@smutcakes,

 

Though i like the Dutch system it has worked against me too, this year a coalition had to be formed and the small Christian parties had power and made some demands about euthanasia, I am against that but that is just how it is can't win them all. I still find it a good thing how the system works. 

 

Believe me I am not happy about it at all, but I am happy that every vote counts the same and we don't have the wacky american system where you can have a marjority in votes but still not win elections. But yes this system too has its drawbacks too, just how you look at it. 

I wonder if the Dem Party has been winning past elections by a majority, will the junta still feel it is fair for the voters to change to this MMA system. Just a rhetorical question.  

25 minutes ago, robblok said:

(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. 

You have this so wrong that I do not know where to begin.

 

"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." 

It will not go either way. You complain about politicians and corruption endlessly, but now you think they are clean and upright? That they will prevent each other from being corrupt? 

 

"But what is so wrong that every vote has the same value now and that smaller parties will be recognized too." 

Every vote does NOT have the same value in any situation of forming a government unless each and every party has the identical number of seats. If one party has 90 seats, another has 10 seats and 100 seats are required for a majority, the votes are not equal. Your assertion is plain wrong.

 

"We have seen how well that worked in the past."

No, we haven't because of the coups.

 

"I am actually quite happy with this system. Though I admit it could give small parties much power."

Above you say that every vote has the same power, but now, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, you say that small parties have too much power.

 

"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. "

Er... Ahem... Thaksin did not get amnesty. 

 

"This is how it has worked in the Netherlands for ages making compromises and coalitions"

This is not the Netherlands. This is Thailand. Further, the Dutch system was not shoved down people's throat by an un-elected constitution commission after a coup. It evolved over a long time with the consent of the people.

 

"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."

Who cares about the USA? Again, this is Thailand. The US system was designed for the USA. BTW, for Americans, those "strange rules" actually make some sense.

 

"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. "

No, in a system that essentially forces coalitions, you make SMALLER parties' votes more valuable to the detriment of the majority.

 

The current system punishes large parties with many supporters. While Democracies need to recognize and respect the needs of minorities, they are based on the idea of majority rule.

 

This system is designed to prevent the 'Reds' from forming a majority. Period.

 

1 minute ago, Samui Bodoh said:

You have this so wrong that I do not know where to begin.

 

"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." 

It will not go either way. You complain about politicians and corruption endlessly, but now you think they are clean and upright? That they will prevent each other from being corrupt? 

 

"But what is so wrong that every vote has the same value now and that smaller parties will be recognized too." 

Every vote does NOT have the same value in any situation of forming a government unless each and every party has the identical number of seats. If one party has 90 seats, another has 10 seats and 100 seats are required for a majority, the votes are not equal. Your assertion is plain wrong.

 

"We have seen how well that worked in the past."

No, we haven't because of the coups.

 

"I am actually quite happy with this system. Though I admit it could give small parties much power."

Above you say that every vote has the same power, but now, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, you say that small parties have too much power.

 

"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. "

Er... Ahem... Thaksin did not get amnesty. 

 

"This is how it has worked in the Netherlands for ages making compromises and coalitions"

This is not the Netherlands. This is Thailand. Further, the Dutch system was not shoved down people's throat by an un-elected constitution commission after a coup. It evolved over a long time with the consent of the people.

 

"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."

Who cares about the USA? Again, this is Thailand. The US system was designed for the USA. BTW, for Americans, those "strange rules" actually make some sense.

 

"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. "

No, in a system that essentially forces coalitions, you make SMALLER parties' votes more valuable to the detriment of the majority.

 

The current system punishes large parties with many supporters. While Democracies need to recognize and respect the needs of minorities, they are based on the idea of majority rule.

 

This system is designed to prevent the 'Reds' from forming a majority. Period.

 

The system is a good system every vote has the same value, in the old system votes on small parties are lost. Now they are not. 

 

As for corruption, that could go either way if a coalition is formed i still stand by that opinion.

 

I said it could give them too much power, that depends on how badly the main party wants to be in power. Remember I come from a country were such a system has been in operation for years so I have seen it all. I guess you havent so you can't really judge about it. I have seen how a party lost votes in the next election as they gave too much concessions to a smaller party. So it really depend son the voters and how badly the other party wants to form a coalition.

