Meechai says future elections are not winners take all affairs

[Ichabod]

And the current regime has no sense of irony in the fact that they have ushered in a 'loser take all' system?

Anyway, no one ever said the system should be winner take all. Parliament is there to give all sides a voice.

They lack even a sense of shame, but that's been a foregone conclusion for a long time. When Meechai says no winner-take-all what he means is that the legitimate electoral wishes of the majority of the people will not be allowed to impinge in the slightest way upon the privileges of the powerful and their wannabe middle-class followers. It really couldn't be clearer. All of these various provisions are designed to institutionalize the coup powers of the military which was always their goal. Meechai did the same thing when he wrote the constitution for General Suchinda in 1992. He's an old hand at carrying water for the powerful elite of Thailand.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Ichabod

[halloween]

In Thailand, a political party leader never loses his seat, and he can use the remaining party list seats to appoint criminals and scum.

But Thailand doesn't need reform.

[rubl]

I come from a country where there's never really a party with majority of seats, only a party being largest resulting in a coalition government. The Electoral System is proportional representation. Seems Thailand may get a, somewhat watered down' similar setup

Proportional representation often seems to result in multiple elections and government changes, running without a government. or stagnated parliaments where nothing seems to progress. Not saying that's the case in Netherlands but certainly is in others,

First past the post gives odd results - like the UK where UKIP get massively more votes than SNP, but the latter gets vastly more seats in parliament.

Federal systems also have pros and cons.

No system is perfect, so good luck with these guys on trying to come up with a solution.

In the UK, there is a joke that whoever wins the election, the government will be the same.

Hmm never heard that joke... I don't think Cameron vs. Corbyn could be considered 'the same' nor Kinnock vs. Thatcher I suppose Blair was fairly 'right' for the Labour Party but he's now history. The SNP is a Scottish ONLY party whereas UKIP covers England too! I think you should stay away from quoting UK politics which has been fairly stable for decades! UKIPs leader lost his seat, by the way, anyway let's get back on topic.

The reason Meechai says this is because he knows who will win and he is desperately trying to come up with systems to ensure that the 'winners' power is depleted by committee's, councils and any means available.

Meechai doesn't know but I'm sure he hopes the people will win rather than any of the old power brokers be they in Thailand or abroad.

[MaxLee]

Elections or not, the winner always takes it all,..... over dead bodies

[billd766]

It certainly will not be a "winner takes all affair" If there is to be an election, in any recognisable form, the result will be largely irrelevant.These proposals will ensure that power will remain in the same hands as at present.

Personally I am sceptical that there will be an election, I suspect that the next government (which will be in effect the same as this government) will enter office with the acclamation of Suthep's great movement, claiming overwhelming popular support but untested at the polls.

A bit like the last PM had popular support but was untested at the polls I suppose.

[billd766]

I come from a country where there's never really a party with majority of seats, only a party being largest resulting in a coalition government. The Electoral System is proportional representation. Seems Thailand may get a, somewhat watered down' similar setup

Proportional representation often seems to result in multiple elections and government changes, running without a government. or stagnated parliaments where nothing seems to progress. Not saying that's the case in Netherlands but certainly is in others,

First past the post gives odd results - like the UK where UKIP get massively more votes than SNP, but the latter gets vastly more seats in parliament.

Federal systems also have pros and cons.

No system is perfect, so good luck with these guys on trying to come up with a solution.

In the UK, there is a joke that whoever wins the election, the government will be the same.

Hmm never heard that joke... I don't think Cameron vs. Corbyn could be considered 'the same' nor Kinnock vs. Thatcher I suppose Blair was fairly 'right' for the Labour Party but he's now history. The SNP is a Scottish ONLY party whereas UKIP covers England too! I think you should stay away from quoting UK politics which has been fairly stable for decades! UKIPs leader lost his seat, by the way, anyway let's get back on topic.

The reason Meechai says this is because he knows who will win and he is desperately trying to come up with systems to ensure that the 'winners' power is depleted by committee's, councils and any means available.

I find it interesting that you claim Nigel Farage lost his seat in the UK parliament, especially as he was a Euro MP and still is. He never was a UK MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Westminster_elections

Westminster elections

Farage had unsuccessfully contested British parliamentary elections for UKIP five times, both before and after his election as an MEP in 1999. Under the 2002 European Union decision to forbid MEPs from holding a dual mandate, if he were to be elected to the House of Commons, he would have to resign his seat as MEP.

When he contested the Bromley & Chislehurst constituency in a May 2006 by-election, following the death of Eurosceptic Conservative MP Eric Forth, Farage came third, winning 8% of the vote, beating the Labour Party candidate. This was the second-best by-election result recorded by UKIP out of 25 results, and the first time since the Liverpool Walton by-election in 1991 that a party in government had been pushed into fourth place in a parliamentary by-election on mainland Britain.

Did you get anything else wrong in your post?

Edited January 20, 2016 by billd766

[LannaGuy]

I come from a country where there's never really a party with majority of seats, only a party being largest resulting in a coalition government. The Electoral System is proportional representation. Seems Thailand may get a, somewhat watered down' similar setup

Proportional representation often seems to result in multiple elections and government changes, running without a government. or stagnated parliaments where nothing seems to progress. Not saying that's the case in Netherlands but certainly is in others,

First past the post gives odd results - like the UK where UKIP get massively more votes than SNP, but the latter gets vastly more seats in parliament.

Federal systems also have pros and cons.

No system is perfect, so good luck with these guys on trying to come up with a solution.

In the UK, there is a joke that whoever wins the election, the government will be the same.

Hmm never heard that joke... I don't think Cameron vs. Corbyn could be considered 'the same' nor Kinnock vs. Thatcher I suppose Blair was fairly 'right' for the Labour Party but he's now history. The SNP is a Scottish ONLY party whereas UKIP covers England too! I think you should stay away from quoting UK politics which has been fairly stable for decades! UKIPs leader lost his seat, by the way, anyway let's get back on topic.

The reason Meechai says this is because he knows who will win and he is desperately trying to come up with systems to ensure that the 'winners' power is depleted by committee's, councils and any means available.

I find it interesting that you claim Nigel Farage lost his seat in the UK parliament, especially as he was a Euro MP and still is. He never was a UK MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Westminster_elections

Westminster elections

Farage had unsuccessfully contested British parliamentary elections for UKIP five times, both before and after his election as an MEP in 1999. Under the 2002 European Union decision to forbid MEPs from holding a dual mandate, if he were to be elected to the House of Commons, he would have to resign his seat as MEP.

When he contested the Bromley & Chislehurst constituency in a May 2006 by-election, following the death of Eurosceptic Conservative MP Eric Forth, Farage came third, winning 8% of the vote, beating the Labour Party candidate. This was the second-best by-election result recorded by UKIP out of 25 results, and the first time since the Liverpool Walton by-election in 1991 that a party in government had been pushed into fourth place in a parliamentary by-election on mainland Britain.

Did you get anything else wrong in your post?

you are quite right he never won a seat and, humiliatingly, could not win again

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-loses-in-south-thanet-10235307.html

but you will agree the SMP are a SCOTTISH only party and cannot be compared to UKIP for seats as the poster claimed but, of course, you fail to mention THAT in your skewed post

[MZurf]

In Thailand, a political party leader never loses his seat, and he can use the remaining party list seats to appoint criminals and scum.

But Thailand doesn't need reform.

Thailand does indeed need reform but are you seriously suggesting that the junta is reforming the country in a positive way??? Examples, please!

Oh, I can save you the trouble of mentioning the state lottery system. We all know the fantastic results that have been achieved in this matter....