Thai election: 'Proposed system would punish parties and not serve the public'

[webfact]

'Proposed system would punish parties and not serve the public'
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Drafting Commission has designed a new election system in which voters would vote for a constituency MP candidate and not a party. The election winner would be the MP candidate with the most votes in a constituency. Votes won by the rest of candidates would be added to those in other constituencies across the country and calculated as party-list votes for each party.

Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, associate professor of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University, posted on Facebook that although the proposed election system is simple because voters just cast one ballot for a constituency MP candidate, the CDC should realise voters are familiar with voting for both an MP and a party. They said the simplicity of the process may not reflect voters' intent and wishes.

The principle of making every vote cast count is regarded as a strength of this system, but this principle is not the most important principle. Siripan has said the second principle should not overshadow the more important goal of reflecting voters' intent and wishes.

The charter writers said this principle suited Thai society and did not violate international principles. But critics have said that the 1997 and 2007 charters were also in line with society - but the new election system is not used internationally and the charter writers admit that they have devised it.

Siripan says other countries have not used this system because it would punish parties whose MPs win, as the MPs win seats but the party would not get party-list votes. If a party wanted to secure party-list votes, its MP candidate could not capture the most votes. Voter intent was, thus, distorted because if they voted for an MP candidate, they voted against his or her party.

The academic also says the new election system disregards the complex relationship between constituency MPs and party-list MPs in terms of them being representatives of the people. Thais have developed strategies to increase their bargaining power differently with constituency MPs and party-list MPs over the past 14 years. The methodology of voting for an MP and a party should not be intertwined.

Siripan believes the new system would weaken political parties, as it supports individuals more than parties. They said parties would have no motivation to win votes through projecting good policies but via individuals. Vote-buying could be more rampant, as it would be easier to buy votes through individuals.

Siripan says the new election system would not promote fair competition among political parties. Small parties which could not field constituency MP candidates would not be able to compete with large parties. Foreign countries solved this problem by opting for the party-list system.

The new election system would lead to inefficient coalition governments but this scenario does not necessary mean a non-elected PM would lead the government, as that would depend on the new charter's criteria on a non-elected PM.

Siripan says the proposed system would drastically change the face of Thai politics. Pheu Thai and the Democrat parties would lose out in an election, as they were major winners under the party-list system.

Medium-sized parties such as the Bhum Jai Thai, Chat Pattana, Puea Pandin and Chat Thai Pattana would benefit from the new system. Small parties and parties that could not compete in the constituency system such as Rak Thailand would also stand to lose.

So the new system did not reflect voter intent and did not promote fair competition.

The charter writers have been urged to accept the desire of voters as shown via past election results and find and fix flaws in the election system instead of totally changing it.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he supported the idea of making every vote cast not being wasted, as they would be calculated as party-list votes. However, he said the method to calculate the party-list votes must be reviewed.

He said the new system would not reflect voter intent if they were only allowed to cast one vote. He said he would raise his concerns in his electoral system proposals and forward it to the CDC on Wednesday.

"There is a way to make it clear about voters' intentions when voting for a party and for an individual. We must have them cast their vote on two ballot papers,'' he said.

Abhisit said that if the new election system were implemented, the CDC would be attacked for failing to reflect people's desires because parties with successful MP candidates would see their party-list votes slashed.

Academic Surapong Sothanasatien dismissed claims that the new election system would prevent vote-buying. He said electoral fraud took place directly and indirectly before and after ballots and the new system could not solve the problem.

He said the new system would not change voter behaviour and would not promote a greater number of voters.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Proposed-system-would-punish-parties-and-not-serve-30272085.html


-- The Nation 2015-11-02

[trogers]

I have always thought that punishing dishonest parties is a service to the public...or am I wrong?

