Cabinet retreat in NEast ‘not part of an attempt to build political alliance ahead of election’, govt figures insist

[sjaak327]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes Thaksin is being copied and his MP's lured away. I wonder how much impact this has on the elections later on how many people really switch sides. Will be real interesting to see. Whoever wins is of no concern to me. I dislike them both and don't want either of them to win but they are the only 2 who have a chance. 

You mean PTP or the democrats ? or do you seriously believe Prayuth has even the slightest chance ? Unless of course he rigs the results, or somehow can prevent PTP from contesting in the first place. My money is on the second option. They will find a way to disband PTP in such time frame, that it will be impossible to contest the elections. 

[robblok]

6 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

You mean PTP or the democrats ? or do you seriously believe Prayuth has even the slightest chance ? Unless of course he rigs the results, or somehow can prevent PTP from contesting in the first place. My money is on the second option. They will find a way to disband PTP in such time frame, that it will be impossible to contest the elections. 

Yes I actually think Prayut has a chance, his proxies seem to be gathering a lot of support and throwing a lot of taxpayers money against it. Maybe its the cynic in me but I think that throwing money around works. We will see if your right then money plays no role of I am right money plays a big role. ? With Suthep (an other dinosaur that i really dislike) his help and the MP's that are defecting from the PTP and help of Newin he might get a reasonably big group to support him. 

 

If the patronage system works, then luring MP's and important figures will result in many votes. It really depends on the patronage system and the canvassers that work for them how much control they have. 

 

The Democrats are weakened by Suthep who switched sides (or at least split off) so I doubt they have a chance. 

 

Maybe I am wrong and its just to weaken the PTP and force them to form an alliance (something they had to do anyway because they have not had a true majority in votes since Thaksin). 

 

I will be looking forward to the election, not to see who is winner as i said I don't like either of them. But to see how all these measures have impacted the PTP its voting base. It will prove or disprove that throwing money around and the patronage system works. I am curious about it as I really have no idea if it works or not.

[sjaak327]

Yes I actually think Prayut has a chance, his proxies seem to be gathering a lot of support and throwing a lot of taxpayers money against it. Maybe its the cynic in me but I think that throwing money around works. We will see if your right then money plays no role of I am right money plays a big role. ? With Suthep (an other dinosaur that i really dislike) his help and the MP's that are defecting from the PTP and help of Newin he might get a reasonably big group to support him. 
 
If the patronage system works, then luring MP's and important figures will result in many votes. It really depends on the patronage system and the canvassers that work for them how much control they have. 
 
The Democrats are weakened by Suthep who switched sides (or at least split off) so I doubt they have a chance. 
 
Maybe I am wrong and its just to weaken the PTP and force them to form an alliance (something they had to do anyway because they have not had a true majority in votes since Thaksin). 
 
I will be looking forward to the election, not to see who is winner as i said I don't like either of them. But to see how all these measures have impacted the PTP its voting base. It will prove or disprove that throwing money around and the patronage system works. I am curious about it as I really have no idea if it works or not.

I do not believe Suthep will really weaken the democrats, by the way, Yingluck's 265 seats out of 500 IS a true majority, there are no buts or ifs. Even with the new way of counting they would have received 248 seats, which is just three short of a true majority. Ptp need to be decimated if Prayuth wants to stand a chance. If you think that is viable, you are underestimating just how much Prayuth is hated.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I do not believe Suthep will really weaken the democrats, by the way, Yingluck's 265 seats out of 500 IS a true majority, there are no buts or ifs. Even with the new way of counting they would have received 248 seats, which is just three short of a true majority. Ptp need to be decimated if Prayuth wants to stand a chance. If you think that is viable, you are underestimating just how much Prayuth is hated. 

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

I was talking about the new way of voting.. she did not have a full majority because she never got more then 50% of the votes. 

I think a lot depends on how much people Suthep takes and how much Newin brings in. I think your projecting your feelings for the guy on others. He certainly is not liked, but money talks you know. Lets just wait and see. For now we are both speculating. 

 

YL 48,8% democrats 35,1%. That leaves 15%..  so lets say Prayut gets those 15% takes 20% from the democrats (I don't know how much Suthep controls) and wins 15% from the PTP...  That means not a decimation of the PTP but just less votes. I am not sure how viable this is or not. We will just have to wait and see. I said it before.. I don't really care who wins, dislike them both. Nobody that I like (future forward) has any chance of winning.

