Thai CDC opts for indirect election of senators from 20 social groups

[webfact]

CDC opts for indirect election of senators from 20 social groups
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE CONSTITUTION Drafting Commission (CDC) yesterday opted for the indirect election of 200 senators from 20 social groups in the hope that the Upper House could serve the increasingly diverse country.

The framers are expecting senators under the new system to be knowledgeable and experienced in a range of fields, said Chartchai na Chiangmai, the CDC's spokesman.

The CDC dropped the idea of a direct election because senators would have different duties than members of the House of Representatives and they would not have impeachment authority.

The main focus of the Upper Chamber would not only be deliberating bills, but also reconciling the interests of different sectors of society and facilitating compromises, so their backgrounds should be varied enough to respond to the emergence of new ideologies, businesses, racial issues and other developments.

Candidates for the indirect election could be representatives of legal bodies or independents endorsed by a recognised organisation.

The election would be divided into three levels - district, provincial and national. Each level will have two rounds - one within each group and then another involving the 19 other groups - before passing to the next level.

These are only the general principles. The details would be left to organic laws, including the qualifications of candidates, who should be knowledgeable and experienced people to represent social groups.

Chartchai also said the poll conducted nationwide by the National Statistical Office with more than 5,800 respondents concerning constitutional matters, including the electoral method and the origin of the premier, found that 63.6 per cent agreed with the mixed-member apportionment polling system proposed by the CDC.

About 18.6 per cent did not approve of that system, while 17.8 per cent were undecided.

The single-ballot system used to vote for MPs was also backed by the majority of the respondents at 77.6 per cent, while 15.3 per cent opposed it. The rest did not know or were not sure about the matter.

On the controversial premier-list system of each party submitting a list of five PM candidates during an election campaign, 80.7 per cent agreed, 13.2 per cent opposed and 6.1 per cent were unsure.

Also, 64.3 per cent said those on the prime ministerial list could be either MPs from any party or non-MPs. About 23.9 per cent showed disagreement while 11.8 per cent were uncertain.

As for anti-corruption measures, 59.4 per cent of the respondents went with the lifetime ban while 34 per cent opted for the five-year suspension. Only 1.3 per cent did not want any measures and 4.5 per cent were unsure.

The survey was conducted properly with close collaboration from the CDC and the NSO. More rounds of polling would follow in February after the first draft is out in late January, he added.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-opts-for-indirect-election-of-senators-from-20-30275472.html


-- The Nation 2015-12-23

[tbthailand]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

[halloween]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

[sjaak327]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

[candide]

This is not indirect election. Indirect election is a process in which voters do not directly elect candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. Ex. in France people democratically elected at the local level elect senators and anyone can candidate.

I can bet that the professional bodies or unions who warmly greeted Suthep last year will represent the majority of these selected social groups......

[Prbkk]

The Thai people will recognise a stacked deck for what it is.

[halloween]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

And I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate should be elected by voters. How is a partially elected senate preventing the electorate from having a say? If you want to push your model as better, show some real reasons why it is.

BTW the wholly elected upper houses of both the US and Oz are far from democratic, voters from Rhode island and Tasmania having far more influence per capita, leading to one Pm describing them as "undemocratic swill".

[oneday]

The CDC is not going to let a little thing like Democracy get in their way of creating a constitution hugely favorable to the power elite.

This is all such a farce because if this "draft" makes it to a referendum it will certainly fail.

[sjaak327]

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

And I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate should be elected by voters. How is a partially elected senate preventing the electorate from having a say? If you want to push your model as better, show some real reasons why it is.

BTW the wholly elected upper houses of both the US and Oz are far from democratic, voters from Rhode island and Tasmania having far more influence per capita, leading to one Pm describing them as "undemocratic swill".

The article talks of a selection of 200 senators. Now Thailand's senate currently has 150 members, so either they have increased the number of seats by a massive number, or there is no case of a partially elected senate.

The reason why the whole senate should be elected by the electorate is obvious, they are in politics making decisions, all senators should therefore be accountable to the electorate. If they are not, it cannot be called democratic, as some portion (or on this case the whole lot) are not accountable to the electorate.

I'm sure the CDC can come up with a system of proportional representation so that your objections to the system in the US can be dealt with. Strange that you object to that system and not to appointment or selection of 200 senators here....

[rubl]

This is not indirect election. Indirect election is a process in which voters do not directly elect candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. Ex. in France people democratically elected at the local level elect senators and anyone can candidate.

I can bet that the professional bodies or unions who warmly greeted Suthep last year will represent the majority of these selected social groups......

