The maths is correct. But it is also an incorrect interpretation of the law. However, this is a calculation formula the Election Commission (EC) recently revealed it would use for the distribution of 150 party-list MP seats.
Recently, the EC informally informed selective media outlets of its choice of formula, which has prompted widespread disagreement and concern of foul play.
Since the results of 350 constituency winners and the total number of valid ballots have been announced following the March 24 general election, a number of former election commissioners, academics, poll observers and political parties have deciphered the highly complicated laws that stipulate how party-list MPs should be distributed. The laws are Section 91 of the 2017 constitution and Sections 128 and 129 of the organic law governing elections of MPs.
Based on their reading of the laws, each party-list MP seat should be given for each group of 71,000 votes the parties received from the polls. That number would be the result of dividing the total number of valid ballots by the 500 parliamentary seats. This rule is clearly specified in the laws.
Any small parties receiving votes lower than that number should not be eligible, unless there is a shortage of party-list seats from the first round of calculation. In the case of the last polls, there was no such instance.
This formula will make the anti-military regime political camp win a narrow majority in the Lower House. But the EC has made it known that it will adopt a different formula that could narrow the likelihood of their victory.
The EC has cited the interpretation of the laws by quoting certain drafters of the constitution that "every vote counts". It plans to use all the votes from all parties, even some received in the hundreds, for the calculation of party-list MPs. That will result in small parties being awarded one MP seat despite winning 30,000 to 60,000 votes.
Even if it is the EC's misinterpretation of the law, it is a mistake that should be corrected. But many have strong reason to believe this is an effort to reward 11 small parties that should not be eligible for the seats in the first place. The majority support the pro-military regime's political coalition whose front-running prime ministerial candidate is junta leader and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha.
At the same time, the EC's formula will throw away many seats that should have been eligible to some anti-regime parties. For instance, the Future Forward Party will lose about seven seats if the EC opts for this formula.
The EC, whose commissioners are appointed indirectly by the regime, has acted in favour of the pro-regime parties. This has cast doubt over its impartiality in running the polls, which have neither been accepted as a fair or free contest.
The EC's calculation formula is a product of the wildest interpretation of the laws which distort their original intention.
The agency has to be able to answer a simple question: Why would it give a seat to some 30,000 votes while depriving the right of many parties to have a seat from each of the 71,000 votes they received from the polls?
By adopting a calculation formula that does not make sense, and wrongly interpreting the laws, the EC has taken hostage the future of the country's democracy.