1 hour ago, robblok said:

Everyone is saying the PTP will win but when I ask them if they will have as many votes (not seats) as before nobody dares to say yes. Is it a win if you get less votes as in a previous election ?

 

Id like to see some people making some predictions and then we can write it down see who was right once the election is done. Personally i think the PTP will have LESS votes as in previous elections. I do think however they will be the biggest party. Not sure if that would constitute a win. 

I don't know if they will have less vote, but I bet they will have at least less seats because of the new MMA system.

17 hours ago, Monomial said:

It isn't the army that is the real problem, or at least not all of it. The real issue is that the court system is not reliable. The current rash of protests and coups can all be traced back to the court decision in 2001 which allowed Thaksin to continue staying in power when he was clearly guilty.

 

That gave him the confidence he needed to assume he was above the law, and the rest is history.

 

If you truly want to stop the coups, fix the court system. Once people have a trustworthy, legal channel to solve their grievances, there will no longer be a need to roll the tanks in order to keep order. Even the PT could do little damage to the country if the courts were functional to keep them in check. As long as the courts remain a tool of whatever government is in power though, coups will be the order of the day.  Get rid of the coups, and you've got Cambodia, which is in an even worse state right now than Thailand.

 

 

You are partly right. Only "partly" because the courts are not dependant on the elected government, as an elected government cannot appoint its members. They are dependant on the network which appoints and promotes them (and to which they also belong).

8 minutes ago, candide said:

I don't know if they will have less vote, but I bet they will have at least less seats because of the new MMA system.

I know that too now things are finally based on actual votes instead of voting districts. That makes it far better for smaller parties something I support, not because it hurts the PTP but because it promotes smaller parties. We got a system too based on actual votes not on districts. Its far more fair when things are based on actual votes. Just look at the mess of the USA where the loser got more actual votes then the winner. 

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

I know that too now things are finally based on actual votes instead of voting districts. That makes it far better for smaller parties something I support, not because it hurts the PTP but because it promotes smaller parties. We got a system too based on actual votes not on districts. Its far more fair when things are based on actual votes. Just look at the mess of the USA where the loser got more actual votes then the winner. 

What is the benefit of having a multitude of small parties?

Small parties are easier targets for the military to strong-arm and/or bribe to thwart the will of the people.

Surely, even you, by now, must realise that the military aren't interested in creating a system to benefit the people but care only for enforcing a system that perpetuates their unwanted rule.

 

 

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Everyone is saying the PTP will win but when I ask them if they will have as many votes (not seats) as before nobody dares to say yes. Is it a win if you get less votes as in a previous election ?

 

Id like to see some people making some predictions and then we can write it down see who was right once the election is done. Personally i think the PTP will have LESS votes as in previous elections. I do think however they will be the biggest party. Not sure if that would constitute a win. 

Why do you think the PTP will get less votes?

Where do you think those votes will flow to and why?

 

Everything points to rising levels of hatred of the Junta  and therefore logic would expect more votes to flow towards PTP, not away from them.

 

Is your opinion based on anything other than your unexamined, illogical and prejudicial dislike of PTP?

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

What is the benefit of having a multitude of small parties?

Small parties are easier targets for the military to strong-arm and/or bribe to thwart the will of the people.

Surely, even you, by now, must realise that the military aren't interested in creating a system to benefit the people but care only for enforcing a system that perpetuates their unwanted rule.

 

 

A lower entrance for small parties keeps bigger parties on their toes, it breaks a stupid 2 party system. I like this system as we got it back home and its far fairer then 2 party systems like in the US where you can have more votes but still not become president.

 

I like smaller parties as then people can really choose what suits them and small parties can get big. This system makes it easier for small parties to get into the political arena. That they are easier for military strongmen.. then they lose their votes. Easy isnt it.

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

Why do you think the PTP will get less votes?

Where do you think those votes will flow to and why?

 

Everything points to rising levels of hatred of the Junta  and therefore logic would expect more votes to flow towards PTP, not away from them.

 

Is your opinion based on anything other than your unexamined, illogical and prejudicial dislike of PTP?

Then you make your prediction I made one you do the same and wait and see come election time who is right.

 

I think that the PTP will lose votes to Future forward, I think that it will lose votes to the junta (MP's bribed by the junta), loses votes because of Thai Niyom.

 

So you think they will have more votes as last time. I think less. Can argue about it forever but lets just wait and see after the election who of us is right. I think less (wont be much less but less)

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Then you make your prediction I made one you do the same and wait and see come election time who is right.

 

I think that the PTP will lose votes to Future forward, I think that it will lose votes to the junta (MP's bribed by the junta), loses votes because of Thai Niyom.

