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

32
MMP]” (ibid.). According to Krirkkiat, there were two main reasons for supporting
the introduction of an MMP system. First, it was more democratic.
If we use the proportional system, every vote will be included in the calculation
of the number of MPs [for the political parties in the House]. The
MPs in the House will be representatives according to the intentions of the
voters [as expressed in the vote totals cast for the parties’ lists]. Therefore,
regarding the principle of democracy, this proportional election system is
the best system that reflects the intentions of the voters. This point is the
highlight of this system. (CDC 38:92)
Second, a mixed-member proportional election system would prevent “parliamentary
dictatorship.”
The proportional election system is a means to prevent political dictatorship.
It creates a balance between the political powers, because with this
election system, political parties will have hardly any opportunity to win
majorities and absolutely control the House, and form a single-party government.
… We need a strong government to administer the country. But
we do not need a dictatorial government. (CDC 38:92) 41
Similar to Woothisarn, Krirkkiat also argued that his system would not require much
effort on the voters’ side in terms of learning. As in previous elections (2001, 2005,
and in the 2006 poll that was subsequently annulled by the Constitutional Court), the
voters would have received two ballots, one for the constituency candidate, and
another for the party list. Indeed, the electoral procedure would have remained the
same with the adoption of MMP. However, voters would most certainly have had
problems understanding the outcome of the elections, such as an increase in MPs by
the Democrats, and a decrease of MPs by TRT. For example, in the chart on the next
page, the outcome of the 2005 elections, as proportionally recalculated, looks quite
different from the actual election result (the details depend on which proportional
formula is used).
Given that even many members of CDC and the CDA had tremendous problems
understanding the logic of MMP, one cannot help but wonder how the Election
Commission of Thailand would have dealt with the task of explaining the new election
system to the average voter. Certainly, this task would have been made more
complicated by the fact that the constituency candidates would also have occupied the
first positions on the party lists, “while those who do not stand as constituency MPs
must come at the end of the list” (CDC 38:96). Many voters would probably have