Vote for Whom : Voting Behavior of Thailand’s House of Representatives

Main Article Content

Attasit Pankaew


             This article aims to study the voting behaviors of members of Thailand’s House of Representatives, focusing on the question, “for whom” do these people vote during the legislative process and when considering other issues. The research employs mixed research methods; empirical data is analyzed and then the results are integrated with data collected through in-depth interviews. The scope of this research is limited to the information about voting by the members of the House of Representatives under study during the twentieth House of Representatives (1998 under the Chuan Leekpai government) to the dissolution of the twenty-fourth (2013 under the Yingluck Shinawatra government). From three main theorized patterns (party-line voting, coalition–line voting, and cross party–line voting), it was found that (1) the statistical value of the party loyalty score of individual members of the House of Representatives
in different periods is higher than 90%, showing that most of the members of the House of Representatives vote in line with their parties’ resolutions and majority opinions; (2) Thai political parties are straight coalition-line voters (government-opposition-line voting); and (3) cross party-line voting behaviors are noticeable with the smaller parties, specifically that they will vote in the same line as a big party on the government side.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
pankaew, attasit. (2020). Vote for Whom : Voting Behavior of Thailand’s House of Representatives. King Prajadhipok’s Institute Journal, 16(1), 22–50. Retrieved from
Original Articles


Chambers, P. W. & Croissant, A. (2010). Monopolizing, Mutualizing, or Muddling Through: Factions and Party Management in Contemporary Thailand. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 29 (3), 3-33.

Cox, G. W. & McCubbins, M.D. (2005). Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, G. W. & McCubbins, M.D. (1993). Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.

Davidson-Schmich, L. K. (2006). The Origins of Party Discipline: Evidence from Eastern Germany. German Politics and Society. 79 (24:2), 23-43.

De Swaan, Abram. (1973). Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formations: A study of formal theories of coalition formation applied to nine European parliaments after 1918. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Diermeier, D. & Feddersen, T.J. (1998). Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure. American Political Science Review. 92, 611-621.

Fenno, Richard F. (1978). Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.

Ferejohn, J. A. & Fiorina, M. A. (1975). Purposive Models of Legislative Behavior. The American Economic Review. 65 (2), 407-414.

Flavelle, L. & Kaye, P. (1986). Party Discipline and Legislative Voting. Canadian Parliamentary Review. Summer, 6-9.

Godbout, J.-F. & H?yland, B. (2011). Legislative Voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 44 (2), 367-388.

Hix, S. & Noury, A. (2016). Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods. 4 (2), 249-273.

Huber, J. (1996). The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies. American Political Science Review. 90, 269-282.

Kam, C. J. (2009). Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laver, Michael, and Norman Schofield. (2001). Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.

McCargo, D. (1997). Thailand’s political parties: Real, authentic and actual in Political Change. In Hewison, K. (Ed.), Thailand: Democracy and Participation. London and New York: Routledge. 114-131.

Ockey, J. (1994). Political Parties, Factions, and Corruption in Thailand. Modern Asian Studies. 28 (2), 251-277.

Ockey, J. (2003). Change and Continuity in the Thai Political Party System. Asian Survey. 43 (4),


Poole, K. T.& Rosenthal H. (1997). Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Poole, K. T. (2005). Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scarrow, S. (2005). Implementing Intra-Party Democracy: Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspective. Washington D.C: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

Shepsle, K. A. (1979). Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science. 23, 27-59.

Shepsle, K. A. & Weingast, B.R. (1981). Structure Induced Equilibrium in Legislative Choice. Public Choice. 37, 509-519.

Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Ufen, A. (2008). Political Party and Party System Institutionalization in Southeast Asia: Lessons for Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. The Pacific Review. 21(3), 327-350.

Zhang, X. (2007). Political Parties and Financial Development: Evidence from Malaysia and Thailand. Journal of Public Policy. 27 (3), 341-374.