 

I care about a system where if you have 45% of the votes you get 45% of the MPs and I like it that if you have a majority of votes you win the election. That is not that way in the US and was not the way here before because of the bonus seats given out.  So i prefer a much fairer system where all votes counted. You obviously don't care about that as long as the reds win.

 

No smaller parties votes are not more valuable because in the next election they can punish the party if they have given in too much to the small party. We have seen this in the past in my country. Again, this is something you have no experience with but I do as I am from a country with a multiparty system like that. Does it always work well, nope but IMHO much fairer then the current system where you can totally ignore smaller parties.

 

The democracy is still based on majority rule because now parties come together and make a coalition a majority instead of having a majority even when you have under 50% of the votes because of the bonus seats. I guess its fair that for instance 45% of votes on a party could make them have a majority while in reality 55% of the votes is in hands of others. and is a true majority Sound fair (NOT)

55 minutes ago, robblok said:

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. 

For an alleged accountant, you're not very good with numbers.

Thailand's Constituency seats are conducted under a first past the post system.

It make no difference what the plurality is - you get the most votes, you win.

There is no relationship between percentage of vote won and seats won..... only plurality per seat.

In an election where there are 100 voters and two candidates - 51 votes will win the seat (51 v 49) - 51% of the vote

In an election where there are 100 voters and 3 candidates - 34 can win (34 v 33 v 33) - 34% of the vote

It is this dilution of the vote by having multiple candidates that reduces the winners total percentage of the votes.

If there are 10 candidates, depending on how the numbers fall - 11 can be a winning number (11 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 9) - 11% of the vote

 

This is what the Junta are taking advantage of when it comes to distributing the Party List seats.

 

Tell me Robblok, why do you think the Junta have gone with the one ballot for two elections Party List gerrymander?

They could simply have 500 Constituency seats each representing 60,000 voters - most seats wins.

Why do you think they avoided this simple option?

Or....why not be truly proportional and have one ballot and whatever percentage of the vote your party wins you get that many seats - why do you think they also avoided this simple option.

 

It doesn't take a genius to answer any of these questions.

 

7 hours ago, robblok said:

What do you think is wrong with a system where MP seats are based on the amount of votes.

CDC Chairman Meechai said the MMA was newly designed and nothing like it existed anywhere in the world.

“So, would it be a problem if we were to adopt this system considered suitable for Thailand,

but no countries have used it?” http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MMA-challenges-fairness-of-elections-30272058.html

It's a problem if it turns out not to be suitable for Thailand and fails to deliver an open and free election for a majority representative government. Time, effort and funds wasted by a government that would rather remain in power.

1 minute ago, pornprong said:

For an alleged accountant, you're not very good with numbers.

Thailand's Constituency seats are conducted under a first past the post system.

It make no difference what the plurality is - you get the most votes, you win.

There is no relationship between percentage of vote won and seats won..... only plurality per seat.

In an election where there are 100 voters and two candidates - 51 votes will win the seat (51 v 49) - 51% of the vote

In an election where there are 100 voters and 3 candidates - 34 can win (34 v 33 v 33) - 34% of the vote

It is this dilution of the vote by having multiple candidates that reduces the winners total percentage of the votes.

If there are 10 candidates, depending on how the numbers fall - 11 can be a winning number (11 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 10 v 9) - 11% of the vote

 

This is what the Junta are taking advantage of when it comes to distributing the Party List seats.

 

Tell me Robblok, why do you think the Junta have gone with the one ballot for two elections Party List gerrymander?

They could simply have 500 Constituency seats each representing 60,000 voters - most seats wins.

Why do you think they avoided this simple option?

Or....why not be truly proportional and have one ballot and whatever percentage of the vote your party wins you get that many seats - why do you think they also avoided this simple option.

 

It doesn't take a genius to answer any of these questions.

 

I guess your not good with numbers at all.

 

34% you don't win you need to form a coalition. 

 

My point being if you have 10% of the votes of 45% or 52% you get the number of MP seats based on that number. That is totally fair. The whole constituency seat thing is a sham, just count the total votes like they want to do now and allocate MP seats based on that (what they are doing in a way now). 

