Tough for any party to win clear majority: EC

[Samui Bodoh]

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

You totally ignored my point about the constituency votes, why have this system in place, when you could just have a party list system, in which.every vote counts, and very importantly, where every votes has the same weight.

 

This is without a doubt, one of the most convoluted ways to run a democracy. The reason being very clear, the Thai electorate is not being taking seriously.

 

You talked about the Dutch system, it is far and away the most democratic and fair system in existance. And the need to form a coalition is a great side effect to that system, it shows it's strenght.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you!

 

There are several benefits to the Proportional Representation (PR) system, but it simply does not work for everyone.

 

In the case of the Netherlands, there isn't a whole lot of difference in the culture, urban vs rural, economic, etc divides that occur in nations because the Netherlands is a physically small place.

 

However, if you are talking about Russia, Canada, the USA, Australia, and other physically big countries, PR is not really suitable. In my country of Canada, PR would mean that urban areas would be vastly over-represented while rural areas would be ignored. And the issues that face rural areas would be completely subsumed into the city folk. It would be a disaster!

 

PR is great in a small area with common interests

 

PR sucks badly in physically big countries with a large variety of interests, geography and economies.

 

When you are a big country, constituencies are the best. 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, bannork said:

Constituencies are very important. The MP has to respond to local needs, if not he or she may be rejected in the next election.. Unlike Party List  Proportional Representation MPs who have no loyalty to a constituency and are often chosen for their financial contributions to the party.

The old system was fine, a mixture of both.The people chose their local MP and then chose the party they supported in the party list.The number of party list  latter MPs were dependent on a percentage of the Party List vote. 

But of course that had to go because Pheua Thai would win every time.

I totally disagree respectfully as its not a good representation of the total picture vote wise. There was a real small number 80 or so that came from the other vote. Give me proportinal representation all the time. The local people can be elected in local elections. That is how it works where I come from, and we don't get crazy stuff like in the US where a majority does not get the president they should have had but one of the other party. Total votes are most important.

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

It is not, again needlessly convoluted, the idiots that invented this should be sent back to school.

At least its proportional now for a large part, better as the constituency crap. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you!

 

There are several benefits to the Proportional Representation (PR) system, but it simply does not work for everyone.

 

In the case of the Netherlands, there isn't a whole lot of difference in the culture, urban vs rural, economic, etc divides that occur in nations because the Netherlands is a physically small place.

 

However, if you are talking about Russia, Canada, the USA, Australia, and other physically big countries, PR is not really suitable. In my country of Canada, PR would mean that urban areas would be vastly over-represented while rural areas would be ignored. And the issues that face rural areas would be completely subsumed into the city folk. It would be a disaster!

 

PR is great in a small area with common interests

 

PR sucks badly in physically big countries with a large variety of interests, geography and economies.

 

When you are a big country, constituencies are the best. 

Guess you don't believe in democracy where the majority of voters rule but you want to give power to a minority (country folk) with a strange system. No wonder your such a Shin fan if you don't like democracy. 

 

In a democracy its about total votes in a country any other way is crazy and you get issues like in the US.

 

You seem to assume that the Netherlands have no rural parts or urban vs rual economics. They are there too I came from rural area. You seem to assume a lot about the Netherlands and dismiss my experience in proportional voting as it does not suit your needs for the Shins. 

 

There is almost no possibility for a multiparty system in constituency voting. Its mainly suited for 2 party systems. Votes for smaller parties in constituency voting are just lost if they don't get a majority in a constituency. That does not happen in proportional voting. You could have 20% of votes in each and every constituency but no MP's at all as other parties always win.. seems totally unfair. 

[sjaak327]

25 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you!

 

There are several benefits to the Proportional Representation (PR) system, but it simply does not work for everyone.

 

In the case of the Netherlands, there isn't a whole lot of difference in the culture, urban vs rural, economic, etc divides that occur in nations because the Netherlands is a physically small place.

 

However, if you are talking about Russia, Canada, the USA, Australia, and other physically big countries, PR is not really suitable. In my country of Canada, PR would mean that urban areas would be vastly over-represented while rural areas would be ignored. And the issues that face rural areas would be completely subsumed into the city folk. It would be a disaster!

 

PR is great in a small area with common interests

 

PR sucks badly in physically big countries with a large variety of interests, geography and economies.

 

When you are a big country, constituencies are the best. 

