EC credibility is at critical level

In yet another blow to its credibility, the Election Commission (EC) conducted a recount in Nakhon Pathom on Sunday only to deliver the wrong result. It seems the more the EC counts, the more confused the public becomes over the result of the election. After a series of such irregularities and mistakes, no one can be sure whether results in other constituencies are accurate.
On election day, the EC announced that the Democrat Party candidate (35,762 votes) had won by a margin of 47 votes over Future Forward’s candidate (35,615). 
A week later, Future Forward calculated that the combined votes from all polling stations showed its candidate had actually won by four votes. The party asked the EC for a recount, resulting in Sunday’s debacle. 
After presiding over the 12-hour recount, EC commissioner Chatchai Chanpraisri told reporters at the site that Future Forward had tallied 35,707 votes, beating the Democrats on 35,645 by 62 votes.
An hour later, Democrat deputy leader Satit Pitutacha announced calculations showing its candidate Sinthop Kaewpichit had gained 35,711 votes, winning by a margin of four votes against Future Forward candidate Savika Limpasuwanna’s 35,707. 
EC secretary-general Jarungvith Phumma finally admitted on Monday that the Democrat’s calculation was indeed accurate. The poll agency’s deputy secretary-general Sawang Boonmee then called a press conference to declare that the incorrect results delivered on Sunday were unofficial and had been announced before the count was completed. 
Reports say officials at the count site had mistakenly credited votes for the Democrats to other candidates. They remedied the error before submitting the correct count to the EC. 
A sceptical Future Forward Party and it supporters immediately questioned whether the Nakhon Pathom election had been free and fair. The party pointed to a 20-second electricity cut during the count on Sunday. Such outages are notorious for offering opportunities to stuff ballot boxes or cheat in other ways under the cover of darkness. 
The counting process involves simple mathematics, yet the EC has offered ample demonstration it is not up to the task. We can hardly be surprised then that is has run into difficulty with the more complicated calculation of party-list MPs.
More than a month after voting, the EC has yet to make a decision on the formula it will use to calculate MPs from the party lists. Different methods are mentioned in the charter and election law, but each would deliver a different number of seats for the pro- and anti-junta camps. The charter court has rejected a petition for advice, leaving the EC dithering over which method to use.
Political parties and experts have objected to the EC’s preferred method, which would allocate a disproportionate number of seats to smaller parties at the expense of their larger counterparts, saying it is unconstitutional.
According to the calculation method prescribed in the Constitution, parties must have at least 70,000 votes to be eligible for any seats in the House of Representatives. The method the EC favours sets that threshold at just 30,000.
The EC’s preferred method favours the pro-junta camp, since small parties have gravitated towards this faction that already has its hands on levers of power and national budget. 
If it wants to restore its credibility, the EC must do more than just restore its efficiency. It must also address growing criticism over its perceived lack of neutrality. If public trust in the EC runs much lower, the election itself will lack all legitimacy.