 

Your second question about being truly proportional, i thought this system was truly proportional. That is how I read it anyway, it does away (by a way around) with the constituency thing and goes for proportional. Because in the end it is always the number of votes that limits your MP's. That makes it truly proportional, why they did not do away with the whole constituency thing I have no Idea (honestly). Might be that they wan't people to run for a constituency and not as party list MP's and also give less power to the party to distribute seats. But in the end it it a truly proportional system. I would have liked that even more as it is better. But it does not do away that in the end now they made it in a way that its proportional only who gets the seats is a bit different. 

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

CDC Chairman Meechai said the MMA was newly designed and nothing like it existed anywhere in the world.

“So, would it be a problem if we were to adopt this system considered suitable for Thailand,

but no countries have used it?” http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MMA-challenges-fairness-of-elections-30272058.html

It's a problem if it turns out not to be suitable for Thailand and fails to deliver an open and free election for a majority representative government. Time, effort and funds wasted by a government that would rather remain in power.

Should have made it truly proportional, I agree but based on amounts it truly proportional, only the selection of names is now harder for the parties giving them less power.

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

The system is a good system every vote has the same value, in the old system votes on small parties are lost. Now they are not. 

 

As for corruption, that could go either way if a coalition is formed i still stand by that opinion.

 

I said it could give them too much power, that depends on how badly the main party wants to be in power. Remember I come from a country were such a system has been in operation for years so I have seen it all. I guess you havent so you can't really judge about it. I have seen how a party lost votes in the next election as they gave too much concessions to a smaller party. So it really depend son the voters and how badly the other party wants to form a coalition.

 

I care about a system where if you have 45% of the votes you get 45% of the MPs and I like it that if you have a majority of votes you win the election. That is not that way in the US and was not the way here before because of the bonus seats given out.  So i prefer a much fairer system where all votes counted. You obviously don't care about that as long as the reds win.

 

No smaller parties votes are not more valuable because in the next election they can punish the party if they have given in too much to the small party. We have seen this in the past in my country. Again, this is something you have no experience with but I do as I am from a country with a multiparty system like that. Does it always work well, nope but IMHO much fairer then the current system where you can totally ignore smaller parties.

 

The democracy is still based on majority rule because now parties come together and make a coalition a majority instead of having a majority even when you have under 50% of the votes because of the bonus seats. I guess its fair that for instance 45% of votes on a party could make them have a majority while in reality 55% of the votes is in hands of others. and is a true majority Sound fair (NOT)

Again, your... posting leaves me speechless, almost.

 

"The system is a good system every vote has the same value, in the old system votes on small parties are lost. Now they are not. "

Yes, some votes are lost IN EVERY KNOWN POLITICAL SYSTEM EVER DEVISED. Including this one.

 

"As for corruption, that could go either way if a coalition is formed i still stand by that opinion."

Fair enough. However, it flies in the face of all knowledge and experience of Thai politics for the last 50 or so years. But hey, anything is possible...

 

"I said it could give them too much power, that depends on how badly the main party wants to be in power. Remember I come from a country were such a system has been in operation for years so I have seen it all. I guess you havent so you can't really judge about it. I have seen how a party lost votes in the next election as they gave too much concessions to a smaller party. So it really depend son the voters and how badly the other party wants to form a coalition."

This is just gobbledygook. This is NOT the Dutch system, so whatever experience that you think you have does not apply. Apples and oranges. And BTW, do you really think you can predict how voters are going to feel after using a system that has never been tried before? If yes, you really should play the lottery...

 

"I care about a system where if you have 45% of the votes you get 45% of the MPs and I like it that if you have a majority of votes you win the election. That is not that way in the US and was not the way here before because of the bonus seats given out.  So i prefer a much fairer system where all votes counted. You obviously don't care about that as long as the reds win."

Er...what? sorry, I am just confused by this one...

 

"No smaller parties votes are not more valuable because in the next election they can punish the party if they have given in too much to the small party. We have seen this in the past in my country. Again, this is something you have no experience with but I do as I am from a country with a multiparty system like that. Does it always work well, nope but IMHO much fairer then the current system where you can totally ignore smaller parties."

Again Er... what? The votes of the smaller parties are not more valuable because they might be used a certain way sometime in the future? Er...what? 

