2023 Thailand general election - May 14th

[jaichind]

https://www.ectreport.com/overview has more up-to-date district raw votes

           District    PR     Total         District vote share      PR vote share
MFP       113        38      151                26.1%                    38.4%
PT         112        29      141                25.3%                    29.3%
BJT         67          3       70                 13.9%                      3.1%
PPP         39          1       40                 11.2%                      1.4%
UTN        23        13       36                    9.6%                   12.9%
DP          22          3       25                    6.2%                     2.5%
CP            9          1       10                    1.6%                     0.5% (regionalist)
PP            7          2         9                    0.9%                     1.6%
TST          5          1         6                    2.5%                     0.9%  (PT splitner)

PR counted: ~35 million
District counted: ~35 million

Looks like there was massive vote splitting by PT and MFP PR voters.  I think the pro-military bloc being "hopelessly divided" helped them.  PT and MFP voters started to view each other as the main "enemy" and cross-voted for pro-military parties to defeat the other on the district vote.

[jaichind]

The pro-military bloc (BJT PPP UTN DP) got a combined 19.9% on the PR vote but got a massive 40.9% on the district vote.   This produced 151 district seats vs 113 for MFP and 112 for PT despite the fact that all 4 ran candidates in every seat.  Their ability to get cross-votes from MFP and PT PR voters and tactically vote among their PR voters is amazing.

[jaichind]

https://www.ectreport.com/overview

Counting almost done

           District    PR     Total         District vote share      PR vote share
MFP       113        38      151                26.1%                    38.5%
PT         111        29      140                25.1%                    29.3%
BJT         68          3       71                 13.8%                      3.1%
PPP         39          1       40                 11.3%                      1.4%
UTN        23        13       36                    9.7%                   12.9%
DP          22          3       25                    6.2%                     2.5%
CP            9          1       10                    1.6%                     0.5% (regionalist)
PP            7          2         9                    0.9%                     1.6%
TST          5          1         6                    2.4%                     0.9%  (PT splitner)

PR counted: ~37 million
District counted: ~36 million

[jaichind]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/14/thailand-elections-pro-democracy-military-government/

"Pro-democracy opposition parties surge ahead in Thailand election"

People who write articles like this seem not to have followed this election.  The reality is the anti-military bloc totally underperformed.  The chances of a MFP-PT alliance forming government are zero especially with MFP becoming the bigger party there is no way PT will concede the PM to MFP and there is no way MFP will join forces with PT and give up the PM when they are the bigger party.  Once a MFP-PT alliance is out then the only alternative is a grand alliance of PT and other pro-miliary parties. I guess they will have to work out how to split up the loot.

[jaichind]

I still cannot get over the MFP PR vote share of 38.5% but the district votes share of 26.1%.  If someone is going to vote the most radical of the anti-military parties and "stick it to the system" why would the same voter then turn around and vote for a pro-military party candidate? 

My theory of pre-election polls with PT and MFP way ahead of a splintered pro-military field making MFP voters think their main opponent is PT explains some of this.  But even that logic has problems.  If PT and MFP are way ahead then why would the MFP PR voter tactically vote for a pro-military party to defeat PT?  Voting MFP on the district vote would make more sense.

The other theory which I am sure explains some of this is that the Thai voter ideology on PR but personality on the district ballot.  The fact is that many local kingpins must have been recruited by the different pro-military parties to run and then grabbed the personal vote.  PT used to be able to recruit these kingpins but PT has been out of power long enough that these local kingpins might have drifted to the pro-military parties. 

Had the MFP and PT PR voters voted MFP and PT on the district vote then they would have won a massive super majority between them. 

[jaichind]

I looked around.  This MFP and partly PT PR cross voting for pro-military parties is much greater in rural areas.   This sort of proves my theory of personality voting and MFP and PT PR voters cross voted for local kingpins in the district vote in rural areas.

I took a random example of Phetchabun in North Central Thailand

PPP won all 6 seats

District total votes

PPP    229,092
PT      122,785
MFP    112,290
DP       29,230
UTN     16,005
(rest are all trivial)

PR total vote

MFP   193,197
PT     172,154
UTN     51,147
PPP      19,910
DP       11,942
BJP       7,360
(rest trival)

Note that all most pro-military PR votes consolidated around PPP in the district vote.  There was significant cross voting by MFP and PT PR voters for PPP and what remained were split down the middle giving PPP as sweep even as MFP and PT completely dominated the PR vote.



