If Trump is re-elected what does it say about the I.Q of the average American?

[webfact]

CHARTER WRITING
CDC picks German system
The Nation

Change aims to make every vote count, encourage more independent candidates

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) yesterday adopted the German style Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system in Thailand to make an election reflect the aspirations of all voters while small parties and independent candidates would have a greater chance in the polls, CDC spokesman General Lertrat Ratanavanich said.

Like the previous system, there would be two types of MPs - 200 from proportional party list and 250 from constituencies, he said.

The party-list MPs would be elected by voters in eight geographical clusters throughout the nation, he said, adding there would be only one winner from one constituency, representing a population of 250,000.

Constituency candidates do not have to be members of any political parties but they have to represent a political group or association, he said.

As an example, Lertrat said the red-shirt United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy and the People's Democratic Reform Committee can all field candidates in the election.

Thammasat University law lecturer Prinya Thevanarumitkul, who was invited by the CDC to give his opinion on the German-style electoral system, said there could be some independent candidates but in Germany it is very hard for them to win elections.

Asked if the CDC had considered the possibility of a political party buying independent MPs to seek their support for any particular cause, Lertrat said the committee would find some solutions to prevent such situations.

The previous electoral system usually produced clear majorities in the lower house, controlled by a few large parties. The downside, however, was that votes for the losing candidates counted for nothing, because of the "winner takes all" system.

The MMP system, in contrast, claims that every single vote will be taken into account, as the number of seats allocated to political parties in Parliament is commensurate with the proportion of votes each party receives nationwide. Hence the number of votes is better reflected in the House.

"The new system does not aim to weaken political parties but we don't want too strong a government; the legislative and the

public should be able to perform checks and balance of power," Lertrat said.

The number of parliamentary seats allocated to a party was relative to the percentage of accumulated nationwide votes in all eight clusters for that party.

If a party receives 10 per cent of votes in the entire country, the proportional calculation would allocate the party a total of 45 seats in the House of Representatives.

If the party won 40 seats in the constituencies, it would get an additional five seats for the party list. If the party won 45 seats or more, it would not get any more MPs from the party list.

"There could be a situation when parties could win seats from constituencies beyond their proportion and this could make the total number of MPs exceed 450," Lertrat said. "In that case, we would allow the additional winners to sit in. If they comprise up to 30 [additional] seats, that would be okay."

With the new electoral system, Lertrat said there would be no single party winning a huge majority in the lower house, adding the government would be formed by a coalition of few parties. "That wouldn't be very different from the past when the government was always a coalition of many parties," he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-picks-German-system-30250617.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-25

[NanLaew]

To me, this will probably sound way, way too democratic for the incumbents.

[binjalin]

will lead to lots of horse trading, bartering and 'deals'

[BernieOnTour]

Shit! Poor Thailand !

I, as a German, would say, that's the worst "democratic" system of all. That is - if you could call it democratic at all, IMHO only direct elections really represent the people's will. The effect of this system is mainly that once they are elected, the representatives give a sh.t to what they promised to you before the election, calls to your representative have zero affect (if you manage to reach them, that is), party guidance rules everything and in parliament sessions they go to the ballot like a herd of sheep. Staying on the "party list" is for every representative more important than their constituency.

[nong38]

Proportional representation sounds good in that everyone gets to play their part, but it is also complicated and open to interpretation and manipulation. We have to hope that everyone knows and abides by the rules, which history shows us will not be easy. If it takes a bit longer that the mentioned February 2016 to get things in place it will not be a suprise and I hope that people understand that, it is but s hort time in the history of the country, let us home for a successful outcome.

[Baerboxer]

will lead to lots of horse trading, bartering and 'deals'

Indeed.

There will be the usual regional power brokers with their privately owned parties, bartering deals to offer support for one of the main ones. Nothing really changes - the clothes might look new but its the same unwashed body underneath.

[whybother]

Shit! Poor Thailand !

I, as a German, would say, that's the worst "democratic" system of all. That is - if you could call it democratic at all, IMHO only direct elections really represent the people's will. The effect of this system is mainly that once they are elected, the representatives give a sh.t to what they promised to you before the election, calls to your representative have zero affect (if you manage to reach them, that is), party guidance rules everything and in parliament sessions they go to the ballot like a herd of sheep. Staying on the "party list" is for every representative more important than their constituency.

All elections are basically the same. People elect representatives.

[Orac]

"The previous electoral system usually produced clear majorities in the lower house, controlled by a few large parties."

If they don't understand the nature of coalition government then they really need to do a bit more research before coming up with a new system.

[Thai at Heart]

Won't this have the effect of neutering the value of the party lists for the big parties

If a small party get 5% of the vote nationwide but only one seat, their representstion will be made up from their party list?