[Small Joke]

I hear local whispers that a plan B is afoot. It involves an improbable alliance... Has anyone else heard Similar? 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Small Joke

[sjaak327]

I was talking about the new way of voting.. she did not have a full majority because she never got more then 50% of the votes. 
I think a lot depends on how much people Suthep takes and how much Newin brings in. I think your projecting your feelings for the guy on others. He certainly is not liked, but money talks you know. Lets just wait and see. For now we are both speculating. 
 
YL 48,8% democrats 35,1%. That leaves 15%..  so lets say Prayut gets those 15% takes 20% from the democrats (I don't know how much Suthep controls) and wins 15% from the PTP...  That means not a decimation of the PTP but just less votes. I am not sure how viable this is or not. We will just have to wait and see. I said it before.. I don't really care who wins, dislike them both. Nobody that I like (future forward) has any chance of winning.

You said she needed to form alliances, she did but she never had to, 265 out of 500 IS a majority. I find it so funny people try to downplay their popularity with talk about a poplar majority when such a thing is not how the Thai electoral system works.


It shows just how much one understands about how precisely the system works. Let's just say that a 48% of populair votes won in a multi party electoral system with over 30 parties contesting is a very very good result, certainly if the runner up is over 15% behind!

I am not projecting anything, he is even hated by people that stood behind him 4 years ago, he made an utter mess of things. Let's just see if he even has the guts to run for office, I doubt it.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[robblok]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

You said she needed to form alliances, she did but she never had to, 265 out of 500 IS a majority. I find it so funny people try to downplay their popularity with talk about a poplar majority when such a thing is not how the Thai electoral system works.


It shows just how much one understands about how precisely the system works. Let's just say that a 48% of populair votes won in a multi party electoral system with over 30 parties contesting is a very very good result, certainly if the runner up is over 15% behind!

I am not projecting anything, he is even hated by people that stood behind him 4 years ago, he made an utter mess of things. Let's just see if he even has the guts to run for office, I doubt it. 

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
 

We will see, as I said only interested in the results to see if money is a motivator or not (for voting). 

 

48% is certainly a great result but not an absolute majority in a multi party electoral system and you need a bit more then just a majority to rule in a multiparty electoral system, just in case some of your MP's don't vote the way you want to vote. I know before she had a majority of MP's but never a  true majority of votes. 

 

I am not downplaying anything at all you and I just have a different definition of what a majority of votes is. (I wrote of votes not seats) Plus now it has changed that votes are important not that strange system they had before. 

[sjaak327]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

We will see, as I said only interested in the results to see if money is a motivator or not (for voting). 

 

48% is certainly a great result but not an absolute majority in a multi party electoral system and you need a bit more then just a majority to rule in a multiparty electoral system, just in case some of your MP's don't vote the way you want to vote. I know before she had a majority of MP's but never a  true majority of votes. 

 

I am not downplaying anything at all you and I just have a different definition of what a majority of votes is. (I wrote of votes not seats) Plus now it has changed that votes are important not that strange system they had before. 

Again, a majority of votes is inconsequential in the system that election was held under. It was a combination of Party list votes and constituency. In Thailand, a true majority is a majority in the lower house, nothing more and nothing less, no need to discuss this, as it is completely besides the point. Yingluck did not need to form alliances, she could have become PM with the 265 seats her party won. 

 

Strange to see how suddenly you are looking forward to an election which is very likely to not be free and fair, and whoever wins, is tied by undemocratic elements such as the senate and the NCPO, and the 20 year roadmap they have proposed but not finalized. When elections were scheduled under a much more democratic constitution, you suddenly cheered others that illegally prevented those elections. Shame on you. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by sjaak327

[robblok]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Again, a majority of votes is inconsequential in the system that election was held under. It was a combination of Party list votes and constituency. In Thailand, a true majority is a majority in the lower house, nothing more and nothing less, no need to discuss this, as it is completely besides the point. Yingluck did not need to form alliances, she could have become PM with the 265 seats her party won. 

 

Strange to see how suddenly you are looking forward to an election which is very likely to not be free and fair, and whoever wins, is tied by undemocratic elements such as the senate and the NCPO, and the 20 year roadmap they have proposed but not finalized. When elections where scheduled under a much more democratic constitution, you suddenly cheered others that illegally prevented those elections. Shame on you. 

Again, whatever you say is inconsequential as I was talking about votes a majority of votes. I was not talking about MP seats. I have always talked about votes. Sorry that that ticks you off because its not a true majority and you desperately need to say that they had a majority.

