Democrats propose two-ballot poll system
Play
STRESSING that every person's vote should matter, the Democrat Party yesterday proposed a two-ballot voting system to the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), as a single-ballot system would not truly represent voters' intentions in a general electio
Representing his party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, deputy leader Jurin Laksanawisit said that by using two different ballots, voters could express who they want as their constituency MP as well as which party they like, under the party-list system.
This could reflect their intent better, he added.
“Voters vote for a [constituency] candidate because they want that person to represent them in Parliament. But if he loses [in the election] and his votes are counted towards the party list instead, it doesn’t really respond to their true wishes,” said Jurin.
He said he agreed with the now-defunct Constitution Drafting Committee, which had proposed a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system for how the total number of MP seats of each party should be calculated from the votes won by each party, or party list.
If a party’s number of constituency MPs does not meet the total number of MPs allowed it by such a calculation, then its party-list MPs could fill the vacancy, he said.
However, he added that the Democrats’ proposal was not exactly the same as the MMP system, as the party list should not be open and voters should not be allowed to order the party-list MPs themselves.
The formation of the government should be left for the voters to decide, he said.
If one party received enough votes from the electorate, then it should be able to form a single-party government, he said, adding that, if not, then those elected as MPs should be grouped together to form a coalition government.
It is all about how the people vote, said Jurin. This has to be accepted, because it is democracy, he stressed.
The deputy party leader went on to say that if a single-party government was worrisome to some people, an effective checks-and-balances system should be designed to ensure equilibrium.
Jurin said the constitution should set out the rules for democracy development in the long run, and not only tackle the problems at hand.
The Democrats’ proposal does not aim to favour or harm any particular party, he added.
Stating that the charter’s theme should be “Reduce the state’s power and enhance the people’s”, reconciliation is also among the party’s suggestions.
Reconciliation should be addressed and given importance, in order to help create ground rules for coexistence in society, he said.
Any action needed to be taken concerning incidents in the past should go through the justice process and end with justice, while amnesty should be limited to actions by ordinary demonstrators or those involved in minor offences, he explained.
The Democrats have also proposed that reform, if the constitution passes a referendum, should be carried out in line with the constitution by future elected governments.
Jurin declined, however, to elaborate on whether that meant the party was against the idea of a National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee, as put forward by the military-run government.
He said that these were only initial suggestions on the next constitution, and the Democrats might have further opinions on the matter later.
Asked which charter should be adopted if the constitution failed to pass a plebiscite, he said the 2007 Constitution could be suitable.
However, while the 1997 charter was one of the most popular, it still contained many loopholes allowing for the abuse of state power, he added.
After receiving the Democrat Party’s proposals, CDC members continued to deliberate yesterday on the charter in regard to the Constitutional Court and independent organisations.
They covered the principles or frameworks of how the matter should be written into the new constitution.
Norachit Sinhaseni, spokesman of the commission, said that this included the qualifications and selection of agencies and commissioners.
