Tough for any party to win clear majority: EC

[robblok]

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.

How ? They would not have enough MPs only a senate that supports them. Only if you got a majority of MPs will you be able to rule. None of their plans would ever get voted in by the MPs as they are not a majority.

I always thought and do correct me if im wrong because im not 100% sure that changes in laws and such first needed a majority of MPs before it was send off to the senate. So without enough MPs you cant send the plans to the senate.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[candide]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

How ? They would not have enough MPs only a senate that supports them. Only if you got a majority of MPs will you be able to rule. None of their plans would ever get voted in by the MPs as they are not a majority.

I always thought and do correct me if im wrong because im not 100% sure that changes in laws and such first needed a majority of MPs before it was send off to the senate. So without enough MPs you cant send the plans to the senate.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

They only need a minority of MPs to get an unelected PM thanks to the senate.

 

Now you are right to address the issue of passing laws and budget. In theory they would need a majority in parliament for that.  It would be useless for them to have an unelected PM if they still need a majority in parliament to pass laws.

 

Will there be special clauses for an unelected PM to bypass the parliament, i.e. govern by decree in case of crisis acknowledged by one of the various puppet committees? We need to wait for the details of the organic laws to come in order to mknow for sure.

[pornprong]

9 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

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.

I think you don't understand what Robblok has written.

 

Anyway, the Electoral College is about protecting the smaller states from being dominated by the larger ones - exactly what Robblok is promoting, protecting the smaller parties with proportional voting to stop them being dominated by the larger parties.

 

Proportional systems result in weak governments - better to have a system that produces results that enable governments to govern and to keep them in check with strong checks and balances, a free media and regular elections.

 

Regardless, Robblok is wrong when he blames a constituency system for electing a President with a minority of votes - it is the Electoral College system that produced that result.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

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

I agree in a perfect world where all political parties are equals in regard to their opportunity to garner votes.

In a perfect world the "military" party has no active duty military and there is a caretaker government with no connections with the military nor any of the "Five Rivers" to assure a fair and open election.

 

But that's not what Prayut will allow so long as he wields absolute power, unlimited access to the treasury and all the resources of the military machine to intimidate/suppress opposition and campaign for the military party.  Combined with the flawed mechanics of the MMA, I fear a predestination of electoral results.

 

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, pornprong said:

I think you don't understand what Robblok has written.

 

Anyway, the Electoral College is about protecting the smaller states from being dominated by the larger ones - exactly what Robblok is promoting, protecting the smaller parties with proportional voting to stop them being dominated by the larger parties.

 

Proportional systems result in weak governments - better to have a system that produces results that enable governments to govern and to keep them in check with strong checks and balances, a free media and regular elections.

 

Regardless, Robblok is wrong when he blames a constituency system for electing a President with a minority of votes - it is the Electoral College system that produced that result.

No proportional systems do not produce weak governments. My country has a fully proportional system, and short from a few exceptions here or there, that system has always produced strong governments, and with the necessity.to compromise to form a coalition, those governments always had wide support and acceptance.

 

As to the US, smaller states don't need protection when it comes to federal government. and with choices limited to only two that system just appears to be democratic, votes are being discarded right left and center. No wonder the turnout is so low...

[sjaak327]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I agree in a perfect world where all political parties are equals in regard to their opportunity to garner votes.

In a perfect world the "military" party has no active duty military and there is a caretaker government with no connections with the military nor any of the "Five Rivers" to assure a fair and open election.

 

But that's not what Prayut will allow so long as he wields absolute power, unlimited access to the treasury and all the resources of the military machine to intimidate/suppress opposition and campaign for the military party.  Combined with the flawed mechanics of the MMA, I fear a predestination of electoral results.

 

No fear, absolutely certain to happen. I said it before, the "approved" constitution has made elections inconsequential.

[robblok]

I think you don't understand what Robblok has written.
 
Anyway, the Electoral College is about protecting the smaller states from being dominated by the larger ones - exactly what Robblok is promoting, protecting the smaller parties with proportional voting to stop them being dominated by the larger parties.
 
Proportional systems result in weak governments - better to have a system that produces results that enable governments to govern and to keep them in check with strong checks and balances, a free media and regular elections.
 
