Thai CDC member explains reasons for new system

[webfact]

CDC member explains reasons for new system

BANGKOK: -- Thailand is back on the road to democracy and new political systems are being figured out after the old one broke down following the coup last year. Praphan Naiyakovit, a member of the new Constitution Drafting Commission and chairman of its panel studying parliamentary systems, talked to The Nation's Piyaporn Wongruang about why a new system is needed.

Looking at the past, what problems can you see in our political and parliamentary systems, and how are these related to the problem in our electoral system?

I don't want to say that parliamentary dictatorship is the same issue as gaining a majority of the House of Representatives as a result of a parallel proportional election. But it has shown us that the votes gained may not truly reflect or relate to the real number of voters.

To write the new charter, we conducted a review of all electoral systems to see what best fits us.

We have looked into parliamentary systems, not yet finished looking into the senate component, but finished the part on electoral systems that send MPs to the House.

We have learned that there is a first-past-the-post system, under which a winner takes all (seats), which Thailand had used until the 1997 constitution.

This is the oldest and easiest electoral system, but lost votes would be discarded. So, people say it is quite unfair especially if the losing candidate lose by a narrow margin.

So, the second system was then introduced, which is a total proportional one, but it has a disadvantage as all MPs chosen by parties may be quite distant from voters.

As a result, the third system was introduced, which is a mixed proportional system. One type is parallel-based and the other is mixed member proportional-based, which was introduced by the previous CDC.

Since the 1997 constitution, we have used the parallel-based, and as I told you, we have seen its flaws. So, we have discussed what then would best fit the country.

That's the reason you have introduced the new system?

To find the best system, we have come up with five key principles that we think would help reflect the most democratic principle. One of the most important parts is an election must be direct and by the people, and the other, which is crucially important to us, is every vote must be meaningful.

That's the reason why we have proposed a mixed member apportionment system, under which all lost votes would also be counted and seats shared following the proportions of those votes. It's still parallel-based. The most crucial point is that we didn't think of who would benefit from this but the people.

And you think that our parliamentary and political systems would be improved as a result?

Under this system, candidates cannot do what they used to do anymore. They cannot go and visit people at social events such as funerals, ordinations, which is very Thai style, to gain popularity. From now on, they have to think of their party's policies to explain to people, as in the case of losing in the constituency race, their votes can still go to the party, and they may have a share in the party list afterwards. Voters will also change, as from now on they will see a point in going to cast their ballot. The parties, in the meantime, will be more mindful in fielding candidates.

So, everyone will adjust, but more importantly, the parties themselves will have to adjust if they cannot win a landslide victory. They will learn to take others' policies, rather than force theirs on others to accept, and that way, compromises for the greatest benefit of the people will emerge.

Whether you will win such a landslide victory or form a coalition government is really up to the people.

And that is the meaning of democracy that the CDC is thinking of?

In a democratic system, people are the most important. But in our view, it's not just that, their voices should also be truly meaningful. It's fundamental to democracy.

Do you think people will accept the idea?

It's really up to them. We will go ask them in a referendum, and if they find it advantageous to them, I believe they will.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-member-explains-reasons-for-new-system-30272059.html

-- The Nation 2015-11-02

[Somtamnication]

"So, everyone will adjust". Nope, it will never happen. These people hate each other so much.

[jaltsc]

Just another constitution du jour to favor the ever changing faction in power.

[noitom]

This is typical Thai mumbo jumbo to attempt to rationalize their rigging of the process to give them room to maneuver any result that they want regardless of the popular vote.

[sjaak327]

Did they actually look at the constituency votes on the last election and have adjusted the lost votes back into the party list elections, I don't think the result would be dramatically different.

I am not a fan of throwing away votes, but in this case would've opted for party list only, easy solution to the problem.

[FangFerang]

"So, the second system was then introduced, which is a total proportional one, but it has a disadvantage as all MPs chosen by parties may be quite distant from voters." In this scheme, people are voting for parties, not people. It will virtually eliminate voter representatives.

Really, what a quiet admission. So, some Democrat MP from Bangkok who only traveled upcountry twice in his life by helicopter gets to be an MP representing Chiang Rai because the local rep received five percent of the vote?

This is no minor problem, because the reverse would be also true for rural reps in BKK, and the drafters won't like that.

I will let them iron out the details before I have an opinion, but stability seems to have a very high price tag here.

Edited November 2, 2015 by FangFerang

[Vandadavid]

They talk rubbish and everyone knows these people are part if the roadmap lol

Thee own roadmap and know ones going to vote for it so will not count

The CDC will also write anti legal action clauses I am sure lol

Just pure hog wash no good

[Vandadavid]

Who appointed these amatures and what makes them specialists.