Ergo, what is the point in being bottom of the democrats or PTP list but top of a smaller party?

[lvr181]

Under MMP smaller parties can be a de facto party of the big players thus making sure the major political parties get their own way. Learn from history!

Edited December 25, 2014 by lvr181

[NeverSure]

There shouldn't just be two parties even if the other parties are small. That's if the members of a small party can join with a bigger party when they agree on an issue.

There should be contention in government. It should be hard to pass a law that's in contention. Sometimes we call it 'gridlock.' Sometimes one party is called 'obstructionist.' But unless a majority agrees, there shouldn't be changes. Too much change can be bad. Obstructionism can be good if it's obstructing something that doesn't have consensus.

Sometime I joke "Oh No. Congress is meeting again and for sure they'll make more laws. Every time they meet my freedoms are in danger."

I really don't want very many new laws. I want it to be hard to pass new laws unless the reason is so obvious to a majority that it sails through.

I have truly heard a number of expats say they like Thailand because they have more freedom than in their home country. I really don't want a bunch of rapid law changers but I'm afraid right now that's what Thailand has.

Edited December 25, 2014 by NeverSure

[longway]

The Nation must be mis-reporting as usual, as what they have reported makes no sense.

Like the previous system, there would be two types of MPs - 200 from proportional party list and 250 from constituencies, he said.

adding there would be only one winner from one constituency, representing a population of 250,000.

If a party receives 10 per cent of votes in the entire country, the proportional calculation would allocate the party a total of 45 seats in the House of Representatives.

No if they received 10% through PR they would get 20 seats, the balance are constituency MPs, which theoretically be any number from 0-200.

Trying to limit the total number of seats to 45 would be a messy and will lead to nothing good as people will become unhappy that the constituency MP they voted for has been replaced with I presume the second or even third placed candidate in order to keep the total numbers I proportion with the PR vote.

Why have constituency MPs at all if that is what you will do?

[longway]

Shit! Poor Thailand !

I, as a German, would say, that's the worst "democratic" system of all. That is - if you could call it democratic at all, IMHO only direct elections really represent the people's will. The effect of this system is mainly that once they are elected, the representatives give a sh.t to what they promised to you before the election, calls to your representative have zero affect (if you manage to reach them, that is), party guidance rules everything and in parliament sessions they go to the ballot like a herd of sheep. Staying on the "party list" is for every representative more important than their constituency.

All elections are basically the same. People elect representatives.

All elections are the same/ people elect rulers.

If you actually examine what we call democracy, pretty much throughout the world, sovereign power never resides with voters as they have no means to withhold their consent, for example in the UK sovereign power resides in parliament; this is the only place where consent can be given or withheld, what we have in reality are electoral oligarchies, where people have a limited influence who will rule them.

[15Peter20]

Totally predictable. Encourage depolarization and stalemate. This way, no single party will ever be able to be perceived as being more powerful than the army and its associates.

Edited December 25, 2014 by 15Peter20

[longway]

^ shackling political parties is not necessarily undemocratic. More important is will the system make both the elected and unelected elites weak enough so ordinary people can influence their own governance; that's the true test of democracy.

Edited December 25, 2014 by longway

[rickirs]

I believe the Mix Member Proportional system was adopted by New Zealand.

NZ found MMP is "sometimes seen as less preferable than straight List PR is that it can give rise to what are called ‘strategic voting’ anomalies. In 1996, in the constituency of Wellington Central, some National Party strategists urged voters not to vote for the National Party candidate because they had calculated that under MMP his election would not give the National Party another seat but simply replace an MP who would be elected from their party list. It was therefore better for the National Party to see a candidate elected from another party, providing that candidate was in sympathy with the National Party’s ideas and ideology, than for votes to be ‘wasted’ in support of their own candidate." - ACE the Electoral Knowledge Network

For the issues of strategic voting the MMP does encourage building party coalitions regardless of the incentive. There will be some strange bedfellows that the electorate will not anticipate, may protest, and a lot of undisclosed political maneuverings. Still the MMP provides a maximum participatory election and representation.

Ultimately, any electoral system cannot survive if NCPO or its successor have the power to dusrupt the system. But perhaps there will rise capable elected leaders who can even lead the military into being part of an egalitarian society.

[whybother]

The Nation must be mis-reporting as usual, as what they have reported makes no sense.

Like the previous system, there would be two types of MPs - 200 from proportional party list and 250 from constituencies, he said.

adding there would be only one winner from one constituency, representing a population of 250,000.

If a party receives 10 per cent of votes in the entire country, the proportional calculation would allocate the party a total of 45 seats in the House of Representatives.

No if they received 10% through PR they would get 20 seats, the balance are constituency MPs, which theoretically be any number from 0-200.

