CHARTER WRITING
PDRC proposes annulment of party proportional election method
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The People's Democratic Reform Committee on Tuesday proposed that the party proportional election method, under which political parties list their candidates, be annulled.

The proposal was raised by five PDRC representatives at a meeting with the Constitution Drafting Committee. The PDRC said the party-list election would allow funders to easily win House seats.

Representing the PDRC in its meeting with the CDC were Tavorn Senniem, Akanat Promphan, Samdin Lertbutr, Sathit Wongnongtoey, and Suriyasai Katasila.

Akanat said the party-list election also did not require MPs to be close to voters.

The PDRC also wanted the new charter to ensure the restructuring of the police force and its division into regional head offices, Akanat said.

The PDRC also asked that the people be allowed to file lawsuits against corruption officials directly.

All the proposals were compiled during the 204-day protests against the previous government, Akanat said.

He said the government and the CDC should allow the people to express their opinions on the charter drafting.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/PDRC-proposes-annulment-of-party-proportional-elec-30248501.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-25

ah the PDRC - i thought maybe they had vanished but nope they are back - Im sure if they realize but the military really dont care about there proposals.

ah the PDRC - i thought maybe they had vanished but nope they are back - Im sure if they realize but the military really dont care about there proposals.

As they were well in with each other chances are it is what was agreed whilst the plans for the current situation were being prepared.

Proportional voting has always been a pain in the neck, Thailand is not a lone in this system , generally it means that someone with 25% votes can win if prefernces are directed that way say from 20 other no hopers , ending up like the Federal senate of OZ with cowboys running the place, first past the post is the only sure system , at least the candidate knows how popular they are.

Proportional voting has always been a pain in the neck, Thailand is not a lone in this system , generally it means that someone with 25% votes can win if prefernces are directed that way say from 20 other no hopers , ending up like the Federal senate of OZ with cowboys running the place, first past the post is the only sure system , at least the candidate knows how popular they are.

Thailand don't use preference voting.

The Proportional party list system works on based on the party getting the same percentage of seats based on the percentage of national votes on the party list vote.

For constituent voting, the candidate with the most number of votes wins, which could mean that someone with 10% of the vote could win if there are 10 other candidates get 9% each.

Proportional voting has always been a pain in the neck, Thailand is not a lone in this system , generally it means that someone with 25% votes can win if prefernces are directed that way say from 20 other no hopers , ending up like the Federal senate of OZ with cowboys running the place, first past the post is the only sure system , at least the candidate knows how popular they are.

Not a chance the junta would go for a first past the post system. That would only empower a Thaksin backed party anymore, too many people and too many provinces in the north, northeast and central regions. A proportional representation system should actually fit Thailand quite well, but that wouldn't completely "reform" the system.

Although it might sound hyperbolic, my focus is on the government system they will try to create. What I think they will go for is something very similar to Iran. There will be an unelected Supreme Council that, at the very least, will be able to check or veto the elected government. If they go even more extreme, it could even screen election candidates to ensure they follow the council's prerogative.

This is pretty much what the PDRC advocated for all along. They saw no way to regain electoral prominence so they needed a way to regain power without elections. In comes the "People's Council." More than likely, this system will blow up in their face and they'll be forced to revert back to a stronger electoral one. At which point, we're just rewinding to watch the same movie.

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Proportional voting has always been a pain in the neck, Thailand is not a lone in this system , generally it means that someone with 25% votes can win if prefernces are directed that way say from 20 other no hopers , ending up like the Federal senate of OZ with cowboys running the place, first past the post is the only sure system , at least the candidate knows how popular they are.

Not a chance the junta would go for a first past the post system. That would only empower a Thaksin backed party anymore, too many people and too many provinces in the north, northeast and central regions. A proportional representation system should actually fit Thailand quite well, but that wouldn't completely "reform" the system.

Although it might sound hyperbolic, my focus is on the government system they will try to create. What I think they will go for is something very similar to Iran. There will be an unelected Supreme Council that, at the very least, will be able to check or veto the elected government. If they go even more extreme, it could even screen election candidates to ensure they follow the council's prerogative.

This is pretty much what the PDRC advocated for all along. They saw no way to regain electoral prominence so they needed a way to regain power without elections. In comes the "People's Council." More than likely, this system will blow up in their face and they'll be forced to revert back to a stronger electoral one. At which point, we're just rewinding to watch the same movie.

