The latest proposal by the Constitutional Drafting Commission has brought the subject of electoral systems into the limelight. What is the CDC proposing and why?
Since 1997 Thailand has conducted elections with a Mixed Member System. Each voter gets two votes: one to choose between individual candidates in his or her district, and the other to choose between national party lists. This means that some MPs are directly elected to parliament, and others get in by virtue of their position on their party list (the ratio between the two has varied: most recently it was 3:1). The CDC now proposes that votes cast for losing candidates in district elections be added to their party-list totals. The CDC argues that this innovation, not yet tried, will "make every vote meaningful". This is an excellent principle. But there are two problems with the proposal.
First, it means losers are getting a second chance: despite being defeated, they will help fellow party members get into parliament -- at the expense of the parties of winning candidates. Imagine if this proves decisive for the election outcome: a "government of losers" might not enjoy the legitimacy to bring about much-needed national reconciliation.
The second problem is that the CDC's proposal assumes a vote for a candidate is also a vote for their party. This is not always true. Voters sometimes choose candidates for their personal appeal and qualities rather than their party. To add a vote cast for a candidate to their party's total is to use that vote in a way not intended by the voter.
Is there a better way to "make every vote count"? Yes: a system designed to do just this is well established and could easily be adopted by Thailand. For some reason, it has not figured in the debates here. We'll come back to this system in a moment. To understand the problem better, let's look at it from first principles.
All modern democracies need an electoral system to turn a large number of voters' preferences into a small number of representatives who govern on their behalf. Perfection is a counsel of despair: Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for showing that no voting system can satisfy a reasonable set of criteria for such a system.
Different approaches try to square the circle. Plurality systems, like "first past the post", typically create "unfair" outcomes by exaggerating the majority of the winning party and penalising smaller parties. Proportional representation systems, such as party lists, have been designed to remedy this. But they can weaken the link between individual voters and their representatives, and give too much power to the party machines that compile the party lists. Needless to say, there are many variations of these basic types, each with their strengths and weaknesses.
Many political scientists now favour a system called Single Transferable Vote (STV). This aims to ensure that as many votes as possible contribute to the election outcome, and so minimises the number of "wasted" votes. This is exactly the principle favoured by the CDC. How does it work?
Under the STV system, candidates can belong to parties (though they can also run as independents), but there are no party lists. Each district elects several (usually three to four) candidates. Voters rank candidates in order of preference: 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice etc. A "quota" of votes is calculated for each district by a set formula. This is the number of votes a candidate needs to be elected. After an election, all the first preferences are counted.
Two rules then determine what follows: 1) If a candidate gets more votes than the quota, they are elected. Their "surplus votes" -- those that exceed the quota -- are distributed among other candidates according to their second preferences. 2) If no candidate reaches the quota, then the least popular one is eliminated and their second preferences are distributed among other candidates. The process continues until all the seats are filled.
Several countries, including Ireland, Australia, Malta and the Indian Upper House have adopted it successfully. STV is even used in the UK: since 2007, Scottish local elections have been decided this way.
Under STV voters enjoy a wider choice and can express preferences for minority views and candidates, leading to more broadly representative outcomes. Since parties benefit from second or third choice transfers, it can also encourage moderation. Parliaments tend to be more inclusive and co-operative as a result. It could work in Thailand too. If you want every vote to be meaningful, look at STV.
Nigel Gould-Davies holds a PhD in Political Science from Harvard University. He teaches at Mahidol University International College.