 

The only reason I am looking forward to the election is to see if money has a big impact on voting or not. This is a test of that theory, loads of money is being pumped into the north and other places, MP''s are being bought and so on and so on. It will either validate what I suspect or make me rethink my idea's

 

I mentioned a few times that I don't care about the winner as I don't like either one so I don't know what your on about shaming me. I certainly cheered how the people removed YL and how the junta checked the rice program and found 33 billion in corruption there. I still am happy about that otherwise people like you could still say how good the rice program was and that there was no corruption. I can't recall if i cheered for the occupation of voting boots. (look it up if you like)

[sjaak327]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

 

Maybe I am wrong and its just to weaken the PTP and force them to form an alliance (something they had to do anyway because they have not had a true majority in votes since Thaksin). 

 

 

This is what you claimed, and it is not true.

 

Under the 2007 constitution, a true majority is 251 or more seats in the lower house. Any other silly definition is inconsequential. Yingluck had 265 seats, which is more than 250, therefore she did obtain a true majority, and therefore she did not need to form an Alliance to become Pm. She already recevied 265 MP's, enough to become PM and form a government. Those are facts, and these cannot possibly be denied. 

 

But you have shown your utter contempt with the law of the land before, with people like you, the law is only applicable if it goes your way. 

 

In any case, for Prayuth to become PM, he needs to get support of 251 MP's in the case he actually runs for office, or he needs to hope that the lower house cannot select a PM, in which case the 250 senators can vote too. Now any result of the PTP north of 200 seats will make both scenarios impossible. 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by sjaak327

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

This is what you claimed, and it is not true.

 

Under the 2007 constitution, a true majority is 251 or more seats in the lower house. Any other silly definition is inconsequential. Yingluck had 265 seats, which is more than 250, therefore she did obtain a true majority, and therefore she did not need to form an Alliance to become Pm. She already recevied 265 MP's, enough to become PM and form a government. Those are fact, and these cannot possibly be denied. 

 

But you have shown your utter contempt with the law of the land before, with people like you, the law is only applicable if it goes your way. 

 

Its 100% true, you just don't follow the reasoning. I will try to explain.

 

I was talking about now.. how these measures of bribing MP's affect the PTP in the next election (could not influence the past so I am talking about the current situation so I don't know why you come up with the old system)

 

The new system is based on voted.

To get a majority you need a majority of votes

PTP  has not had a majority of votes since Thaksin

 

So these actions (current) would force them to build alliances and even if she had the same amount of votes under the new system she would still have to form an alliance as 48% of the voters is not a majority in the new system.

Now do you understand Sjaak, your quite bright but you just did not get it.

 

The PTP and all Thai politicians have the same contempt I have in case you have not noticed it. You wan't me to point out how often the PTP has ignored the law ?

 

 

Edit in your quote it even says in votes.. can't you read ?

 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by robblok

[sjaak327]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its 100% true, you just don't follow the reasoning. I will try to explain.

 

I was talking about now.. how these measures of bribing MP's affect the PTP in the next election (could not influence the past so I am talking about the current situation so I don't know why you come up with the old system)

 

The new system is based on voted.

To get a majority you need a majority of votes

PTP  has not had a majority of votes since Thaksin

 

So these actions (current) would force them to build alliances and even if she had the same amount of votes under the new system she would still have to form an alliance as 48% of the voters is not a majority in the new system.

Now do you understand Sjaak, your quite bright but you just did not get it.

 

The PTP and all Thai politicians have the same contempt I have in case you have not noticed it. You wan't me to point out how often the PTP has ignored the law ?

 

 

Edit in your quote it even says in votes.. can't you read ?

 

 

I can read just fine. You said HAD not WILL have to, and you are indeed right, PTP did not have a "true majority in votes" since Thaksin, but my point is really simple, they didn't need a majority in votes, a majority in seats is all that matters. So your statement that they had to form alliances is 100% wrong, they did not. 

 

And even in the new system, a majority of seats is all that matters. And no, they have not switched to a popular voting system at all. They have just introduced a maximum of Party list seats, based upon how many constituency seats a party gains. A very unjust system, as it means that votes in the party list system are made inconsequential if the same party already reached a certain number of constituency seats. 

 

But even in that new system, Yingluck would have recevied 248 seats, just three short of the needed 251. 

 

As to contempt of the law, there were procedures in place to deal with those, a coup was not one of them, neither was a group of people that wanted reforms before elections and disrupted those elections when they did not received what they wanted. 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by sjaak327

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I can read just fine. You said HAD not WILL have to, and you are indeed right, PTP did not have a "true majority in votes" since Thaksin, but my point is really simple, they didn't need a majority in votes, a majority in seats is all that matters. So your statement that they had to form alliances is 100% wrong, they did not. 