 

So you think they will have more votes as last time. I think less. Can argue about it forever but lets just wait and see after the election who of us is right. I think less (wont be much less but less)

It took you 4 years to realise the coup wasn't the most fantastic thing to have ever happened to Thailand.

I for one can't wait to see what sort of nonsense the "but, but Thaksin" crowd come up with after another landslide election win by the old Dubai Devil.

The Thai people want what the Thai people want....fascists be damned.

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

A lower entrance for small parties keeps bigger parties on their toes, it breaks a stupid 2 party system. I like this system as we got it back home and its far fairer then 2 party systems like in the US where you can have more votes but still not become president.

 

I like smaller parties as then people can really choose what suits them and small parties can get big. This system makes it easier for small parties to get into the political arena. That they are easier for military strongmen.. then they lose their votes. Easy isnt it.

Q. Why do you think the Junta have created a system that makes it almost impossible for a party to win a majority of the seats in an election?

 

a) To ensure the will of the Thai people is properly reflected in the results of an election

b) To ensure an outsider PM can be installed against the wishes of the Thai people

Just now, pornprong said:

It took you 4 years to realise the coup wasn't the most fantastic thing to have ever happened to Thailand.

I for one can't wait to see what sort of nonsense the "but, but Thaksin" crowd come up with after another landslide election win by the old Dubai Devil.

The Thai people want what the Thai people want....fascists be damned.

Would you call it a landslide victory if they get less votes as last time ? Just being the biggest party does not make it a landslide. Just google what it means.. the PTP have never had a landslide victory for that they alone need to have more then 50% of the votes. In 2011 it was 48,41 percent of the votes. If they can do this again its not a landslide, however according to the definition if they come over 50% of the votes it is.

 

Anyway we can argue all day about what it will be..  we will just have to wait and see.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory

Just now, pornprong said:

Q. Why do you think the Junta have created a system that makes it almost impossible for a party to win a majority of the seats in an election?

 

a) To ensure the will of the Thai people is properly reflected in the results of an election

b) To ensure an outsider PM can be installed against the wishes of the Thai people

I don't care why the junta made it, i find it a fairer system. Sorry if that is not to your liking. 1 vote means the same where ever in the country instead of consistence voting where that is not the case. In a real democracy all votes have the same weight. Like i said look at the USA that is what can happen if you don't have a real democracy where every vote weights the same then the one with the most votes can still not become president.

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Would you call it a landslide victory if they get less votes as last time ? Just being the biggest party does not make it a landslide. Just google what it means.. the PTP have never had a landslide victory for that they alone need to have more then 50% of the votes. In 2011 it was 48,41 percent of the votes. If they can do this again its not a landslide, however according to the definition if they come over 50% of the votes it is.

 

Anyway we can argue all day about what it will be..  we will just have to wait and see.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory

Reality is a biatchh for the self deluded.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2005

2 minutes ago, pornprong said:

Reality is a biatchh for the self deluded.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2005

That is not the PTP .. that is an other party be it from the same master but I wrote PTP, I did that for a reason. 

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't care why the junta made it, i find it a fairer system. Sorry if that is not to your liking. 1 vote means the same where ever in the country instead of consistence voting where that is not the case. In a real democracy all votes have the same weight. Like i said look at the USA that is what can happen if you don't have a real democracy where every vote weights the same then the one with the most votes can still not become president.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

1 vote does not mean the same wherever in the country.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that it is the northern regions that have been short changed with Party List seats per capita or do you think 8.8% of the seats for 16% of the population is fair?

 

 

Not to mention the 100% unelected senate.

 

Fairer system is a ridiculous statement that bears no resemblance to reality.

 

1 minute ago, pornprong said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

1 vote does not mean the same wherever in the country.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that it is the northern regions that have been short changed with Party List seats per capita or do you think 8.8% of the seats for 16% of the population is fair?

 

 

Not to mention the 100% unelected senate.

 

Fairer system is a ridiculous statement that bears no resemblance to reality.

 

You should read better,  its not about the party seats anymore its about the votes they correct how many party seats are going to be gotten. So all votes are now valued the same. They explained that in a topic somewhere it will be corrected for the amount of votes that are gotten totally.

 

The 100% unelected senate has nothing to do with the voting system.

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is not the PTP .. that is an other party be it from the same master but I wrote PTP, I did that for a reason. 

You think the 2011 election was not a landslide?

 

PTP won 265 seats to the Democrats 164

PTP won 15,744,190 votes to the Democrats 11,433,762 votes

 

Here are some publications who differ with your assessment of the 2011 election outcome:

 

https://thediplomat.com/2011/07/thailand-poll-yingluck-in-landslide/

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-election/thaksin-party-wins-thai-election-by-a-landslide-idUSTRE76013T20110703

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/thaksins-sister-wins-in-thai-landslide-20110703-1gxb7.html

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

You should read better,  its not about the party seats anymore its about the votes they correct how many party seats are going to be gotten. So all votes are now valued the same. They explained that in a topic somewhere it will be corrected for the amount of votes that are gotten totally.

