Thai politics: Caution needed in fine-tuning the electoral system

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Caution needed in fine-tuning the electoral system
ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- THE ELECTORAL and vote-count system has always been a major issue every time a new constitution is drafted. It is because this is an important way for elected politicians to get a mandate to rule. Constitution drafters often rely on the electoral and vote-count system to screen out undesirable people from gaining political power.

The 1997 Constitution introduced a new system in which there was an MP for every constituency, unlike in the past when there were three MPs for each constituency. As a result, many incumbent MPs failed to get elected, and there was much change in the political landscape.

In writing the constitution of 2007, the drafters aimed to tackle the problem of absolute majority control by a government. The older system of multiple-MP constituencies was brought back but the same big party still won a landslide victory in the subsequent election. Later, despite the reintroduction of a single-MP constituency system, the same big party, under a new name, still won the election with a large margin.

After the coup of May 2014, the Constitution Drafting Committee led by Borwornsak Uwanno came up with an electoral and vote-count system that would prevent absolute majority control by any political party. Their draft allowed smaller parties a greater chance to win more seats, with the ceiling of MP seats based on the party-list votes. However, the draft was "aborted" after being voted down by the National Reform Council.

The new CDC, led by Meechai Ruchupan, has come up with a new electoral and vote-count system, which was reportedly suggested by the chief drafter himself. In this innovative system, there are still two types of MPs - from constituencies and party lists. However, each voter casts only one ballot, not two as was the case in the past.

If this new system is adopted, voters will be electing only constituency MPs. The winning candidates become MPs of the constituencies. However, the votes of the losing candidates from all constituencies will be calculated to determine the number of party-list MPs that each political party gets. The drafters believe this new system would "prevent votes of the losing candidates from getting wasted".

In this new electoral system, the votes of the winning candidates from constituencies will not be taken into account when calculating the number of party-list MPs. This means the constituency winners will be at a disadvantage if this new system takes effect.

In the past, votes from constituency and party-list ballots were only slightly different. That means the party that won many seats from constituencies often gained a lot of seats from the party-list voting.

It is interesting to see how this new system would affect the number of MP seats political parties would gain in the next election. The impact may be minimal if there are a lot more constituency MPs than party-list MPs, such as 400 versus 100. However, if the numbers of MPs from both sources are very close - such as 250 constituency MPs against 200 party-list MPs - there could be a big political impact that may affect the formation of a new government.

The political party that wins the most seats from constituencies will be less likely to gain a lot of seats from the party-list system. That's because none of their winning votes will be taken into account when calculating the number of party-list MPs, despite being the most popular political party.

The party that comes second in the constituency vote will have a better chance of winning more seats from the party-list system. This will be particularly true if the second party loses by only a small margin in the constituency vote.

This new system of vote count seems to favour the runner-up political party in the constituency election. The constitution drafters should think carefully if this new system will suit the purpose of having party-list MPs. It seems they have come up with this new system to serve political purposes, rather than the original objective of having party-list MPs.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Caution-needed-in-fine-tuning-the-electoral-system-30271842.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-29

[JAG]

Designed for one thing and one thing only. To prevent the party which has won the last four elections from winning again.

This system will effectively disenfranchise those who vote for the winning party.

[RubbaJohnny]

In a country without elections no much to think about as is the bigger plan

[Srikcir]

This new system (NS) prevents a public mandate that is ordinarily necessary for a political party to fulfill its election promises by implementing policies, regulations and laws. In a mandate it is "winner takes all."

At best the NS creates a legislative gridlock in the parliament and stymies the executive branch from carrying out its ideoogical aims. At worst the NS creates a shadow government of elected and unelected persons driven in secret by personal cliques and corruption.

The former CDC was wild about adopting the MMP system used by Germany as a means to create coalition governments. But I'm sure to the Junta's dismay it could also install a popular PM who can create a mandate to deliver progressive legislation that may run counter to the military's agendas.

So Prayut declared that Thailand must have a unique electoral system as there is no electoral system in the world that would be "appropriate" to the Thai culture. That is, a culture wherein the Thai military holds ultimate sovereign power.