New Thai charter: New electoral system 'may not reflect the majority'

[webfact]

NEW CHARTER
New electoral system 'may not reflect the majority'
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE NEW electoral system proposed by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) - of counting the votes of losing candidates to determine party-list MPs - could weaken politics, a member of the Pheu Thai Party said.

Worachai Hema, a former MP, said such a system would mean effectively ignoring the voice of the majority and allowing constituency-vote losers to form a government.

On Monday, the CDC revealed its proposed new voting system in which the votes received by failed constituency candidates would be used for party-list MPs to ensure that every ballot counts.

Worachai explained that the party of the second-placed candidate might gain more total seats if the ratio of the constituency to the party-list system facilitated, adding that it would also be possible that the total number of seats won by small parties would outnumber those won by a big party, who might have won the majority of votes.

Either way, it would allow a minority government to be formed, Worachai said.

Such a system would weaken politics, he warned. It could also pave the way for a prime minister from a small party, who could be anybody, including someone who bought a seat in the party, he said.

He concluded that the system would not reflect the voice of the majority.

A Democrat member, Nipit Intrasombat, expressed a similar opinion, saying the CDC proposed system would not reflect the intent of the majority.

He explained that the constituency and the party-list systems are different. The people might like a candidate but dislike the party, he pointed out, adding that when a vote for a favoured candidate, who lost, is transferred to the party, it might contradict the voter's intention.

The only plus point of such a system is that it is easy because it has only one ballot paper.

He rejected the idea that the CDC proposal was fairer than the majoritarian system when no votes would go in vain. "In the past, people got to vote for the party of their choice anyway and the votes were never a waste. They were used to calculate the number of party-list MPs," he said.

Nipit said most countries had the same voting system. "If you lose an election, you're done," he explained, adding that the party-list system was a different story and they should not be mixed together.

Gothom Arya, a former election commissioner, said the system designed by Meechai Ruchupan's drafting team was rather strange. He urged the CDC to tell the public if there were other countries using it and also inform everyone of its pros and cons.

Concerns have mounted that if such a system undermined the power of big parties, the charter could get rejected in a national referendum whose voters were also supporters of those parties.

Despite that, CDC spokesman Amorn Wanichwiwatana said the CDC would still stick with this system and there was no plan B in place in the event that it meets with strong criticism.

He also revealed that the chairman of the sub-panel on the legislative system, Prapan Naikovit, was working on further details of the electoral system, including the qualifications of an election candidate and the ratio of the constituency to party-list MPs.

Also, next Tuesday the committee studying executive bodies chaired by Apichart Sukhagganond would meet with the CDC to present its report, Amorn said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/New-electoral-system-may-not-reflect-the-majority-30271840.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-29

[tbthailand]

no kidding, and that is the whole point.

The people in charge right now, and who are writing the next constitution, do not represent the majority of Thais and they do not want the majority of Thais to actually have a say in Thailand's government. As it has been for most of Thailand's history, the running of Thailand should be reserved to those "good people" who know what is best for themselves... and therefore, also, the country...

Really, the arrogance of this group makes me want to puke. The fact that many of them are just not that bright or competent just adds insult to injury.

[Emster23]

"We'll count your votes, but your votes won't count". Sounds reasonable to me.....

[FangFerang]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

Edited October 29, 2015 by FangFerang

[Rancid]

Well it isn't actually about the majority choosing a government because they are the best informed & smartest or because any good choices actually exist.

It's about a majority being convinced that they are making the best decision. As such those that control the media generally control the discourse.

Either that or the electorate just chooses who offers the most goodies, then whether they would govern well is irrelevant.

Most important though is that the electorate naively believes it actually has real choices, which is the real definition of democracy.

[candide]

Another attempt by the political faction which is usually in minority to avoid the other faction to be in power.

[HerbalEd]

Since when in the history of Thailand did the government "reflect the majority"? Oh yeah, when Taksin came to power. But look at what happened to his government. No, no ... can't have those poor folks getting any power.

BTW, I'm not a fan of the very corrupt Taksin. But you gotta admit he scared the hell out of the power elite who have run the show since the beginning of Thai time.

Edited October 29, 2015 by HerbalEd

[phycokiller]

at face value I dont think this is a bad idea, politcal parties are not supposed to reflect the majority in any case, and this is one of the problems Thailand has. having lived in countries that changed to proportional systems its only natural that the major parties are going to fight these ideas because they arent to their advantage

[Vandadavid]

Stop talking shit and trying to manipulate the simple Thai people's brains

Everyone votes RICH or POOR unless deceased

They vote for who is officially running for office

Simple save your story's for your PM and your associates who are looking for delay opportunities

Your unprofessional and laughable

[Vandadavid]

You are corrupt to the bone and eventually you will <deleted> up trade with all countries

Give back the people's rights to choose there leader

You are not god

[Srikcir]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

The Party-List system has been done before - the Republic of The Philippines.

It was created to enable small political parties and marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented in federal Congress, which was traditionally dominated by parties with big political machineries. The idea was that seats would go to the groups that have made themselves politically viable, ie., have a convincing platform, a functional party system, a clear advocacy and governance agenda. In short groups would represent a strong constituency.