[smedly]

It all sounds good to me, voters can actually cast a vote for who they want to represent them in the house instead of being forced to vote for a party they may not want there, we will of course have the Red PTP appoligists along soon to tell us it is not democratic lol

[worgeordie]

I do not understand this party list system,does any other democracy in

the World have this system,is this how it works ? for every xx MP's that

your party gets elected, you get 1 party list seat?

If that is how it works,these party list seats will be given to major money

backers in the election,that does not seem very Democratic,as whomever

gets the seat will be chosen by the party not the people.

regards Worgeordie

[MZurf]

It all sounds good to me, voters can actually cast a vote for who they want to represent them in the house instead of being forced to vote for a party they may not want there, we will of course have the Red PTP appoligists along soon to tell us it is not democratic lol

If by democratic you mean a weak government that needs a consensus every time it wants to do anything, aka Polish Parliament, and unelected committees having veto power (i.e. eternal old elite rule) then yes, it's very democratic.

Now why am I not surprised that is your definition of the word....

[DirtyDan]

Looking back upon the history of this great Kingdom, one thing is clearly evident: Those in power, will use whatever means necessary to stay in power. Status Quo. End of story.

[Thai at Heart]

Is there any published outcome from modeling this on previous elections. Could be interesting.

[Tatsujin]

This is all getting far too complicated. Why make up new systems of voting that no one else in the world is using? Let's just go back to pre-1932 and have done with it.

[Vandadavid]

The good old Thais

Corruption is always here and who is he to say what Thais like or want

What a farce

[In Town]

The intent is to weaken PT, but it will not work as they expect. PT will win the most constituency seats, and will be the second highest vote getter in seats won by the democrat party, so they will get list seats for those votes as well. In the end there is no way you can change the election system to provide a different outcome. If most people vote for PT then they will win under any system that awards seats for the same amount of votes, so they will need to change the system so that the Democrats can win seats with fewer votes than needed by PT. That will be the next "reform".

[MaxLee]

Forget about it, there won't be any election collections any time sooner............ such a waste of news......................

[Vandadavid]

Anyway they can make it as hard as they wish but in the end the Thai people will dance again

The rest will slowly change and the pj ace will smoke

HaHa

And they will do it without someone forcing them to

[Vandadavid]

The intent is to weaken PT, but it will not work as they expect. PT will win the most constituency seats, and will be the second highest vote getter in seats won by the democrat party, so they will get list seats for those votes as well. In the end there is no way you can change the election system to provide a different outcome. If most people vote for PT then they will win under any system that awards seats for the same amount of votes, so they will need to change the system so that the Democrats can win seats with fewer votes than needed by PT. That will be the next "reform".

I not sure 100% but I are sure that they are tricking the people.... Correct and I think you understand very well

[Srikcir]

I do not understand this party list system,does any other democracy in

the World have this system,is this how it works ? for every xx MP's that

your party gets elected, you get 1 party list seat?

If that is how it works,these party list seats will be given to major money

backers in the election,that does not seem very Democratic,as whomever

gets the seat will be chosen by the party not the people.

regards Worgeordie

"Lastly, the CDC adviser [Jade Donavanik] said the MMA was newly designed and nothing like it existed anywhere in the world." The Nation 2015-11-02

There is nothing more suspect than unelected officials appointed by the junta to design a fair electoral system for a nation whose elected governbments keep getting overthrown by juntas.

[Srikcir]

Is there any published outcome from modeling this on previous elections. Could be interesting.

Yes, but mumbo jumbo.

From CDC adviser Jade Donavanik (The Nation 2015-11-02):

"The simulations have been calculated based on different logic and systems, he said. They have used an assumption of one system to explain another system; so, it wasn't totally logical, Jade added."

"You can't say that had we used this system in 2005 this would have been the result. It's an 'if clause' that is not true and can never be true,"

Jade went on to say,

"proportionality was a thing to be considered, especially how much proportionality between constituency and party list candidates the MMA would produce, compared with the MMP which was considered "the fairest".

