Majority of Thais don’t understand primary voting system, poll finds

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Refering to the whole framework (this is only a piece of it), the problem is that the aim is not to give more power to the people. It is to give more power to unelected people than to elected people, by different mechanisms, including this one.

The intent of the Junta has never been to give more lower to people.

"It is to give more power to unelected people than to elected people, by different mechanisms, including this one."

How? just how does giving candidate selection to party members do that?

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

Refering to the whole framework (this is only a piece of it), the problem is that the aim is not to give more power to the people. It is to give more power to unelected people than to elected people, by different mechanisms, including this one.

The intent of the Junta has never been to give more lower to people.

I am not disputing that more power is given to the army in general, but this part could work in favor of the people. I doubt they really intent to give more power to the people , they just want to break Thaksin his power, this works for that but unintentionally gives more power to the people. That is what I mean by looking at thing case by case.. not.. oh the junta suggested it it is bad.. but checking what it means and if its good. I don't disprove of all the PTP does i look at it case by case. 

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

What i am afraid of?

 

This proposal goes further than the basic explanation given in the newspaper. This is not something you summarize in a paragraph and say its good or bad. The devil is in the details. The system might be good but one tweak in implementation and the country will be doomed.

 

I think nobody here is able to discuss this system as none of us has studied this subject in details together with Thai history and how Thai society works.

 

I would like professors of political science at Thai universities debate this together with politicians, historians, foreign professors, political science researchers, constitutional experts, lawyers, etc.

 

But unfortunately that is not happening.

 

Someone up high came up with this as a way to hold on to power and then they instructed all their minions to rubber stamp it.

Ok we will hold the discussion here without you.. not a great loss. 

[Smarter Than You]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

I could fix most of your problems in 2 easy steps.

1/ Abandon the party list, every MP fronts an electorate which examines his/her history and character. No more unelectable criminal scum appointed to high office.

2/ Cabinet members are selected from MPs and senators who retain their seat - standard Westminster system. No more appointing cronies, family members and yes-men.

Any comment on the fully appointed Senate?

Are they going to be "unelectable criminal scum appointed to high office" or "cronies, family members and yes-men"

How about the loopholes allowing for an "outsider PM"

 

Yeah, all the Juntas election initiatives are aimed at returning democracy to Thailand. 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, stephen tracy said:

But by that reasoning, if you want the junta gone and they go, will they not just be replaced with a politicians who practice the system of patronage?

Yes they will be, but the junta has had its time.. its in power far longer as intended or as they should be. I was never in favor for the junta staying on forever. I wanted them to clean house and go. However they did do that so some extent.. but failed in many places. Now its time for politicians again, i just hope they do a better job this time. 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, halloween said:

I could fix most of your problems in 2 easy steps.

1/ Abandon the party list, every MP fronts an electorate which examines his/her history and character. No more unelectable criminal scum appointed to high office.

2/ Cabinet members are selected from MPs and senators who retain their seat - standard Westminster system. No more appointing cronies, family members and yes-men.

No more Suthep, the criminal scum as deputy leader of a major party seem right by me. 

 

Lets not go too far and quote the Westminster system. Stay in SEA. Most cabinet ministers are also MPs. I will not shed a tear if they re-write the election law to abolish party list. Ahbisit will be disappointed though. He enlarged the proportion of party list when he was the PM. 

[Smarter Than You]

Just now, robblok said:

Yes they will be, but the junta has had its time.. its in power far longer as intended or as they should be. I was never in favor for the junta staying on forever. I wanted them to clean house and go. However they did do that so some extent.. but failed in many places. Now its time for politicians again, i just hope they do a better job this time. 

Now it's time for politicians again ... to be followed by what?

Another Junta?

If so who decides when the next Junta should step in?

Suthep?

 

How ridiculous.

Looks to me like you're suffering a bit from buyers remorse.

[Bob12345]

Ok we will hold the discussion here without you.. not a great loss. 

As soon as you contradict yourself and blame it on english not being your native language i will jump in again.

[candide]

11 minutes ago, halloween said:

"It is to give more power to unelected people than to elected people, by different mechanisms, including this one."

How? just how does giving candidate selection to party members do that?

