Political Utility and Electoral Behavior in Thailand: An Analytical Perspective on Voting Decisions
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
Elections are a crucial component of democratic governance, allowing voters to engage in political decision-making by choosing representatives tasked with developing public policy and managing the state. Comprehending the factors influencing voting behavior is essential for elucidating how voters make political decisions in democratic systems. This study seeks to examine the voting behavior of Thai citizens utilizing the Political Utility framework, which posits that individuals make political decisions by assessing the anticipated benefits or values associated with political alternatives. This study utilizes a qualitative methodology, incorporating documentary research and conceptual analysis to integrate pertinent literature in political science and political economy. The research amalgamates theoretical viewpoints from Utility Theory, Rational Choice Theory, Public Choice Theory, and Political Behavior Theory to construct an analytical framework elucidating how voters evaluate political options. The results indicate that voting behavior in Thailand is shaped by various aspects of political usefulness, encompassing public policies, economic advantages, social networks, and psychological elements like faith in political leaders. Electorate members generally choose politicians or political parties regarded as able to provide both concrete and abstract advantages. Elections are a process wherein voters assess the political value of rival options prior to casting their votes.
Article Details
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Abrams, S., Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2011). Informal social networks and rational voting. British Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123410000499
Antunes, R. (2010). Theoretical models of voting behaviour. Comunicação e Ciências Empresariais, 4, 145–170. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/47778
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Callahan, W. A. (2005). Social capital and corruption: Vote buying and the politics of reform in Thailand. Perspectives on Politics, 3(3), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705050310
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
Chattharakul, A. (2010). Thai electoral campaigning: Vote-canvassing networks and hybrid voting. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 29(4), 67–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341002900404
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row. https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Economic_Theory_of_Democracy.html?id=kLEGAAAAMAAJ
Edlin, A., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. (2007). Voting as a rational choice: Why and how people vote to improve the well-being of others. Rationality and Society, 19(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463107077384
Fowler, J. H. (2006). Altruism and turnout. The Journal of Politics, 68(3), 674–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00453.x
Gelman, A., Edlin, A., & Kaplan, N. (2007). Voting as a rational choice: Why and how people vote to improve the well-being of others. Rationality and Society, 19(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463107077384
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2016). Why people vote: Estimating the social returns to voting. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000271
Hicken, A. (2006). Party fabrication: Constitutional reform and the rise of Thai Rak Thai. Journal of East Asian Studies, 6(3), 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S159824080000463X
Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289-310.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508
Kenaphoom, S. (2018). Essence of political utility. PSAKU International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 7(1), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3226595
Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting 1936–1960. Harvard University Press.
Kroneberg, C. (2010). Norms and Rationality in Electoral Participation and in the Rescue of Jews in WWII: An Application of the Model of Frame Selection. Rationality and Society, 22(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463109355494
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision-making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 672–685. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938743
Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge University Press.
Panagopoulos, C., & Wang, C.-H. (2025). Rationality, affect, and vote choice. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, Article 1640408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1640408
Phatharathananunth, S. (2008). The Thai Rak Thai party and elections in North-eastern Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701651986
Pongsawat, P. (2020). Political activities and electoral behavior in Bangkok during Thailand’s 2019 election. King Prajadhipok’s Institute Journal, 18(3), 1–25. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kpi_journal/article/view/244936
Thompson, M. R. (2016). The moral economy of electoralism and the rise of populism in the Philippines and Thailand. Journal of Developing Societies, 32(3), 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X16652028
