Thai elections: Winning votes to be counted for party-list

[webfact]

Winning votes to be counted for party-list
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

CDC TO RECONSIDER ITS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

BANGKOK: -- THE constitution drafters have insisted constituency MP winners at elections would not be disadvantaged as their votes would also be counted as party-list votes, although they refused to back down over the one-ballot proposal.

The Constitution Drafting Commission yesterday promised to reconsider the proposed new electoral and vote-count system, which has been heavily criticised.

CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan said yesterday that the panel had considered all suggestions concerning the fairness of their proposed electoral system, which would disregard votes won by constituency MP winners when calculating party-list MPs votes.

The CDC proposed the mixed-member apportionment (MMA) electoral system with a one-ballot vote for constituency MPs. Under the system, only the votes for failed candidates would be counted as party-list votes.

How the votes would be calculated had not yet been finalised, Meechai said.

However, it has been reported that there are two options to make it more fair for constituency MP winners.

One option is that the party-list MP calculation to determine the winners be based on the difference in the number of votes between the winner and runner-up in the constituency counts.

For example, if a constituency winner got 10 votes and the runner-up got eight votes, two votes would go to the winner's party for the party-list vote.

Under the second option, the total number of votes of all the losing constituency candidates would be subtracted from the votes secured by the winner. For example, if the votes won by the losers totalled three and the winner got seven votes, four would be subtracted from the winner's tally and transferred to the winner's party for the party-list vote. That would mean the constituency winner would need to gain more than 50 per cent of the vote so the subtraction could occur.

Meechai revealed that the most probable ratio would be 350 constituency MPs and 150 party-list MPs, close to the previous ratio.

Asked if that ratio would give the government and opposition a similar number of MPs, the CDC chairman said his panel would try to create a calculation method which ensured outright winners.

In the face of calls for a two-ballot system to be used, Meechai said a single-ballot system was the only system the CDC could think of to ensure every vote counted. He said the system would encourage voters to exercise their rights because their vote would still count for something even when their preferred candidate did not win a constituency seat. He cited the Election Commission as saying a two-ballot system would strengthen political parties. They would have to field their best candidates to run for constituency seats, he added. He also said the change would not give the EC any problem in holding an election.

The agency would still have time to prepare for the next election, he added.

"It's not like the vote is taking place today or tomorrow. They [the EC] can manage," he said.

Meanwhile, the Pheu Thai Party yesterday issued a statement opposing the MMA system, saying it was neither in line with international norms nor suitable for Thailand.

The MMA system is not a proportional representation system and as such it would not truly represent all voters and result in every vote counting, Pheu Thai said.

A system in which voters can only cast a ballot for a constituency MP and where the votes for losing candidates would be counted as party-list votes would confuse the electorate, it said.

The system would also limit the rights of voters to vote for their favourite candidate and party, the party said. "It [the system] would create more problems. The CDC should study its pros and cons and its impact before adopting it. The country is not an experiment laboratory for the CDC," the party said.

Pheu Thai suggested that electoral system used in 1997 and 2007, which allowed two-ballot voting and a simple majority count, was more suitable.

It reflected the real intention of voters and allowed every constitution MP and party-list vote count, regardless of whether they win or lose, it said.

The party believes the problems in Thai politics were caused not by the previous electoral system but other factors such as an unfair justice system.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Winning-votes-to-be-counted-for-party-list-30272374.html


-- The Nation 2015-11-06

[brucec64]

"It's not like the vote is taking place today or tomorrow ".

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[DrTuner]

I don't think there's any other system for the democrats to win except count all the votes they get as three.

[rebelplatoon]

Throw away the constituencies, let each vote count, the largest party try to form a government.

[Srikcir]

You want a one ballot electoral system, go with a republic.

Otherwise Japan's MMP two ballot electoral system seems to function well in a constitutional monarchy.

There were really no flaws with the MMP system prescribed by Thailand's 2007 Constitution that appeared to be patterned after the Japanese electoral system. The problem wasn't with the electoral system but with the EC who couldn't or wouldn't conduct elections and the Democrats who rejected the constitution in hopes of a coup.

[Thai at Heart]

Question. Why do they need such a large amount of party list Mps? Surely critical members of any party can only measure 20 at most. 3 or 4 major parties 60 or 70 party list MPs

Why the need for so many? To reduce the influence of the rest of the country versus the major party controllers?