Supporters, opponents of German-style electoral system air views

[Lite Beer]

Supporters, opponents of German-style electoral system air views
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- While the Constitution Drafting Committee thinks a German-style mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system would suit this country, many political activists have shown enthusiasm for the proposal. Others, however, argue that it would cause more problems than the old system.

Deputy Democrat Party leader Nipit Intrasombat said Thailand had never used this type of electoral system and it might cause difficulties for the party in some parts of the country.

"We used to get 90 per cent of the votes in the South, which can be calculated at around 48 constituency seats, while we received 80 per cent of party-list votes. If the country changes the system to the MMP, our party-list candidates [in the South] would be lost," he said.

At the same time the Pheu Thai Party, most of whose supporters are in the Northeast region, would face the same problem, he said.

The CDC on Thursday resolved to adopt the German-style electoral system.

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.

Proponents of the MMP system, in contrast, claim 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 of Representatives.

The CDC also increased the number of party-list MPs to 200 and reduced constituency MPs to 250.

However, if the CDC thought the MMP system suits the country and puts it into the new charter, political parties will have to find a way to solve their own problems, Nipit said.

Weng Tojirakarn, United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leader, strongly disagrees with the MMP system. He suggested the country should use the electoral system stipulated in the 1997 Constitution, which had 400 constituencies and 100 party-list candidates. "The quality of constituency candidates and party-list candidates is hugely different, therefore reducing the number of constituency candidates would not be a good idea," the UDD leader said.

He said the country should get rid of the Senate, claiming the Upper House was the most corrupt, and that senators had been responsible for appointing politically biased people to independent organisations, some of who were also allegedly corrupt and interfered with political affairs.

In response to the CDC allowing independent candidates for parliamentary seats, Weng said this would cause problems as well, making it extremely hard for the government and prime minister to control MPs.

He said the UDD in the new year might produce a comprehensive report on what obstructs Thai democracy, and explain it to the public independently.

Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University, said the MMP system would help every citizen's vote count. He explained that sometimes there were people who did not support either of the big two parties but had to choose one of them in order for their votes to count.

"We can see that there are only two big parties, the Democrats and Pheu Thai. If people vote for a smaller third or fourth party, their votes will vanish."

He added that if there were independent candidates such as from non-government groups taking part in the system, it would stimulate people's enthusiasm for politics.

The MMP might promote better democracy, because democracy is for everyone, he concluded.

Akanat Prompan, spokesman for the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), insisted there should not be any MPs from a party-list system because that increased the chance for financiers to intervene in political parties. "The PDRC wants to see political parties truly represent the people, not being owned and controlled by financiers."

He voiced support for the MMP system, saying it would cut down on vote-buying by political parties.

"But the PDRC still has to examine the CDC's whole proposal further, and there will be a meeting arranged for us to discuss the charter," Akanat said.

CDC member Paiboon Nititawan also agrees that the MMP would be the right choice, saying it would project everyone's voice.

"Personally, I agree that representatives do not need to be members of political parties, and how the new system works such as 250 representatives and 200 party-list candidates including independent candidates can be a part of this as well," he said.

Meanwhile, National Reform Council member Sombat Thamrong-thanyawong, whose proposal for a directly elected PM was rejected by the CDC, said increasing the number of party-list candidates to 200 might be another way for party leaders to select politicians who were loyal to them to win seats in Parliament.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Supporters-opponents-of-German-style-electoral-sys-30250780.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-27

[whybother]

"The quality of constituency candidates and party-list candidates is hugely different, therefore reducing the number of constituency candidates would not be a good idea," the UDD leader said.

What he is basically saying is that the quality of party list candidates is so bad, that increasing them is not a good idea.

I'm actually warming to the idea of this system. Proportional representation while still having local representation. I do agree with Weng though, that there are too many party-list MPs.

[Issangeorge]

In response to the CDC allowing independent candidates for parliamentary seats, Weng said this would cause problems as well, making it extremely hard for the government and prime minister to control MPs.

