A large majority of people do not understand the method for the calculation associated with party-list MPs, particularly an argument over regardless of whether to divide the party-list votes by 100 or five hundred, according to the result of the survey by the National Institute of Growth Administration, or Nida Poll.
The poll has been conducted on This summer 11-13 by telephone interviews with 1, 312 people from ages 18 and more than of various levels of education, occupations and earnings throughout the country right after Parliament on Come july 1st 6 voted to approve a proposal by New Palang Dharma Party leader Ravee Maschamadol to divide the number of party-list votes by five hundred, rather than 100 because originally proposed.
Under the approved formula, the five hundred figure – the entire number of all MPs, comprising 400 through constituencies and 100 from party-lists — will be used to separate party-list votes to look for the minimum number of shown MPs for each political party.
Asked whether they be familiar with calculation method, especially over the use of 500 or 100 to divide the party-list votes, 62. 35% said “no”, certainly not; 21. 11% mentioned “yes”, but only a little; 11. 74% said “yes”, considerably; and 4. 80 percent said “yes”, fully.
From the respondents with complete and moderate understanding (217), when questioned to comment about the Parliament’s decision to divide by five hundred, their replies were split – with 36. 41% in total disagreement; 30. 41% in moderate contract; 16. 59% completely agreement; and sixteen. 59% in reasonable disagreement.
When the 217 respondents with full plus moderate understanding of the particular calculation method had been asked why Parliament members voted to utilize 500, the replies varied:
– 28. 11% said they desired all party-list votes to be meaningful;
– 23. 96% said parties in the present coalition government wanted to stay on after the following election;
– 20. 28% mentioned they wanted little parties to have several seats in Parliament;
– 17. 97% said they will did not want any particular party to earn by a landslide; and
– nine. 68% said did so in exchange meant for votes to support the top minister and 10 other cabinet associates in the upcoming no-confidence debate.
Asked to discuss the House of Associates having two forms of MPs, from constituencies and party-lists, fifty eight. 39% said they will wanted to have each types of MPs; 33. 38% said there should be only constituency MPs; and 8. 23% said there should be just party-list MPs.