Thai PM Abhisit Says Seeking Political Solution To Crisis

[mazeltov]

But there is also a good chance people will respect the leader THEY voted for directly themselves and not via some

shady deal behind closed doors deals between fellow MP 's.

Anyway surely trying this out is far better than people killing each other ?

The people don't vote for the PM. In the last election almost exactly the same number of people voted for the PPP as did for the Democrats. It was an even split.

That is not true, after so much talks some people still don't understand the election process.

[whybother]

But there is also a good chance people will respect the leader THEY voted for directly themselves and not via some

shady deal behind closed doors deals between fellow MP 's.

Anyway surely trying this out is far better than people killing each other ?

The people don't vote for the PM. In the last election almost exactly the same number of people voted for the PPP as did for the Democrats. It was an even split.

That is not true, after so much talks some people still don't understand the election process.

If it's not true, then what is true?

Please educate us with the election process, as you understand it.

(I've been asking this question from a red supporter for ... since I joined ... but I haven't seen an answer yet.)

[way2muchcoffee]

But there is also a good chance people will respect the leader THEY voted for directly themselves and not via some

shady deal behind closed doors deals between fellow MP 's.

Anyway surely trying this out is far better than people killing each other ?

The people don't vote for the PM. In the last election almost exactly the same number of people voted for the PPP as did for the Democrats. It was an even split.

That is not true, after so much talks some people still don't understand the election process.

You are incorrect. Read my statement carefully. Look up the election results of 2007. Learn about how elections work under this constitution. You will see that my statement is accurate.

Edited April 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[mazeltov]

You are incorrect. Read my statement carefully. Look up the election results of 2007. Learn about how elections work under this constitution. You will see that my statement is accurate.

yes, you tried that trick before, but telling only a part of the truth is almost telling a lie.

How many of the 60 million chose to vote Abhisit into power?

Results of the one-man-one vote party list election in 2007

Democrats: 14,084,265 39.63%

PTP: 14,071,799 39.60%

you ignoring that fact that the voters had also up to three direct candidates to vote for and that the vote for for the direct candidate has a bigger impact which parties at what strengths will sit in the end in the parliament. (400 seats of 480 seats total)

the proportional 2nd vote (or the 3rd/4th), where your figures are coming from has a lesser impact. (80 seats of 480 seats total).

that vote can be also placed by the voter strategically, for example with the intention to have more balance in the parliament or give one party not to much power, you don't have to give the 2nd vote for the same party of the candidate of your first choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting

it is little bit more complicated than a simple "one man-one vote" system

[hextac]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

What makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

There are plenty of explanations why they are democratically elected. Can you please explain why you think they are not?

Define democracy and we can start...

[way2muchcoffee]

You are incorrect. Read my statement carefully. Look up the election results of 2007. Learn about how elections work under this constitution. You will see that my statement is accurate.

yes, you tried that trick before, but telling only a part of the truth is almost telling a lie.

Again I am talking about the number of people. So what if some people got three votes, some two, and some one vote in the constituency election? The constituency vote is not a direct assessment of the popularity of a party as a percentage of the voting population. You know that it is not. I am not hiding anything. The constituency election is irrelevant to the point I am making.

I am asserting that the the proportional election, the 'one man one vote', is the only way to accurately and directly measure the popularity of a party as a percentage of the voters. In the proportional vote the Democrats had more votes than the PPP. Therefore, as a percentage of the population of Thailand who voted in 2007 elections, the Democrats appealed to more individual people than did the PPP.

That is my opinion and it is shared by many others. You may have a different opinion and it to may be shared by others. In the real world people disagree. People quite frequently experience the same events and come to very different conclusions.

Edited April 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Publicus]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

what makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

Seek your answer in Montenegro.

[Oberkommando]

In the proportional vote the Democrats had more votes than the PPP. Therefore, as a percentage of the population of Thailand who voted in 2007 elections, the Democrats appealed to more individual people than did the PPP.

You conveniently left out the fact that the Democrats boycotted elections until after a military coup and the courts had conveniently banned many TRT MPs as well as the party itself.

Disingenuous.

[britmaveric]

I'd agree if you eliminate most of your opponents - not hard to win an election.

[mazeltov]

You are incorrect. Read my statement carefully. Look up the election results of 2007. Learn about how elections work under this constitution. You will see that my statement is accurate.

yes, you tried that trick before, but telling only a part of the truth is almost telling a lie.

Again I am talking about the number of people. So what if some people got three votes, some two, and some one vote in the constituency election? The constituency vote is not a direct assessment of the popularity of a party as a percentage of the voting population. You know that it is not. I am not hiding anything. The constituency election is irrelevant to the point I am making.

I am asserting that the the proportional election, the 'one man one vote', is the only way to accurately and directly measure the popularity of a party as a percentage of the voters. In the proportional vote the Democrats had more votes than the PPP. Therefore, as a percentage of the population of Thailand who voted in 2007 elections, the Democrats appealed to more individual people than did the PPP.

That is my opinion and it is shared by many others. You may have a different opinion and it to may be shared by others. In the real world people disagree. People quite frequently experience the same events and come to very different conclusions.