The 'I can bet' probably means "I can guess' and obviously that's from a base assumption that nothing good can come out of this.

[rubl]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

In the Netherlands the Senate (Eerste Kamer) is elected by members of the Provincial States who in their turn are elected by the general electorate. The candidate Senators are from political parties. As such the 'electorate' has only a limited influence on the actual Senators choosen. It seems to work in the Netherlands, an example democracy.

Who wouldn't such indirect system work in Thailand, a country to become a democracy?

[sjaak327]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

In the Netherlands the Senate (Eerste Kamer) is elected by members of the Provincial States who in their turn are elected by the general electorate. The candidate Senators are from political parties. As such the 'electorate' has only a limited influence on the actual Senators choosen. It seems to work in the Netherlands, an example democracy.

Who wouldn't such indirect system work in Thailand, a country to become a democracy?

The trouble is, that the system you speak off is not what the OP is talking about. The fact that senators should be from certain groups gives it away.

Yes the electorate has limited influence in the actual persons, but has direct influence in the composition of the senate in terms of the political parties they represent. Hence very democratic. People are not the least bit interested in the actual persons, but in the parties they represent.

[rubl]

The task of the Senate as described doesn't sound too unreasonable

"The main focus of the Upper Chamber would not only be deliberating bills, but also reconciling the interests of different sectors of society and facilitating compromises, so their backgrounds should be varied enough to respond to the emergence of new ideologies, businesses, racial issues and other developments."

Mind you, there will always be a discussion about what should be handled by the house and what by the Senate. In many cases the Senate is supposed to deliberate law proposals made by the House and keep an eye on integrity and consistency with the existing legal framework and it's laws. As such one would expect the educational requirements on Senators to be higher than for MPs

I must admit that the 'election' details seem unnecessary complex. Much more thoughts should be given to the described system to make it easier to understand, easier to implement, easier to manage. Also the CDC should provide details on what they consider 'social groups' and which 20 areas they would cover. Furthermore as detailed knowledge will be required from the candidate Senators I have some doubts you'll find many in 'social groups' and wonder if those found are willing to spent four years in the Senate with requirements to drop whatever else they were doing.

[halloween]

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

And I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate should be elected by voters. How is a partially elected senate preventing the electorate from having a say? If you want to push your model as better, show some real reasons why it is.

BTW the wholly elected upper houses of both the US and Oz are far from democratic, voters from Rhode island and Tasmania having far more influence per capita, leading to one Pm describing them as "undemocratic swill".

The article talks of a selection of 200 senators. Now Thailand's senate currently has 150 members, so either they have increased the number of seats by a massive number, or there is no case of a partially elected senate.

The reason why the whole senate should be elected by the electorate is obvious, they are in politics making decisions, all senators should therefore be accountable to the electorate. If they are not, it cannot be called democratic, as some portion (or on this case the whole lot) are not accountable to the electorate.

I'm sure the CDC can come up with a system of proportional representation so that your objections to the system in the US can be dealt with. Strange that you object to that system and not to appointment or selection of 200 senators here....

Nothing is obvious. The UK has a partially elected senate, and it works well. Indirectly elected senators are accountable to the associations who elected them. There are other systems working well other than that used in the US, and there is no need for Thailand or anywhere else to be a US clone.

There is nothing strange either. My prime interest is not in the numbers, but the blind insistence that a fully elected senate is intrinsically a better form of government even though in known examples it is far from democratic representation..

[sjaak327]

It's not a question of efficiency of course, it's the absence of the electorate having a say in the composition of the senate that is the problem. I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate couldn't be elected by the electorate.

It's clear the junta does have a reason and tbthailand could very well be right here. Democracy Junta style.

The trouble is, that any elected government with a clear mandate wanting to reduce and eliminate any interference from the military in matters of politics (something that is very urgently needed in order to become a true democracy) will be stopped, if the senate cannot do it, a coup will be on the horizon, that much is absolutely certain.

But alas the Junta supporters don't learn from history and don't see the future, they are just willfully ignorant.

And I don't see any reason why the WHOLE senate should be elected by voters. How is a partially elected senate preventing the electorate from having a say? If you want to push your model as better, show some real reasons why it is.

BTW the wholly elected upper houses of both the US and Oz are far from democratic, voters from Rhode island and Tasmania having far more influence per capita, leading to one Pm describing them as "undemocratic swill".

The article talks of a selection of 200 senators. Now Thailand's senate currently has 150 members, so either they have increased the number of seats by a massive number, or there is no case of a partially elected senate.