The objective is to make it more difficult to manage political parties and to weaken them. Primary voting systems can also highlight divisions inside parties, which also goes against strong parties.

[Bob12345]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Now its time for politicians again, i just hope they do a better job this time. 

You must have forgotten the 20-year National Strategy.

It will be time for politicians again, MAYBE, in 2037.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

As soon as you contradict yourself and blame it on english not being your native language i will jump in again.

I know you like to go off topic if the topic isnt to your liking (in other words cant fault the junta)

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

No more Suthep, the criminal scum as deputy leader of a major party seem right by me. 

 

Lets not go too far and quote the Westminster system. Stay in SEA. Most cabinet ministers are also MPs. I will not shed a tear if they re-write the election law to abolish party list. Ahbisit will be disappointed though. He enlarged the proportion of party list when he was the PM. 

Those cabinet ministers who were party list MPs, who were encouraged (at least in Shin govts) to resign their seats so others could get on the gravy train. I see no reason to abandon standard Westminster for US republic style cabinet, but without oversight, and for the PM to become presidential and abandon parliament attendance. The PM is supposedly the most experienced and capable MP, not the next available relative of the party owner.

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

The objective is to make it more difficult to manage political parties and to weaken them. Primary voting systems can also highlight divisions inside parties, which also goes against strong parties.

What you mean is stop despotic control, right. Factions in political parties can you imagine that, never happen in a real democracy.

[candide]

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes they will be, but the junta has had its time.. its in power far longer as intended or as they should be. I was never in favor for the junta staying on forever. I wanted them to clean house and go. However they did do that so some extent.. but failed in many places. Now its time for politicians again, i just hope they do a better job this time. 

Obviously you don't want to take into account the new constitution. It will not be time for politicians. It will be time for the unelected senate, the strategic committee and various unelected bodies.

Example

 

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

supposedly the most experienced and capable MP, not the next available relative of the party owner.

You forgot to add elected to experience and capable. Now you even insult the current non elected junta PM. 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Now it's time for politicians again ... to be followed by what?

Another Junta?

If so who decides when the next Junta should step in?

Suthep?

 

How ridiculous.

Looks to me like you're suffering a bit from buyers remorse.

No buyers remorse at all... junta was never supposed to stay this long. Who decides about an other coup, no idea.. lets hope there won't be one for a long time. Should be ok as long as they don't try to get Thaksin back again. There has to be support for a coup.. that only happens when the government is doing stupid things. 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Obviously you don't want to take into account the new constitution. It will not be time for politicians. It will be time for the unelected senate, the strategic committee and various unelected bodies.

Example

 

Yes there will be a lot more checks and balances, we will see how that works out. For sure the politicians have less power than before. I for one hope that it means stability for a longer period. I also hope that it means that corruption can be handled better. But we will see. 

[candide]

38 minutes ago, halloween said:

I could fix most of your problems in 2 easy steps.

1/ Abandon the party list, every MP fronts an electorate which examines his/her history and character. No more unelectable criminal scum appointed to high office.

2/ Cabinet members are selected from MPs and senators who retain their seat - standard Westminster system. No more appointing cronies, family members and yes-men.

For once I agree with you!

However it is exactly what the Junta wants to avoid, because it would probably allow the emergence of a clear majority in parliament.

[candide]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes there will be a lot more checks and balances, we will see how that works out. For sure the politicians have less power than before. I for one hope that it means stability for a longer period. I also hope that it means that corruption can be handled better. But we will see. 

It is much more than check and balance, for example:

- the senate has one third of votes and it has been officially said that the party with the most votes may not be the one chosen for the government

- the strategic committee has more power than the government. Government organisations are legally compelled to obey the strategy committee, even if the government has a different policy.

[robblok]

Just now, candide said:

It is much more than check and balance, for example:

- the senate has one third of votes and it has been officially said that the party with the most votes may not be the one chosen for the government

- the strategic committee has more power than the government. Government organisations are legally compelled to obey the strategy committee, even if the government has a different policy.

What do you mean with senate has one third of votes.. votes on what ?