Shared by many others? Who? You misinterpret the election result if you looking at it this way. You fool yourself and mislead others. That is not just another opinion but a fallacy.

I am not going to repeat last month discussion. Some people will never understand the election system in Thailand.

The 2007 election was overshadowed by the JUNTA. People are now in the street and protest. Demanding a new and fair election. Guess how many people will still vote for the Butcher of Bangkok and his soon to be dissolved Party?

[elkangorito]

The 2007 election was overshadowed by the JUNTA. People are now in the street and protest. Demanding a new and fair election. Guess how many people will still vote for the Butcher of Bangkok and his soon to be dissolved Party?

All the more reason why Thais should be calling for an 'outsider' to ensure 'free & fair' elections.

Of course, this won't happen due to 'national pride' etc.

[Roadman]

Again I am talking about the number of people. So what if some people got three votes, some two, and some one vote in the constituency election? The constituency vote is not a direct assessment of the popularity of a party as a percentage of the voting population. You know that it is not. I am not hiding anything. The constituency election is irrelevant to the point I am making.

I am asserting that the the proportional election, the 'one man one vote', is the only way to accurately and directly measure the popularity of a party as a percentage of the voters. In the proportional vote the Democrats had more votes than the PPP. Therefore, as a percentage of the population of Thailand who voted in 2007 elections, the Democrats appealed to more individual people than did the PPP.

That is my opinion and it is shared by many others. You may have a different opinion and it to may be shared by others. In the real world people disagree. People quite frequently experience the same events and come to very different conclusions.

Shared by many others? Who? You misinterpret the election result if you looking at it this way. You fool yourself and mislead others. That is not just another opinion but a fallacy.

I am not going to repeat last month discussion. Some people will never understand the election system in Thailand.

The 2007 election was overshadowed by the JUNTA. People are now in the street and protest. Demanding a new and fair election. Guess how many people will still vote for the Butcher of Bangkok and his soon to be dissolved Party?

I didn't do to well at school, hated it and Maths was my worst subject result. But through out life I have acquired a basic knowledge of many things, including maths, to understand that for example, that Party A who received 34% of the vote was more favoured by the greater group of individuals than either Party B's group of individuals with 33% of the vote, or Group C being a mix of all the other parties with their groups of individauls with 32% of the vote. Simple maths and nothing confusing. I am neither fooled or misled. Its game on from there as the maths says you can have many different equations when the horse trading for Group's C groups of individuals begin.

[mazeltov]

I didn't do to well at school, hated it and Maths was my worst subject result. But through out life I have acquired a basic knowledge of many things, including maths, to understand that for example, that Party A who received 34% of the vote was more favoured by the greater group of individuals than either Party B's group of individuals with 33% of the vote, or Group C being a mix of all the other parties with their groups of individauls with 32% of the vote. Simple maths and nothing confusing. I am neither fooled or misled. Its game on from there as the maths says you can have many different equations when the horse trading for Group's C groups of individuals begin.

With that impressive result of 33% of the proportional votes the Party B would get 26 or 27 seats of a 480 member strong parliament in Thailand. Party A probably 28 seats. (or with 39% a party can get 33/34 seats)

One party is a newcomer, new name, new faces, ignored or bad mouthed by the media and bullied by the Junta. The other party is well known since years and also their faces and getting the everybodies darling treatment by the media and the Junta.

[ComicBum]

Abhisit is a "cockroach" politician of the 1st class standard and pushed into office by the strong arm of the PAD with the highest level of backing.

His cabinet of self serving corrupt greed crazed clowns are the problem and their demise is the solution.

The world has come to know that Thailand is not a 'real' democracy no matter how well the effort is to conceal the fact.

LET THE RED RALLY ROLL!!

[way2muchcoffee]

I didn't do to well at school, hated it and Maths was my worst subject result. But through out life I have acquired a basic knowledge of many things, including maths, to understand that for example, that Party A who received 34% of the vote was more favoured by the greater group of individuals than either Party B's group of individuals with 33% of the vote, or Group C being a mix of all the other parties with their groups of individauls with 32% of the vote. Simple maths and nothing confusing. I am neither fooled or misled. Its game on from there as the maths says you can have many different equations when the horse trading for Group's C groups of individuals begin.

With that impressive result of 33% of the proportional votes the Party B would get 26 or 27 seats of a 480 member strong parliament in Thailand. Party A probably 28 seats. (or with 39% a party can get 33/34 seats)

One party is a newcomer, new name, new faces, ignored or bad mouthed by the media and bullied by the Junta. The other party is well known since years and also their faces and getting the everybodies darling treatment by the media and the Junta.

Even more weight on the side of trusting the proportional vote results. Everyone knew the PPP was the TRTII. They may well not have known the individual representatives as they were new and therefore the constituency vote would possibly be skewed. However, in the proportional vote a vote for PPP was a vote for TRT. Every voter knew this. This gives even more credence to using the proportional vote as a measure of party popularity. And as I have already stated, the proportional vote is the only direct measure of party popularity.