 

"The democracy is still based on majority rule because now parties come together and make a coalition a majority instead of having a majority even when you have under 50% of the votes because of the bonus seats. I guess its fair that for instance 45% of votes on a party could make them have a majority while in reality 55% of the votes is in hands of others. and is a true majority Sound fair (NOT)"

You are talking about  truly proportional system, but Thailand does not and never has had a proportional system. How does this relates to Thailand?

 

Forgive me, but your arguments really do not make a lot of sense. Sorry.

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I guess your not good with numbers at all.

 

34% you don't win you need to form a coalition. 

 

My point being if you have 10% of the votes of 45% or 52% you get the number of MP seats based on that number. That is totally fair. The whole constituency seat thing is a sham, just count the total votes like they want to do now and allocate MP seats based on that (what they are doing in a way now). 

 

Your second question about being truly proportional, i thought this system was truly proportional. That is how I read it anyway, it does away (by a way around) with the constituency thing and goes for proportional. Because in the end it is always the number of votes that limits your MP's. That makes it truly proportional, why they did not do away with the whole constituency thing I have no Idea (honestly). Might be that they wan't people to run for a constituency and not as party list MP's and also give less power to the party to distribute seats. But in the end it it a truly proportional system. I would have liked that even more as it is better. But it does not do away that in the end now they made it in a way that its proportional only who gets the seats is a bit different. 

Geez mate, you really are struggling.

 

34% can win a Constituency seat if there are three candidates.

It is possible to win all 350 Constituency seats with 34% of the vote in each seat (if there are at least 3 candidates in each seat)

This is the point you continue to not understand - the number of Constituency seats won has zero correlation to percentage of votes won.

It is possible to win the most total votes and still receive less seats if your victories are large and your defeats small on a per seat basis.

 

The fact that you think this system is truly proportional shows your total lack of understanding of this ridiculous system and also causes me a great deal of concern for your accountancy clients.

2 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Again, your... posting leaves me speechless, almost.

 

"The system is a good system every vote has the same value, in the old system votes on small parties are lost. Now they are not. "

Yes, some votes are lost IN EVERY KNOWN POLITICAL SYSTEM EVER DEVISED. Including this one.

 

"As for corruption, that could go either way if a coalition is formed i still stand by that opinion."

Fair enough. However, it flies in the face of all knowledge and experience of Thai politics for the last 50 or so years. But hey, anything is possible...

 

"I said it could give them too much power, that depends on how badly the main party wants to be in power. Remember I come from a country were such a system has been in operation for years so I have seen it all. I guess you havent so you can't really judge about it. I have seen how a party lost votes in the next election as they gave too much concessions to a smaller party. So it really depend son the voters and how badly the other party wants to form a coalition."

This is just gobbledygook. This is NOT the Dutch system, so whatever experience that you think you have does not apply. Apples and oranges. And BTW, do you really think you can predict how voters are going to feel after using a system that has never been tried before? If yes, you really should play the lottery...

 

"I care about a system where if you have 45% of the votes you get 45% of the MPs and I like it that if you have a majority of votes you win the election. That is not that way in the US and was not the way here before because of the bonus seats given out.  So i prefer a much fairer system where all votes counted. You obviously don't care about that as long as the reds win."

Er...what? sorry, I am just confused by this one...

 

"No smaller parties votes are not more valuable because in the next election they can punish the party if they have given in too much to the small party. We have seen this in the past in my country. Again, this is something you have no experience with but I do as I am from a country with a multiparty system like that. Does it always work well, nope but IMHO much fairer then the current system where you can totally ignore smaller parties."

Again Er... what? The votes of the smaller parties are not more valuable because they might be used a certain way sometime in the future? Er...what? 

 

"The democracy is still based on majority rule because now parties come together and make a coalition a majority instead of having a majority even when you have under 50% of the votes because of the bonus seats. I guess its fair that for instance 45% of votes on a party could make them have a majority while in reality 55% of the votes is in hands of others. and is a true majority Sound fair (NOT)"

You are talking about  truly proportional system, but Thailand does not and never has had a proportional system. How does this relates to Thailand?

 

Forgive me, but your arguments really do not make a lot of sense. Sorry.

Because you have never had a proportional system, you are saying my experience does not count because you have none about it. You are trying to ignore that I have more knowledge here then you do (as I lived in a proportional system).

