Drafters' novel ideas creating doubts among experts, Thai public

[webfact]

Drafters' novel ideas creating doubts among experts, public
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

REQUIREMENT THAT WINNERS MUST GET MORE VOTES THAN 'NO' BALLOTS IS LATEST EXAMPLE

BANGKOK: -- THE charter drafters have come up with novel ideas for their constitution which are causing concern among political observers, including a requirement that the election winner must get more votes than "no" votes.

Some political analysts are concerned that "no" votes could impede MPs' seat calculations and lead to a delay in forming a government.

Other academics, however, said it was most unlikely that "no" votes, or a vote for none of the candidates, would knock out winning candidates in enough constituencies for it to matter.

Suriyasai Katasila, director of Rangsit University's Thailand Reform Institute, said that if some constituencies' candidates lost the "no" votes, it could affect the total MPs from both the constituency and party-list systems.

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) has proposed that people seeking a constituency seat gain fewer votes than the number of vote "no"ballots - or ballots for none of them - the winner should not gain that seat.

Rather, a by-election should be held until there was a winner who could receive votes totalling more than other runners and the "no"ballots.

Worries arose because such a practice might make the total calculation impossible. Suriyasai agreed, saying the charter writers should be careful and come up with a mechanism or regulation to ensure the first parliamentary meeting could convene. Such an incident had happened before, he said.

He went on to say the mechanism could be used as a political means to slow down the process when there was a conflict and voters were dissatisfied.

However, Suriyasai agreed with the principle that the candidate could not represent the constituency if he could not outrun the number of people who vote "no"for candidates. One option to handle the issue could be for the Constitutional Court to step in with a ruling and end it.

However, Gothom Arya, a former Election Commissioner, and Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist from Thammasat University, felt it was unlikely that "no"ballots would be cast in such numbers.

They said it should not be a worry. Usually, if successful MPs counted 90 per cent of the total number stipulated in the charter, then the first parliamentary meeting was surely possible.

Attasit noted that in the past, a winning candidate would gain around 30 to 40 per cent of ballots cast.

To lose to the "no"vote might only occur when other candidates gained very few votes, he said, adding that it was not very likely.

Gothom agreed and said it should not be a problem, especially if the CDC was reviewing dropping the initial Mixed Member Apportionment (MMA) and adopting instead the Mixed Member Proportion (MMP) system.

With MMA, when a polling station could not give the result, it would be impossible to take votes gained by losers to calculate the party-list seats, he said. But for MMP, the process could still proceed because it did not rely only on constituency votes.

Meanwhile, the CDC promised to use every vote cast for both the election winner and losers to count for the party-list seats. After proposing to use votes gained by constituency losers to calculate the party-list MPs seats, the panel met with criticism that it was undermining big parties.

Yesterday, Amorn Wanichwiwatana, CDC spokesman, said votes won by the winner would also be counted for the party-list. The drafters had some calculation methods in mind already, he said, adding that the panel would stick with simple mathematics.

It would try to prevent an 'overhang' in MPs in order to secure simplicity, Amorn said. 'Overhang in MPs' occurs when one party gains constituency seats that exceed its true popularity, calculated by party-list votes.

But if it was truly unavoidable, a fair number of MPs would be calculated from the simple 'rule of three,' he explained. The total number of representatives should be exactly 500 without odd numbers.

He also assured it would not give medium and small parties an advantage over big ones. The CDC would make the situation fair for every party, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Drafters-novel-ideas-creating-doubts-among-experts-30272615.html

-- The Nation 2015-11-10

[Thai at Heart]

felt it was unlikely that "no"ballots would be cast in such numbers.

adding that it was not very likely.

Well we know what is going to happen dont we.

[waldroj]

Fair for every party??? What a novel idea.

[Valentine]

Sometimes I think the reason for so many committees is to keep the smoke & mirrors effect running.

[Siammodels]

THe CDC are working for the current governement and are full of you know what LOL

what a farce

As I say you people only think Thais are dumb but soon you be out the back doors of paliament

HaHa

[chainarong]

The drafters create a maze of B/S , why is it so hard to have the ballot paper marked with the party or individual, you then place 1 in the party portion , you have lodge a vote for the party and intending member for your area , for independents you vote 1, 2, 3. beside the candidates you want , number 1 is highest 2, second , etc,, blank forms are informal and not counted, the candidates with the most number (ones) win the seat , how hard is that..................

Edited November 10, 2015 by chainarong

[Hawk]

No constitution, no elections, simple, just keep chatting.

[tuanku]

Its all about how to stop the party which will get the most votes from winning power. An electoral alternative to a coup!

[FangFerang]

The "no" vote allows vocal minorities to "unelect" their opposition, and provides a mechanism for "no" votes to --not count--but count against.

Stuffing ballot boxes is then an easy mechanism to remove the opposition, done carefully so the ballots do not exceed the registered adults in the district being counted -- but of course everyone knows that 100% of voters vote (or they will now).

[oneday]

What a circus!

[phycokiller]

I think these ideas are good, the next election is probably years away so they have plenty of time to work on it. The standard first past the post system has been shown to flawed form of democracy.

Edited November 10, 2015 by phycokiller

[Tom Cahill]

I think these ideas are good, the next election is probably years away so they have plenty of time to work on it. The standard first past the post system has been shown to flawed form of democracy.

Yes, flawed in the systems within which it's used, but not ceteris parabus. It's the fact that we've allegedly got representative government and we're voting for those candidates for a party that's the issue. True representative systems have to separate the two issues, by not allowing parties to select candidates to be in one area or another, or, have it like in the US, where you get a representative and a senator.

Party politics was designed way before it was introduced by Hegel, and forms the ideal scam to maintain a situation of no choice on anything significant for the plebiscite, which is what it does very well; a.k.a. the Hegelian Dialectic; thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

[Thai at Heart]

The "no" vote allows vocal minorities to "unelect" their opposition, and provides a mechanism for "no" votes to --not count--but count against.

Stuffing ballot boxes is then an easy mechanism to remove the opposition, done carefully so the ballots do not exceed the registered adults in the district being counted -- but of course everyone knows that 100% of voters vote (or they will now).

It's very simple for the opposition of a party to actively campaign for a no vote thus sabotaging the election.