ELECTORAL PATTERNS SUITABLE FOR THAILAND

Abstract

Objectives of this research were: 1. To study the context and electoral system based on the Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540, 2550, and 2560, 2. To analyze the electoral system according to the Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540, 2550, and 2560, and 3. To propose a suitable electoral system for Thailand, conducted by the qualitative method. Data were collected through document and in-depth interviewing 18 key-informants and 8 participants in focus group discussion. Data were analyzed by content descriptive interpretation.

Findings revealed that the 1997 constitutional elections had the advantage of being the first party-list elections in Thailand. Political parties were more important. The government was strong and stable. The elected senators were connected to the people. Disadvantages: Election by constituencies was the only member of the Senate who receives the highest votes. Elections under the 2007 Constitution. Advantages: People can elect more than one MP in the constituency system. The division of provinces into 8 groups in the party-list system makes the MPs have a strong bond with the people in the area. Disadvantages The zoning system allows each district to have unequal number of members of the House of Representatives, directly affecting the number of seats in the House of Representatives. 2017 Constitutional Election. Advantages use the votes from the constituencies system to calculate the number of MPs in the party-list system. Consequently, people's votes were not wasted. Disadvantages: Use only one ballot. As a result, voters cannot separate the election of members of the House of Representatives in the constituency system from the selection of political parties. It should be an electoral system that had calculating system that was a correlation between the two systems.