BURNING ISSUE
CDC's goal - a simple electoral system based on trust
Attayuth Bootsripoom

BANGKOK: -- A proposal by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) to adopt a new electoral system called Mixed Members Apportionment (MMA) has received lukewarm response from politicians and academics alike. They voiced concern that this proposed voting and vote-count system could lead to unstable coalition governments. They pointed out that the system might not reflect the real intention of voters in choosing their representatives.

There was also concern that large political parties were worried the new electoral system might deprive them of votes for the party-list election. If their nominee parties won seats from the party-list system, the large "parent" parties could win many MP seats from constituencies, leaving them ineligible to gain any votes for the party-list system.

Under the new vote-count system proposed by the CDC, only votes from the losing candidates in constituencies would be counted to calculate the number of party-list MPs for the political parties. That would mean a disadvantage for political parties that won many MP seats from constituencies. If they wanted to form a stable government and reduce the political disadvantage against them, those large parties would be likely to float nominee parties.

Those nominees might be in the form of an "auxiliary" or "subsidiary" set up by a "parent party". Or they might be smaller parties acting as "allies" to the larger parties and planning to work together after the general election.

This issue has been raised by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, former rector of the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) who earlier was a member of the National Reform Council, and Yuthaporn Issarachai, former dean of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University's Faculty of Political Science.

Many people agreed it was possible nominee parties could come into existence if the new voting system became effective. However, they did not think it would be too easy.

Jade Donavanik, dean of Dhurakit Pundit University's Faculty of Law who is a former constitution drafter and an adviser to the current CDC, said that nominees could exist in any system. He warned that there would be a "big risk" in having voters cast their ballots only once for constituencies and then counting their votes for the party-list election, with the constituency winners' votes uncounted.

The proposed new system forces voters to vote for only one candidate/party in their constituency. Any party that wishes to "transfer" its support votes to its nominee party, in the hope of winning MP seats from the party-list system, might risk losing in the constituencies.

The nominee parties also could not be guaranteed election victory, despite their "secret deal" with the larger parties. They could not rest assured of votes from supporters of the larger parties. Moreover, if voters were viewed as individuals with the freedom of choosing, it would be unlikely for them to "transfer" their support from the favourite party to its "nominee". Also, the larger parties could not be fully sure their "nominees" or "allies" would support them in Parliament if those smaller parties won considerable MP seats. Their pre-election alliance deal might not be honoured.

CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan commented that he could not figure out how the feared nominee or alliance deal would be worked out. "How can they be sure the voters want them to get elected? Their competitors might win the seats if they focused on 'sharing votes' with their nominees. They would succeed if they could tell their supporters to vote for their nominees when they had enough votes in the constituencies," Meechai said.

It would be difficult to tell if there would be nominee or alliance deals between larger and smaller parties. "What is important is that we must trust the voters and respect the people's decision," he said.

Voters have the right to choose the candidate and the party they want to run the government. People who are worried about nominee parties, in fact, do not believe in the people's judgement. They do not seem to be convinced that voters can make their decisions based on reason.

It is time that we design the country's electoral system to better reflect the people's intention. That should be better than creating a complex system based on the lack of trust in the voters.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDCs-goal--a-simple-electoral-system-based-on-trus-30272268.html


-- The Nation 2015-11-05

"Trust" and "Thai politicians" are words that should not be use in same sentence, unless as a a negation. Or perhaps "Thai people trust that they will once more get screwed by paid for Thai politicians".

Jesus , all this nonsense about an electoral system , I can develop one for you in half an hour, the big problem is that trust part , I can't remember when any politician has actually been trusted and that is for everyone of them in the world, not only Thailand, now that is stretching the err friendship........

Once in a while The Nation comes out with a real gem that highlights the shameful discrimination existing in this country. The following paragraph is one example of this:

People who are worried about nominee parties, in fact, do not believe in the people's judgement. They do not seem to be convinced that voters can make their decisions based on reason.

Despite what these unnamed people may believe, one of the privileges of being a citizen of a country is the right to vote in that country’s elections (and have that vote counted). Making assumptions on how a citizen decides who will get his/her vote needs to be treated as a serious violation of that citizen’s rights (even the current Interim Constitution alludes to this in Section 4).

If voters cannot understand a complex system then the failure is not theirs, rather it rests with the bureaucrats whose only responsibility should be “to design the country's electoral system to better reflect the people's intention”.

Is that even possible? When they do not trust the people to do what what they are doing right now? When most of the suggestions they have submitted so far have all been resoundingly rejected? Can they themselves be trusted?

Just restrict voting rights to people who pay tax. Problem solved.

Just restrict voting rights to people who pay tax. Problem solved.

everyone pays VAT.

a simple electoral system based on trust.

No elections, then no voting, just what the PM wants.

How can you trust an electoral system where MPs are allowed to accept payment (aka bribes) to be a member of a party? Ban all 3rd party income, with severe penalties, and most of the corrupt politicians wouldn't even bother to nominate.

How can you trust an electoral system where unelected party leaders/owners, sometimes fugitive criminals can nominate MPs based on the votes of those they have bribed to be members of their party, and then go on to access cabinet meetings and dictate policy? In Thailand, the party list system allows the wealthy to BUY power, and nominate unelectable scum like Chalerm and other criminals to high office.

Hey come on this is hiliarious

Trust them lol..... I rather try my chances with the lottery

Everytime I trusted someone here, I got myself in trouble.

Trust? How can anyone ever trust a politician? Especially a Thai politician.

Just restrict voting rights to people who pay tax. Problem solved.

everyone pays VAT.

I mean of course income tax

"Voters have the right to choose the candidate and the party they want to run the government."

Does that right come before or after a coup d'etat?

"Voters have the right to choose the candidate and the party they want to run the government."

Does that right come before or after a coup d'etat?

Before. Then comes the blatant corruption, the attempted whitewash, the political violence, then the coup.

personally I think these are good ideas, they wont find any support amoung the big political parties but they have been shown to work around the world and shouldnt be rejected just for the sake of it