 

I can agree about the strategic committee at least we get some long term planning then. (depends of course how rigid things are)

[candide]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

What do you mean with senate has one third of votes.. votes on what ?

 

I can agree about the strategic committee at least we get some long term planning then. (depends of course how rigid things are)

They have one-third of votes to elect a PM

[Smarter Than You]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

What do you mean with senate has one third of votes.. votes on what ?

 

I can agree about the strategic committee at least we get some long term planning then. (depends of course how rigid things are)

You think the strategic committee is a good idea, all that power in unelected hands - for 20 years?

 

Here's a good way to test whether the idea is a good one ... would you be happy if it were Thaksin, Charlem, Jutaporn running the strategic committee?

 

 

[robblok]

Just now, candide said:

They have one-third of votes to elect a PM

How does that make the party with the most votes not chosen for government ? (of course if they got the most votes but not a majority and other parties form a coalition that is understandable). But otherwise I don't see how the party with the most votes could not be in government because of this rule.. they might not be the one that supply the PM but they would be the one forming the government.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

You think the strategic committee is a good idea, all that power in unelected hands - for 20 years?

 

Here's a good way to test whether the idea is a good one ... would you be happy if it were Thaksin, Charlem, Jutaporn running the strategic committee?

 

 

I think its a good idea to have long term strategic goals.. I am not sure in what Thailand you have been living. But I have been living in a Thailand where it changes to be the hub of (name the flavor of the day) on a monthly basis. A bit more long term vision would not be such a bad idea. 

[gaity mandurah]

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Who needs excuses when you've got guns?

thai, unelected p.m. not as bad as bashar alassad of syria but they both have 2 things in common, no elections and both rule by the gun, 

[Smarter Than You]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

How does that make the party with the most votes not chosen for government ? (of course if they got the most votes but not a majority and other parties form a coalition that is understandable). But otherwise I don't see how the party with the most votes could not be in government because of this rule.. they might not be the one that supply the PM but they would be the one forming the government.

500 lower house seats.

PM requires 251 out of 500.

If no one gets the 251 votes, 250 unelected Junta appointed Senate votes are added.

PM now needs 376 votes out of 750

 

How exactly do you think a government would function if PTP win the most seats but Pruyuth gets the 376 votes for PM?

(You do understand the aim of the new constitution is to get lots of small parties elected whose MP's can then be either strong-armed or bribed into backing the "right people".)

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

500 lower house seats.

PM requires 251 out of 500.

If no one gets the 251 votes, 250 unelected Junta appointed Senate votes are added.

PM now needs 376 votes out of 750

 

How exactly do you think a government would function if PTP win the most seats but Pruyuth gets the 376 votes for PM?

 

 

 

So there actually only is a problem if the party that wins has no majority, if they form a coalition there is no problem. 

[stephen tracy]

The "elections", if they ever even take place, will be little more than a piece of theatre.  The junta will still be in control, Prayuth has already seen to that, so it really makes no difference whether they have elections or not. 

[candide]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

How does that make the party with the most votes not chosen for government ? (of course if they got the most votes but not a majority and other parties form a coalition that is understandable). But otherwise I don't see how the party with the most votes could not be in government because of this rule.. they might not be the one that supply the PM but they would be the one forming the government.

I agree that it is not clear. My guess is that they will add a mechanism in the organic law so that an unelected PM can govern even if he has no parliament majority.

Now let's describe the Junta's style democracy.

In a normal democracy, people vote for a party according to its political platform. If he has the most votes, this party will usually be the government party. The new system first reduces the odds that a party will have enough seats to be in a dominant position, it also provides an incentive for other parties to refuse a coalition as they can ally later with the senate to appoint a good unelected person instead. 

 

Now let's imagine a party gets enough votes to form a government. A government's job is to implement the policies citizens voted for. But it will be the unlected strategy committee (= the Junta), not the government, which will define policies.

So in this system, what do people vote for? A party that likely cannot form a government if it is not of the right political orientation, and anyway cannot apply the political platform he was elected for.

 

On top of it: what happens if the strategy committee is wrong or corrupt and defines bad policies? Can it be voted out? Can it be impeached?

[gk10002000]

What voting system?  I don't recall anybody voting for the takeover