The reason why the whole senate should be elected by the electorate is obvious, they are in politics making decisions, all senators should therefore be accountable to the electorate. If they are not, it cannot be called democratic, as some portion (or on this case the whole lot) are not accountable to the electorate.

I'm sure the CDC can come up with a system of proportional representation so that your objections to the system in the US can be dealt with. Strange that you object to that system and not to appointment or selection of 200 senators here....

Nothing is obvious. The UK has a partially elected senate, and it works well. Indirectly elected senators are accountable to the associations who elected them. There are other systems working well other than that used in the US, and there is no need for Thailand or anywhere else to be a US clone.

There is nothing strange either. My prime interest is not in the numbers, but the blind insistence that a fully elected senate is intrinsically a better form of government even though in known examples it is far from democratic representation..

There are plenty of examples where the composition of the senate is a direct result of proportional representation, the Netherlands being touched on already. It's composition is a direct result of a single nationwide election by the electorate. Whilst those are indeed indirect elections (the people elected by said election, in turn elect the senators) anyone can become a senator. No membership of a social group (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) is required.

I am curious how elections in several rounds no less will work and if the people choosing are actually put there by the electorate. My guess is no to that question.

[mark131v]

<deleted>!

It is all about the 'good people' keeping charge whether the general population likes it or not, nothing at all just or fair about it and absolutely only about certain members of Thai society keeping hold of power at all costs

You cheerleaders can dress it up any way you want but it is completely obvious what this all about and absolutely nothing at all to do with democracy or the will of the people and just another power grab...

[rubl]

With Senators having to be a bit more 'technical' and 'knowledgeble' and with the decade old requirement that Senators not be part of a political party, most candidates will not be known by the general public. As such insisting on a general election for the Senate doesn't make much sense.

It makes much more sense to do a proper definition of those twenty social groups, how people are judged to be part of a social group and how such 'open' social group elects it's candidates.

It would seem there's still a lot of work to do with this framework before getting into filling in organic laws.

[connda]

So much for lip-service for democracy.

[phoenixdoglover]

The Thai people will recognise a stacked deck for what it is.

Exactly. The Senate should get a new name along with its new composition. How about The House of Bangkok Elite?

[sjaak327]

With Senators having to be a bit more 'technical' and 'knowledgeble' and with the decade old requirement that Senators not be part of a political party, most candidates will not be known by the general public. As such insisting on a general election for the Senate doesn't make much sense.

It makes much more sense to do a proper definition of those twenty social groups, how people are judged to be part of a social group and how such 'open' social group elects it's candidates.

It would seem there's still a lot of work to do with this framework before getting into filling in organic laws.

Maybe it is time to skip the requirement for senators to not be part of a political party ?

Who are they trying to kid here anyway. The senate is part of the political system and should be manned by politicians. That way the electorate does have a clear choice in whom they deem fit to be part of the senate and what direction that senate should go.

And as we are all comparing to other countries, very few countries have the requirement you speak off, and for good reason.

[naboo]

In the UK, Andrew Lloyd Webber is a member of the upper house. Why?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/harry-blain/how-corrupt-is-house-of-lords

[Srikcir]

An "Upper Chamber" whose main purpose is to delibeate bills from the House needs to be directly elected. Anything less is an insult to democracy.

The Thai people are entitled and have the right to representation with those who will determine the rule of law that the people must obey. They have the right to decide what, beyond a minimal level of qualification such as age, qualifications needed for such representation. Setting qualifications are not the priviledge of the minority. Not to do so is theft of the people's soverneignty as much as it has been following every coup d'etat.

There are democracies where an "upper chamber" is not directly elected and selected in a similar manner proposed by the CDC but without power to deliberate laws. That is fair. Such bodies are advisory only and benefit the electorate with nonpolitical oversight. But the people's soverneignty is not given up to them.

[tbthailand]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

some people like democracy, and - apparently - some people don't.

you try to link corruption to elections. But you get it wrong. There is no link between elections and corruption. Corruption exists independent of elections. The corruption is possible because of money influences and because of a lack of transparency. The corruption does not exist due to elections.

just look at Thailand now ... no elections and massive corruption.

Hmmmm, ....

[rubl]

With Senators having to be a bit more 'technical' and 'knowledgeble' and with the decade old requirement that Senators not be part of a political party, most candidates will not be known by the general public. As such insisting on a general election for the Senate doesn't make much sense.

It makes much more sense to do a proper definition of those twenty social groups, how people are judged to be part of a social group and how such 'open' social group elects it's candidates.

It would seem there's still a lot of work to do with this framework before getting into filling in organic laws.

