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

36
switch to MMP in the following one. Jaran seemed to think in a similar direction saying
that the 320 to 80 formula was “our first step” (kao raek). It was not a party list
like in 1997, but “a proportional model,” the details of which still needed to be debated.
Can we write the 200 to 200 formula in the transitory provisions? We can
write in the transitory provisions that after having used this model for five
years already, the proportion will be changed from 320 to 80 to 200 to
200. If the CDA does not want this, they can delete this transitory provision.
(CDC 39:89)
Jaran saw this procedure as implying a move to the “complete” (temrup) 200 to 200
model at that later point. He seemed to look at the 320 to 80 model as a diminished
MMP formula, the complete form of which would be 200 to 200 (or 250 to 250). In
fact, however, and certainly to the majority in the meeting, the 320 to 80 formula had
precisely the meaning that Jaran rejected—a modified 1997-style party list model.
Thus, Somkhit Lertpaithoon, in his capacity as the CDC secretary, bluntly countered,
“I understand that the majority does not want 200 to 200, neither in the main text nor
in the transitory provisions” (ibid.). However, Somkhit also added to the conceptual
confusion by saying that he understood that in the seven prae yatti groups of the
CDA, the majority wanted to have party lists,
Meaning the proportional system, never mind what word they might use. I
use proportional, proportional system. We agree already that we should
have a proportional system. Therefore, there are only two remaining
points, namely 320 to 80 and 200 to 200. (CDC 39:91)
This quote illustrated again the fundamental misunderstanding in much of this discussion.
Of course, one could make the proportional element of the mainly majoritarian
system (the party list) comprise 80 or 200 MPs—in the same way that the number of
80 party list MPs in the 2007 constitution was increased, by a constitutional amendment
passed during the Abhisit government, to 125 for the 2011 election (Nelson
2012:8-16). Yet, Krirkkiat and his group did not fight so hard merely to have a greater
number of party list MPs in the MMM system. Rather, they wanted to apply proportional
voting as the founding principle of the election system altogether, that is, they
advocated a switch from MMM to MMP. Again, as so often already, the point was
about the difference between a mixed-member majoritarian and the mixed-member