 

The 100% unelected senate has nothing to do with the voting system.

The 100% unelected Senate has nothing to do with the voting system - how absurd.

 

I just can't imagine you would have the same opinion if it were Thaksin who introduced and unelected Senate.

Ohh, the outcry from nutters that would ensue.

 

Your support of an unelected Senate reveals more about the reasoning behind your support for the dodgy lower house electoral system than anything else that you post.

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

I think that the PTP will win quite a large number of seats but even with the FFP it won't be enough to stop the current government as they only need 126 seats along with the 250 guaranteed seats in the senate to put Prayuth in as an outsider PM.

The involvement of the upper house with the 250 appointed senators will only come into play if Parliament reach an impasse in the selection of the PM. In that case, an outside PM will be chosen by the joint houses voting. I think Prayut will not take this outside PM route as most analysts opine. Too much risk and too little legitimacy. I understand that he will join a political party and be nominated as PM candidate if that party can win a minimum of 25 seats. He will made that announcement in September. 

 

The more I think about it, I see the possibility of PTP and coalition parties forming the government. PTP and their past affiliated parties never failed to win the majority for Parliament seats in all the elections they participated and don't even need coalition parties. Even without the party list seats (courtesy of the unjust laws) and defections, they will still likely to retain their base support of around 220-230 and only need 31-21 seats from coalition parties to have the majority and for the voting of the PM. FFP and CTP have been making the right anti junta noises and could be coalition parties candidates. When Prayut went to Buriram, BJT party leader Anutin was conspicuously missing and could be a intended avoidance.

 

I really hope that it will turn out this way and give a rude awakening to the pompous non elected junta PM. 

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I don't care why the junta made it, i find it a fairer system. Sorry if that is not to your liking. 1 vote means the same where ever in the country instead of consistence voting where that is not the case. In a real democracy all votes have the same weight. Like i said look at the USA that is what can happen if you don't have a real democracy where every vote weights the same then the one with the most votes can still not become president.

 

Thailand sadly has not, is not and never will be a real democracy unless and until the army is kept in its barracks and only allowed to do its proper job of defending the country.

 

This constitution needs to be torn up and a modified version of the 1997 constituion replaces it.

 

Meechai and ALL of the latest constitution writers should never be allowed to write again.

 

The penalty for staging a coup will not be an amnesty but execution by a firing squad.

 

Only then will Thailand start on the road to Democracy.

59 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The involvement of the upper house with the 250 appointed senators will only come into play if Parliament reach an impasse in the selection of the PM. In that case, an outside PM will be chosen by the joint houses voting. I think Prayut will not take this outside PM route as most analysts opine. Too much risk and too little legitimacy. I understand that he will join a political party and be nominated as PM candidate if that party can win a minimum of 25 seats. He will made that announcement in September. 

 

The more I think about it, I see the possibility of PTP and coalition parties forming the government. PTP and their past affiliated parties never failed to win the majority for Parliament seats in all the elections they participated and don't even need coalition parties. Even without the party list seats (courtesy of the unjust laws) and defections, they will still likely to retain their base support of around 220-230 and only need 31-21 seats from coalition parties to have the majority and for the voting of the PM. FFP and CTP have been making the right anti junta noises and could be coalition parties candidates. When Prayut went to Buriram, BJT party leader Anutin was conspicuously missing and could be a intended avoidance.

 

I really hope that it will turn out this way and give a rude awakening to the pompous non elected junta PM. 

 

I do hope that you are right but I fear that the junta has put the fix in, not only buying ex-PTP MPs and anybody else that they can but I have read somewhere but forgotten where that this government will be redrawing the contituency boundaries in their favour and not that of the PTP.

 

 

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

The 100% unelected Senate has nothing to do with the voting system - how absurd.

 

I just can't imagine you would have the same opinion if it were Thaksin who introduced and unelected Senate.

Ohh, the outcry from nutters that would ensue.

 

Your support of an unelected Senate reveals more about the reasoning behind your support for the dodgy lower house electoral system than anything else that you post.

100% elected senate has nothing to do with the voting system. Can you tell me how the two are connected ? They are not. Did i say the 100% elected senate was a good thing ? I have even said more then a few times that I am against it. I am still against it. You can look it up in previous posts not this topic. 

 

I just said it has nothing to do with the voting system, i was talking about the voting system. I said i like a voting sytem that is not based on constituencies and gives one vote to everyone. If you don't know how it works look up articles in the nations about it.

