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

48
Germany uses this system, because the characteristics of MPs in the constituency
and party-list systems are hardly any different. … In fact, they
should not have any constituency system at all. They should only have the
proportional system. (CDA 29:226)
Eventually, the signal was sounded calling the CDA members into the assembly hall
to take the vote. Seri Suwanphanon, now acting as the chairperson of the meeting,
said that he thought that there had been enough debate, and all sides understood already.
Still, this did not prevent members from further questions. Chuchai confirmed
one contentious issue saying,
Party leaders can stand both in the constituency and on the party list. If
they cannot make it in the constituency, they can make it on the list.
Therefore, in this system, the party leaders are very secure, and it is difficult
for them to fail in an election. (CDA 29:239)
The chairperson clearly had been impatient for a while. Now, he uttered, “Dear members,
please decide for yourselves” (CDA 29:240), which was directly followed by
Sawet Thinakun saying, “I do not understand. I really do not understand. Since I have
little knowledge, I just want to ask a little bit” (ibid.). Seri then gave the word to
Komsan (for MMP) and Praphan (for MMP), adding that their statements would conclude
the debate. In his statement, Praphan noted that the proponents of MMP had
continuously added more elements to their proposal, for example, that candidates
could stand both on the constituency and on the party list ballot (which had also surprised
me when reading the minutes). “With all due respect, but what had been debated
about is not at all included in the frame of the kham prae yatti [the formal motion
necessary to initiate an amendment of the constitution draft];” their kham prae
yatti spoke only of the 250 to 250 ratio (CDA 29:243f.). Atchaporn Charuchinda also
noted that the kham prae yatti of both Chermsak’s group and the minority on the CDC
figured one national constituency, both for the constituency MPs and the party list
MPs. Moreover, they used equal numbers of 200 for both. After the meeting had decided
to have 400 constituency MPs and 80 party list MPs, and after they had divided
the latter into eight provincial groups, the MMP proponents’ kham prae yatti had not
been adjusted (CDA 29:246).
Indeed, it seemed that the various groups advocating MMP were not well
coordinated, and lacked a clear strategy, except for trying to delay the final decision