Voters reject new system: poll

[rooster59]

Voters reject new system: poll

By THE SUNDAY NATION

 

 

MOST PEOPLE disagree with the abolition of a voting system in which all candidates of the same party share a common contesting number, saying it would only cause confusion and be unlikely to curb electoral fraud as intended, an opinion survey has found.

More than 40 per cent of 1,119 respondents answered to the latest Suan Dusit Poll conducted between August 8 to 11 disagreed and said that the change “isn’t worth it”.

 

Some 45 per cent of the respondents said they did not think any voting system would make any difference to the corruption issue, according to results of the survey released yesterday. Politics is monopolised by the two major parties and most of the time people elected are the same faces from the same parties, the respondents said.

 

The poll was conducted after the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) had proposed to abolish the old voting system and replace it with a version in which each candidate in each constituency race would draw lots to determine their poll number. Candidates affiliated with a party would not have the same number across all constituencies.

 

However, almost three quarters or 74.8 per cent viewed the old system’s advantageous point was that it was easier to understand and recognise the candidate and the party.

 

Some 65 per cent also said the system has long been practised and people were more accustomed to it. And about 64 per cent said it was good because it is easier for the party to campaign.

 

Meanwhile, 73.2 per cent of the respondents accepted that the old voting system could have a larger tendency toward corruption and suffer from vote buying. 

 

More than two-thirds or 68.5 per cent also agreed voters had chosen in favour of the party rather than considering the constituency candidates fielded. 

 

And 54.6 per cent said that voters only remembered the party number and crossed the ballot accordingly without considering their policies.

 

Nearly a third of respondents, or 32.8 per cent, said that the abolition of the old voting system would worsen the election. People think confusion would emerge and could result in political conflict, the poll found. 

 

Only one-fifth or 21.3 per cent believed the change would improve elections. Those people said the new voting system would help prevent poll fraud and prompt contestants to pay more attention to the voters.

 

One-third, or 33.5 per cent, said they were unsure if they agreed with the abolition, while 24.6 per cent said they agreed with it because it could both curb vote-buying and also make voters consider and choose the right constituency candidate over the party.

 

Some 60.9 per cent said, however, that the powers-that-be should listen to the people and the politicians if they are to introduce a new election system.

 

Almost 60 per cent, or 58.3 per cent, said any system would have both pros and cons.

 

Meanwhile, 50 per cent and 48.9 per cent respectively said the changes were still unclear and that they were unsure of what exactly the system would be. 

 

Another 43.14 per cent said the new system is a new alternative and perhaps could improve the election.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30323636

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-13

[Samui Bodoh]

The purpose of the new voting system is to ensure that the 'red' side do not win a majority.

 

All the rest is irrelevant or noise.

 

[JAG]

The purpose of the new voting system is to ensure that the 'red' side do not win a majority.

 

All the rest is irrelevant or noise.

 

If this "reform" manages to chip a couple of percentage points off the Red vote by introducing a complication into what was a very simple system, then it will have served its purpose.

What is really a very simple exercise, allowing the people to select who (which party) they wish to represent them is becoming ever more complicated. The more complicated the system, the greater the need (or opportunity) to "manage" it....

 

[BasalBanality]

I'm surprised they managed to poll individuals who actually understands the process.

[RichardColeman]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

And 54.6 per cent said that voters only remembered the party number and crossed the ballot accordingly without considering their policies.

Yep, definition of stupidity !

[dinsdale]

9 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The purpose of the new voting system is to ensure that the 'red' side do not win a majority.

 

All the rest is irrelevant or noise.

 

The purpose is to ensure the continuance of military control.

[Yinglove]

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

it was easier to understand and recognise the candidate and the party.

Exactly what the Junta don't want.

[tomta]

5 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

10 hours ago, rooster59 said:

And 54.6 per cent said that voters only remembered the party number and crossed the ballot accordingly without considering their policies.

Yep, definition of stupidity !

Not at all. The whole point of a party system is that you don't have to examine every policy they propose to support them or vote against them. You understand the general orientation of the party and you vote for or against that orientation. I think whatever question the pollsters asked here skewed that question. I would think it's pretty obvious that Thai Rak Thai and its various incarnations  have an orientation towards programs that benefit the rural masses (and to forestall criticism, yes, they take a cut and yes these are "populist" programs that might be considered "irresponsible"), the Democrats have an orientation towards supporting the urban middle classes, the Army is oriented to supporting authoritarian values. It is not necessary to know and examine every policy and every candidate to make a choice. When I vote in Australia, I used to vote Labor because I supported the general orientation of their policies to a fair and compassionate society . Now I vote Green because they represent that orientation more effectively. I don't vote Liberal (the Australian conservative party, paradoxically) because I don't support their orientation to the supremacy of the free market. Whatever you think of Thaksin, it's pretty clear that he defined an ideology and got support on the basis of that ideology. That was exactly what the 1997 constitution set out to produce. And it is exactly what the current changes are setting out to destroy.

 

[Chris Lawrence]

The ballot is not about making any sense; its there as part of a democratic process thought up by the powers who want to be.

[Yinglove]

2 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

The ballot is not about making any sense; its there as part of a democratic process thought up by the powers who want to be.

When you're trying to subvert democracy every little bit helps.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/06/what-is-happening-with-the/#T5qyt0mrESRWYuDb.97