แก้รัฐธรรมนูญแล้วควรแก้วิธีนับคะแนนเลือกตั้งด้วย

ตอบกระทู้นี้

Permalink Reply by กิตติพงษ์ ราชเกษร on February 23, 2011 at 9:51

สวัสดีครับคุณ ธนินท์ชัย กิตติวิศิษฏ์ ผมเห็นด้วยครับกับเรื่องนี้ เพราะเท่าที่สังเกตในการเลือกตั้ง

แต่ละครั้ง ผมได้เห็นคะแนนในบางเขตที่คิดว่าต้องชนะแน่ๆ แต่กลับแพ้จนได้ แสดงว่าอาจจะไม่ใช่เพียงเรื่องเกรงใจใคร แต่อาจจะรวมไปถึงการสับเปลี่ยนกล่องและการขานคะแนนอีกด้วยครับ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Krooudom Karn on March 8, 2011 at 16:55

รัฐธรรมนูญของโจร ต้องแก้ด้วยเหรอ ที่เขาแก้เขาแก้เพื่อผลประโยชน์ของตัวเขาเอง ไม่ใช่เพื่อประเทศชาติ บ้านเมือง คนไทยควรได้สั่งสอนนักการเมืองพวกนี้บ้าง อย่างพวก สว.ที่ลากตั้งเข้ามาเพื่อรักษาอำนาจให้ใครบางคนนั้น ไม่ควรมีและไม่มีประโยชน์อันใดกับประชาชน

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zmy Threewattana on April 5, 2011 at 21:02

เอาข่าวนี้มาแป่ะไว้ก่อน เกี่ยวกับทำ poll เพื่อดูว่าชาวบ้านสนใจการแก้รัฐธรรมนูญในทิศทางไหน ซึ่งโยงไปถึงการแก้ไขบางอย่างในกระบวนการเลือกตั้งด้วย แต่ยังอ่านไม่ละเอียด เห็นเขาว่ามัน informative ยังไงอยากให้ทางบก.ช่วยอ่าน ชี้ประเด็นให้ฟังบ้างและแสดงความเห็นกับข่าวนี้สักหน่อยค่ะ ถ้าไม่ลำบากจนเกินไป

Winning the popularity contest always comes at a cost

• Published: 5/04/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News (Bangkok Post)

Vote-buying is a sad reality of every election. Politicians publicly condemn it and urge voters not to sell their votes. But each time before people line up for the ballot, funds flow furiously, the week, if not the night, before depending on the province or constituency. Once again as we head down the final stretch to elections, this plague and scourge of our political process is certain to rear its ugly head.

Prior to each election, political parties commission private polls to gauge their party's popularity as well as those of potential candidates. They compare the party and candidates' rating with those of their nearest rival and competitor. These polls are conducted intermittently throughout the campaign, in particular by more prominent and well-financed parties. The objective is to allow parties and candidates to adjust their campaigns, counter moods and trends by their opponents, overcome weaknesses.

Without doubt key political parties have conducted polls of some sort. More recently, for example, both Puea Thai and the Democrats have commissioned polls in 18-20 hotly contested provinces. These are provinces in the North and Northeast in which support could go either way. In the past, according to pollsters, parties would be satisfied if the trends indicated that their party or candidate was ahead by say 20% and leading comfortably in the popularity contest. In the upcoming election, however, this does not seem to be enough.

One interesting trend that has emerged is that parties are demanding more from pollsters. They are asking for more detail. For instance they want to know which villages are against them in hotly-contested constituencies and why. "They even want to know which household is against them," one pollster confided recently. Another new development is that parties are asking pollsters to assess the popularity of their canvassers _ something that has never been done before. They want to know what qualities in canvassers are attractive to voters. One party has even asked for polls to be conducted on monks.

What does this all mean? Armed with more detailed information, I fear that vote-buying will be worse than ever. This is a reflection of what is at stake in this year's election. But what's worse is that we continue to allow this practice to continue and really have not taken any serious or definitive action to kill this practice. I don't blame the voters, especially voters upcountry. We have ourselves to blame. The measures, procedures and penalties to curb this political disease are as weak and soft as spaghetti.