 

And even in the new system, a majority of seats is all that matters. And no, they have not switched to a popular voting system at all. They have just introduced a maximum of Party list seats, based upon how many constituency seats a party gains. A very unjust system, as it means that votes in the party list system are made inconsequential if the same party already reached a certain number of constituency seats. 

 

But even in that new system, Yingluck would have recevied 248 seats, just three short of the needed 251. 

 

As to contempt of the law, there were procedures in place to deal with those, a coup was not one of them, neither was a group of people that wanted reforms before elections and disrupted those elections when they did not received what they wanted. 

 

 

No you can't read or interpret what has been said, i was using old election results to project them on the future. That is what this is all about and so yes it mattered that they never had a majority in votes since Thaksin since in the current system they need one. 

 

My "had "refers to the situation before the measures the PM put in place to gain PTP votes. (what I meant was even if they go the same amount of votes as before they still would have to form an alliance). So that was the case even before all the buying of MP's and other stuff that the PM has done.  

 

I feel its a just system as it takes into account real votes, but then again I am used to a system where the total amount of votes gives you seats. So I am bias, agree to disagree.

 

248 is not a majority thanks for confirming that and that she does need allies if she gets the same amount of votes as last time.

 

Yes procedures... hahahaaha remember Thaksin his passports and YL ignoring the ombudsman... whoever is in power does what they like it was that way then the PTP was in power and it is now with the junta.  Lets not forget the PTP MP's who voted for others caught on tape..sure they respect the law so much. Face it in Thailand nobody respects the law and when people don't get what they want they protest and try to get it anyway even if its against the law. This is nothing new.

[sjaak327]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

No you can't read or interpret what has been said, i was using old election results to project them on the future. That is what this is all about and so yes it mattered that they never had a majority in votes since Thaksin since in the current system they need one. 

 

My "had "refers to the situation before the measures the PM put in place to gain PTP votes. (what I meant was even if they go the same amount of votes as before they still would have to form an alliance). So that was the case even before all the buying of MP's and other stuff that the PM has done.  

 

I feel its a just system as it takes into account real votes, but then again I am used to a system where the total amount of votes gives you seats. So I am bias, agree to disagree.

 

248 is not a majority thanks for confirming that and that she does need allies if she gets the same amount of votes as last time.

 

Yes procedures... hahahaaha remember Thaksin his passports and YL ignoring the ombudsman... whoever is in power does what they like it was that way then the PTP was in power and it is now with the junta.  Lets not forget the PTP MP's who voted for others caught on tape..sure they respect the law so much. Face it in Thailand nobody respects the law and when people don't get what they want they protest and try to get it anyway even if its against the law. This is nothing new.

Give it a rest, it is for anyone to see in black and white, you were talking in the past tense. Just admit you were wrong, it's not the end of the world. I have seldom seen a more ridiculous way to try and explain away a sentence, not a redeeming quality to put it mildly. 

 

And again, the new system is not about a majority of votes either. And no, it does not really take into account "real votes" as a party that is successful in winning constituencies is punsihed for it, by making the party list votes count less. Very unjust and unfair. To be honest, I am for a completely popular vote system, that way no votes are discarded and every votes carries the same weight.

 

The second best system is what Thailand used to have, a clear distincition between party list votes (popular votes, no votes discarded or weighed differently) and a constituency vote where it is winner takes all.

 

Now it is a convoluted system in which every vote supposedly counts, but in practice not every vote carries the same weight. There is no question it's a convoluted unjust system that is worse than the system it replaces. 

 

Do you want me to give relevant examples of law breaking politicans that have been unseated and red carded ? The list is endless. But of course, everything is put into place to justify a coup that cannot possibly be justified. 

 

The direct result of this coup is the form of democracy that Thailand now gets. A democracy where the real power does not reside with the electorate, but with the people currently running the show. You have all been warned. And some of you are still blind and ignorant. Oh my god, how is that even possible, how many more evidence does one need to wake up I wonder. 

 

In any case, good luck with the upcomming elections, whichever way it goes, the real power is not going away from the NCPO, no matter who wins, how votes are counted or what alliances are going to be made. I personally believe what the MP is doing will backfire, but he will find that out in due time, providing he does not rig the elections, which is a very real and imagineable scenario. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by sjaak327