The winners must not take all in politics

[webfact]

The winners must not take all in politics

By Tulsathit Taptim 
The Nation

 

 

In tennis, they call it a tiebreaker. In football, it’s a penalty shootout.  The system that decides who lifts the trophy is essential because in sports people naturally want to settle the question of who is “the best”. The situation is very different in politics, but the problem is that the system is pretty much the same.

 

Why does democratic politics have to be a zero-sum game? Why do the “winners” have to take it all? Politics should be about choosing and getting the brightest and best people to work for the nation, meaning that any element of luck should be minimised if not eradicated entirely.

 

In tennis, a ball landing one centimetre to the left or right can decide who is the champion. It’s the same in football: the post or the crossbar can send some into ecstasy and others into ultimate despair. Politics should not be that way.

 

In other words, one man should not constitute a tiebreaker. A nation’s future should not rely on odd numbers, full stop.    

 

Democracy advocates like to say “the people have spoken”, and their word should be respected. But what do they make of Thailand’s general election results? One party has apparently won a higher number of parliamentary seats than the other, which in turn has won the highest number of nationwide votes.

 

Worse still, the rules say the party that manages to gather the most parliamentary seats is the winner. There are a few problems with that.

 

Firstly, if the party that wins the popular vote ends up in opposition, isn’t this tantamount to ignoring the millions who voted for it? Of course, the rules favour the camp that is able to garner the majority of seats. But parties are notorious for exploiting rules, vociferously supporting those that further their own interests and ridiculing or even discarding those that don’t. Secondly, there is no way that one camp can be best at everything. In sports, we call it a fairy-tale when underdogs defeat giants, because the underdogs don’t affect spectators’ lives beyond what they do on the field. Meanwhile, politicians stay, administer, serve and have to rely on a lot more than luck.

 

“Winner-takes-all” politics does not guarantee that the best people end up supervising crucial national affairs such as education, commerce, finance and agriculture. This kind of politics might result in someone “people trust the most” getting to pick key administrators, but it limits his or her ability to pick the best to work for the nation.

 

Thirdly, the winner-takes-all system can be very destructive. It encourages those involved to do whatever it takes to win an election, knowing that coming first will give them political control. “Whatever it takes” may include blatant lying, demonisation of opponents, evil propaganda or even violence. Who can really blame them? Day in and day out, they work on the basis that if they lose a few seats or a few votes, they may lose everything.

 

The destructive possibility of the winner-takes-all democratic system increases in proportion with political maturity of the nation involved. Thais are not like Americans, who can live with Donald Trump despite hating his guts, believing what the national media say about him and his opponents’ claims of Russian collusion.

 

Fourthly, it can confuse the hell out of the public. Even “sophisticated” voters like Americans don’t know for sure if Trump is the devil portrayed in the media or whether he is just unfairly demonised by a system that condones such criticism. 

 

In Thailand, when election results are on a knife-edge, they don’t inspire movie plots. They turn into a recipe for violence. We can blame the existing dangerous deadlock on ideological differences, but playing no small part what could be a ticking time bomb is the mere fact that a lot of people think they can’t lose.

 

The alternative system of a “national government” has been ridiculed as a sour-grapes proposal or rebuffed for eradicating checks and balances. Yet its effectiveness in averting crisis or placing the best people in the right jobs has not earned serious consideration it merits.

 

A proposal that voters directly elect key Cabinet positions, including the ministers for education and for justice, has been dismissed – surprisingly by the very people proclaiming to advocate democracy. 

 

There should not be a tiebreaker in democracy. It’s as simple as that. It may be part of the game in America – where Hillary Clinton won more popular votes but Donald Trump but ended up with the nuclear launch codes and all she has done is strike fear into the public daily – but Thais should stand up against such absurdity, instead of against each other.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30367027

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-04-03

[Samui Bodoh]

Nonsense as always...

 

"...Worse still, the rules say the party that manages to gather the most parliamentary seats is the winner. There are a few problems with that...."

 

No, there are no problems with that; that is how the results are adjudicated and everyone knows that in advance when they vote.

 

The popular vote, under the Thai system of choosing representatives, is meaningless. It is the equivalent of stating that the number of shots on net in a Footie match is more relevant than the number of goals.

 

Once again an absurd comment from this columnist.

 

 

 

[ezzra]

The people who's saying it are obviously not Abba's fans...

The winner takes it all
The loser standing small
Beside the victory
That's their destiny...

[JAG]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Worse still, the rules say the party that manages to gather the most parliamentary seats is the winner. There are a few problems with that.

Yes, the problem is that the party which has managed to gather the most seats is the party which the Junta will not allow into power. That is why the Electoral Commission is yet to decide the process for "allocating" those seats governed by proportional representation!

[PatOngo]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

The winners must not take all in politics

…..but history shows that this is their major purpose for contesting an election!

[OneMoreFarang]

Good article!

 

I think one main problem in Thailand, and in other countries, are the lack of decent politicians and the fact that many (most?) politicians seem to be in politics to make a lot of (illegal) money and maybe to be in the limelight.

 

Where are the honest, intelligent, educated people who really want to work for the country and the people?

And more importantly, why do many people don't care if politicians are corrupt and still vote for them again and again?

And even worse, if those corrupt politicians are banned, people vote for their family members which are supposed to continue in the same corrupt style.

 

Why are people so stupid and vote for such horrible politicians? Is it only a lack of any better choices? Or is the majority of people just stupid?

 

And obviously that is not just a Thai problem. In the Ukraine they are on the best way to elect a comedian to be the president because it seems the real world politicians are worse.

Then there is Philippine's Duterte, Trump, lots of UK politicians, to name just a few who are constantly in the media.

Why do people vote for those incompetent, corrupt, bad people?

[Thaiwrath]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

In tennis, they call it a tiebreaker. In football, it’s a penalty shootout.  The system that decides who lifts the trophy is essential because in sports people naturally want to settle the question of who is “the best”. The situation is very different in politics, but the problem is that the system is pretty much the same.

 

In sport, the adjudicators (referees, umpires etc.) are supposed to be unbiased.

Here, in this situation, the people making the decision are massively in favour of the "team" who are not the most popular amongst the people eligible to vote

 

[metisdead]

A post containing a disallowed reference to the current government has been removed. 

 

 

 

A post discussing moderation has been removed. 

[Chang_paarp]

To continue the sport analogy, not many sporting events are played without the rules being clearly defined prior to the event. The current fiasco is partly because the "umpires" are still working on the rules after the event. The appearance of adjusting the rules post game to give a preferred result is not a good look for the "unbiased umpires".

[madmitch]

Did I really just spend a couple of minutes reading total drivel? I think next time I see that writer's name I won't bother.

 

 

[Fex Bluse]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Where are the honest, intelligent, educated people who really want to work for the country and the people?

Honesty is anathema to Thai culture and Thainess. They share the dishonesty trait with the Chinese. 

 

And, as for intelligence, the Thais who have it most often use it as a weapon, for personal advantage or advantage to those in their Guanxi/clan/tribe. It is a fundamental Chinese/Thai cultural value. 

 

There is no Thai concept of civic duty. 

 

[robblok]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Yes, the problem is that the party which has managed to gather the most seats is the party which the Junta will not allow into power. That is why the Electoral Commission is yet to decide the process for "allocating" those seats governed by proportional representation!

Most seats must mean they won, that is how it has always been here I don't see why it should change.

 

I do find it a stupid rule as in a true democracy its about the amount of votes, else you get like what we have in the US where the opponent of Thrump had more votes but lost. I still don't understand why in a democracy most votes should not count. (i come from a country where the most votes count)

 

Having said that , the rules are clear in Thailand so the PTP is the biggest party.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, madmitch said:

Did I really just spend a couple of minutes reading total drivel? I think next time I see that writer's name I won't bother.

 

 

Yes, he is appalling. But there is, at least on my part, a strange fascination with Tulsie. I think it is the irresistible combo of his self-regard and arrogance with his belief in his own wisdom and insight, contrasted with the shoddy analysis, Jurassic opinions and profound stupidity that is obvious to almost everybody else.

[jayboy]

Do not be under any illusion that Tulsahit's opinions are not shared by many of the elite. Here is an extract of a letter replete with illogicality and lies from Korn Chatikvanij's brother published in the Financial Times yesterday.

 

"The often-read narrative of Thai politics is that of a class struggle between the Bangkok elites and the upcountry poorer voters. Given the recent election result, that view should now change. Consider that out of a total of 38m voters, 8.4m voted for the military-affiliated Palang Pracharat party (PPRP) against 7.9m that voted for the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s populist Pheu Thai party, suggesting that Thais have enjoyed the stability of the past few years and wish to see that continue. Nor is it a regional or a class conflict, given all major parties won seats nationwide. The election was about the country’s stance on military rule, and the result is a stamp of approval. Regardless of the western press opinion of the military junta, a large number of the people of Thailand have spoken. Sounds pretty democratic to me.

 

Atikrai Chatikavanij Chairman and CIO, Hunters Investments, Bangkok, Thailand'

[MaxLee]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The winners must not take all in politics

There is no winners,.... only losers in this foul play agenda, and that is the folks in Thailand.

[zydeco]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

In tennis, they call it a tiebreaker. In football, it’s a penalty shootout.  The system that decides who lifts the trophy is essential because in sports people naturally want to settle the question of who is “the best”. The situation is very different in politics, but the problem is that the system is pretty much the same.

Do what we do in America. It's called "Sudden Death."