Is the Prime Minister not supposed to be responsible to the MPs, Weng, seems to have it backwards. Was not Thailand's problem that parliament did everything Thaksin told them to do, and never questioned Thaksin. If MPs could be independent, they would be able to question the Prime Minister, without worrying about being kicked out of parliament.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Issangeorge

[Tim Meisburger]

"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."

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of representation and the impact of various election systems In single-member-districts if you express a preference for one representative, but get another, you still have a representative. In party-based elections, if you vote for a party that doesn't get in, then you have no representative, and if your party wins one seat you have one tenth the influence as a voter who voted for a party that won ten seats. In single-member-districts representatives are accountable to constituents (the people), whereas in proportional systems representatives are accountable to party bosses. This works okay if parties are internally democratic, but if they are not internally democratic then the quality of representation and democracy is low.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Tim Meisburger

[binjalin]

it will lead to "deals" and "coalitions" and possible abuse and having non-elected 'senators' is really a bad idea the most important step forward would be review the judiciary to keep them out of politics, get rid of les majeste and stop 'couping'

[Krataiboy]

Maybe the Germans simply learned the lessons of history which Thais clearly have not. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship and democracy, of any kind, is infinitely preferable.

[rickirs]

"If the country changes the system to the MMP, our party-list candidates [in the South] would be lost," ...and... "At the same time the Pheu Thai Party, most of whose supporters are in the Northeast region, would face the same problem ... ''

The MMP dilutes the power bases of the historically two strongest political parties who dominate the elected government. That sounds like Mission Accomplished to me. I like the MMP system and obviously it has successfully served Germany. Thailand could do worse as it has for the last 80 years with 13 military coups. It's time for the nation to evolve into a 21st century advanced society if it wants to keep up with its economic partners.

[h90]

"The quality of constituency candidates and party-list candidates is hugely different, therefore reducing the number of constituency candidates would not be a good idea," the UDD leader said.

What he is basically saying is that the quality of party list candidates is so bad, that increasing them is not a good idea.

I'm actually warming to the idea of this system. Proportional representation while still having local representation. I do agree with Weng though, that there are too many party-list MPs.

The problem on constituency candidates is, that it is relative cheap to buy the votes there.

For party list candidates: These on safe positions don't need vote buying. These on impossible positions don't need it, so vote buying will be almost impossible for candidates.

Local representation isn't so important now in modern times. Having split Thailand in something like 6-20 administrative areas with no constituency candidates, but the governors have the right to speak in parliament would be good enough.

And a max. 200 MPs

[whybother]

"The quality of constituency candidates and party-list candidates is hugely different, therefore reducing the number of constituency candidates would not be a good idea," the UDD leader said.

What he is basically saying is that the quality of party list candidates is so bad, that increasing them is not a good idea.

I'm actually warming to the idea of this system. Proportional representation while still having local representation. I do agree with Weng though, that there are too many party-list MPs.

The problem on constituency candidates is, that it is relative cheap to buy the votes there.

For party list candidates: These on safe positions don't need vote buying. These on impossible positions don't need it, so vote buying will be almost impossible for candidates.

Local representation isn't so important now in modern times. Having split Thailand in something like 6-20 administrative areas with no constituency candidates, but the governors have the right to speak in parliament would be good enough.

And a max. 200 MPs

Local representation is very important. Isn't one of the main issues now that too much power rests in Bangkok?

[Baerboxer]

In response to the CDC allowing independent candidates for parliamentary seats, Weng said this would cause problems as well, making it extremely hard for the government and prime minister to control MPs.

Is the Prime Minister not supposed to be responsible to the MPs, Weng, seems to have it backwards. Was not Thailand's problem that parliament did everything Thaksin told them to do, and never questioned Thaksin. If MPs could be independent, they would be able to question the Prime Minister, without worrying about being kicked out of parliament.

That is just Weng explaining how Thaksin/UDD/PTP/Shin democracy actually wants to work. Thaksin controls everyone and everything. Anyone not towing the party line is out.

[than]

Well, Germany is a strong democracy, with a good election system.

Reds are not happy with this true democratic election system, Are reds really democrat lovers or they prefers cheating election system ?