CDC originally adopted Germany's MMP system after travelling to Germany and witnessing the process first hand, but rejected it. It essentially wasn't "Thainess" enough - because Thailand society is so unique there is no electroral system in the world that would be appropriate.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Srikcir

[Thai at Heart]

Is there any published outcome from modeling this on previous elections. Could be interesting.

Yes, but mumbo jumbo.

From CDC adviser Jade Donavanik (The Nation 2015-11-02):

"The simulations have been calculated based on different logic and systems, he said. They have used an assumption of one system to explain another system; so, it wasn't totally logical, Jade added."

"You can't say that had we used this system in 2005 this would have been the result. It's an 'if clause' that is not true and can never be true,"

Jade went on to say,

"proportionality was a thing to be considered, especially how much proportionality between constituency and party list candidates the MMA would produce, compared with the MMP which was considered "the fairest".

CDC originally adopted Germany's MMP system after travelling to Germany and witnessing the process first hand, but rejected it. It essentially wasn't "Thainess" enough - because Thailand society is so unique there is no electroral system in the world that would be appropriate.

Well exactly. Thing is at the end of the day, PTP won the popular vote by a slim margin but total seats by a long way.

It's difficult to jig that result to mean that they don't win overall. However it maybe that a lot of Democrat voters up country didn't bother to vote because they knew their candidate couldn't win up country.

Will be interesting.

[Srikcir]

I have always thought that punishing dishonest parties is a service to the public...or am I wrong?

In a democracy aren't dishonest parties punished by lack of voter support and/or campaign funds? Or if the party leadership has violated laws, they are charged and prosecuted under a constitutional rule of law. What does suppression of party votes have to do with punishment of alleged dishonest parties?

Neither the MMP or MMA has anything to do with punishing dishonest parties as presented by the CDC. Both systems are designed to merely minimize a large, well-funded political party from gaining a mandate in the legislature and allowing to some extent of recognition in elected positions for the minority of different voter groups. Both systems are the opposite of the republican "winner take all" elections.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Srikcir

[chainarong]

In theory this is a good proposition until you unearth the bogeyman , if you have four hundred independents Politicians, independent Ministers all not on the same page, all pushing their own agendas, all abusing each other , all supporting their own areas and not looking at the complete picture , complete bedlam, with the party structure you have the party platform and you can thrash out items , issues etc before going into the house , however the party is often abused in Thailand and that is because of the party hierarchy ,it's members , their rules and reqs, with a team of independents nothing would be ever be achieved and the end game, the loser is , go figure.......

Edited November 2, 2015 by chainarong

[tuanku]

In past (pre - PTP/Thaksin) elections in Thailand, there were no real party identities and MPs switched parties at will according to which they believed would give them the best opportunities for power.

When Thaksin came along, he built a strong identity for his political party which resonated with large numbers of rural Thais. To what extent he had a personal commitment to improving the lives of poor and rural voters is up for debate, but no political party had ever made an effort to understand their needs and desires before - so they voted for, and continue to support PTP style political parties. In doing this for the first time he opened a Pandora's box and showed the poor majority that they could influence how Thailand developed. This can never be undone, regardless of the desire of the elite to return to the "good old days" where the masses did as they were told. It is extremely difficult to devise a democratic electoral system where the will of the majority is not the deciding factor in who gets to form a government. The complexities in the proposed system are a poor attempt to ensure just that, but they will not work. There will never again be a fair and free election in Thailand which will produce a result that the ruling elite are happy with. This above all is the Thaksin legacy.

[Baerboxer]

I have always thought that punishing dishonest parties is a service to the public...or am I wrong?

In a democracy aren't dishonest parties punished by lack of voter support and/or campaign funds? Or if the party leadership has violated laws, they are charged and prosecuted under a constitutional rule of law. What does suppression of party votes have to do with punishment of alleged dishonest parties?