I hear others make that argument as well. The size of the country is absolutely irrelevant. Even in the Netherlands there are rural areas...

 

How someone can claim that a vote on the US presidential election from someone living on Manhattan should count way less, then a vote from someone in some small town in Utah defies logic and disqualifies proper democracy. 

 

The fact that there are several layers of government at local and state levels further invalidates the point you are making. This is about governance of the country as a whole. And as such it should not matter where the person that votes lives. I personally find it highly ironic that the US is stuck with one of the biggest idiots on the planet, because of their crazy electoral system.

 

And to edit, the parts of the country that generates the most revenue should also have representation in line with the tax revenue brought in, that is only fair.

Edited November 18, 2017 by sjaak327

[bannork]

15 hours ago, robblok said:

I totally disagree respectfully as its not a good representation of the total picture vote wise. There was a real small number 80 or so that came from the other vote. Give me proportinal representation all the time. The local people can be elected in local elections. That is how it works where I come from, and we don't get crazy stuff like in the US where a majority does not get the president they should have had but one of the other party. Total votes are most important.

Local people voted in in local elections don't have a say in national politics.The people need representatives at national level of policy making.

In my view the mixture gave a nice balance. The party list MPs ensured the party and policies chosen were represented too.

 

[Samui Bodoh]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Guess you don't believe in democracy where the majority of voters rule but you want to give power to a minority (country folk) with a strange system. No wonder your such a Shin fan if you don't like democracy. 

 

In a democracy its about total votes in a country any other way is crazy and you get issues like in the US.

 

You seem to assume that the Netherlands have no rural parts or urban vs rual economics. They are there too I came from rural area. You seem to assume a lot about the Netherlands and dismiss my experience in proportional voting as it does not suit your needs for the Shins. 

 

There is almost no possibility for a multiparty system in constituency voting. Its mainly suited for 2 party systems. Votes for smaller parties in constituency voting are just lost if they don't get a majority in a constituency. That does not happen in proportional voting. You could have 20% of votes in each and every constituency but no MP's at all as other parties always win.. seems totally unfair. 

I give up.

 

You had an opportunity to learn something, but instead you want to have the idiotic Shin discussion.

 

You are a waste of time.

 

Good night.

 

[robblok]

Just now, Samui Bodoh said:

I give up.

 

You had an opportunity to learn something, but instead you want to have the idiotic Shin discussion.

 

You are a waste of time.

 

Good night.

 

I just don't agree with you system of voting I am pro proportional voting and against constituency voting. I have always been that way it is not connected to my political bias. You were on my skin a lot in your post i push back and you run. No problem. But I seriously feel proportional voting is the way to go and this system they have thought up now is better as before but they should have ditched all of the constituency connections. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, bannork said:

Local people voted in in local elections don't have a say in national politics.The people need representatives at national level of policy making.

In my view the mixture gave a nice balance. The party list MPs ensured the party and policies chosen were represented too.

 

Normally the parties operating at national level and those on local level are the same (at least they are in the Netherlands). So people vote once for national elections and once for local elections. There is of course a connection between the local and the national level parties. 

IMHO the balance was gone with the 400 to 80 divide. 

 

But I am bias to proportional voting as I was brought up with it and I just don't find it fair to smaller parties how their votes are lost in constitutional voting, while if you count them all up they do represent a large part of a population. It totally misrepresents the votes as they are cast (especially if there are many parties). 

[andersonat]

 

Could someone more informed about this than I am please tell me if there will be *any* room for "Independents" in the new Parliament  -  or must *every* (successful) candidate be a party-member ?

 

 - Because if this were to be the case ... then it doesn't sound fair, or locally democratic.

[wakeupplease]

So when the reds get power, I wonder what the yellows will say then.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

At least its proportional now for a large part, better as the constituency crap. 

Thailand's new electoral system is Mixed Member Apportionment representation, not Mixed Member Proportional representation. The latter is used in Germany, examined by the CDC in the field and rejected.

 

MMA reduces the electoral fortunes of Pheu Thai. MMA also boosts the prospects of medium-sized political parties with strong constituency bases (something the previously proposed MMP failed to do), while limiting the gains for the Democrats and small parties that compete mainly through the party list.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/02/the-effects-of-thailands-proposed-electoral-system/#mVtgoCEgULtMOUpd.97

 

I expect pro-military and royalist "advocates," perhaps in association of a Suthep led party might reach the level of a medium-sized nationwide party to become the political pivot in the formation of any coalition government that will nominate a PM to form a government. PM Prayut?

