The attempt to adopt a mixed-member proportional election system ...

22
background for the argument of the MMM proponents, as in the case of Woothisarn
Tanjai mentioned above, that what had been presented at the countrywide public hearings
was the MMM system. Thus, it would be rather strange, and difficult to justify, if
the CDC/CDA suddenly came up with an entirely new election system in the final
constitution, which had never undergone any public consultation.
In fact, Pisit conceded as much saying that the CDC’s published draft text said
that people would vote for constituency candidates, and for proportional lists. Regarding
the proportional element, no connection had been made in the sense that, “The
calculation of the numbers [of proportional MPs] must be mixed with the constituency
vote, which would have caused confusion” (CDC 35:100). Another CDC member,
Atchaphon Jarujinda (ibid: 102), 32 described their decision at Bang Saen, and the
meaning of the respective stipulations in the draft constitution, very clearly by noting,
The draft was written with the understanding that [the components] would
be separate (yaek kan). That is, the system would be similar to the model
of 1997, only that the national List [English in the original] would be divided
into regions so that the votes would not be clustered. This is what is
currently written in the draft. But afterwards, sub-committee 2 might have
had additional considerations about the proportional system. (CDC
35:100; my italics)
Still, Jaran Phakdithanakun, the chairperson of sub-committee 2, could not agree with
what seemed to be an accurate assessment by Atchaphon. He insisted that, as early as
in Cha-am, their system was not the same as the 1997 model. Rather, they had come
up with what was called a “Mixed Member Proportional Voting System” (English in
the original). Moreover, he even asserted that the CDC members had been “o.k.” with
it. This meant that they had progressed well beyond the 1997 system. Then, in Bang
Saen, Jaran continued, they had rejected the 200 to 200 formula in favor of the 320 to
80 formula. Thus, the question arose whether, if they divided the proportional element
into four or eight regions (or zones), they could still calculate according to the proportional
model. The answer was yes, they could (ibid: 100f.). He provided an example
and pointed out that if a party had already won more constituency MPs than its proportional
seat claim allowed in the respective region, then it would not receive any
more MPs from its respective regional list. This statement immediately prompted
Atchaphon to ask Jaran whether, in this case, the constituency MPs also had to be included
in the regions together with the proportional lists. Yes, this was correct, Jaran