Maybe it is time to skip the requirement for senators to not be part of a political party ?

Who are they trying to kid here anyway. The senate is part of the political system and should be manned by politicians. That way the electorate does have a clear choice in whom they deem fit to be part of the senate and what direction that senate should go.

And as we are all comparing to other countries, very few countries have the requirement you speak off, and for good reason.

With the Senate being tasked to look at laws proposed by the House in order to make sure of technical details and how those laws fit in the legal framework nationally, internationally and as far as the constitution is concerned, no doubt politicians will try to convince the electorate that the Senate should be a political body as well.

Politicians like to make use of the democratic system for more than just the common good and Thailand happens to be a perfect example why preventing political families or groups to control both House and Senate is only to the benifit of the electorate and the countries population.

[rubl]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

some people like democracy, and - apparently - some people don't.

you try to link corruption to elections. But you get it wrong. There is no link between elections and corruption. Corruption exists independent of elections. The corruption is possible because of money influences and because of a lack of transparency. The corruption does not exist due to elections.

just look at Thailand now ... no elections and massive corruption.

Hmmmm, ....

Look at Thailand before, elections and massive corruption. At least the current government has forced the population to rethink their acceptance of corruption by talking about how unlawful corruption is and by (too) little actions to get rid of it.

[phoenixdoglover]

Let's get real.

First, regarding the role of any arm of government, the key question is what powers do they have. In the case of the Senate as presently defined, it appears the only power is the "deliberation" of bills. I interpret that to mean the Senate must vote on bills yea or nay. (And I view all the other verbiage regarding the Senate role to be fluff)

Second, regarding this concept of "indirect election". I see nothing direct or indirect about it. Voting appears to be limited to members of the select "groups" and there is no mention of citizens voting for the Senate electors.

Third, the description of the voting process is wild. Three levels, with two votes per level. Does this mean six rounds of voting?

Fourth, no mention of who these groups are. Only some vague palliatives about broad representation. But last time I looked, professional groups in Thailand are highly concentrated in Bangkok. I can't see the very sizable rural population getting much consideration in this composition. I would wager the Armed Forces get more than a few spots reserved.

Finally, the can is kicked down the road, and "details" will be figured out in organic laws to be drafted later. I think this is outrageous. There are a few highly significant institutions defined by the Charter (House, Senate, PM, Cabinet, etc.) It is reasonable to expect the Charter to at least get these institutions fully defined. Alas, evidently not.

All in all, this is a pretty stinky announcement regarding the Senate.

I hope there will be a translated version of the draft Charter come late January.

[sjaak327]

With Senators having to be a bit more 'technical' and 'knowledgeble' and with the decade old requirement that Senators not be part of a political party, most candidates will not be known by the general public. As such insisting on a general election for the Senate doesn't make much sense.

It makes much more sense to do a proper definition of those twenty social groups, how people are judged to be part of a social group and how such 'open' social group elects it's candidates.

It would seem there's still a lot of work to do with this framework before getting into filling in organic laws.

Maybe it is time to skip the requirement for senators to not be part of a political party ?

Who are they trying to kid here anyway. The senate is part of the political system and should be manned by politicians. That way the electorate does have a clear choice in whom they deem fit to be part of the senate and what direction that senate should go.

And as we are all comparing to other countries, very few countries have the requirement you speak off, and for good reason.

With the Senate being tasked to look at laws proposed by the House in order to make sure of technical details and how those laws fit in the legal framework nationally, internationally and as far as the constitution is concerned, no doubt politicians will try to convince the electorate that the Senate should be a political body as well.

Politicians like to make use of the democratic system for more than just the common good and Thailand happens to be a perfect example why preventing political families or groups to control both House and Senate is only to the benifit of the electorate and the countries population.

If the electorate deems those 'political families' fit to control both houses, who are you to pretend their wish doesn't matter. You and I both know that there are precious little upper houses that only look at the technicality of the laws being submitted. Upper houses are used for politics, and as such the electorate should have a say either directly or indirectly in the composition of the whole senate.

Even the example of the Netherlands shows how the initial purpose of the upper house has been shifted and is currently a very important political factor, and I see nothing wrong with it either. If they are only there for technicalities, we might as well abolish it completely.

Furthermore as being witnessed in the Netherlands, it is an excellent way to prevent certain parties or coalitions to control both houses and dictate the agenda for their full four year term. If they mess up in the first year or two in their tenure, elections for the upper house could bring them in check by the very same electorate as we have seen in the Netherlands.