The Election Commission, set up under the 1997 charter, is empowered to hand out a red card to any candidate whom it deems has violated the electoral law or cheated. And this includes vote-buying. If the commission hands out a red card before election results are announced, that candidate loses his or her political rights for just one year. The commission then files a civil suit to reclaim the costs of holding a by-election in which the candidate is supposed to pay. In most cases, the process of appeal takes time and the candidate more often than not negotiates payment terms such as interest payments or even payment by instalments.

If one year has passed (the candidate is now an MP) and the commission decides to proceed with the case, it must file the case with the Supreme Court's Election Division. In this situation, the process is tougher as far as rules of evidence are concerned. The court may decide that the commission does not have sufficient evidence and dismiss the case. If the court decides in favour of the commission, the MP loses his or her political rights for five years while the commission then proceeds to extract the costs for elections via the civil court judicial process.

One key problem in cases of vote-buying or election fraud is evidence. As far as vote-buying is concerned, there are virtually no receipts to speak of. I can only recall one case decades ago when a reporter by chance took a sheet of paper with a list of monies paid to voters from the desk of one MP running for re-election while he wasn't looking. The document had the candidate's signature on it which matched his signature in Parliament. All hell broke loose when a reproduction of the document was published. But in the end, because there was no EC at that time _ just the Interior Ministry which was responsible for elections _ the case simply disappeared.

But for a while now we have an Election Commission with considerable responsibility to ensure that the election process is fair and transparent. Following the December 2007 elections, the EC, in January of 2008, handed out 18 yellow cards and seven red cards. One thing the commission should be required to do is report each year to Parliament and the public an update on all red card cases and the status of their civil lawsuits.

But most important of all, we need to make cheats pay, and pay dearly. The reality is that once allegations of fraud or vote-buying are lodged by candidates or the public and the EC investigates, lobbying starts to turn a red card verdict into a yellow card verdict which means a re-run in that constituency. This is to be expected in all matters political. Cheats will be cheats and people who have become accustomed to buying their way into positions of power and influence will continue to adopt such tactics.

If we are going to make any headway whatsoever in tackling this scourge, then the process needs to be clear cut and the penalties simple and straightforward. The one year or five year political ban should go out the window altogether and in its place should be one rule and one rule only _ a lifetime ban from contesting any elected public office or appointment to any government office or agency in which the public interest is at stake. Even now politicians kick and scream over a five-year ban. To them we should say stiff cheese and be gone. If you cheat then be prepared to suffer the consequences. Recent opinion polls indicate that many people remain undecided as to which party they will support in the upcoming elections.

For me, I will vote for any political party that pushes for laws or measures that make election cheats really pay and suffer. But I won't vote for that party in this upcoming election _ only after they have successfully implemented the change in the electoral process.

And that means in the following elections _ whenever that will be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by นายทักษิณ ชนาปัญญาวัฒน์ on November 4, 2011 at 11:49

ผมเห็นด้วย แต่อีกประการที่ผมห่วงคือว่า กลัวว่าระหว่างทาง กลัวบัตรหาย หรือ คะแนนเปลี่ยน ( มือที่ 3 )  เพราะว่าทั้งสองข้อมีข้อดีข้อเสียที่แตกต่างกันไป 

1. นับคะแนนนะหน่วยเลือกตั้ง  : ประชาชนเป็นพยายานเลยว่า คะแนนไม่ผิดพลาด ไม่มีเสียหาย แต่ข้อเสียอย่างที่คุณว่านะครับ 

2. นับที่เขตเลือกตั้ง  : ข้อดีคือการซื้อเสียงยาก แต่ว่ากลัวคะแนนจะหาย หรือบัตรหาย ซึ่งไม่มีใครรับรองว่าบัตรจะเท่ากันกับของจริง 

• ▶ Reply