Neither the MMP or MMA has anything to do with punishing dishonest parties as presented by the CDC. Both systems are designed to merely minimize a large, well-funded political party from gaining a mandate in the legislature and allowing to some extent of recognition in elected positions for the minority of different voter groups. Both systems are the opposite of the republican "winner take all" elections.

How many democracies do you know that would allow a convicted criminal fugitive to run their government, pay ministers and party MPs a salary to do as told and populate senior positions with inexperienced unqualified relatives who'd do as told?

[In Town]

I have always thought that punishing dishonest parties is a service to the public...or am I wrong?

In a democracy aren't dishonest parties punished by lack of voter support and/or campaign funds? Or if the party leadership has violated laws, they are charged and prosecuted under a constitutional rule of law. What does suppression of party votes have to do with punishment of alleged dishonest parties?

Neither the MMP or MMA has anything to do with punishing dishonest parties as presented by the CDC. Both systems are designed to merely minimize a large, well-funded political party from gaining a mandate in the legislature and allowing to some extent of recognition in elected positions for the minority of different voter groups. Both systems are the opposite of the republican "winner take all" elections.

How many democracies do you know that would allow a convicted criminal fugitive to run their government, pay ministers and party MPs a salary to do as told and populate senior positions with inexperienced unqualified relatives who'd do as told?

Are you referring to the current PM? I don't think he has been convicted in court yet of buying politicians or nepotism, but Thai courts are not perceived by some as particularly rapid, so it may only be a matter of time.

[rubl]

It all sounds good to me, voters can actually cast a vote for who they want to represent them in the house instead of being forced to vote for a party they may not want there, we will of course have the Red PTP appoligists along soon to tell us it is not democratic lol

If by democratic you mean a weak government that needs a consensus every time it wants to do anything, aka Polish Parliament, and unelected committees having veto power (i.e. eternal old elite rule) then yes, it's very democratic.

Now why am I not surprised that is your definition of the word....

Well, no one here seemed to like proportional representation and the academic seems to like constitutional MPs mixed with party list MPs which is just another form of representation. Worldwide we see many forms.

The 'consensus' bit doesn't mean you have a weak government. Pushing through your own line by force is not a sign of power, but a sign of abuse of democratic rules. Only through trying to go for 'consensus' you cannhave a steady course, rather than the zigzag after every government change.

As for 'veto power', what 'veto power' ? Did you see a new draft constitution? I didn't. I only see conflicting opinions which will take a time to straighten out. As I wrote a few time already the last 16 months or so, if the grassroot organisations had overwhelmed the various commissions with 'support' and 'input', they would have been in the position to get change. Standing along the side line with the big boss having said 'non-obstruction' by 'non-cooperation' is just that, standing on the side line.

[rubl]

I have always thought that punishing dishonest parties is a service to the public...or am I wrong?

In a democracy aren't dishonest parties punished by lack of voter support and/or campaign funds? Or if the party leadership has violated laws, they are charged and prosecuted under a constitutional rule of law. What does suppression of party votes have to do with punishment of alleged dishonest parties?

Neither the MMP or MMA has anything to do with punishing dishonest parties as presented by the CDC. Both systems are designed to merely minimize a large, well-funded political party from gaining a mandate in the legislature and allowing to some extent of recognition in elected positions for the minority of different voter groups. Both systems are the opposite of the republican "winner take all" elections.

How many democracies do you know that would allow a convicted criminal fugitive to run their government, pay ministers and party MPs a salary to do as told and populate senior positions with inexperienced unqualified relatives who'd do as told?

Are you referring to the current PM? I don't think he has been convicted in court yet of buying politicians or nepotism, but Thai courts are not perceived by some as particularly rapid, so it may only be a matter of time.

You answered your own question. The convicted person who jumped bail would be a criminal fugitive and Thailand has only one such former PM.

Anyway we're unto legal representation by legally electable people, either as constituency candidate or as party list candidate. Personally I still favour proportional representation, but that seems too democratic for Thailand, even by distractors say so although they use different arguments.

