could stop it. 

 

An amnesty like Thaksins is certainly a lot harder now because the winner does not get extra seats and they have to keep their coalition in check. 

 

This is how it has worked in the Netherlands for ages making compromises and coalitions. I find it much better then a system like in the USA where a majority still does not mean you win because of other strange rules. In a democracy each vote should be valued the same by rewarding a winner with extra seats you make votes of one side more valuable.