[candide]

I think comparison with other countries,  such as the Netherlands, USA or Germany is not relevant. These countries have tried to design the best system for their people, according to their specific historical experience. It is also necesary to take into account the whole system, not only the lower house. In Germany, for example, you cannot consider the Bundestag without taking into account the Bundesrat . Just as you cannot consider the French parliament without taking into account the role of the directly elected president.

 

For Thailand, the objective is clearly to get the best system for the Junta and the political faction it represents. It is to make sure a relative minority party will have enough MPs in order to be able to side with the senate appointed by the Junta. Only 125 MPs out of 500 are necessary to get an unelected PM.

 

Other considerations are simply not relevant. In democratic countries such as the Netherlands, the US, UK or Germany, you cannot do that. Parties may need to make coalitions with other elected MPs, but not with a Senate appointed by a mlitary Junta.

[Samui Bodoh]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

I think comparison with other countries,  such as the Netherlands, USA or Germany is not relevant. These countries have tried to design the best system for their people, according to their specific historical experience. It is also necesary to take into account the whole system, not only the lower house. In Germany, for example, you cannot consider the Bundestag without taking into account the Bundesrat . Just as you cannot consider the French parliament without taking into account the role of the directly elected president.

 

For Thailand, the objective is clearly to get the best system for the Junta and the political faction it represents. It is to make sure a relative minority party will have enough MPs in order to be able to side with the senate appointed by the Junta. Only 125 MPs out of 500 are necessary to get an unelected PM.

 

Other considerations are simply not relevant. In democratic countries such as the Netherlands, the US, UK or Germany, you cannot do that. Parties may need to make coalitions with other elected MPs, but not with a Senate appointed by a mlitary Junta.

Good post.

 

I would add one other factor. the systems in the countries mentioned above evolved over time through trial and error to become systems that worked for that individual country.

 

The Thai system is being designed to achieve a specific objective.

 

It won't last.

[Samui Bodoh]

8 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

I hear others make that argument as well. The size of the country is absolutely irrelevant. Even in the Netherlands there are rural areas...

 

How someone can claim that a vote on the US presidential election from someone living on Manhattan should count way less, then a vote from someone in some small town in Utah defies logic and disqualifies proper democracy. 

 

The fact that there are several layers of government at local and state levels further invalidates the point you are making. This is about governance of the country as a whole. And as such it should not matter where the person that votes lives. I personally find it highly ironic that the US is stuck with one of the biggest idiots on the planet, because of their crazy electoral system.

 

And to edit, the parts of the country that generates the most revenue should also have representation in line with the tax revenue brought in, that is only fair.

Hmm... let me take these point by point.

 

"The size of the country is absolutely irrelevant. Even in the Netherlands there are rural areas..."

Yes, there are rural areas in the Netherlands, but it is not quite the same as rural areas in large countries. Canada has two provinces that are bigger than all of western Europe combined. The difference between rural areas in Canada and rural areas in the Netherlands is immense. Sorry, they are not comparable.

 

"How someone can claim that a vote on the US presidential election from someone living on Manhattan should count way less, then a vote from someone in some small town in Utah defies logic and disqualifies proper democracy. "

Sorry, I am not sure what the point of this is. Yes, sometimes votes count a bit more or less depending on geography and several other factors, but that is a flaw in many systems. In a PR system there are compromises made when forming a government, and thus no party ever gives exactly, 100% of what it promised its constituents. No system does.

 

"The fact that there are several layers of government at local and state levels further invalidates the point you are making. This is about governance of the country as a whole. And as such it should not matter where the person that votes lives. I personally find it highly ironic that the US is stuck with one of the biggest idiots on the planet, because of their crazy electoral system."

I find this confusing... Let me give an example of why I believe this to be mistaken. Foreign affairs and diplomacy are national issues. In Canada, some of our population is geographically focused on Asia, while some are focused on Europe/US. It does matter where people live as that effects their point of view. Both are legitimate and both deserve a voice. A constituency system allows for both those voices.

 

I fully agree that the current US President is an idiot!

 

"And to edit, the parts of the country that generates the most revenue should also have representation in line with the tax revenue brought in, that is only fair."

Sorry, I do not agree that a person's vote should be based on income. Rich people and poor people are simply people; they have the same rights.