[halloween]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

some people like democracy, and - apparently - some people don't.

you try to link corruption to elections. But you get it wrong. There is no link between elections and corruption. Corruption exists independent of elections. The corruption is possible because of money influences and because of a lack of transparency. The corruption does not exist due to elections.

just look at Thailand now ... no elections and massive corruption.

Hmmmm, ....

And some people like government that works. Your twisting little diversion to corruption is BS, what concerns me is the blind insistence that a fully elected senate is the best senatorial system.

I have experienced the Oz senate where most senators belong to major parties and end up balanced, power then being granted to a small number of senators from a minor state (elected by far fewer people than most) influencing government decisions in a way the vast majority of Oz voters do not approve of. eg due to a religious bigot senator, for many years during the AIDS epidemic, OzAid could not include birth control.

Give me any reason that a wholly elected senate is better other than some democratic ideal, when in both the US and Oz they are shown to be far from democratic with highly uneven representation. It is my position that a senate can contain some non-politicians (at least not aligned to specific parties) and be much more effective, as in the UK.

[rubl]

With Senators having to be a bit more 'technical' and 'knowledgeble' and with the decade old requirement that Senators not be part of a political party, most candidates will not be known by the general public. As such insisting on a general election for the Senate doesn't make much sense.

It makes much more sense to do a proper definition of those twenty social groups, how people are judged to be part of a social group and how such 'open' social group elects it's candidates.

It would seem there's still a lot of work to do with this framework before getting into filling in organic laws.

Maybe it is time to skip the requirement for senators to not be part of a political party ?

Who are they trying to kid here anyway. The senate is part of the political system and should be manned by politicians. That way the electorate does have a clear choice in whom they deem fit to be part of the senate and what direction that senate should go.

And as we are all comparing to other countries, very few countries have the requirement you speak off, and for good reason.

With the Senate being tasked to look at laws proposed by the House in order to make sure of technical details and how those laws fit in the legal framework nationally, internationally and as far as the constitution is concerned, no doubt politicians will try to convince the electorate that the Senate should be a political body as well.

Politicians like to make use of the democratic system for more than just the common good and Thailand happens to be a perfect example why preventing political families or groups to control both House and Senate is only to the benifit of the electorate and the countries population.

If the electorate deems those 'political families' fit to control both houses, who are you to pretend their wish doesn't matter. You and I both know that there are precious little upper houses that only look at the technicality of the laws being submitted. Upper houses are used for politics, and as such the electorate should have a say either directly or indirectly in the composition of the whole senate.

Even the example of the Netherlands shows how the initial purpose of the upper house has been shifted and is currently a very important political factor, and I see nothing wrong with it either. If they are only there for technicalities, we might as well abolish it completely.

Furthermore as being witnessed in the Netherlands, it is an excellent way to prevent certain parties or coalitions to control both houses and dictate the agenda for their full four year term. If they mess up in the first year or two in their tenure, elections for the upper house could bring them in check by the very same electorate as we have seen in the Netherlands.

Now if only Thailand could become a real democracy rather than the Thai special we had before.

Till the educational level of the general population has widened as happened in the West more restrictions and safeguards are required to keep crooks from misusing the fairness within a democratic system.

[MZurf]

so in other words,

"selected, not elected"

didn't ever expect anything less from yet another junta appointed CDC... they have their orders....

Where has it been proven that a wholly directly elected upper house is any more efficient than one with some indirectly elected and/or selected members?

The US penchant for directly electing everybody from MPs to dogcatchers is far from the ideal model. In fact, directly elected police and judicial officers often have been proven to be influenced by their wealthy supporters.

some people like democracy, and - apparently - some people don't.

you try to link corruption to elections. But you get it wrong. There is no link between elections and corruption. Corruption exists independent of elections. The corruption is possible because of money influences and because of a lack of transparency. The corruption does not exist due to elections.

just look at Thailand now ... no elections and massive corruption.

Hmmmm, ....

And some people like government that works. Your twisting little diversion to corruption is BS, what concerns me is the blind insistence that a fully elected senate is the best senatorial system.

I have experienced the Oz senate where most senators belong to major parties and end up balanced, power then being granted to a small number of senators from a minor state (elected by far fewer people than most) influencing government decisions in a way the vast majority of Oz voters do not approve of. eg due to a religious bigot senator, for many years during the AIDS epidemic, OzAid could not include birth control.

Give me any reason that a wholly elected senate is better other than some democratic ideal, when in both the US and Oz they are shown to be far from democratic with highly uneven representation. It is my position that a senate can contain some non-politicians (at least not aligned to specific parties) and be much more effective, as in the UK.

"And some people like government that works. "

You mean the present one does???