Another example is Ratchaburi in Central Thailand.  The district seats were split PPP 3 UTN 2 or pro-military sweep.

District total votes

PPP          130,724
UTN         121,427
MFP         111,700
BJT           67,576
PT            51,846
DP            27,463
(rest trival)

PR total vote

MFP         228,420
PT             98,958
UTN           89,285
BJT            17,405
DP             13,118
PPP             9,922
(rest trival)

Here PPP and UTN and especially PPP got massive cross-voting from MFP and PT PR voters, especially MFP. 

[jaichind]

In Bangkok the anti-military PR vote mostly stayed with anti-military parties in the district race where it was MFP 32 PT 1 in an anti-military clean sweep.

District vote total

MFP       1,393,342
PT            638,675
UTN         512,101
DP           236,098
TST           97,594
PPP            81,658
BJT            77,428
(rest trivial)

PR vote total

MFP        1,594,775
UTN           628,619
PT             598,302
DP              85,703
TST             47,703
(rest trivial)

Note that the anti-military vote mostly stayed anti-military  in district vote while the pro-military vote did a OK but not great job in consolidating the pro-military vote in district votes which led to the anti-military sweep.

[jaichind]

https://www.ectreport.com/overview

Some more votes trickled in.  I think these are the final results

           District    PR     Total         District vote share      PR vote share
MFP       113        39      152                26.2%                    38.7%
PT         112        29      141                25.3%                    29.5%
BJT         67          3       70                 13.7%                      3.1%
PPP         39          1       40                 11.3%                      1.4%
UTN        23        13       36                    9.6%                   12.7%
DP          22          3       25                    6.1%                     2.4%
CP            9          1       10                    1.6%                     0.5% (regionalist)
PP            7          2         9                    0.8%                     1.6%
TST          5          1         6                    2.4%                     0.9%  (PT splitner)

[jaichind]

Bloomberg reports that "MFP Targets Coalition of Six For 309 House Seats"

I have to assume this is MFP (152) + PT (141) + TST (6)  plus 3 micro-parties.  The main problem is this is far from the 375 needed to overcome the pro-military Senate.   I have to assume MFP is doing this to expose how they are being blocked by the unelected Senate.   There are not signs that PT will agree to a move like this which is going to fail anyway and make PT the junior partner even if it works.

[jaichind]

Looks like BJT's gamble on its pro-marijuana paid off.

[jaichind]

It seems PT came out to support joining a MFP-led government.  This will put pressure on the pro-military Senate to start talking to PT to try to form a grand coalition government.  As it is the Senate should be able to block this MFP-PT government formation.

[jaichind]

Back to PR -> district vote splitting data.  Urban Chiang Mai is an example of more muted vote splitting by anti-military PR voters leading to a near sweep by anti-military parties in the district vote where it was MFP 7 PT 2 PPP 1.

Total district vote

MFP     404,011
PT       318,046
PP       103,590
UTN       64,216
RPPP      35,301
TST        25,559
BJT        20,201
DP         18,449
(rest trival)


Total PR vote

MFP    469,436
PT      358,286
UTN      71,092
TST        9,286
(rest trivial)

There was some anti-military PR vote splitting in the district vote leading to PPP winning a seat but it was mostly controlled so MFP and PT won the rest.  Mostly fits the pattern in Bangkok.

[jaichind]

BJT's stronghold Buriram in lower northeastern Thailand saw BJT sweep all 10 seats.  It was done again with anti-military PR vote cross-voting PLUS MFP and PT splitting the rest of the district down the middle.

Total district vote

BJT         389,764
PT          184,235
MFP        176,135
PPP           22,822
UTN          15,530
DP              7,141
(rest trival)


Total PR vote
MFP      268,209
PT         238,341
BJT       165,154
UTN        50,211
(rest trival)

Even in its stronghold, the BJT PR vote was swamped by MFP and PT.  But they got a very large cross vote from MFP and PT PR voters, consolidation from other pro-military PR voters (UTN) and MFP and PT splitting the rest down the middle for a easy clean sweep of district seats.

[jaichind]

Once the dynamic of a large amount of MFP and PT cross-voting on the district vote in rural areas but a small amount of  MFP and PT cross-voting in urban areas the district seat count for pro-military parties is clear.  UTN is the urban pro-military party, PPP is the rural and suburban pro-military party, BJT is the rural pro-military party, and DP has strongholds in the Deep South.  Given that is very understandable how BJT had a surge of district seat wins as did PPP to some extent and UTN had so few district wins despite a much larger PR vote.  DP was always going to win some district seats in the Deep South but outperformed again due to some cross-voting by MFP and PT PR voters.

