Ex-CDC spokesman clarifies 150-day window to hold poll

[webfact]

Ex-CDC spokesman clarifies 150-day window to hold poll

By THE NATION

 

File photo: Chartchai na Chiangmai

 

A FORMER spokesman of the now-defunct Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), Chartchai na Chiangmai, yesterday confirmed that the 150-day period prescribed by the charter on holding the election only covers the casting of ballots, not the announcement of election results.
 

“The intention of the Constitution is that after the four election-related laws come into effect, the Election Commission [EC] must organise the poll within 150 days – that is by May 9. This period does not include the counting of votes or finalising the results,” Chartchai explained.

 

His statement comes in light of the current debate on the organisation of the election, which faces another delay after nearly five years of military rule. Authorities have cited the overlapping of the voting process with the royal coronation as grounds for a delay.

 

If the poll must be delayed from the tentatively scheduled February 24, pro-election groups want the election to take place on March 10, as suggested by the EC. This is to ensure that the announcement of results can be made within 150 days of the electoral laws taking effect, otherwise the election could be unconstitutional and voided. Others, meanwhile, have argued that the 150-day period prescribed in the Constitution was only for the voting process and not the announcement of poll results.

 

Uncertainty continues as to when the election will take place with the government yet to publish a Royal Decree in the Royal Gazette. 

 

According to law, the EC must announce the election date within five days of the issue of a Royal Decree.

 

Chartchai dubbed as a political game the argument that the poll result announcement is included in the 150-day period. Former EC commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn was among those making that case. A source in the defunct CDC said that Somchai was well aware of the intention of the Constitution. “He was in the meeting and we talked about this,” he said. “We all understood that the 150 days only cover the casting of ballots. The EC also acknowledged that.” 

 

However, protesters, political activists and some politicians are voicing their opposition to the delay, calling on the government to keep its word on a February election.

 

The pro-election camp argued that the EC could announce the poll results earlier than the given 60 days to prevent overlapping with the coronation. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30361800

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-01-08

[candide]

It's just about casting ballots. Announcing results is another, and more or less unrelated matter. 

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

holding the election only covers the casting of ballots, not the announcement of election results.

the door opens for throwing the election results out on some trumped up technicality; remember what happened in the last election

[rickb]

What puzzles me is why it takes 60 days to determine the results of the voting.  That seems excessive even if it must be done by hand. 

 

[Eric Loh]

Past and present junta cronies trying to impress Prayut and hope to get a job if he become PM. Falling all over to ensure that he preside the coronation events. Too much face to lose if an elected government take office before the event and the elected PM preside. 

[robblok]

5 hours ago, candide said:

It's just about casting ballots. Announcing results is another, and more or less unrelated matter. 

Announcing the results should be done quickly to prevent people from thinking about fraud. That the real announcement comes later with a minor change is ok (can happen after really checking everything). However keeping everyone in the dark and not announcing any preliminary results just opens the door foor everyone to cry (and justified) about fraud.

 

I hope this is just about announcing final results not about not announcing anything till there are final results. 

 

As for the delay again, for gods sake get that election done and face your medicine or victory whatever it will be. 

[jerojero]

"According to law"...blah,blah,blah.
Since when did rule of law apply to most things recently or over the past 5 years.

[RichardColeman]

4 hours ago, rickb said:

What puzzles me is why it takes 60 days to determine the results of the voting.  That seems excessive even if it must be done by hand. 

 

Guessing it will take that long to either change an X from one box to another or to ensue all the dead relatives had voted for the right party

Edited January 8, 2019 by RichardColeman

[cleopatra2]

Looks like 24 Feb is off. 

No Royal Decree and officials told to put preparations on hold

[chama]

7 hours ago, jerojero said:

"According to law"...blah,blah,blah.
Since when did rule of law apply to most things recently or over the past 5 years.

And if the law did apply and wasn't convenient the law was changed. So just get it done!