 

That it is not making sense is because you don't want it to make sense.

 

In a proportional system votes are NOT lost like in the current system if all comes from constituencies the smaller parties always lose out. Their votes in constituencies where they don't get a majority are lost, not so in a proportional system. So a party could have many times 20% votes and they are all lost (as all the MP seats come from constituencies that is at least how I understand the system of constituencies) If I am wrong let me know. 

3 minutes ago, pornprong said:

Geez mate, you really are struggling.

 

34% can win a Constituency seat if there are three candidates.

It is possible to win all 350 Constituency seats with 34% of the vote in each seat (if there are at least 3 candidates in each seat)

This is the point you continue to not understand - the number of Constituency seats won has zero correlation to percentage of votes won.

It is possible to win the most total votes and still receive less seats if your victories are large and your defeats small on a per seat basis.

 

The fact that you think this system is truly proportional shows your total lack of understanding of this ridiculous system and also causes me a great deal of concern for your accountancy clients.

I was talking about MP's (out of total vote rule) you were talking about constituencies. Of course I understand that you can win with 34% if there are 3 candidates. 

 

That is why i think that the whole constituency system sucks.. proportionality rules. I thought this system would remove the constituencies system. I wonder how it works if you have 40% of votes but say like 50% of constituencies.  what happens then ? That is not explained here. I thought the way it was explained here that all would be corrected by the total amount of votes. That is how they explain it here. 

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I was talking about MP's (out of total vote rule) you were talking about constituencies. Of course I understand that you can win with 34% if there are 3 candidates. 

 

That is why i think that the whole constituency system sucks.. proportionality rules. I thought this system would remove the constituencies system. I wonder how it works if you have 40% of votes but say like 50% of constituencies.  what happens then ? That is not explained here. I thought the way it was explained here that all would be corrected by the total amount of votes. That is how they explain it here. 

If you weren't so busy loving the Junta maybe you would be able to actually spend a bit of time to learn what it is you're talking about before posting garbage and then spending the next 10 posts backtracking away from the nonsense.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, pornprong said:

If you weren't so busy loving the Junta maybe you would be able to actually spend a bit of time to learn what it is you're talking about before posting garbage and then spending the next 10 posts backtracking away from the nonsense.

 

 

 

 

Not defending the junta here, now tell me how it works if you think you do know. You try discussing a crazy system (constituencies) in a foreign language.. I guess your that ..... that constantly registers under an other name defending the shins. Not a single post in an other then political topic.. ah.. yes your that guy.. 

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

Because you have never had a proportional system, you are saying my experience does not count because you have none about it. You are trying to ignore that I have more knowledge here then you do (as I lived in a proportional system).

 

That it is not making sense is because you don't want it to make sense.

 

In a proportional system votes are NOT lost like in the current system if all comes from constituencies the smaller parties always lose out. Their votes in constituencies where they don't get a majority are lost, not so in a proportional system. So a party could have many times 20% votes and they are all lost (as all the MP seats come from constituencies that is at least how I understand the system of constituencies) If I am wrong let me know. 

Respectfully, we are talking about Thailand and its political system.

 

I am not really sure what you are talking about.

 

Respectfully, call it a night, dude. 

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not defending the junta here, now tell me how it works if you think you do know. You try discussing a crazy system (constituencies) in a foreign language.. I guess your that ..... that constantly registers under an other name defending the shins. Not a single post in an other then political topic.. ah.. yes your that guy.. 

In the example given in the article a party wins 13,132,563 out of 29,571,126 votes (44.4% of votes)

The same party wins 187 out of 350 Constituency seats (53.4% of seats)

Then applying the Juntas nonsense system the party is allocated 35 out of 150 Party List seats (23.3% of seats)

 

It is a crazy system aimed solely at limiting PTP, so it begs the question, why did you post:

 

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

- Sound logical to me 

- Seems totally fair to me

- What do you think is wrong with a system

- In my book its the most fair way there is

- In my book that is fair

- That is 100% fair

 

Just now, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, we are talking about Thailand and its political system.

 

I am not really sure what you are talking about.

 

Respectfully, call it a night, dude. 