 

@sjaak327, I am guessing that you are from Europe, and thus don't quite understand the sheer size of some other countries. In Canada, the urban areas and the rural areas are sometimes thousands of kilometers apart, and they have VERY different viewpoints. The constituency system allows for representatives from both urban and rural areas to have a voice. It works!

[halloween]

22 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?

Under the new system the 49% who do not vote for a candidate still get some representation. If that prevents ONE criminal from buying a government with electoral bribes, should we consider that to be undemocratic?

[Srikcir]

56 minutes ago, halloween said:

If that prevents ONE criminal from buying a government with electoral bribes, should we consider that to be undemocratic?

A curious question wherein some posters commend a military coup-led government that rules by absolute power. The Thai military over the last seven decades has never allowed itself to be constrained by any democratic system of government, ie., sovereignty of the Thai people via a constitution.

When taken as a whole, the structure of the MMA is not intended to promote democracy. In effect the MMA in conjunction with the junta's new organic election laws controlling party registration,  candidate qualifications and nominations will diminish if not negate the "All Votes Count" philosophy as presented by the CDC.

[robblok]

I think comparison with other countries,  such as the Netherlands, USA or Germany is not relevant. These countries have tried to design the best system for their people, according to their specific historical experience. It is also necesary to take into account the whole system, not only the lower house. In Germany, for example, you cannot consider the Bundestag without taking into account the Bundesrat . Just as you cannot consider the French parliament without taking into account the role of the directly elected president.
 
For Thailand, the objective is clearly to get the best system for the Junta and the political faction it represents. It is to make sure a relative minority party will have enough MPs in order to be able to side with the senate appointed by the Junta. Only 125 MPs out of 500 are necessary to get an unelected PM.
 
Other considerations are simply not relevant. In democratic countries such as the Netherlands, the US, UK or Germany, you cannot do that. Parties may need to make coalitions with other elected MPs, but not with a Senate appointed by a mlitary Junta.

That is your opinion my opinion is that anything that gives smaller parties a chance and gets closer to the only really fair system of proportional voting is a blessing.

When it's easier for small parties to begin the old 2 party (practically i know there were more parties but because of that crap system that uses constituencies they never got a fair chance) system that brought so much strife.

That is makes it harder for the PTP is a bonus but not why i support this. I support it because i genuinely feel proportional voting is the best system. Otherwise votes in high populace constituencies have less value as those of lower populace ones.

Plus like i said the constituency system is unfair to smaller parties. They can have 20% of all votes but still no MPs cant imagine that anyone would consider that fair.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Srikcir]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

Plus like i said the constituency system is unfair to smaller parties.

Make that the whole MMA electoral system.

"The option to compete solely on the party list, allowed under MMP and the 2011 electoral system, would disappear under MMA. Thus the irony of a system that has purportedly been designed to help smaller parties: in theory, a proportional electoral system with no threshold would be good for small parties, but no separate party list vote will make it difficult for new small parties with no local base to compete."
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/02/the-effects-of-thailands-proposed-electoral-system/#PkxLIpz0BsyTpWPZ.97

Big and small sized parties out. Well financed medium sized parties in such as Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Pattana Pheu Paendin, and to a lesser extent, Chart Thai Pattana.
 

[sjaak327]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Hmm... let me take these point by point.

 

"The size of the country is absolutely irrelevant. Even in the Netherlands there are rural areas..."

Yes, there are rural areas in the Netherlands, but it is not quite the same as rural areas in large countries. Canada has two provinces that are bigger than all of western Europe combined. The difference between rural areas in Canada and rural areas in the Netherlands is immense. Sorry, they are not comparable.

 

"How someone can claim that a vote on the US presidential election from someone living on Manhattan should count way less, then a vote from someone in some small town in Utah defies logic and disqualifies proper democracy. "

Sorry, I am not sure what the point of this is. Yes, sometimes votes count a bit more or less depending on geography and several other factors, but that is a flaw in many systems. In a PR system there are compromises made when forming a government, and thus no party ever gives exactly, 100% of what it promised its constituents. No system does.

 

"The fact that there are several layers of government at local and state levels further invalidates the point you are making. This is about governance of the country as a whole. And as such it should not matter where the person that votes lives. I personally find it highly ironic that the US is stuck with one of the biggest idiots on the planet, because of their crazy electoral system."

I find this confusing... Let me give an example of why I believe this to be mistaken. Foreign affairs and diplomacy are national issues. In Canada, some of our population is geographically focused on Asia, while some are focused on Europe/US. It does matter where people live as that effects their point of view. Both are legitimate and both deserve a voice. A constituency system allows for both those voices.