Thailand currently has First Past the Post for constituent voting. I doubt that that would changed.

Thailand currently has First Past the Post for constituent voting. I doubt that that would changed.

Wrong (as usual)

When (if) Thailand gets a democratic vote again it is a near certainty FPTP will have been replaced with a PR system. In the 2011 election PTP got 48% of the vote yet won 53% of the seats, the "Democrats" (name makes me chuckle) got 35% of the vote yet only 31% of the seats. Anything that favours the Shins will go.

Despite it favouring the hilariously named Democrats, I`m actually a big fan of PR as it offers the best hope of other parties challenging and breaking the usual Shins v Elite parties, and finally giving Thailand people who genuinely care for them and not big corporations and themselves.

Just need to get through 2015 and the fall of the junta for the above to happen, bring it on!

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

Great about the corruption suggestions.

As i dont really know about the voting ways here i wont comments on it. Anything that helps against corruption is possitive.

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

Did I suggest that he created it? He certainly abused the existing system, and PTP was considered for dissolution for putting forward "unsuitable persons" (Jatuporn, et al) facing serious criminal charges as party list candidates.

Party list candidates never have to front an electorate and discuss their integrity and honesty (or lack of it), their financial dealings, or criminal history. And given a token number of votes, they can not be removed from parliament. Do you find that acceptable?

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

My recollection is it, along with the redrawing of some electoral boundaries, was introduced in the wake of the 2006 coup as an attempt to boost the number of seats the Democrat's could win due to their power base being predominantly in more densely populated urban regions such as Bangkok. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.

Thailand currently has First Past the Post for constituent voting. I doubt that that would changed.

Wrong (as usual)

When (if) Thailand gets a democratic vote again it is a near certainty FPTP will have been replaced with a PR system. In the 2011 election PTP got 48% of the vote yet won 53% of the seats, the "Democrats" (name makes me chuckle) got 35% of the vote yet only 31% of the seats. Anything that favours the Shins will go.

Despite it favouring the hilariously named Democrats, I`m actually a big fan of PR as it offers the best hope of other parties challenging and breaking the usual Shins v Elite parties, and finally giving Thailand people who genuinely care for them and not big corporations and themselves.

Just need to get through 2015 and the fall of the junta for the above to happen, bring it on!

Your crystal ball thinks I'm wrong?

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

My recollection is it, along with the redrawing of some electoral boundaries, was introduced in the wake of the 2006 coup as an attempt to boost the number of seats the Democrat's could win due to their power base being predominantly in more densely populated urban regions such as Bangkok. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.

The system was changed from multi-MP constituencies (basically voting for 3 MPs in a single electorate) to single MP constituencies. Each electorate has roughly 170,000 voters, therefore more densely populated areas WILL have more MPs, and everyone is evenly represented. Do you think there is something wrong with that?

PDRC made its suggestion on the new charter

BANGKOK, 26 Nov 2014 (NNT) - The People’s Democratic Reform Council (PDRC) yesterday met with the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), giving its suggestions on what should be included in the new charter.

CDC Spokesperson General Lertrat Rattanawanich indicated the PDRC has focused on 2 aspects, one on the direction of the national reform and the other on an outline of the new charter.

According to the PDRC, it would be ideal for the national reform to establish a system of checks and balances for the legislative, administrative and judicial branches and also for the independent organizations. It suggested a method be established to attract decent individuals to enter the politics while the capitalism in political parties should be discouraged.

As for the scopes of the charter drafting, the PDRC has made several suggestions including measures to eliminate vote buying, and reduction of Election Commission’s authority. It thought the commission should only be tasked with investigating election-related corruption cases and then hand over the cases to the court to make the conclusion.

The PDRC said Members of Parliament should only come from an election while Senators should be selected from a wide range of professions with the authority to issue laws, appointing political positions but not impeachment.

It also suggested a lifetime ban from politics for those who have proven to take part in corruption.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has confirmed his meeting with the CDC tomorrow (Nov 27th), General Lertrat said, adding that the Pheu Thai Party has yet to set a date with the committee, but expected the meeting to be sometime next month.

General Lertrat expected the CDC would be able to set the basic outline for the charter drafting by February, after which representatives from political parties would be invited for comment.


