Meechai admits typing error about the votes needed to choose the prime minister

[SABloke]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

Well ok then, since it's been that way before, let's not change it. Come to think of it: What's up with women voting these days???

Read my second paragraph again

[SABloke]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

To add to my previous post, Thailand is a constitutional monarchy. Where are these ancient tablets that dictate how different systems work? The way you post makes it seem that it's set in stone. Are these 11th and 12th commandments from god ???

[Bench499d]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:51 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

Well ok then, since it's been that way before, let's not change it. Come to think of it: What's up with women voting these days???

Read my second paragraph again

What if the PM elected by the people was from a different party to the majority government? Wouldn't work in a parliamentary system. The PM should be chosen by the majority party (or coalition) as this is the only candidate which would be supported by the government and vice-versa.

[Srikcir]

  On 3/26/2016 at 8:16 AM, Bench499d said:

2 scenarios here really:

1. The majority party in the lower house select their leader as the prime ministerial candidate. The lower house chooses the candidate so whoever has the majority in the house selects the candidate. The Senate and house vote, the selected candidate becomes prime minister and everything proceeds as normal.

2. The majority party select the candidate as in (1) above. The lower house approves the selection. The Senate and the house vote, the whole senate votes no, the minority parties in the lower house vote no, the candidate is not selected. The majority party could keep submitting candidates but they keep getting shot down. The only way to break the dead lock is to select a candidate from a minority party who is acceptable to the Senate. This would then result in a Prime Minister who is not of the same party as the majority of MPs in the lower house. Nothing would get done and the country would be crippled.

There is one get out of jail card for the lower house. If all parties agree to vote together to ensure that the leader of the majority party always becomes prime minister, then they will always get the 500 out of 750 votes required. Chances of this happening? Low I'd say.

There is a 3rd scenario.

While the House and Senate agree on the PM who originated from the parliament's election. However, the NCPO invokes newly minted Sections 83 and 154 of the endorsed Interim Constitution and puts on hold the elected PM taking office during a five-year transition period. The previous mostly military-appointed Constitutional Court then declares that a political conflict exists and selects an outsider PM as Head of Government.

[SABloke]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:56 AM, Bench499d said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:51 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

Well ok then, since it's been that way before, let's not change it. Come to think of it: What's up with women voting these days???

Read my second paragraph again

What if the PM elected by the people was from a different party to the majority government? Wouldn't work in a parliamentary system. The PM should be chosen by the majority party (or coalition) as this is the only candidate which would be supported by the government and vice-versa.

Mmmmm....that IS a conundrum. What if each party had to, before elections, choose a person that represented their party at the elections. Let's call this person a ''candidate''. When elections came the voters knew that if Party A wins, the ''candidate'' from that party will be PM and not some random asshat decided at a later date. In the case of a coalition, the ''candidates'' from the coalition could face off in a runoff election.

[Bench499d]

  On 3/27/2016 at 3:39 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:56 AM, Bench499d said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:51 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

Well ok then, since it's been that way before, let's not change it. Come to think of it: What's up with women voting these days???

Read my second paragraph again

What if the PM elected by the people was from a different party to the majority government? Wouldn't work in a parliamentary system. The PM should be chosen by the majority party (or coalition) as this is the only candidate which would be supported by the government and vice-versa.

Mmmmm....that IS a conundrum. What if each party had to, before elections, choose a person that represented their party at the elections. Let's call this person a ''candidate''. When elections came the voters knew that if Party A wins, the ''candidate'' from that party will be PM and not some random asshat decided at a later date. In the case of a coalition, the ''candidates'' from the coalition could face off in a runoff election.

Or, the leader of the party is by convention going to be PM if his party gets a majority, "the candidate". In the event of the coalition then the PM is the leader of the party with the most MPs. No run-off election required.

[SABloke]

  On 3/27/2016 at 3:44 AM, Bench499d said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 3:39 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:56 AM, Bench499d said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:51 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

Well ok then, since it's been that way before, let's not change it. Come to think of it: What's up with women voting these days???

Read my second paragraph again

What if the PM elected by the people was from a different party to the majority government? Wouldn't work in a parliamentary system. The PM should be chosen by the majority party (or coalition) as this is the only candidate which would be supported by the government and vice-versa.

Mmmmm....that IS a conundrum. What if each party had to, before elections, choose a person that represented their party at the elections. Let's call this person a ''candidate''. When elections came the voters knew that if Party A wins, the ''candidate'' from that party will be PM and not some random asshat decided at a later date. In the case of a coalition, the ''candidates'' from the coalition could face off in a runoff election.

Or, the leader of the party is by convention going to be PM if his party gets a majority, "the candidate". In the event of the coalition then the PM is the leader of the party with the most MPs. No run-off election required.

Indeed, not required, but very democratic

[sjaak327]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/26/2016 at 7:08 PM, sjaak327 said:

What a load of rubbish. The PM should be elected by the members of parliament only. Appointed senators have no business electing the PM.

It seems the draft charter is full of typing errors.

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

There are loads of democracies where the MP's do elect the PM. As far as I'm concerned that is perfectly valid, as those MP's are themselves elected.

Personally I think a direct election for PM doesn't change anything and could potentially lead to a power vacuum, although the chance that the PM is not from the major party is small.

[kimamey]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:56 AM, Bench499d said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:51 AM, SABloke said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:33 AM, Srikcir said:

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:24 AM, SABloke said:

Members of parliament have no business selecting the PM eithe IMHO.

I reckon the PM of any country should br elected by popular vote of the general populous.

No.

In a parliamentary system such as has been in Thailand the parliament elects the PM.

It is in a presidential system such as in the republics of USA and South Korea that the head of government is elected directly by the "general populous."

Well ok then, since it's been that way before, let's not change it. Come to think of it: What's up with women voting these days???

Read my second paragraph again

What if the PM elected by the people was from a different party to the majority government? Wouldn't work in a parliamentary system. The PM should be chosen by the majority party (or coalition) as this is the only candidate which would be supported by the government and vice-versa.

That makes sense to me. The only thing I would add is that the PM should have been elected as an MP by the general population.