 

I fully agree that the current US President is an idiot!

 

"And to edit, the parts of the country that generates the most revenue should also have representation in line with the tax revenue brought in, that is only fair."

Sorry, I do not agree that a person's vote should be based on income. Rich people and poor people are simply people; they have the same rights.

 

@sjaak327, I am guessing that you are from Europe, and thus don't quite understand the sheer size of some other countries. In Canada, the urban areas and the rural areas are sometimes thousands of kilometers apart, and they have VERY different viewpoints. The constituency system allows for representatives from both urban and rural areas to have a voice. It works!

I understand perfectly well, it is just that I disagree. In a democracy the majority counts, and to establish that majority a vote from someone living on Manhattan should carry the same weight as a vote from someone living in hicksville Utah. 

 

Furthermore, I never talked about voter income, I am talking about an area's contribution to the economy. You seem to believe these people should have less influence then the people living in the middle of nowhere. 

 

Unjust, unfair and it quite clearly defies logic. The system in the US does not really cater to people in rural areas, it caters to peoole living in a few swing states, and the people targetted in those states live in the major cities of those states.

[candide]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

That is your opinion my opinion is that anything that gives smaller parties a chance and gets closer to the only really fair system of proportional voting is a blessing.

When it's easier for small parties to begin the old 2 party (practically i know there were more parties but because of that crap system that uses constituencies they never got a fair chance) system that brought so much strife.

That is makes it harder for the PTP is a bonus but not why i support this. I support it because i genuinely feel proportional voting is the best system. Otherwise votes in high populace constituencies have less value as those of lower populace ones.

Plus like i said the constituency system is unfair to smaller parties. They can have 20% of all votes but still no MPs cant imagine that anyone would consider that fair.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

I am not saying you don't have a valid point "in general". But it is about Thailand. You often cited the Netherlands, but in your country there is not a constitution written by a Junta in order to allow them to keep control despite elections. 

 

In your country the system, as you rightly mentions, is designed to prevent the party with most votes from dominating, unless they get at least 50% of votes.

 

In Thailand, the system is designed to allow a minority party (not the one with the most votes) to dominate by siding with a Senate appointed by the Junta.

[pornprong]

11 hours ago, halloween said:

Under the new system the 49% who do not vote for a candidate still get some representation. If that prevents ONE criminal from buying a government with electoral bribes, should we consider that to be undemocratic?

How democratic is an "outsider PM"?

How democratic is a fully appointed Senate?

How Democratic is an unelected 20 year plan steering committee?

 

Your obsession with Thaksin blinds you.

[robblok]

Make that the whole MMA electoral system.
"The option to compete solely on the party list, allowed under MMP and the 2011 electoral system, would disappear under MMA. Thus the irony of a system that has purportedly been designed to help smaller parties: in theory, a proportional electoral system with no threshold would be good for small parties, but no separate party list vote will make it difficult for new small parties with no local base to compete."
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/02/the-effects-of-thailands-proposed-electoral-system/#PkxLIpz0BsyTpWPZ.97
Big and small sized parties out. Well financed medium sized parties in such as Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Pattana Pheu Paendin, and to a lesser extent, Chart Thai Pattana.
 

I agree should be wholly proportional but at least its a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[robblok]

I am not saying you don't have a valid point "in general". But it is about Thailand. You often cited the Netherlands, but in your country there is not a constitution written by a Junta in order to allow them to keep control despite elections. 
 
In your country the system, as you rightly mentions, is designed to prevent the party with most votes from dominating, unless they get at least 50% of votes.
 
In Thailand, the system is designed to allow a minority party (not the one with the most votes) to dominate by siding with a Senate appointed by the Junta.

Progress takes time this is a step in the right direction. However there are indeed undesired side effects.

A wholly progressive voting system based on a party list would be better. I really dislike voting based on constitutes as it really has many drawbacks as its against small parties and allows a party with less than 50% of the total votes still get a majority and IMHO does not represent a true democracy. Look at the USA where a majority did not even get a president.

Still the junta might have alternative motives but it opens up the way for non junta parties to grow and force the bigger parties to up their game.

Too bad its not from a party list as now it is expensive to start a new party but at least its easier and better than in the past. We need other new faces in politics and this makes it easier.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[pornprong]

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

I agree should be wholly proportional but at least its a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Ever wonder why very, very few countries have proportional systems??