Argue all you want mazeltov. I strongly believe you are wrong. You believe I am wrong. Fine. You try to cloud the issue with numbers of seats. The method of allotting seats in the constituency vote is not a direct measure of a party's popularity as that is a winner take all approach and not a one-man-one vote methodology.

Why do you think they call it the 'proportional vote'? It is because the proportional vote precisely measures the proportion of the population that support each party.

[animatic]

UK Election where minority party can rule with smaller than plurality,

even smaller than 2nd place finish.

Britain Hung Parliament Yahoo news

Britain Hung Parliament Taiwan News

Britain Hung Parliament CBS news

It isn't JUST Thailand where this can happen,

a "Hung Parliament" run via a coalition.

And the intense pressure to change the system.

Ah but will Britain witness hospital invasions and 2 month mob actions in the streets

to force an new election BEFORE changing the rules.

Edited April 30, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

I didn't do to well at school, hated it and Maths was my worst subject result. But through out life I have acquired a basic knowledge of many things, including maths, to understand that for example, that Party A who received 34% of the vote was more favoured by the greater group of individuals than either Party B's group of individuals with 33% of the vote, or Group C being a mix of all the other parties with their groups of individauls with 32% of the vote. Simple maths and nothing confusing. I am neither fooled or misled. Its game on from there as the maths says you can have many different equations when the horse trading for Group's C groups of individuals begin.

With that impressive result of 33% of the proportional votes the Party B would get 26 or 27 seats of a 480 member strong parliament in Thailand. Party A probably 28 seats. (or with 39% a party can get 33/34 seats)

One party is a newcomer, new name, new faces, ignored or bad mouthed by the media and bullied by the Junta. The other party is well known since years and also their faces and getting the everybodies darling treatment by the media and the Junta.

Nudnik du jour, everybody knew that PPP was TRT II, and that PTP is TRT III and PPP II,

= not an unknown party at all.

[danc]

UK Election where minority party can rule with smaller than plurality,

even smaller than 2nd place finish.

Britain Hung Parliament Yahoo news

Britain Hung Parliament Taiwan News

Britain Hung Parliament CBS news

It isn't JUST Thailand where this can happen,

a "Hung Parliament" run via a coalition.

And the intense pressure to change the system.

Ah but will Britain witness hospital invasions and 2 month mob actions in the streets

to force an new election BEFORE changing the rules.

No I don't think that we would see that too many times, you are quite right.

But I don't think that we would have seen tanks rolling down Oxford Street in 2006 either because our army wasn't too keen on Tony Blair!

Comparing what happens here with what happens in the West leaves one slightly exposed, whatever side of the fence you reside.

[animatic]

We have had many posters here try to compare how Abhisit came to be PM

with how Gordon Brown and others did in UK, this article makes clear the systems are QUITE similar.

And that the same out come numerically that was there for Abhisit's elevation,

may shortly exist in UK. But that how they will deal with it is quite different.

I am NOT pro coup, but Thaksin had literally overstayed his mandate as Caretaker PM,

had a word said that it wasn't to be renewed. He then resigned, a new caretaker was his Deputy PM,

then Thaksin unilaterally un-resigned, that I think, his bit of utter arrogance, is what caused the coup.

He resigned publicly and then decided to take the job back without going and getting vetted again.

Sorry it doesn't work like that, coupled with the TRT cheating scandal in full swing at that time.

But that was 1 referendum and TWO governments later, each caught red handed cheating,

and the LEADERS ONLY sent packing...the rank and file are still in parliament.

Sorry, if Blair, or Maggie had resigned and then decided to take back his seat

without a ratifying visit to the queen all hel_l WOULD break loose in London.

Edited April 30, 2010 by animatic

[SomTumTiger]

Abhisit is a "cockroach" politician of the 1st class standard and pushed into office by the strong arm of the PAD with the highest level of backing.

His cabinet of self serving corrupt greed crazed clowns are the problem and their demise is the solution.

The world has come to know that Thailand is not a 'real' democracy no matter how well the effort is to conceal the fact.

LET THE RED RALLY ROLL!!

You know, if you substituted the names Thaksin, Samak, or Somchai, for Abhisit, you would be even more right .

[offissa]

We have had many posters here try to compare how Abhisit came to be PM

with how Gordon Brown and others did in UK...

It's an odd comparison since the decision of the Labour Party to change its leader was purely their own business, didn't involve a change of Government and was of no particular constitutional significance. To the best of my knowledge they had a perfect right to do so at any time for any reason without consulting anyone.

[whybother]

We have had many posters here try to compare how Abhisit came to be PM

with how Gordon Brown and others did in UK...

It's an odd comparison since the decision of the Labour Party to change its leader was purely their own business, didn't involve a change of Government and was of no particular constitutional significance. To the best of my knowledge they had a perfect right to do so at any time for any reason without consulting anyone.

Brown was NOT "the PM that the people had voted for". But that doesn't make any difference. The people don't vote for PM, they vote for MPs, and then the MPs vote for PM.

Changing PM still involves the MPs voting. It could have been possible that a bunch of Labour MPs did not like the idea of Brown being PM and therefore siding with the other side. More possible if it had been a bunch of MPs from a smaller coalition party.