Announcement
by Pheu Thai Party

regarding
the proposed electoral system

  According
to the idea put forward by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to adopt
an electoral system called “Mixed Apportionment System” with constituency and
party list MPs but only has a single ballot and the votes of the losing
constituency candidates will be used to calculate the allocation of seats for
party list MPs while the votes of the winning constituency candidate will be
disregarded and not be used to calculate the seats of the party list MPs. Such
system has never been used in any other countries before.

Pheu Thai Party have considered the
matter and has the following opinions:

1. 
When considering which electoral
system should be adopted it is necessary to thoroughly consider the various
factors and effects such as the opportunity and equality of the political
parties in sending their candidates, the will of the people, the efficiency and
the stability of the government after the election. Also the system must be most
beneficial to the nation and the people and not a system that will cause
further problems.

2. 
Since the CDC has determined that
there will be two types of MPs it should let the people to show their electoral
intention in accordance with the type of MP and the electoral objective for
each type. By using only a single ballot to select both the candidate and the
political party thus cannot ascertain the will of the people whether they have
voted for the candidate of the political party. This undermines the rights of
the people that seek to select the candidate that they love and select the
party that they like or prefer to only select the party but not select any
candidate. This is because in reality the people may not like the candidate but
like the political party or vice versa. The system thus cannot reflect the true
will of the people.

3. 
Using a single ballot also cannot ascertain
whether the voter intend to support the candidate or the party. By ignoring the
votes of the winning candidate in the constituency and using the votes of the
losing candidate to calculate the number of party list MPs will only create more
confusion for the people. This is because the people may have selected the
candidate but not the party or selected the party but not the candidate or chose
to select both the party and the candidate but this vote for the party is
ignored. Thus the claim that this method respect every vote cast by the people
is false and the system not free and fair. It is also worrisome that the political
party that won the most constituency MPs may not become the party with the
majority in the parliament because these votes were disregarded in the calculation
of party list MPs.

4. 
The mixed electoral system that was
formulated in the 1997 and 2007 Constitution have been used many times in past general
elections and the people have grown accustomed and consistently come out to
exercise their electoral rights in growing numbers. This electoral system with
constituencies and vote counting clearly reflected the will of the people as to
which candidate or the party they wanted. This has made the political parties
compete more with one another concerning their policies. However this proposed apportionment
electoral system does not give the people any opportunity to decide on the
candidate or the political party which defeats the purpose of the election. It
also makes the political parties compete less on their policies because even
though they may lose the election the losing votes would nonetheless be used to
calculate the number of party list MPs.

5. 
This electoral system is
“Apportionment” and not “Proportional representation” which is the true system
that can reflect every votes because it counts the votes cast by the people for
the various political parties (Popular votes) which is then used to calculate
the seats for the MPs in proportion to the votes garnered nationwide by the
party. Thus this Mixed Apportionment System is unfair and fails to reflect the
true preference for the each political party.

6. 
Also this Mixed Apportionment System does
not lessen vote buying but instead makes vote buying
easier since only a single ballot is used. This is in contrast with the mixed
system that assigned the entire nation as the electoral constituency which is
the largest constituency for the party list. Also the increase or decrease in vote
buying actually depend onlegal measures and the agencies
that organizes the election more than the electoral system.

7. 
The CDC is determined to draft a
constitution that is internationally accepted but this Mixed Apportionment
System is contradictory and the CDC should at least have an inkling why other
nations that are archetypes of democracy and other materially and politically
developed nations never adopted such system in their elections. By citing that
Thailand “does not need to borrow from foreign textbooks” one has to ask
whether the parliamentary system, the independent organizations, the division of
power, the rights of the people, the censure debate, the dissolution of the
parliament and the drafting of the civil and commercial code is thought out by
us or have we adopted from foreign knowledge?

8. 
Pheu Thai Party sees that the
political problem that came about were not because the electoral system was flawed
but rather stemmed from other factors such as the loser of the election refuse
to accept the result and used various means to undermined the stability of the
elected government or the use of agencies and the justice process that is
biased. The mixed electoral system that has been adopted in the past has more
advantages and the claim that it will allow the government to become too strong
does not necessary mean that the electoral system need to be changed so that
the government would be made weakened. Rather the true cause of the problem
should be addressed such as strengthening the monitoring system and creating a
system that appropriately check the balance of power exercised by the various
organizations.

Pheu Thai Party sees that this Mixed Apportionment Electoral
System is not only internationally unacceptable but is not appropriate for
Thailand and Thai politics either. This system is poised to create more
problems that it can help solve. Thus the electoral system that the CDC seek to
adopt has never been used before and should the pros and cons and the
consequences should be thoroughly considered as the nation is not a testing
ground for the various thought experiment conjured up by the CDC. The
appropriate electoral system for Thailand should adopt a mixed system as per
the 1997 or the 2007 Constitution since it can reflect the will of the people
and give opportunity for the candidates and the parties without ignoring any
votes that have been cast by the people to the parties despite of losing or
winning the election.

    Pheu Thai Party

5^th November 2015