EC explains whether a nationwide recount is possible amid #RecountNationwide calls

As online anger grows and hashtags calling for a “nationwide recount” trend across social media, Passakorn Siripakayaporn, deputy secretary-general of the Election Commission (EC), has set out the legal conditions and factual process behind any recount request—aiming to provide a clearer picture beyond social-media pressure.

Nationwide recount: expectation vs legal reality

On calls to recount votes across the country, Passakorn stressed that “everything must be within the framework of the law”.

He said an order to recount cannot be made arbitrarily, or simply because of online pressure. It must be based on facts and evidence. He also cautioned the public about consuming social media uncritically, saying: “When we consume social media, we may need to steady ourselves a bit.”

Crucially, he said the authority to order a recount rests only with the EC’s full commission. Even EC officials who inspect matters on the ground have no power to issue such an order on their own; they must gather evidence and submit it for the commission’s decision.

“As a result, a nationwide recount is virtually impossible unless there are clear defects in every polling unit, supported by evidence,” Passakorn said.

Key conditions: when can a recount happen?

The law sets out two main situations in which a recount may be considered:

• Voter turnout does not match the number of ballot papers used — commonly referred to as a “ballot mismatch”. The EC must examine why the discrepancy occurred and whether it rises to the level requiring a new election or a recount.
   
• The counting process was incorrect — for example, mistakes in calling out votes, tally marks, recording, or any suspicious irregularities in the procedure.

The EC may receive information through two channels: formal objections filed by members of the public or candidates who can provide evidence, and matters that appear to the EC—such as irregularities seen in video clips or issues uncovered through the EC’s own checks.

Procedure and evidence: the “Sor Sor 5/18” form as the final safeguard

Passakorn said the verification process is strict and relies on unalterable documentation:

• Raise an objection at the scene: If irregularities are found during counting, members of the public must immediately raise them with polling-station officials so they are recorded in the polling-unit incident report, considered the most important evidence for EC consideration.
   
• Cross-check against the Sor Sor 5/18 form: The result sheet posted in front of the polling station immediately after counting—Sor Sor 5/18—is treated as evidence that cannot be altered. If figures in the system do not match this form, the EC will use Sor Sor 5/18 as the primary cross-check.
   
• Fact-finding investigation: When complaints are lodged, the EC can order an investigative team to collect evidence and witness statements promptly—such as in Chonburi, where the EC instructed officials to conclude findings within two days.

Students interrupt EC briefing with “recount” placards

Towards the end of the Election Commission’s (EC) press briefing on election issues nationwide—particularly in Chonburi province—a small group of university students entered carrying A4 placards reading “Recount”, “How were polling officials trained?”, and “Nationwide recount”. 

Police and security staff escorted them out before they could hold the signs up inside, after which the group continued their protest outside.

One protester, identified only as Pan, 22, said the briefing “achieved nothing”, claiming he had not seen proper procedures and that the process lacked transparency. He also questioned turnout figures, saying official data suggested fewer voters than in previous polls, which he found hard to believe based on what he said he had observed.

Referring to the EC’s statement that the Chonburi inquiry would take two days, Pan said it offered little substance. He argued that while the EC maintained everything had been handled correctly, what the public had witnessed did not match officials’ claims. 

If the results are later confirmed officially, he said he would not trust them, pointing to unresolved problems such as vote-buying and saying alleged lack of transparency was an even bigger concern.

Pan said he could accept defeat as part of democracy, but only if the loss was “transparent”. 

Asked about vote-buying, he said his household had received money from two parties but declined to provide evidence, citing influential local figures and fear of reprisals. He added that clearer evidence was widely available online and urged authorities to pursue those cases first. 

He said the group may consider holding a lawful gathering under civil-liberty protections.