[Denim]

1. Yes.....why not. Give it a try and when Phua Thai and Taksins latest proxy still manage to win they have the option of having another patriotic coup or falling back on their constitution which will allow for military intervention if they don't like the way the cookie has crumbled again.

[Srikcir]

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he supported the idea of making every vote cast not being wasted, as they would be calculated as party-list votes."

Abhisit supported by his own participation the electoral system prescribed by the 2007 Constitution for the 2007 and 2011 elections. In that election five parties that polled individually between 2% and 10% won 69 out of 400 constituency seats while polling a total of 13 out of 80 proportional seats. With the Democrats losing majority in both elections, Abhisit apparently decided that he would not participate in the 2014 election, and no one else should either.

Clearly not every political group qualified for either a constituency or proportional seat. If they had, the resulting miniscule number of seats would have been meaningless in regards to affecting any legislative actions. But under the MMA every political group no matter how incompetent or limited in their political objectives would receive a seat. The result is a bloated legislature burdened by prolonged procedures to accomplish the most simplest of tasks.

[MarkmBha]

Over the decades, I have seen how Thai politics works.

This new election law will be more of the same. Until Thailand can understand what "Democrazy" means, the people will continue to suffer.

[FangFerang]

Contrary to popular belief, I think this is a very good idea.

No more winner-take-all....maybe Westerners resent the fact that the Thais created the idea.

The deadlock, gridlock, winner takes all is a stupid idea in modern politics. Part of the reason the Dems and Herr Suthep demonstrated was that they lost any voice in governance. they SHOULD have a voice, but the electorate should also set the majority.

How that dices down to making policy is anyone's guess, but our Thai friends, who many both love and bash, have a good idea...

Pisses some off, doesn't it?

[trogers]

Over the decades, I have seen how Thai politics works.

This new election law will be more of the same. Until Thailand can understand what "Democrazy" means, the people will continue to suffer.

Did you mean until the people understand what Democrazy means, they would continue to suffer?

I think most understand, but would still not change. Such behaviour can be seen in their everyday lives - beating red lights, drunk driving, no safety helmets or seat belts, speeding, drugs, gambling, etc...

[tbthailand]

It all sounds good to me, voters can actually cast a vote for who they want to represent them in the house instead of being forced to vote for a party they may not want there, we will of course have the Red PTP appoligists along soon to tell us it is not democratic lol

If by democratic you mean a weak government that needs a consensus every time it wants to do anything, aka Polish Parliament, and unelected committees having veto power (i.e. eternal old elite rule) then yes, it's very democratic.

Now why am I not surprised that is your definition of the word....

he completely misunderstood the content of the article. That's why he thinks it's democratic.

[tbthailand]

Is there any published outcome from modeling this on previous elections. Could be interesting.

Yes, but mumbo jumbo.

From CDC adviser Jade Donavanik (The Nation 2015-11-02):

"The simulations have been calculated based on different logic and systems, he said. They have used an assumption of one system to explain another system; so, it wasn't totally logical, Jade added."

"You can't say that had we used this system in 2005 this would have been the result. It's an 'if clause' that is not true and can never be true,"

Jade went on to say,

"proportionality was a thing to be considered, especially how much proportionality between constituency and party list candidates the MMA would produce, compared with the MMP which was considered "the fairest".

CDC originally adopted Germany's MMP system after travelling to Germany and witnessing the process first hand, but rejected it. It essentially wasn't "Thainess" enough - because Thailand society is so unique there is no electroral system in the world that would be appropriate.

Well exactly. Thing is at the end of the day, PTP won the popular vote by a slim margin but total seats by a long way.

It's difficult to jig that result to mean that they don't win overall. However it maybe that a lot of Democrat voters up country didn't bother to vote because they knew their candidate couldn't win up country.

Will be interesting.

just for the record, I'm not sure that getting 35% more votes than your closest competitor would be considered a slim margin...