[jaichind]

Districts where the party won the PR vote

MFP     223
PT       142
UTN      22
PP        13  (South regional party)

If every PR voter voted for the same party in the district seat this would have been the massive landslide result.  Good news for the pro-military party was that there were massive cross-voting

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-17/thaksin-says-party-won-t-back-reforms-that-hurt-thai-monarchy

"Thaksin Says Party Won’t Back Reforms That Hurt Thai Monarchy"

Thaksin makes a move to try to make PT the great balancer between MFP and the pro-military bloc.

Note that MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat has long ties to Thaksin and worked for Thaksin back when he was PM.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-17/thailand-s-election-winner-set-to-hold-more-talks-on-coalition

"Thai Election Winner Holds Coalition Talks Amid Senate Snag"

But in a setback for Pita, Bhumjaithai Party, which came third with 70 seats, ruled out backing him for the top job, saying it won’t back a candidate from a party planning to amend the country’s lese majeste law. 

it seems BJT came out against supporting Pita as PM.  To be fair this begins to open up the field for PT.  PT might "good cop bad cop" the pro-military parties and pro-military Senate by threatening them with Pita and turning voters against the pro-military parties  and pro-military Senate for any impasse if PT came out against changing the majeste law.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-18/how-thailand-election-victor-move-forward-used-tiktok-for-rare-progressive-win

"How Thailand’s Election Winner Used TikTok to Eke Rare Progressive Triumph"

This sounds similar to Malaysia in 2022 where PN was very effective in using TikTok to create a wave amount Malay voters.  In Malaysia it was the cultural conservatives that effectively use TikTok in an election while in Thailand it was a progressive party that effectively used TikTok to power its surge.

[jaichind]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/leader-thai-opposition-party-won-election-announces-8-99420017

"Leader of Thai opposition party that won election announces 8-party coalition plan to take power"

This 8 party coalition has 313 seats which is well below the needed 375 unless you get the 250 member Senate on your side.  This is mostly posturing for the next phase of talks. 

[jaichind]

Another problem for MFP's Pita.  Thailand laws says a politician cannot own shares in a media company.  Some pro-military MPs are saying they have proof that Pita owns shares in a media company. This could get Pita disqualified as a MP.

[jaichind]

I am about half way done with mapping out every seat results.  The trend is clear.  There is high correlation between how a party does in the district vote and PR vote in urban areas but almost no correlation between how a party does in the districs vote and PR vote in rural areas. The personal vote dominates rur district elections. If so it is critical that PT gets into government so they can turn these local rural kingpins back toward PT.  The MFP vore is purely on image and will struggle to get these rural local kingpins one way or another. 

[jaichind]

I thought the pro-military government was signing off on their doom when they changed the district/PR seat breakdown from 350/150 to 400/100 where the pro-military vote would be hopelessly split add wholly defeated in the district seat and no room to get some seats on the PR slate.

But in retrospect, their move was genius since this was done along with the splitting out of the district and PR vote.  By having two votes the large majority frustrated with the government can register their anger by voting MFP or PT on the PR ballot but then vote for "the guy that gets things done" on the district vote. If the 2019 system was in place then I am sure MFP+PT will be over 375 seats, especially with the massive MFP+PT landslides on the PR vote.  As it is they were kept way below 375 due to massive vote splitting between district and PR votes.

[jaichind]

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3221250/thai-election-winner-move-forward-party-confident-senators-support-pm-vote-pita

"Thai Election Winner Confident of Senators’ Support in PM Vote"

Pita's next move is to try to peel off some Senators to try to get to 375

[jaichind]

I mapped out all 400 districts by district vote and PR vote.  Note that the data is only 95% and I found a bunch of mistakes already in about a dozen seats.  But the overall picture is clear.

First I broke up the 400 seats into 143 urban/suburban seats and 257 rural seats.   I used the location of the district and overall HDI of the province to help me with this mostly correct but not perfect mapping.  

What I found was not surprising.  Anti-military parties swept the urban/suburban seats but lost the rural seats.

