How Would Elections Help The Reds?

[Chunky1]

Unless they form a coalition with the minor parties. In which case, why would they need an election at all? Why wouldn't the minor parties just leave the coalition now?

Edited April 12, 2010 by Chunky1

[ukrules]

Yes, you are missing something very obvious. The coalition parties don't need to be 'allowed' to leave a coalition, they are free to do so whenever they want but they choose not to.

[Chunky1]

Yes, you are missing something very obvious. The coalition parties don't need to be 'allowed' to leave a coalition, they are free to do so whenever they want but they choose not to.

I didn't miss that but I worded the OP poorly. I changed it now.

I don't see the point for elections. The minor parties will control who stays in power. No need to vote early. It solves nothing.

And I don't understand why Abhisit and Dem's are against this. What would they have to lose?

Edited April 12, 2010 by Chunky1

[PeaceBlondie]

They got 40% of the votes last time, and so did the Democrats last time. Will they get 30% this time?

[Chunky1]

They got 40% of the votes last time, and so did the Democrats last time. Will they get 30% this time?

Then why are the Dems against an election?

[britmaveric]

Well I for see Newin's group switching sides and bringing the rest of the prior Dem coalition back in line. Hypocritical bunch bouncing back/forth, but these lot go with who they perceive can benefit them more.

[chantorn]

They got 40% of the votes last time, and so did the Democrats last time. Will they get 30% this time?

Then why are the Dems against an election?

If they are 100% control now.

Why take the 0.01% risk of loosing in the next relection.

[Chunky1]

Well I for see Newin's group switching sides and bringing the rest of the prior Dem coalition back in line. Hypocritical bunch bouncing back/forth, but these lot go with who they perceive can benefit them more.

He doesn't need an election to switch.

[Chunky1]

They got 40% of the votes last time, and so did the Democrats last time. Will they get 30% this time?

Then why are the Dems against an election?

If they are 100% control now.

Why take the 0.01% risk of loosing in the next relection.

Because it would be (would have been) what was best for the Nation?

[LennyW]

Hypothetical question - If there was an election tommorow and Abhisit and Dem's won, would the Reds accept that say okay dokey and fk off home?

[Zstarx]

I think the trouble is that neither side will get a conclusive win and we will be left with the same mess as we are in now. That is problem.

[Chunky1]

I think the trouble is that neither side will get a conclusive win and we will be left with the same mess as we are in now. That is problem.

Well, the option would be to now allow these mass protests anymore. Both parties agree to stop mass protesting depending on who forms a government.

[GarryP]

It would mean a few hundred baht in the pockets of the voters to vote for whichever colour pays the most. Both sides would go overboard trying for a majority. If you believe vote buying would not still be the main problem, you are mistaken. For the average person out in the sticks a few hundred or may be even a thou would be all it takes to buy your colour, whatever that may be. But at the end of the day little would change. Maybe some new faces fronting for the old faces, but the same money politics.

Newin will have a disproportionate amount of power for the size of his party. Can he mend the rift with Mr. T or not to make sure the reds come in to power? Does he even want to? Maybe there are benefits to staying with the democrats? Etc, etc. etc.

[Chunky1]

Very unlikely that either Party can form a government alone.

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

I don't see immediate elections changing the makeup of the parliament in any significant way. Puea Thai will get the most seats, probably just under 40%. Whatever new party emerges to replace the Democrats will get about 35%. Puea Thai has shown no ability to put together a ruling coalition, and the recent tactics of the UDD has not helped their cause. In that event, I don't see why not call for new elections. I don't agree with the UDD's immediate dissolution demand, as it is totally undemocratic. Democracies operate by rule of law. Surely elections can be properly held (at least by Thai standards) within 3 or 4 months. Enough time for candidates to put together a substantive campaign. Of course, running on issues and positions seems to be totally lost on the Thai electorate. They are only interested in giving their side the spoils of governmental office and inflicting revenge on their historical opponents.

[tw25rw]

Weren't some pro-TRT MPs removed from their seats by the courts? What happened to their seats after?

[cdnvic]

These things are already being debated in the news forums, no need for duplicate discussions.