 

I am raised in a true democracy where each vote is woth the same that is the system that i prefer even if it gives ore smaller parties. The system in my country makes it easier to have smaller parties i like that so everyone has a good choice. Not a stupid 2 party system.

 

 

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

You think the 2011 election was not a landslide?

 

PTP won 265 seats to the Democrats 164

PTP won 15,744,190 votes to the Democrats 11,433,762 votes

 

Here are some publications who differ with your assessment of the 2011 election outcome:

 

https://thediplomat.com/2011/07/thailand-poll-yingluck-in-landslide/

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-election/thaksin-party-wins-thai-election-by-a-landslide-idUSTRE76013T20110703

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/thaksins-sister-wins-in-thai-landslide-20110703-1gxb7.html

The descriptions i read about landscape victory says when a party gets more then 50% of the votes that was not the case. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

The descriptions i read about landscape victory says when a party gets more then 50% of the votes that was not the case. 

 

 

You're right.

The rest of the world is wrong.

Prawit's watches are all just on loan from his kind-hearted friends.

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Thailand sadly has not, is not and never will be a real democracy unless and until the army is kept in its barracks and only allowed to do its proper job of defending the country.

 

This constitution needs to be torn up and a modified version of the 1997 constituion replaces it.

 

Meechai and ALL of the latest constitution writers should never be allowed to write again.

 

The penalty for staging a coup will not be an amnesty but execution by a firing squad.

 

Only then will Thailand start on the road to Democracy.

Sorry just like the system where a more party system is easier to start and each vote is worth the same better then what it was before. It might not be in the short run for Thailand but in the long run it will give smaller parties far more chance to grow and effect change, that does not happen in a system with voting districts there its far harder for small parties to establish themselves. 

 

I like it when smaller parties have more chance so change happens faster. 

2 minutes ago, pornprong said:

You're right.

The rest of the world is wrong.

Prawit's watches are all just on loan from his kind-hearted friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-a-landslide-election-3367585

 

I know I am right, the links say as much landslide victory means that one party gets a majority or super majority. 

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

100% elected senate has nothing to do with the voting system. Can you tell me how the two are connected ? They are not. Did i say the 100% elected senate was a good thing ? I have even said more then a few times that I am against it. I am still against it. You can look it up in previous posts not this topic. 

 

I just said it has nothing to do with the voting system, i was talking about the voting system. I said i like a voting sytem that is not based on constituencies and gives one vote to everyone. If you don't know how it works look up articles in the nations about it.

 

I am raised in a true democracy where each vote is woth the same that is the system that i prefer even if it gives ore smaller parties. The system in my country makes it easier to have smaller parties i like that so everyone has a good choice. Not a stupid 2 party system.

 

 

Geeeezzz....

You have no idea what you are talking about

The system is based on constituencies!

There are 500 lower house seats.

350 constituency seats

150 party list seats

The voters only get 1 ballot which covers both the constituency and party list seats.

(and of course they get 0 ballots for the Senate)

(and of course the seats a malapportioned against the voters of the north and northeast)

 

 

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-a-landslide-election-3367585

 

I know I am right, the links say as much landslide victory means that one party gets a majority or super majority. 

No, you are wrong.

First definition.

 

A landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming supermajority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus utterly eliminating the opponents. ... The term is borrowed from geology, where a landslide takes almost everything with it on its way.

 

PTP won more than 50% of the seats in the 2011 election

 

265/500x100=53%

 

It was a LANDSLIDE buddy, your irrational dislike of Thaksin does not alter this fact.

 

or

Second definition

 

"Landslide victory" is a buzzword used by the media to describe an election won by a larger margin than initially predicted. There is no strict definition, but the usual connotation is that of a surprisinglygood result. The implication is that the election suddenly changed the political landscape in a manner a real landslide suddenly reshapes a natural landscape.

 

Choose your definition, both ways........PTP LANDSLIDE.

Edited June 25, 20188 yr by pornprong

23 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

2 coups with a singular mission have not succeeded to eradicate the popularity of his parties. They throw everything at him by intimidation, change the law and use the courts to harass and they still very likely to win the next election. Time for the military and the establishment to except the wishes of the people. 

 

The problem isn't that its 3 or 4 hundred against 11 million, the problem is how to make it appear that the 3 or 4 hundred outvoted the 11 million.

 

And then there's the pariah, living in a bubble bought and paid for by the 3 or 4 hundred. How likely is it that he will make a bid for the affections of the people and reluctantly accept his name being put forward for the Bangkok Prize for being a democrat after unseating the soldiers?

Edited June 25, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

Fleas arguing over the dog

 

Let's wait and see what the voters of Thailand decide. No point in nighty shredding until it really happens . I doubt if any voter in the election wil be influenced by ramblings on an expats website.