As i read in WIKI is that before it was based on constituencies and parallel voting. I always thought it was based on the proportional system. To me the constitutional system makes no sens at all and is bias to large parties.  I am happy they changed it to make it at least proportional. (with some strange things).

 

IMHO proportional is the way to go and constituencies is crazy system bias to bigger parties. 

Just now, pornprong said:

In the example given in the article a party wins 13,132,563 out of 29,571,126 votes (44.4% of votes)

The same party wins 187 out of 350 Constituency seats (53.4% of seats)

Then applying the Juntas nonsense system the party is allocated 35 out of 150 Party List seats (23.3% of seats)

 

It is a crazy system aimed solely at limiting PTP, so it begs the question, why did you post:

 

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

- Sound logical to me 

- Seems totally fair to me

- What do you think is wrong with a system

- In my book its the most fair way there is

- In my book that is fair

- That is 100% fair

 

No constituencies is a totally crazy system. Proportional voting is normal to me. So yea it sounds logical to me. 

 

In the end they get 187+35 = 222  seats and that is 44,4% percent of the votes. That is logical to me. 

 

The whole constituency stuff is crap, should be totally proportional. They should have scrapped the whole constituency crap. It is bias against smaller parties and can make things happen where you have less of a majority of votes and still get a marjority of MP's and that is of course totally crazy where a proportional system reflects the true wishes of the voters. 

 

2 hours ago, robblok said:

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. 

But in this system you don't. Not to mention that this must be the most convoluted system ever invented. The people with half a brain know why....

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

But in this system you don't. Not to mention that this must be the most convoluted system ever invented. The people with half a brain know why....

How you don't get 51% of the MP's if you have 51% of the total votes, just look at the example where 44,4 % of the votes get 44,4 % of the MP's 500 x 44,4% = 222

12 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Tough for any party to win clear majority: EC

Getting back to the topic, no majority will translate to a coalition government who will not able to come to a common decision for the Prime Minister leading to Parliament impasse which warrant the upper house to step in legally. With full appointees of senators, it will have the majority votes to appoint a non elected Prime Minister. That’s the purpose of the MMA. 

@sjaak,

 

Only thing I am wondering about in this system is what if there are 10 candidates in each constituency and one party wins all the constituency seats (real hypothetical). but then the total amount of votes is far less then 70% (350 /500 * 100) how would they handle that.. as the proportionality would not allow for such a high number of seats then. 

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Getting back to the topic, no majority will translate to a coalition government who will not able to come to a common decision for the Prime Minister leading to Parliament impasse which warrant the upper house to step in legally. With full appointees of senators, it will have the majority votes to appoint a non elected Prime Minister. That’s the purpose of the MMA. 

That is an Assumption, its not like Bumjai and PTP have not worked together before. 

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

How you don't get 51% of the MP's if you have 51% of the total votes, just look at the example where 44,4 % of the votes get 44,4 % of the MP's 500 x 44,4% = 222

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.

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is an Assumption, its not like Bumjai and PTP have not worked together before. 

I based that on Anutin CEO of Sino Thai getting a lion share of the infrastructure projects. I could be wrong as you said that there will be more check and balance and less corruption in a coalition government. 

2 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.

I feel they should have totally scrapped the constituency votes, but i still feel this is better then the previous (almost totally) constituency voting system. 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

I based that on Anutin CEO of Sino Thai getting a lion share of the infrastructure projects. I could be wrong as you said that there will be more check and balance and less corruption in a coalition government. 

Who knows, if that is the fact if he gets the majority of the projects for his cooperation then corruption can be suspected and people could look for evidence of this said corruption. Would be obvious would it not.  I said there could be more check and balance and less corruption in a coalition goverment. Its not a given.

 

If it happens, him getting more infrastructure projects I am sure the NACC will investigate because it could be a sign of corruption. 

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

I feel they should have totally scrapped the constituency votes, but i still feel this is better then the previous (almost totally) constituency voting system. 

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

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.

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

If it happens, him getting more infrastructure projects I am sure the NACC will investigate because it could be a sign of corruption. 

More infrastructure seem the common feature between the junta and Sino Thai. Special law (44) was invoked to speed up Sino Thai high speed train project. Not sure the NACC much active on junta projects like the park and lavish oversea trips. Too many to mention.