In practice it became a permanent system of reserved seats for certain social and economic sectors, and rewards political incompetence and incoherence. The net effect is to defuse the political power of the majority. The Party List is inferior to the combined proportional and constituency system prescribed in the 2007 Constitution.

[greenchair]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

The last thing this country needs is a shared national government. As it stands, when pt get in they clear out the corrupt dems. When the dems get in (with a coup) they clear out the corrupt pt. It's working out quite well and cleaning this country up.

There'll be no stopping a national government. Eventually there would need to be a revolution and they would have to start all over again.

Waste another 50 years.

[Thai at Heart]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

The last thing this country needs is a shared national government. As it stands, when pt get in they clear out the corrupt dems. When the dems get in (with a coup) they clear out the corrupt pt. It's working out quite well and cleaning this country up.

There'll be no stopping a national government. Eventually there would need to be a revolution and they would have to start all over again.

Waste another 50 years.

Interesting idea. If you let them continually remove all the corruption from the other side, the system cleans itself up.

[elgordo38]

Since when in the history of Thailand did the government "reflect the majority"? Oh yeah, when Taksin came to power. But look at what happened to his government. No, no ... can't have those poor folks getting any power.

BTW, I'm not a fan of the very corrupt Taksin. But you gotta admit he scared the hell out of the power elite who have run the show since the beginning of Thai time.

Everybody demonizes the man but he did have some good in his body. Some good is about all you can expect from any politico today. The rest is tainted. What gets me is that it is often mentioned that governments should stay away from populist ideas. Seems kind of funny because its the populist masses that puts them in power.

[waldroj]

I can see it now.

The script calls for a weak minority government to give an unconvincing opening performance, followed by a strong unsupporting role from an overpowering opposition.

The two players huff and puff, but don't achieve anything. They also fail to impress the audience who start to boo and hiss.

Just then, right on que, the star of the show (the crisis panel) steps into the limelight and ushers the other players off the stage before calling in the understudy (the army) for a dramatic but predictable ending that leaves the audience bewildered and despondent.

They, we wait for the sequel.

[phycokiller]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

The Party-List system has been done before - the Republic of The Philippines.

It was created to enable small political parties and marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented in federal Congress, which was traditionally dominated by parties with big political machineries. The idea was that seats would go to the groups that have made themselves politically viable, ie., have a convincing platform, a functional party system, a clear advocacy and governance agenda. In short groups would represent a strong constituency.

In practice it became a permanent system of reserved seats for certain social and economic sectors, and rewards political incompetence and incoherence. The net effect is to defuse the political power of the majority. The Party List is inferior to the combined proportional and constituency system prescribed in the 2007 Constitution.

according to wikipedia the party list system is also used in Albania, Argentina, Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Poland, the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland), Spain , Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, the German Bundestag, six German states and many other countries.

Edited October 29, 2015 by phycokiller

[greenchair]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

The last thing this country needs is a shared national government. As it stands, when pt get in they clear out the corrupt dems. When the dems get in (with a coup) they clear out the corrupt pt. It's working out quite well and cleaning this country up.

There'll be no stopping a national government. Eventually there would need to be a revolution and they would have to start all over again.

Waste another 50 years.

[Thai at Heart]

If there are 100 seats, and 60% win and get 60 seats, and the other 40% get 40 seats...I oddly do not have a problem with this.

If they vote for a PM from those seats, and it is a simple majority of 51% to determine the PM, who has the power to veto, the majority is still a majority, and a representational majority. And the minority is not shut out.

The only problem I can see is gridlock, and which might actually force compromise.

The US Congress is a glaring example of a failed winner-takes-all mentality. One side gets the majority, shoves their agenda through, the other side takes the power the next election, undoes the previous agenda, ad infinitum.

Maybe this could work. Having a system that can be modified to tweak the initial outing actually might force reconciliation down their throats, and make them do the one thing politicians despise...share power.

I am critical, sometimes highly critical, but this could actually work.

I don't think it's been tried before. The only caveat I see glaring at me is "people who buy a seat". MPs should have to prove they spent more than half of their previous years in the areas they claim to represent, and NO seat buying.

It's an interesting idea.

The Party-List system has been done before - the Republic of The Philippines.

It was created to enable small political parties and marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented in federal Congress, which was traditionally dominated by parties with big political machineries. The idea was that seats would go to the groups that have made themselves politically viable, ie., have a convincing platform, a functional party system, a clear advocacy and governance agenda. In short groups would represent a strong constituency.

In practice it became a permanent system of reserved seats for certain social and economic sectors, and rewards political incompetence and incoherence. The net effect is to defuse the political power of the majority. The Party List is inferior to the combined proportional and constituency system prescribed in the 2007 Constitution.

according to wikipedia the party list system is also used in Albania, Argentina, Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Poland, the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland), Spain , Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, the German Bundestag, six German states and many other countries.

United Kingdom? Don't think so for a general election. Maybe for local stuff, but first past the post is the UK system.