Thai Voters Should Elect The PM, Academic Says

[webfact]

Voters should elect the PM, academic says

By The Nation

The party leader winning the most proportionate votes should become the prime minister, a leading academic said yesterday.

"Under my proposal, voters should directly elect their prime minister," said Prof Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, chairman of the panel charged with recommending charter amendments.

The country should break with the practice of MPs voting in the premier, he said.

Emerging from a meeting with PM Abhisit Vejjajiva, the university president said he had come to Government House to make a formal presentation of his panel's final report on charter changes and political reforms.

Among the recommendations, the restructured election system and the better-defined framework for international agreements were recently passed by Parliament, he said.

The final report offers a whole gamut of charter changes, but their implementation might have to await the next government, he said.

One of the key proposals is the formation of a Constitution Drafting Assembly to subject the political system to a comprehensive overhaul, he said.

There should be a clear separation of power between the legislative and executive branches, as this would help the country overcome the political turmoil, he said.

The prime minister and other Cabinet members should have the people's mandate to run a government without having to report to Parliament, he said.

The proposed changes could lead to a political system similar to that of the United States, where the government has to muster lawmakers' support for key bills but its survival does not hinge on the enactment of legislation, he added.

-- The Nation 2011-04-12

[SomTumTiger]

Agree

[CosmicSurfer]

Even American Cabinet Secretaries have to report to Congress!.. And doesn't Congress also Confirm their appointments ???

CS

[animatic]

Let all parties run against each other,

and voters vote in their local constituencies,

but receive a document showing they voted at home with fingerprint and signatures.

Then 2 weeks later let the top 2 vote getting parties have a run off, to guarantee 51% or better votes, let votes show/turn in their local voting card at the pols, and do the final vote where they work and live if it is not at home.

This means those registered at home still vote at home,

but work and commerce are not disrupted by needing to return home to vote again 2 weeks later. It also can show how diverse the migration of workers with in Thailand is.

But most importantly there can be no doubt it is fairest,

since the final vote removes local influences from the final vote, and it guarantees 5o% + votes for the PM.

This is effectively the only way to take much of the vote buying out of the election, and make sure a majority, a real majority votes for PM and ends the horse trading for cabinet seats and graft in the same old fashion of the bad old days.

Edited April 12, 2011 by animatic

[Robby nz]

Not for me to agree or otherwise but I would say that the PM candidate for any party should be a constituancy candidate and therefor voted into parliament.

No party should not be allowed to choose a PM candidate from the party list.

[powderpuff]

Yeah but Thailand went with this POM style Parlimentary system. Or cluster flock as we like to call it. 50,000 parties. No limit on tenure.

They deserve what they got.

[whybother]

So they're suggesting the PM be popularly elected, but the government still made up of the constituency and party list MPs?

To be effective, the PM needs the majority of MPs to support him. He might become PM by the majority of party list votes, but another party (or coalition of parties) might have a majority of MPs. Who has the power? How do things get done?

It's the wrong system to suit a popularly elected PM.

[asiawatcher]

Can you imagine if someone like Jutaporn got the reigns? Ugh - I shudder to think... The would be mass exodus of expats just prior to civil war!

[gosompoi]

The brightest ideas yet, just hope the powers can agree to following the good advice.

[stepenwolf1958]

Yeah but Thailand went with this POM style Parlimentary system. Or cluster flock as we like to call it. 50,000 parties. No limit on tenure.

They deserve what they got.

I agree with you in first.

Only one thing i disagree. This people did not deserve any bad, i mean ordinary people. Especially they didn't deserve to have politicians as they have right now. Manipulators. Both sides.

That behavior of politicians, generate clashes as many people don't like what is going on now but also they are in risk to be manipulated by other group in elite.

Dead end street, i guess.

[stepenwolf1958]

Can you imagine if someone like Jutaporn got the reigns? Ugh - I shudder to think... The would be mass exodus of expats just prior to civil war!

Very possible but i am thinking how much more bad would be(even) if Mr. Suthep is in that position. That would be REALLY something, right?

[animatic]

Can you imagine if someone like Jutaporn got the reigns? Ugh - I shudder to think... The would be mass exodus of expats just prior to civil war!

Very possible but i am thinking how much more bad would be(even) if Mr. Suthep is in that position. That would be REALLY something, right?

Not even comparable.

Suthep at least shows something like 'Management Skills'.

He may be corrupt, but he is clearly competent.

Jatuporn, on the other mandible, is nothing beyond a rabble rouser, who can't even keep his own lies straight. If by some utterly bizarre quirk of fate Jatuporn were made PM, no doubt his tenure would be exquisitely short and his exit bloody.