Urban/suburban (143)
                              
                        Seat          District vote share     PR vote share
Anti-military
MFP                   100                 37.38%                 45.98%
PT                       37                 26.44%                 26.68%

Pro-military
BJT                       0                    4.50%                  1.32%
PPP                       3                    7.83%                  1.02%
UTN                      1                  12.78%                 13.80%
DP                        0                    4.22%                  1.75%

With UTN being the only pro-military party with any real support in these districts


Rural (257)

                        Seat          District vote share     PR vote share
Anti-military
MFP                     13                 19.31%                 33.91%
PT                       75                 24.37%                 31.02%

Pro-military
BJT                     67                  19.27%                  4.07%
PPP                     36                  13.36%                  1.68%
UTN                    22                    7.72%                11.93%
DP                      22                    7.23%                  2.85%


Here PT is stronger in relative terms to MFP while the non-UTN pro-military parties are relatively stronger.  Note that the PR vote here is still awful for the pro-military bloc but they make up for it in the district votes.

In fact outside the PT home base of the Northeast, the anti-military parties were mostly wiped out in rural seats.  Just to show this we can put up the Northeast rural seats results

Northeast Rural (115)

                        Seat          District vote share     PR vote share
Anti-military
MFP                      2                 19.52%                 32.11%
PT                      63                  37.21%                 44.20%
TST                      3                   4.23%                   1.28%  (PT splinter)

Pro-military
BJT                     35                  20.37%                  4.57%
PPP                       7                  10.01%                  1.09%
UTN                      0                   2.22%                   4.94%
DP                        2                   1.99%                   0.92%

Here PT won the majority of seats but BJT still won a bunch of district seats based on cross-voting despite a disastrous PR vote result here for pro-military parties.

Another special bloc of rural seats is the Malay rural seats in the deep South.  Here a Malay PT splinter won a bunch of seats

Malay Rural (13)

                        Seat          District vote share     PR vote share
Anti-military
MFP                      0                   7.76%                  22.25%
PT                        0                   1.49%                    3.50%
PP                        7                 30.38%                  46.71%  (PT Malay splinter)

Pro-military
BJT                       1                 12.62%                  2.70%
PPP                       3                 23.93%                  3.03%
UTN                      1                 10.59%                  9.04%
DP                        1                  9.86%                   2.64%

Despite MFP and PT sweeping the PR vote here the pro-military parties got a cross-voting in district seats to split the district's seats evenly with PP.

Out of the remaining 129 rural seats (non-Northeast non-Malay), the pro-military parties won 97 with 8 more going to a small regional-based party that aligned with the pro-military government in 2019.  

Non-Northeast Non-Malay Rural (129)

                        Seat          District vote share     PR vote share
Anti-military
MFP                    11                  20.12%                 36.49%
PT                      12                  15.17%                 21.90%

Pro-military
BJT                     31                  18.87%                  3.76%
PPP                     26                  15.36%                  2.08%
UTN                    21                  12.25%                18.26%
DP                      19                  11.56%                  4.55%
CTPP                    8                    3.58%                  1.13%  (regional,  lean pro-military)

Here even the sizeable edge in PR vote by the anti-military parties was swamped by the pro-military parties in the district vote with large-scale cross-voting.  This bloc of seats (non-Northest non-Malay rural seats) is the strongest for the pro-military bloc.

[jaichind]

Another thing to note is that there seems to be significant undervoting in the PR slate.  Namely around 8%-9% of the district vote (higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas) did not vote for a PR list.  It seems they came to vote for a personal vote of their local district candidate and did not vote on the PR slate.  My regression analysis seems to indicate that around 90% of such votes were for pro-military candidates which also helps the pro-military candidates on the district vote in addition to some cross-voting by anti-military PR voters.

Another interesting thing is that while it is clear that the anti-military vote is stronger in urban/suburban areas in the district vote, in the PR vote they were very similar.  In the aggregate, the anti-military PR vote is strong in urban/suburban areas, but that is mostly a function of most of the pro-military non-Malay Deep South being rural.  If you compare the PR vote of urban/suburban district vs rural seats in the same area the anti-military PR vote are very similar with PT stronger in relative terms to MFP in rural areas.  It is in the district vote where the pro-military does better in rural seats due to greater cross-voting by anti-military PR voters.

So the overall picture seems to be clear.  There is a strong anti-military sentiment across the board outside the Deep South which translated to a strong anti-military PR performance.  But high turnout means that here are a significant number of non-political voters that did not vote PR as they are neutral on the military government issue but voted for the pro-military local kingpin on the district vote.   In urban/suburban areas the anti-military sentiment mostly translated into the district vote while in rural areas the anti-military sentiment did not and there was large-scale cross-voting for pro-military candidate in the district vote.