 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-8

 

A government that cannot function is worthless.

 

Effective, transformative governments only arise from having a majority in the lower house without the horse trading required to form coalitions.

 

Multiparty coalitions are weak governments and breeding grounds for corruption.....exactly what the Junta wants.

[pornprong]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Progress takes time this is a step in the right direction. However there are indeed undesired side effects.

A wholly progressive voting system based on a party list would be better. I really dislike voting based on constitutes as it really has many drawbacks as its against small parties and allows a party with less than 50% of the total votes still get a majority and IMHO does not represent a true democracy. Look at the USA where a majority did not even get a president.

Still the junta might have alternative motives but it opens up the way for non junta parties to grow and force the bigger parties to up their game.

Too bad its not from a party list as now it is expensive to start a new party but at least its easier and better than in the past. We need other new faces in politics and this makes it easier.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Why are small parties small?

Because they have very little support - if they had mass support, they would be big parties.

 

Electoral systems based on constituencies have far less flaws than fully proportional systems.

 

You don't seem to understand the US system. Presidents are elected via the Electoral College - nothing at all to do with constituencies.

[sjaak327]

21 minutes ago, pornprong said:

Why are small parties small?

Because they have very little support - if they had mass support, they would be big parties.

 

Electoral systems based on constituencies have far less flaws than fully proportional systems.

 

You don't seem to understand the US system. Presidents are elected via the Electoral College - nothing at all to do with constituencies.

I think he does understand the US system. The electoral college is all about discarding votes, it has very little to do with democracy. It is an utterly flawed system. But alas those Americans have the audacity to lecture others about democracy. Meanwhile those same Americans are stuck with someone that would never have reached that position if a proportional system had been used. 

 

The US became a laughing stock after the Bush versus Gore debacle, but you proved yourself to stupid to fix that flawed system, a system devised by the founding fathers centuries ago, it might have made sense then, it does not now.

[candide]

48 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

I am not saying you don't have a valid point "in general". But it is about Thailand. You often cited the Netherlands, but in your country there is not a constitution written by a Junta in order to allow them to keep control despite elections. 
 
In your country the system, as you rightly mentions, is designed to prevent the party with most votes from dominating, unless they get at least 50% of votes.
 
In Thailand, the system is designed to allow a minority party (not the one with the most votes) to dominate by siding with a Senate appointed by the Junta.

Progress takes time this is a step in the right direction. However there are indeed undesired side effects.

A wholly progressive voting system based on a party list would be better. I really dislike voting based on constitutes as it really has many drawbacks as its against small parties and allows a party with less than 50% of the total votes still get a majority and IMHO does not represent a true democracy. Look at the USA where a majority did not even get a president.

Still the junta might have alternative motives but it opens up the way for non junta parties to grow and force the bigger parties to up their game.

 

It clearly opens up the way for a minority Junta party with less votes than others to dominate by siding with a Senate appointed by the Junta.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I agree should be wholly proportional but at least its a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

 

Presently nobody is stepping anywhere. 

 

[robblok]

Ever wonder why very, very few countries have proportional systems??
 
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-8
 
A government that cannot function is worthless.
 
Effective, transformative governments only arise from having a majority in the lower house without the horse trading required to form coalitions.
 
Multiparty coalitions are weak governments and breeding grounds for corruption.....exactly what the Junta wants.

I don't wonder about it, its to keep new parties out and maintain an undemocratic form of government.

Your points are moot if you look at the US as an example. Even with a majority they are indecisive and need support of another to change the debt ceiling.

I understand why not many have such a real democratic system its mainly based on the past. Colonisation by the UK spread the system and once those in power were in power they wanted to make it hard for new parties to enter.

I am not surprised you defend such a system as it clearly benefited the party you support. You claim you like democracy but true democracy as in a proportional system is too much for you as it does not benefit the Shins.

I feel the junta made an improvement but did not go far enough to make it truly proportional with only a playlist selection as that would make it even better for new parties to emerge.

This would shake things up as we seen that the current 2 party system does not work. I know there are more parties but because of the constituencies it basically became a 2 party system.

I guess the real Shin lovers in here would hate it if an other party emerged. I am not in favour of an army party but if people want to vote on them so be it.

If the army is as hated as many here think then it would not have a chance at all and deflate Prayut his ego.

Personally i rather see other new more honest parties emerge.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk