KPI releases study on different election methods
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- King Prajadhipok's Institute released its study on the advantages and drawbacks of different election methods yesterday.

As per the study, the strength of the multi-MP method used in the 1975, 1996 and 2007 elections lay in its simplicity and the ability to get candidates from several different groups in society. However, the biggest drawbacks of this method are that it creates a gap between MPs and voters, is not equal among small and large constituencies and reduces the influence of political parties.

On the other hand, the single MP per constituency method brought voters closer to their MPs because the MPs have to be directly responsible and accountable for problems in their constituencies. The drawback of this method is that political parties have less influence, which means small parties are all but left out. Also, votes cast for the losing MP candidates are not taken into account and cannot be translated into anything.

The party-list system's strength is that no vote is regarded a loss, so the system is able to truly and fairly reflect the representation system. The system also offers a chance for minority groups to be voted into Parliament. The drawback, however, is that this system may result in a weak, unstable coalition government.

Having a mix of one-MP-per-constituency system and the party-list one has the advantage that all votes derived from minority groups are taken into account. Also, small parties have the chance to represent their votes and are given a role to play. The drawback, however, is that the election process becomes more difficult as it requires two ballot papers for each voter and there is a bigger possibility for invalid cards.

Getting all senators appointed is advantageous because all individuals chosen will be knowledgeable or specialists in their fields. However, they may lack a connection with the people.

Elected senators, on the other hand, are more connected to the people, but problems arise when there is political interference.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/KPI-releases-study-on-different-election-methods-30237639.html

-- The Nation 2014-07-03

Different election methods ? Oh Please.

Reading that it really sounds as if everyone should win. It's simple, if you don't get enough votes you don't get any power. And what they really miss out is the fact that while voters should have a choice of candidates. the winning party should be looking after all voters, not just their party supporters.

Children playing politics.

And... when all those methods fail, there is always the preferred method of the privileged ones who want their interests protected and their agenda of few become the agenda of many... even if not elected democratically.

Can anyone guess?

And... when all those methods fail, there is always the preferred method of the privileged ones who want their interests protected and their agenda of few become the agenda of many... even if not elected democratically.

Can anyone guess?

Throwing grenades at protesters?

So this wasn't about 100 - 300 - 500 baht per vote.

During the reform Thailand MUST abandon the party list MP system.

If you want to be an MP that stand for a constituency.

To make it fairer then allocate a number or persons for each constituency

66,000,000 Thais then have 660 parliamentary seats of approximately 100,000 constituents each making sure that only persons registered as living in the constituency can vote.

The usual method allowed a Thai person with NO political experience at all to become the elected leader of Thailand, Now that cannot be right.

The party-list system's strength is that no vote is regarded a loss, so the system is able to truly and fairly reflect the representation system. The system also offers a chance for minority groups to be voted into Parliament. The drawback, however, is that this system may result in a weak, unstable coalition government.

No, the drawback is that allows good-old-but-unelectable-boys to gain a seat in Parliament, Chalerm being a particularly egregious example.

Without doing an in depth study of the Thai political system , the party list system

sure seems like an epic failure .Does it have any parallel in the real world ?? Where

the winning party just starts appointing cronies to positions of power ? What

the bleep is up with that? And as another poster noted, if that system allows

morons like Chalerm to hold positions of power, it definitely needs to be changed...

one person, one vote, vote only for a persons name not for an individual party. If the people voting simply voted for a nominated person that actually lived in their electorate we might start to get better mp's. Half the mp's elected are totally hopeless and are in it form themselves, they have no intention of ever trying to help the people of Thailand, just their personal bank accounts. If these mp's had to actually go out and canvas support it would be a whole different kettle of fish as the people would actually get to see who they were voting for. Party voting means you get someone you have no say in, this needs to end.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse. They seriously need to overhaul their judiciary first. Oh, and explain to the populace that Democracy does not mean winner takes all.

How about just the good old auction, let the free market decide, and buy all the votes you can? Looks like they are testing the waters to see which method they can use to maximize Bangkok elite vote and marginalize North and Northeast.

"Even paranoids can have real enemies"

There was a Masachusettys gov who invented the art of gerrymandering and unfortunately there are many historical examples that might be used as a model and adopted here.

The Thais could take a leaf out of the SIngporean system where the boundaries can be amended by the PMs office just before election day if the ruling party is polling badly in one place!

The idea that you can propose a new electoral system without first undertaking comprehensive community consultation is flawed. Thailand also ideally needs some comprehensive civic education, probably more for the well educated!

To ensure that voters feel that there voting intentions are reflected, and not marginalised, for the lower house, Thailand might wish to look at a Proportional Rep system or preferential system where people number their preferences of each candidate. Both of these electoral systems tend to be more representative of voters intentions.

The Senate needs to also be composed of members that are 100% elected with no appointees.

It's a pity that they didn't add more methods and make some recommendations. For example multi-seat constituencies with proportional voting. More complicated but prevents a seat in a single-seat constituency being won with (say) 30% of the vote.

Actually it would have been more to the point to make recommendations for cleaning up the vote-buying system.

"Getting all senators appointed is advantageous because all individuals chosen will be knowledgeable or specialists in their fields".

Oh, Is that how it works?

Can't they just work out which system works the most appropriately with a combination of a two house parliament and a Monarch as head of state.

Copy it word for word and translate it to Thai and stop thai-efying it into some horrible hotch potch of nothing.

