well, that’s over, a dazed and confused reporter manages to cast a vote.

Going to the polling station yesterday reminded me of the recent general election.

April 2 and yesterday's Senate vote shared one glaring similarity - most of the candidates were not known for their talent or their ability.

In the House ballot, people cast their votes either for or against Thai Rak Thai Party leader Thaksin Shinawatra.

Yesterday, they chose between candidates who were either thought to be connected with political parties, or those who weren't.

Despite being a member of the media, I must admit I had no greater knowledge of the menagerie lined up for an upper house seat than anyone else in the queue.

It is extremely difficult to trace the origins of all 259 candidates, and then you can vote for only one of them.

A day before the election, people in the newsroom were still discussing which candidates should be singled out as representing political parties and which didn't have political connections.

Senior reporters also delivered some tips on who we should vote for - someone with no connections to any political party, someone who has proved their talent in protecting the national interest, and someone who is famous, to attract people to the goings-on in the Senate.

That helped. There were several immediately short-listed.

But that still left too many.

For me, an easy way out is voting for someone I know - a famous figure and someone who obviously represents things I believe in.

All of my information was gathered through the regular media channels. But then, there was another problem. Even when I had a choice in mind, I had trouble remembering their number.

The scene at the polling station near my home excited me. I overheard a middle-aged woman on her mobile phone passing on her expectations: "I don't expect to change anything, I just want to give them a chance," she said.

Others hovered around the board displaying candidates' names, numbers and mug shots.

There were the names of a few candidates still lingering in my mind when I entered the polling booth, but at the last minute, when I had to mark the ballot, my mind failed me and I drew blank on my selected candidate's number.

Luckily I had my mobile with me and I called for help. But then my friend who was to be my salvation started weighing the pros and cons of candidates, further confusing the issue.

Confusion all round!

I eventually marked the ballot and left the station proud that I had exercised my right to vote, but I can't help blaming the Constitution for this confusion.

What puts so much weight on voters' shoulders is the clause that bars all candidates from all kinds of publicity.

How are you supposed to know what they're about?

I believe many people voted for newsmakers: the more public the candidates were, the higher the chance they would be elected. Without publicity, how is the public supposed to know their standpoint, or gauge their potential?

Unlike the old system, in which publicly accredited people were appointed to the Senate, the new system allows people from all walks of life to screen the bills that will effect an entire society.

In this case, I think all voters are entitled to know what the policies of each candidate are, or whether they have any idea at all about how one monitors a government. It's only with such knowledge that we can judge whom the candidates are, whether they are able and whom they really represent.

I hope this will become part of the Kingdom's political reforms. Without publicity, the requirement that they must not represent any political party is worthless.

Without any change, confusion will definitely shadow voters as they muster at the polling booths again in six years.

Achara Deboonme

The Nation