LEGAL MEASURES FOR ELECTING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACCORDING TO ACCORDING TO THAILAND’S PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM COMPARED TO THOSE IN OTHER COUNTRIES HAD A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

Abstract

This research had the following objectives: 1) To examine the problems, concepts, and theories related to legal measures in the election of members of the House of Representatives under Thailand’s proportional representation system.  2) To conduct a comparative study of legal measures related to proportional elections in Thailand and in other parliamentary system countries. 3) To provide recommendations for legal reforms. This was a qualitative research conducted through legal document analysis of both Thai and foreign sources, as well as in-depth interviews with legal experts. The findings reveal that: Since the promulgation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017) and the Organic Act on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives B.E. 2561 (2018), several issues had emerged: 1) Regarding the problems, concepts, and theories related to legal measures in Thailand’s proportional election system, it was found that the system lacks clarity, especially in the frequently changing method of calculating party-list MPs. The use of a single ballot limits voters’ ability to express their intent, disproportionately favors larger parties, and disadvantages smaller ones. These issues lead to a lack of fairness and equality in the political process, contradicting the principles of representative democracy and the separation of powers. 2) In comparison with other countries under the parliamentary system—such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and New Zealand—it was found that these nations employ clearer proportional systems. These include the use of two ballots, electoral thresholds, accurate seat allocation methods, and fair compensatory mechanisms, all of which were absent or unclear in the Thai system. 3) Recommendations include improving the electoral system to be more transparent, fair, and suitable for the Thai context by learning from foreign systems, establishing electoral thresholds, revisiting the role of the Senate (particularly in the selection of the Prime Minister), redesigning the ballot structure, applying real-time result-reporting technologies, reforming the Constitution, and promoting political education.