There was a Masachusettys gov who invented the art of gerrymandering and unfortunately there are many historical examples that might be used as a model and adopted here.

The Thais could take a leaf out of the SIngporean system where the boundaries can be amended by the PMs office just before election day if the ruling party is polling badly in one place!

The idea that you can propose a new electoral system without first undertaking comprehensive community consultation is flawed. Thailand also ideally needs some comprehensive civic education, probably more for the well educated!

To ensure that voters feel that there voting intentions are reflected, and not marginalised, for the lower house, Thailand might wish to look at a Proportional Rep system or preferential system where people number their preferences of each candidate. Both of these electoral systems tend to be more representative of voters intentions.

The Senate needs to also be composed of members that are 100% elected with no appointees.

Senators should be elected but not along party lines and any individual who wishes to stand should also not be related to a sitting MP.

And... when all those methods fail, there is always the preferred method of the privileged ones who want their interests protected and their agenda of few become the agenda of many... even if not elected democratically.

Can anyone guess?

Throwing grenades at protesters?

Nope. Guess again.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

the only system they want is one that allows suthep to win and anyone else to be an outcast ,not much democracy available in reality

Paper, rock & scissors would work.

The system which the PRC seems to be putting forward for 'full' democracy in Hong Kong would seem to be suitable for Thailand. Every citizen gets one vote in his/her constituency with complete voting freedom and secret ballot. Two suitable candidates (one will almost always have a majority) would be selected, in each constituency, by the existing government or some other senior authority - this could even be the King/Privy Council in Thailand. Problem solved!

This would be much better than the idea which was being floated during the airport seizures, which involved disenfranchising any citizen who does not have chanote property.

That system also has the advantage of effectively disenfranchising anyone who does not agree with either of the two stooges selected to run by the government!

Particularly appropriate for Issaan and the north I should imagine!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

When I read the caption, for one second, I thought they had exposed all the election frauds... Just a 'flash' dream... No education = no fair and free elections, that's my equation, system here, system there, when the Thai State would START to give a decent education to its citizens (not yet...) it would take at least two generations (40years+), according to how it went in European countries. So, this to me is what at the Uni we happened to call intellectual mas...bation, not bad but utterly useless. I'd hope an appointed government would stay in power untill this big job is done, but funnily/sadly it are the 'Democracies' like USA, EU, AUS pushing for elections they must know are useless FOR Thailand, but they seem to be interested only in BS hollow declarations, and, of course, (business-) money in the pocket... (I'm a, shamefull, EU citizen)

the only system they want is one that allows suthep to win and anyone else to be an outcast ,not much democracy available in reality

Seems to me your reaction can be closely linked to your avatar... Neanderthal must not have been all bad, as his survival depended largely on his common sense, which is failing so much to your 'red' friends, in the end though, he disappeared in a still unexplained way, so, there is still hope...

In their evolution towards 'Democracy', some European countries, before 'the masses' had been becoming a standard of education allowing to truly express an, intellectually, 'free' vote, had in addition a system called 'vote censitaire'(Fr) wherein taxpayers were given several votes according to their contribution to the State's expenses, allowing to 'balance' the votes, towards common sense. Might be an idea here, the richest pay (nearly) no taxes, most of it comes from middle-classes and 'intellectuals' (white collars), who are the 'backbone' of Thailand... Worth thinking about?

If you are unable to recognise the right "representative or father figure" or whoever it is we think will best serve our interests, your vote will be deemed invalid, is how it will turn out.

Abstain as much as you want...........

It's a screwed system when 20% of the vote can get you a constituency MP seat.

... sent from my phone.

Without doing an in depth study of the Thai political system , the party list system

sure seems like an epic failure .Does it have any parallel in the real world ?? Where

the winning party just starts appointing cronies to positions of power ? What

the bleep is up with that? And as another poster noted, if that system allows

morons like Chalerm to hold positions of power, it definitely needs to be changed...

Well, in Germany it works exactly like that.

BTW, it's always "the other side" that has all these unelectable morons in their parliamentary group.

It's a screwed system when 20% of the vote can get you a constituency MP seat.

... sent from my phone.

Since abhisit amended the Organic Act on election of MP's it's not even necessary to get 20% - the 20% rule was binned in that amendment. Now the candidate that has the most votes after a second by-election wins the seat. Considering the dems propensity to boycott anything at the drop of a hat and support for a no vote "strategy", this could quite feasibly result in an MP winning a constituency seat on a minimal number of votes.

Of course I'm sure this situation will be revised under proposed political reform, particularly if it could result in the "wrong" people winning seats.

It's a screwed system when 20% of the vote can get you a constituency MP seat.

... sent from my phone.

Since abhisit amended the Organic Act on election of MP's it's not even necessary to get 20% - the 20% rule was binned in that amendment. Now the candidate that has the most votes after a second by-election wins the seat. Considering the dems propensity to boycott anything at the drop of a hat and support for a no vote "strategy", this could quite feasibly result in an MP winning a constituency seat on a minimal number of votes.

Of course I'm sure this situation will be revised under proposed political reform, particularly if it could result in the "wrong" people winning seats.

The 20% rule actually applies when there is only one candidate. Abhisit's change would actually hurt the Democrats given their "propensity to boycott anything at the drop of a hat". That means Abhisit changed the rules in a way that could damage the Democrats, but could be good for the country, in that it would finally get a result after 2 by-elections.

Theoretically, someone could win (the main election) with just 1% of the vote if there were enough candidates. That's screwed.