Trying to limit the total number of seats to 45 would be a messy and will lead to nothing good as people will become unhappy that the constituency MP they voted for has been replaced with I presume the second or even third placed candidate in order to keep the total numbers I proportion with the PR vote.

Why have constituency MPs at all if that is what you will do?

The party gets the number of seats based on the Party List vote. So, 10% of 450 = 45.

The constituency MPs fill the seat allocations first. If there aren't enough constituency MPs, then MPs come from the party list.

If there are more constituency MPs than allocated seats, then the extra MPs are added to the total.

Scenario 1: party gets 10% of party list votes and wins 25 constituency seats - they get a total of 45 seats with 20 coming from the party list.

Scenario 2: party gets 10% of party list votes and wins 50 constituency seats - they get a total of 50 seats with 5 seats coming from the "extra allocation" (ie above the 450 of total seats). They get no party list seats.

Scenario 3: party gets 10% of party list votes and win zero constituency seats - they get a total of 45 seats all allocated from the party list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

[longway]

^ Thanks for taking the time to explain. Appreciated.

[BusyB]

Shit! Poor Thailand !

I, as a German, would say, that's the worst "democratic" system of all. That is - if you could call it democratic at all, IMHO only direct elections really represent the people's will. The effect of this system is mainly that once they are elected, the representatives give a sh.t to what they promised to you before the election, calls to your representative have zero affect (if you manage to reach them, that is), party guidance rules everything and in parliament sessions they go to the ballot like a herd of sheep. Staying on the "party list" is for every representative more important than their constituency.

All elections are basically the same. People elect representatives.

Absolutely.

However the PropRep system has one great advantage over all others – it at least ensures that parties get a proportion of seats which matches the proportion of support they garnered from voters.

It is infinitely better than the FPP system Bernie is touting, which in the UK for example nearly always returns a government voted in by a minority, the votes for other parties in the respective constituencies are discarded and hence discounted totally.

A coalition under PropRep normally has to represent at least 50% of voters and at the least a majority of voters, or they can’t pass legislation. FPP is diametrically opposed and hence far more undemocratic.

It also gives you the chance to “split” your vote. This means you can vote for a party whose policies you like, but also for a person you want to represent your constituency who may not be a member of that party. If a party wins more constituencies than it should have according to the overall proportional vote, then other parties are adjusted accordingly to maintain the proportion . It means the actual size of a parliament fluctuates a little.

When I first voted under this system, I gave my party vote to the party I support. It got the most votes it had ever polled that year. But there was also a neck and neck contest between the two main parties in my constituency which I wanted to influence in one person’s favour, because she was closer to my way of thinking, and the other guy was a right old piece of work. My choice won by a handful of votes.

For me the German system appears to be the most democratic in the world right now, and it strikes me as very wise for the Thais to choose it. That bodes well for the future. I’m actually surprised – but of course we still have to see how the boundaries are drawn.

I can understand Bernie’s disaffection though. I voted with my feet 40 years ago against UK residence because of the general system and deeply class based social/cultural setup, including its inherently outdated, unfair, unrepresentative electoral system. I set up home in Germany actually, loved it, and have been happy as a bird in a sandpit ever since despite its own flaws and idiosyncrasies . They were never ever as bad as they are frequently made out to be – especially by expats.

I also have had a couple of German colleagues who moved to the UK and to my surprise remain thrilled to this day. So I don’t take these kinds of disaffections too seriously, even my own. Today I can appreciate the UK for its good sides as well.

What I can say is that if I was forced into a choice, I’d rather spend my last days in a Cambodian shack than move back to the UK. I’d have to deal with less culture shock – or probably be more open to the change. I seriously can’t imagine living in the UK again in anything other than a serious last ditch emergency situation. Bernie would probably say the same about Germany.

And we both like TH. When I retire in a few years I hope to spend a lot more time there too, although Berlin will probably always remain home base. I knew it was a fantastic city 40 years before the World Cup came along. Been a great life so far and my life and connections with TH are also very beautiful and vielversprechend - despite its flaws and idiosyncrasies.

Edited December 25, 2014 by BusyB

[BusyB]

... a fantastic city 30 years ...

[longway]

Just been reading about this system. What is likely to happen is that the PT knowing that it will not get any extra list seats, will set up a notionally separate party just for the party list so it can get more seats than the system allows. I guess the democrats will do the same.

The only way to stop it would be to ensure that all party list parties also contest the constituency seats as well, but this rule would prevent smaller parties etc from taking part leaving only the big ones again.

Oh well....I don't think they will be able to achieve their aims. There will be a lot of tactical voting in this system at the very least.

[samii]

OMG! I think it was two years ago when the so called major newspapers announced that "maybe Thailand is not ready for ""Western"" democracy". Now the same guys are proposing this? Haloo ... Would there not be easier and more closer examples like India?