Edited April 12, 2011 by animatic

[ChiangMaiFun]

I agree with this sensible approach which would bring a semblance of unity and no cry's of 'unfair'

[whybother]

I agree with this sensible approach which would bring a semblance of unity and no cry's of 'unfair'

Although I agree it would be "fair", I don't know how it would work.

What is the good of a popularly elected PM, if a majority of the people that vote on the laws (ie MPs) don't support him? How would he be able to get anything done?

If he did have the support of the majority of MPs, then he would have been PM anyway.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I agree with this sensible approach which would bring a semblance of unity and no cry's of 'unfair'

Although I agree it would be "fair", I don't know how it would work.

What is the good of a popularly elected PM, if a majority of the people that vote on the laws (ie MPs) don't support him? How would he be able to get anything done?

If he did have the support of the majority of MPs, then he would have been PM anyway.

he would be the elected leader of the largest party?

[whybother]

he would be the elected leader of the largest party?

Not exactly.

He would be the leader of the party with the most party-list votes.

He might not be the leader of the party with the most MPs.

[ChiangMaiFun]

he would be the elected leader of the largest party?

Not exactly.

He would be the leader of the party with the most party-list votes.

He might not be the leader of the party with the most MPs.

I meant most VOTES not most MP's - and anyway the party with most votes SHOULD be the party with most MP's

[whybother]

he would be the elected leader of the largest party?

Not exactly.

He would be the leader of the party with the most party-list votes.

He might not be the leader of the party with the most MPs.

I meant most VOTES not most MP's - and anyway the party with most votes SHOULD be the party with most MP's

In the last election, the Democrats went very close to being the party with the most party list votes, but the PTP easily got the most MPs.

So "should" doesn't necessarily mean "is". My point is, what happens if he isn't. How does he get anything done?

And given that you need a majority of MPs to pass laws, it's irrelevant who has the most MPs (or most votes). The PM needs the support of the majority of MPs.

Edited April 12, 2011 by whybother

[ChiangMaiFun]

he would be the elected leader of the largest party?

Not exactly.

He would be the leader of the party with the most party-list votes.

He might not be the leader of the party with the most MPs.

I meant most VOTES not most MP's - and anyway the party with most votes SHOULD be the party with most MP's

In the last election, the Democrats went very close to being the party with the most party list votes, but the PTP easily got the most MPs.

So "should" doesn't necessarily mean "is". My point is, what happens if he isn't. How does he get anything done?

And given that you need a majority of MPs to pass laws, it's irrelevant who has the most MPs (or most votes). The PM needs the support of the majority of MPs.

and hence the problem with the system as is... all the stable and organised democracies have a 2/3 party system - one party 'wins' and that's that

[stepenwolf1958]

Can you imagine if someone like Jutaporn got the reigns? Ugh - I shudder to think... The would be mass exodus of expats just prior to civil war!

Very possible but i am thinking how much more bad would be(even) if Mr. Suthep is in that position. That would be REALLY something, right?

Not even comparable.

Suthep at least shows something like 'Management Skills'.

He may be corrupt, but he is clearly competent.

Jatuporn, on the other mandible, is nothing beyond a rabble rouser, who can't even keep his own lies straight. If by some utterly bizarre quirk of fate Jatuporn were made PM, no doubt his tenure would be exquisitely short and his exit bloody.

Yes, you are right. Two of them are incomparable but in opposite way than you wish to say.

All what Deputy has shown so far is an absolute disaster, in a marketing and political sense, for the Democrats. The price that Democrats will pay for to hold him because his stronghold on South, will be immeasurable.

There is not the problem with PM at all but with this guy, hardliner and maverick who is relict of the past, old "style" politician here.

So do not minimize the damage of his "style" to all, to Democrats and PM first, about general image of the Party in public, calling him corrupt.

Like what you see as the style is a pale copy of authoritarianism and despotism, which is seen in the countries of Southeast and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and especially in the period 1992-1995.

Don't be naive.

[whybother]

and hence the problem with the system as is... all the stable and organised democracies have a 2/3 party system - one party 'wins' and that's that

Which countries have a 2/3 party system? All the ones I know have 2-4 major parties, but many other smaller parties. Which is the same as in Thailand.

In Australia, there is often a coalition party in government (both national and state).

What was the difference between the 2001 and the 2005 TRT governments? The first one was a coalition formed after the election. The second one was a coalition formed before the election.

A large party is nearly always made up of factions. How is that different than coalitions? The only difference is the election budget and marketing. The politics is still the same. Still the same in-fighting. Still the same compromises.

In a system where a majority of MPs is required to make decisions, then a majority of MPs should be needed to make the main decision - who the PM should be.

Unless you think that a minority of MPs should make the laws of the country?

[stepenwolf1958]

Not for me to agree or otherwise but I would say that the PM candidate for any party should be a constituancy candidate and therefor voted into parliament.

No party should not be allowed to choose a PM candidate from the party list.

