Pros and cons of "Double Majority"

October 1, 2024: If a country wants to change its Constitution, how many of its citizens have to give consent?

The logical answer is the majority, of course.

The simplicity stops there. The Senate and the House of Representatives disagree with each other over what actually constitutes majority agreement on whether the charter should be or should not be changed.

The Senate thinks more than half of eligible voters have to be involved in saying whether they want changes or not, and then what more than half of those involved think will decide “Yes” or “No” wins. They call it “Double Majority”.

Reasonable, proponents say. If more than half of eligible voters stay home, there is no point making changes that the “majority of Thais” is not interested in. Is it fair to effect constitutional changes that only 20 million people in a 71-million-people nation want?

Much ado about nothing and possibly time-consuming, the opponents argue. How can you give “lazy” people who choose to stay home the right to determine the country’s future? To add to that, if they are dragged out of their homes to vote, they may even vote “Yes (I do want changes)”, which is a huge irony if their absence cancels the whole amendment process.

Also, the proponents say many countries adhere to the “Double Majority” when it comes to public referendums. Check it out, the opponents insist, because most of those countries are republics (with possibly different or clashing needs and cultures) which is what makes “Double Majority” come in handy.

(With ideological divide considerably deep in Thailand, being a republic or not does not quite matter, though, some may argue.)

As for the matter of how long it takes, one side will say what’s the rush and the other will ask what the point is for the delay?

The House-Senate disagreement has yet to be settled, so what do you think in the meantime?

Daily updates of local and international events by Tulsathit Taptim.