Charter Referendum Should Require Two-Thirds Support: Academic

[rubl]

The coup and the junta following together with a 'pushed-through' new constitution are deemed so utterly undemocratic, especially with the constitution accepted with hardly more than 50% of votes.

To suggest "this line about a 2/3 vote to pass is not even a poorly disguised argument to stop charter changes altogether" seems in contradiction to a return to democratic values. Lots of countries have a 2/3rd requirement for constitutional changes. How can asking for a democratic approach be an obstacle to preventing taking the next step in taking this country forward?

Possibly because even with all the bases loaded for a Yes vote for the new Junta written constitution, just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the constitution and they still pushed it through. Someone wants to make sure this is a lot harder than getting the last one through.

Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?

""

Although 57% voted in favor of the new constitution, because of the relatively low turnout that figure means that just 33% of eligible voters actually endorsed the new constitution, with the other two-thirds either voting no or not bothering to vote at all.

http://asiafoundatio...nal-referendum/

""

"why should the rules change for the next variant"

You mean two wrongs make a right?

That would mean something if I had expressed an opinion on whether the percentage used in deciding the last referendum was right or wrong. I haven't. I have expressed an opinion on the method of presenting the referendum for vote but that has no bearing on the percentage used to decide Yes or No.

Again, to my mind if you are expecting to hold a referendum on a change to the constitution it should be carried out under the same percentage voting rules. If there had of been a "democratic" 2/3rds majority back in 2006/7 there would not have been a 2007 constitution and the situation would have been entirely differerent. Sonthi for example would at the very least be in jail and not heading up the reconciliation effort.

"Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?"

Percentage? Method?

If the 2007 constitution is nationwide reviled a simple request to have a new or updated constitution accepted by 2/3rd majority seems not only democratic, but also easy. If the 2007 constitution was accepted under undemocratic percentage / method, make sure the new / updated one will be very democratically accepted under democratic principles and using democratic methods.

Excuses, changed quoted text belonging to the link you provided. System complained about 'too many quotes.

[phiphidon]

"Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?"

Percentage? Method?

If the 2007 constitution is nationwide reviled a simple request to have a new or updated constitution accepted by 2/3rd majority seems not only democratic, but also easy. If the 2007 constitution was accepted under undemocratic percentage / method, make sure the new / updated one will be very democratically accepted under democratic principles and using democratic methods.

Excuses, changed quoted text belonging to the link you provided. System complained about 'too many quotes.

By method I mean that I have disagreed strongly that the referendum was held in a fair way, with military educating the people on how to vote, the threat of reverting to any previous constitution if a no vote was given etc - it has been well documented as to how skewed in favour of a Yes vote the referendum was.

By percentage perhaps I should have written majority but to be perfectly honest I didn't want to get whybother off on one of his tiresome majority definition rants. So at some risk I say , yes simple majority, you get above 50% you get it passed.

Don't forget in the the 2007 referendum 57% voted for and it was passed. However as has been posted, that only represented 33% of the actual electorate, 26 of the 77 provinces voted No (all in the north) and the rest didn't vote at all. Yet, the constitution came into being.

So coming up with the idea that you would require a 2/3rds majority ( and we all know how well the democrats can boycott and the PAD can say No) seems to be skewing the whole affair to a No vote and a comfortable status quo for the democrats, amart and the military. As you were, carry on into the previous century (pre 96).

[rubl]

"Seems only fair to me if you get rid of a previous constitution with a majority vote (and nobody complained then) why should the rules change for the next variant?"

Percentage? Method?

If the 2007 constitution is nationwide reviled a simple request to have a new or updated constitution accepted by 2/3rd majority seems not only democratic, but also easy. If the 2007 constitution was accepted under undemocratic percentage / method, make sure the new / updated one will be very democratically accepted under democratic principles and using democratic methods.

Excuses, changed quoted text belonging to the link you provided. System complained about 'too many quotes.

By method I mean that I have disagreed strongly that the referendum was held in a fair way, with military educating the people on how to vote, the threat of reverting to any previous constitution if a no vote was given etc - it has been well documented as to how skewed in favour of a Yes vote the referendum was.

By percentage perhaps I should have written majority but to be perfectly honest I didn't want to get whybother off on one of his tiresome majority definition rants. So at some risk I say , yes simple majority, you get above 50% you get it passed.

Don't forget in the the 2007 referendum 57% voted for and it was passed. However as has been posted, that only represented 33% of the actual electorate, 26 of the 77 provinces voted No (all in the north) and the rest didn't vote at all. Yet, the constitution came into being.

So coming up with the idea that you would require a 2/3rds majority ( and we all know how well the democrats can boycott and the PAD can say No) seems to be skewing the whole affair to a No vote and a comfortable status quo for the democrats, amart and the military. As you were, carry on into the previous century (pre 96).

The fact that the Democrat Party boycotted the April 2006 elections doesn't mean they will boycott a referendum on a new constitution. Two very different issues. The boycott of the snap elections were about k. Thaksin's anti-democratic behaviour.

A 2/3rd majority on a new or updated constitution will be possible. Reconciliation and all that. Work for it.

To suggest 2/3rd seems like going for a no-vote is just as wishfull thinking as assuming all parties work towards reconciliation. Give it a try.

BTW the local bosses upcountry may not be rightly called 'amart', but they still do control their fief like more than hundredand twenty years ago when Thailand still had slaves and serfs.

[maidu]

The constitution is like a marriage vows. Neither partner adheres to it over the long run. It's just frizzle made to give the marriage an appearance of legitimacy. It's only as good as the peoples' morals it deals with. You can write a certificate of conduct for turtles, but it won't change the basic nature of turtles.

[lungmi]

"An innocent little suggestion of 2/3 majority to pass a new charter is just a tactic to support those wishing to keep the status quo"

Tlansford, you uncloak yourself by this comment. (PR manager on a payroll, Amsterdam connections?)

A stable constitution is an international standard for democratic countries worldwide.

A stable constitution is a landmark for international companies (joint ventures etc) to give the control to

International Economic Courts.

The model works already (Scandinavian countries)

This model is modern science....

and fits with P.A. Payutto's Buddhist Economies.

Hardly uncloaked.

With the suggestion coming from the camp opposed to any charter changes, it seems like an accurate statement. It is a tactic to make the hurdle of agreement too high to change a charter that was imposed on the Thai society.

On the other hand, as it looks today, the selection of the CDA and the work to examine and determine the shape of a new charter is going to be a very public and democratic affair. If there is the level of broad input into the charter that is expected (it is already happening), then a 2/3 majority requirement - for something that does not need a public referendum in the first place - is nothing more than a tactic to keep the status quo.

BTW, how does this fit with Payutto?

You avoid the basic problem. A stable constitution needs a 2/3 majority. Reconciliation in Thailand isn't possible without this.

Some homework for you concerning P.A. Payutto.

http://www.buddhanet...dsg/payutto.htm

Then you are saying that the 2007 constitution is not stable, nor that the 1997 constitution was not stable.

And the constitution is not about reconciliation. Reconciliation is about working together, or as another interview put it recently, tolerate differences, reject violence.

The constitution is about having a (democratic) framework.

I have and I've read Payutto. Not the book referenced, however I am familiar with his ideas. I am wondering how you see a 2/3 majority vote for a constitution fitting his Buddhist Economics. A point of reference would make it easier to discuss.

I didn't speak about the old constitutions in Thailand, I speak about what is necessary for Thailand.

Read the other link a gave you. You can learn alone, I hope, I can't give you extra tuition.

[lungmi]

special lesson for Tlord

He will understand.

2/3 as dhammic law