CDC member explains reasons for new system

Looking at the past, what problems can you see in our political and parliamentary systems, and how are these related to the problem in our electoral system?
I don’t want to say that parliamentary dictatorship is the same issue as gaining a majority of the House of Representatives as a result of a parallel proportional election. But it has shown us that the votes gained may not truly reflect or relate to the real number of voters.
To write the new charter, we conducted a review of all electoral systems to see what best fits us.
We have looked into parliamentary systems, not yet finished looking into the senate component, but finished the part on electoral systems that send MPs to the House.
We have learned that there is a first-past-the-post system, under which a winner takes all (seats), which Thailand had used until the 1997 constitution.
This is the oldest and easiest electoral system, but lost votes would be discarded. So, people say it is quite unfair especially if the losing candidate lose by a narrow margin.
So, the second system was then introduced, which is a total proportional one, but it has a disadvantage as all MPs chosen by parties may be quite distant from voters.
As a result, the third system was introduced, which is a mixed proportional system. One type is parallel-based and the other is mixed member proportional-based, which was introduced by the previous CDC.
Since the 1997 constitution, we have used the parallel-based, and as I told you, we have seen its flaws. So, we have discussed what then would best fit the country.

That’s the reason you have introduced the new system?
To find the best system, we have come up with five key principles that we think would help reflect the most democratic principle. One of the most important parts is an election must be direct and by the people, and the other, which is crucially important to us, is every vote must be meaningful.
That’s the reason why we have proposed a mixed member apportionment system, under which all lost votes would also be counted and seats shared following the proportions of those votes. It’s still parallel-based. The most crucial point is that we didn’t think of who would benefit from this but the people.

And you think that our parliamentary and political systems would be improved as a result?
Under this system, candidates cannot do what they used to do anymore. They cannot go and visit people at social events such as funerals, ordinations, which is very Thai style, to gain popularity. From now on, they have to think of their party’s policies to explain to people, as in the case of losing in the constituency race, their votes can still go to the party, and they may have a share in the party list afterwards. Voters will also change, as from now on they will see a point in going to cast their ballot. The parties, in the meantime, will be more mindful in fielding candidates.
So, everyone will adjust, but more importantly, the parties themselves will have to adjust if they cannot win a landslide victory. They will learn to take others’ policies, rather than force theirs on others to accept, and that way, compromises for the greatest benefit of the people will emerge.
Whether you will win such a landslide victory or form a coalition government is really up to the people.

And that is the meaning of democracy that the CDC is thinking of?
In a democratic system, people are the most important. But in our view, it’s not just that, their voices should also be truly meaningful. It’s fundamental to democracy.

Do you think people will accept the idea?
It’s really up to them. We will go ask them in a referendum, and if they find it advantageous to them, I believe they will.