Agreed.

That would be respect of people's will and real democracy.

But it is far away from political systems in most of countries in the world.

Especially in developing countries where political parties are like gangsters, motivated for political work just because of material interest or power.

So, not in this life here.

[ChiangMaiFun]

and hence the problem with the system as is... all the stable and organised democracies have a 2/3 party system - one party 'wins' and that's that

Which countries have a 2/3 party system? All the ones I know have 2-4 major parties, but many other smaller parties. Which is the same as in Thailand.

In Australia, there is often a coalition party in government (both national and state).

What was the difference between the 2001 and the 2005 TRT governments? The first one was a coalition formed after the election. The second one was a coalition formed before the election.

A large party is nearly always made up of factions. How is that different than coalitions? The only difference is the election budget and marketing. The politics is still the same. Still the same in-fighting. Still the same compromises.

In a system where a majority of MPs is required to make decisions, then a majority of MPs should be needed to make the main decision - who the PM should be.

Unless you think that a minority of MPs should make the laws of the country?

USA? name another? UK? 2 major and 1 VERY minor who struck mathematically lucky for first time in decades - enough?

[jdinasia]

and hence the problem with the system as is... all the stable and organised democracies have a 2/3 party system - one party 'wins' and that's that

Which stable and organized democracies fit in that group you call "all" and which do not?

[virtualtraveller]

Part of the problem is that there is a lot of cheating going on, but by the time the red cards have been dished out and bi-elections held the 'winning party' has already landed the right to do the negotiating first by virtue of numbers. In the past election 70% of all yellow and red cards were dished out to the PPP, it was irrelevant because they won convincingly and the bi-election all return their siblings or offspring anyhow. This time around it's going to be neck and neck, and if the PT inch it they will consider themselves the winners even if it materialises later that 10 or so of their victories were disqualified.

The flaw with this is that bi-elections are held, when in fact the candidate coming second should be declared the winner, otherwise you could go on buying votes ad infinitum and still control the constituency no matter how many times your candidate is disqualified. PT know this, and this is going to be a 'win at all costs' election.

[jdinasia]

ALL is an absolute and this isn't harassment. It is pointing out extremely flawed logic (in its best possible reading) or outright deceit since there are stable organized democracies that do not fit into your "all"

Democracies with coalition governments currently or recently include ......

the UK

Denmark (no single party with 50%+ since what .. 1909?)

Germany

Australia

Sweden

etc etc etc etc ...

I would call them all stable and organized. In fact, coalition governments are the norm in the EU aren't they?

Can we put the 2 party winner takes all idea to rest yet?

[ChiangMaiFun]

ALL is an absolute and this isn't harassment. It is pointing out extremely flawed logic (in its best possible reading) or outright deceit since there are stable organized democracies that do not fit into your "all"

Democracies with coalition governments currently or recently include ......

the UK

Denmark (no single party with 50%+ since what .. 1909?)

Germany

Australia

Sweden

etc etc etc etc ...

I would call them all stable and organized. In fact, coalition governments are the norm in the EU aren't they?

Can we put the 2 party winner takes all idea to rest yet?

China? Russia? USA? UK? and you say Denmark? Australia? Sweden? don't talk about the UK - this was a one off fluke and still falls within my 2/3 party system definition -conveniently forgotten by you (again) - get it yet? 2/3 party includes UK? and the EU is hardly 'stable' - think BIG Dude? USA, Russia, China

PS India etc.

Edited April 13, 2011 by sbk

[jdinasia]

OK .. in your definition "all" certainly means anything BUT an absolute. Germany --- how large is the German economy? Japan .. etc etc etc I would suggest that Denmark and Sweden and Germany are certainly "stable organized democracies."

Coalition governments and multi-party systems are common ... but hey! I certainly think "organized stable democracy" when I think China and Russia :-)

[whybother]

USA? name another? UK? 2 major and 1 VERY minor who struck mathematically lucky for first time in decades - enough?

No. List of political parties in the United States

And No. List of political parties in the United Kingdom

All they have are two large parties, a number of small parties, and a lot of very small parties.

Not very different to Thailand really. Maybe the only difference is time.

[ChiangMaiFun]

USA? name another? UK? 2 major and 1 VERY minor who struck mathematically lucky for first time in decades - enough?

No. List of political parties in the United States

And No. List of political parties in the United Kingdom

All they have are two large parties, a number of small parties, and a lot of very small parties.

Not very different to Thailand really. Maybe the only difference is time.

are you two married? of course they have other parties - but are considered 2/3 party systems as the other parties votes are NEGLIGIBLE now list the others parties votes Einstein

can we get BACK to the topic? now JD has hijacked it yet again - I'm sure if I posted about Snow White he come in with his buddy whybother and say she was really called Snow Black and she was a commie

Edited April 12, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun