Poll law and disorder

Imagine Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his cabinet members losing their jobs to a new coalition government led by Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Such a "what if" scenario is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility. Future Forward says that the opposition can bring down the government and its razor-thin majority if it enjoys a clean sweep of wins at upcoming by-elections in four constituencies. That outcome would make the current cabinet highly vulnerable to any votes of no-confidence. Even Gen Prayut himself, when questioned by the media yesterday, admitted that losing the by-elections would affect his government.

Such government instability is made possible by the new electoral system and regulations, which have caused confusion among voters and disputes among political parties.

Under the 2017 constitution and new election law, if by-elections are held within one year of the March 24 poll, the overall distribution of party-list seats will also be recalculated.

This is a result of the new mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system, in which a single vote counts in the calculation of both constituency and party-list MPs.

In the past, under the 1997 and 2007 charters, citizens cast their votes in two ballots: one for a constituency MP and the other for the party of their choice. The latter vote counted directly in the calculation of party-list MPs.

But charter-drafters and lawmakers appointed by Gen Prayut's former military regime concocted a new ballot system, which was aimed at weakening the electoral power of big parties such as Pheu Thai.

It worked. Pheu Thai subsequently won the largest number of constituency MPs, but its count of party-list MPs was reduced to zero.

Meanwhile, the new election laws have made the distribution of party-list MPs a far too complicated affair. The laws' vague and complex wording led to various interpretations that produced different formulas for the calculation of party-list seats. This also means the laws are not comprehensible to ordinary voters.

Despite doubts and ambiguities, academics and election experts finally agreed on a formula they deemed the most accurate interpretation of the election laws.

Under this formula, parties in the opposition camp would now enjoy a majority in parliament. But the Election Commission (EC) came up with its own formula -- controversial and widely opposed -- that resulted in party-list seats being given unmerited to parties with tiny shares of the vote. These parties later joined the coalition that formed the government.

A recent study conducted by Thammasat University and the EC, which involved in-depth interviews with voters and politicians, found that the current election system is problematic on many fronts.

These include confusion over the calculation of party-list seats; voters being "forced" to vote for a party due to the single ballot; and the rise of small parties that threaten government stability.

The new laws have brought more problems than solutions to Thai politics. They also leave the election system highly prone to abuse by authorities. Never before has the EC suffered such a high level of public criticism and mistrust.

It is critical that the country reverts to the previous election system by revising the laws and amending the constitution. Election laws should be comprehensible to all, with no ambiguity. Most importantly, they must promote political stability, not turmoil.