-- NNT 2014-11-26

I also see the PDRC also proposed a fully appointed Senate...................

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I also see the PDRC also proposed a fully appointed Senate...................

I'm sure the People's Council aka the Politburo aka the NCPO would take on that responsibility.

They want to "attract decent individuals to enter the politics". In other words only people THEY select can enter politics. This is called a politburo!

They did have one good idea in limiting the term of the "office" of Kamnan to 2 years, as opposed to life, but that was somewhat undermined by their insistence on a fully appointed senate..........................................

I was wrong about the FPTP vs. PR system. I thought after the last coup, they did away with FPTP for the exact reasons I mentioned, too many people in the North/Issan. Instead, they introduced some PR seats while keeping a majority single member districts. I do believe that I'll be proven right with the new system. Just as the PDRC is advocating, they want an unelected branch of government to check the opposition. Who determines the "good people" of such a branch?

I was wrong about the FPTP vs. PR system. I thought after the last coup, they did away with FPTP for the exact reasons I mentioned, too many people in the North/Issan. Instead, they introduced some PR seats while keeping a majority single member districts. I do believe that I'll be proven right with the new system. Just as the PDRC is advocating, they want an unelected branch of government to check the opposition. Who determines the "good people" of such a branch?

2005 - 400 single member constituencies. 100 party list.

2007 - 400 MPs in 157 multi-member constituencies. 80 party list.

2011 - 375 single member constituencies. 125 party list.

I'm not sure how any of the changes favoured the Democrats over Thaksin's parties.

My crystal ball isn't showing what they will do this time around.

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

My recollection is it, along with the redrawing of some electoral boundaries, was introduced in the wake of the 2006 coup as an attempt to boost the number of seats the Democrat's could win due to their power base being predominantly in more densely populated urban regions such as Bangkok. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.

You're on the right lines. It was abhisit who amended the organic act on the election of MP's just before the 2011 Election but that was OK because it was the "democrat" party. When the PTP tried to amend the constitution, they were accused of, and found guilty of, "overthrowing the democratic regime", section 68 of the now rejected constitution......................................

One flame post has been deleted from this topic.

I also see the PDRC also proposed a fully appointed Senate...................

Just as PTP wanted to allow 'family" in and scrap any time limitations.

And PTP did not support the idea of electing provincial governors, but wanted to retain appointing them.

No democracy in Thailand, and no real political parties. Just clans and their allied gangs.

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

My recollection is it, along with the redrawing of some electoral boundaries, was introduced in the wake of the 2006 coup as an attempt to boost the number of seats the Democrat's could win due to their power base being predominantly in more densely populated urban regions such as Bangkok. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.

You're on the right lines. It was abhisit who amended the organic act on the election of MP's just before the 2011 Election but that was OK because it was the "democrat" party. When the PTP tried to amend the constitution, they were accused of, and found guilty of, "overthrowing the democratic regime", section 68 of the now rejected constitution......................................

That would have been dependent on the content and intent of the amendment, not the actual mechanism.

Oh, and of course assuming correct parliamentary procedures were respected. Not something PTP were known for.

Akanat said the party-list election also did not require MPs to be close to voters.

The PDRC also wanted the new charter to ensure the restructuring of the police force and its division into regional head offices, Akanat said.

edit

Akanat said the party-list no elections also did not require MPs to be close to voters.

The PDRC also wanted the new charter to ensure the restructuring of the police force military and its division into regional head offices, Akanat said.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I also see the PDRC also proposed a fully appointed Senate...................

I'm sure the People's Council aka the Politburo aka the NCPO would take on that responsibility.

are you thinking of NSDAP or SED ?

Despite the terminology, I believe they are advocating removal of the party list system, something I have long supported.

This system has allowed scum like the Shinawatras to gain power using their wealth to buy popular local politicians, appoint unelectable cronies like Chalerm, and reward their criminal lackeys.

Did Thaksin create this system or was it in play before he was even born?

Come on Chooka, you're smarter than that. Halloween NEVER said or implied that TS created the system. He stated that the system allowed(enabled) people LIKE the Shins to manipulate te electoral process. People did it before TS and will continue to do so.

I enjoy reading your posts as they are usually articulate, insightful and not emotionally driven, but this was in the realm of ''clutching at straws''