Panel backs different candidacy numbers for constituency, party-list elections

The ad-hoc House panel is vetting four MP election bills that have been passed in the first reading by the House of Representatives to rewrite them into a single draft.

The panel, which has representatives from coalition parties, opposition parties and senators, voted 32 to 14 to use different numbers for the election of 400 constituency MPs and 100 party-list MPs.

The Senate representatives joined forces with most of the coalition representatives to vote to reject the opposition’s proposal of using the same number for both types of elections.

Representatives of the opposition and Democrat Party on the panel proposed the use of the same number for the two election types to make it easy for voters to remember and to make it easier for the Election Commission to print and distribute ballots.

But the government side argued that it would violate the Constitution to use the same number.

The government side argued that Section 90 of the Constitution required parties to register their constituency-based candidates before submitting their party-list candidates. This means the constituency-based contests would get candidacy numbers first.

The opposition side argued that the organic law on MP elections could be enacted first and if it violates the charter, the final decision can be later sought from the Constitutional Court.

Fourteen senators joined 18 coalition representatives to vote for the use of different numbers as stated in the main draft of the Cabinet.

Democrat MP Chinnaworn Boonyakiart and Therdpong Chai-anan voted with 12 opposition representatives to support one number for one party system.

Deputy Public Health Minister, Sathit Pitutecha, a Democrat MP, abstained because he chaired the meeting.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Sathit said the panel discussed two issues – the candidacy numbers and how to regard the scope of the election area for the party-list election.

Discussions on the election boundary for party-list election was inconclusive. The panel assigned its working subcommittee to study the issue more before sending it back for the entire committee to vote on later, Sathit said.

He said the issue of boundary for party-list election would have an impact on other sections of the bill, so the working subcommittee would would need a deeper study of the issue.