Regardless, Robblok is wrong when he blames a constituency system for electing a President with a minority of votes - it is the Electoral College system that produced that result.

I understand perfectly the flaws of the US system. You seem to think its ok that when the majority of votes are cast otherwise to still have a Thrump.

You seem to say that its ok to ignore that a majority voted different just to get a strong government.

In Thailand it does not get much stronger then the junta and they also ignore voting you must love them ?

I guess democracy only matters when it suits you. Give me proportional voting over other systems always as its true democracy.

You got a mouth full ranting about the junta but fail to accept that the US system is flawed and not all votes are equal. Not sure what i should think about you.

I would have liked it if the junta made voting totally proportional. That would have helped new faces to appear in politics. Too bad they went for a mangled version.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[robblok]

No proportional systems do not produce weak governments. My country has a fully proportional system, and short from a few exceptions here or there, that system has always produced strong governments, and with the necessity.to compromise to form a coalition, those governments always had wide support and acceptance.
 
As to the US, smaller states don't need protection when it comes to federal government. and with choices limited to only two that system just appears to be democratic, votes are being discarded right left and center. No wonder the turnout is so low...

Yea why vote if you know that only a victory in a results in representation. If you know your a smaller party and will get 20% equally spread around the country but win nowhere you still got no representation. Such a fair system makes me laugh.

How can small parties ever rise and make a change.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[pornprong]

On 11/20/2017 at 11:53 AM, sjaak327 said:

No proportional systems do not produce weak governments. My country has a fully proportional system, and short from a few exceptions here or there, that system has always produced strong governments, and with the necessity.to compromise to form a coalition, those governments always had wide support and acceptance.

 

As to the US, smaller states don't need protection when it comes to federal government. and with choices limited to only two that system just appears to be democratic, votes are being discarded right left and center. No wonder the turnout is so low...

Well of course proportional systems create weak governments - it is the main objective of the system - to force coalitions.

Look at the predicament Angela Merkel currently finds herself in, look at Italy's entire post WW2 political history, look at how coalitions have forced even the nut job Benjamin Netanyahu further to the right....

 

I notice you didn't mention what country you are from....scared of a little scrutiny of how your electoral system actually functions?

 

The choice in the US is not limited to two - Libertarian presidential candidate got 4.5 million votes in the 2016 election.

[pornprong]

On 11/20/2017 at 3:22 PM, robblok said:

Yea why vote if you know that only a victory in a results in representation. If you know your a smaller party and will get 20% equally spread around the country but win nowhere you still got no representation. Such a fair system makes me laugh.

How can small parties ever rise and make a change.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

That's hilarious.

 

Prior to 2001, PTP wasn't just small, it simply did not even exist as a party - how do small parties rise, easy, they develop policies that improve the lives of citizens and then actually follow through and implement them after they are elected.

 

Thaksin went from 0% in 2000 up to 60% in 2005

 

Perhaps the reason Suthep and his cohorts are not successful has very little to do with the system and an awful lot to do with their own shortcomings/greed.

[sjaak327]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:22 PM, pornprong said:

Well of course proportional systems create weak governments - it is the main objective of the system - to force coalitions.

Look at the predicament Angela Merkel currently finds herself in, look at Italy's entire post WW2 political history, look at how coalitions have forced even the nut job Benjamin Netanyahu further to the right....

 

I notice you didn't mention what country you are from....scared of a little scrutiny of how your electoral system actually functions?

 

The choice in the US is not limited to two - Libertarian presidential candidate got 4.5 million votes in the 2016 election.

The Netherlands. 4.5 million votes, all inconsequential. In the US there are only two viable choices, end of story. Not going to comment on the weak goverment argument, because it is simply not true. 

[halloween]

On 11/22/2017 at 7:27 PM, pornprong said:

That's hilarious.

 

Prior to 2001, PTP wasn't just small, it simply did not even exist as a party - how do small parties rise, easy, they develop policies that improve the lives of citizens and then actually follow through and implement them after they are elected.

 

Thaksin went from 0% in 2000 up to 60% in 2005

 

Perhaps the reason Suthep and his cohorts are not successful has very little to do with the system and an awful lot to do with their own shortcomings/greed.

Not every small party has an egomaniac billionaire willing to pay elected MPs to join his party, and then pay them a monthly stipend to follow orders.