They are not and in fact should follow suit of Australia and USA and stop trying make it easy for a certain party to elected again

It will never happen

[Vandadavid]

No social events ok

Can you prepare a TV Show to clean the ears of Thais and revert them

LOL

[MZurf]

CDC member explains reasons for new system

BANGKOK: -- Thailand is back on the road to democracy and new political systems are being figured out after the old one broke down following the coup last year. Praphan Naiyakovit, a member of the new Constitution Drafting Commission and chairman of its panel studying parliamentary systems, talked to The Nation's Piyaporn Wongruang about why a new system is needed.

Looking at the past, what problems can you see in our political and parliamentary systems, and how are these related to the problem in our electoral system?

I don't want to say that parliamentary dictatorship is the same issue as gaining a majority of the House of Representatives as a result of a parallel proportional election. But it has shown us that the votes gained may not truly reflect or relate to the real number of voters.

To write the new charter, we conducted a review of all electoral systems to see what best fits us.

We have looked into parliamentary systems, not yet finished looking into the senate component, but finished the part on electoral systems that send MPs to the House.

We have learned that there is a first-past-the-post system, under which a winner takes all (seats), which Thailand had used until the 1997 constitution.

This is the oldest and easiest electoral system, but lost votes would be discarded. So, people say it is quite unfair especially if the losing candidate lose by a narrow margin.

So, the second system was then introduced, which is a total proportional one, but it has a disadvantage as all MPs chosen by parties may be quite distant from voters.

As a result, the third system was introduced, which is a mixed proportional system. One type is parallel-based and the other is mixed member proportional-based, which was introduced by the previous CDC.

Since the 1997 constitution, we have used the parallel-based, and as I told you, we have seen its flaws. So, we have discussed what then would best fit the country.

That's the reason you have introduced the new system?

To find the best system, we have come up with five key principles that we think would help reflect the most democratic principle. One of the most important parts is an election must be direct and by the people, and the other, which is crucially important to us, is every vote must be meaningful.

That's the reason why we have proposed a mixed member apportionment system, under which all lost votes would also be counted and seats shared following the proportions of those votes. It's still parallel-based. The most crucial point is that we didn't think of who would benefit from this but the people.

And you think that our parliamentary and political systems would be improved as a result?

Under this system, candidates cannot do what they used to do anymore. They cannot go and visit people at social events such as funerals, ordinations, which is very Thai style, to gain popularity. From now on, they have to think of their party's policies to explain to people, as in the case of losing in the constituency race, their votes can still go to the party, and they may have a share in the party list afterwards. Voters will also change, as from now on they will see a point in going to cast their ballot. The parties, in the meantime, will be more mindful in fielding candidates.

So, everyone will adjust, but more importantly, the parties themselves will have to adjust if they cannot win a landslide victory. They will learn to take others' policies, rather than force theirs on others to accept, and that way, compromises for the greatest benefit of the people will emerge.

Whether you will win such a landslide victory or form a coalition government is really up to the people.

And that is the meaning of democracy that the CDC is thinking of?

In a democratic system, people are the most important. But in our view, it's not just that, their voices should also be truly meaningful. It's fundamental to democracy.

Do you think people will accept the idea?

It's really up to them. We will go ask them in a referendum, and if they find it advantageous to them, I believe they will.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-member-explains-reasons-for-new-system-30272059.html

-- The Nation 2015-11-02

"Thailand is back on the road to democracy and new political systems are being figured out after the old one broke down following the coup last year"

Broke down?? It was broken down by the junta when they overthrew the elected government!

"So, everyone will adjust, but more importantly, the parties themselves will have to adjust if they cannot win a landslide victory. They will learn to take others' policies, rather than force theirs on others to accept,"

Welcome to a Polish Parliament, Thai style, where lame duck governments are controlled by unelected "committees" of old elites.

Everything that's being done is aimed at preventing one political movement back into power, period.

Reconciliation, bwahahaha!

[Just1Voice]

Rig the election process so that no one party, regardless of popularity or votes, can administer the country.

Establish "Good Oversight Committees" of un-elected "Good People" who have the power to "take over" whenever they feel it's necessary.

Yeah, sounds perfect to me - NOT!

[Srikcir]

Praphan expresses concern for votes gained may not truly reflect or relate to the real number of voters…..

Such a hypocrite.

He works on a committee to draft a new constitution by appointment from the unelected NCPO who overthrew an elected government through a coup d’etat who showed no concern for voters.