PM Abhisit Announces Next Election Will Be Held On Nov 14

[pornsasi]

veering into things we cannot discuss - but is a large part of all this - if only Thailand trusted it's people and allowed them to SPEAK instead of the draconian censorship laws.

Understand what you try to say . But that is a bit unrelated insofar as the method of election of a PM does not mean the PM is the head of state . In Israel they have a president the head of state , largely ceremonial post , even when the PM was directly elected by the people .

[ChiangMaiFun]

veering into things we cannot discuss - but is a large part of all this - if only Thailand trusted it's people and allowed them to SPEAK instead of the draconian censorship laws.

Understand what you try to say . But that is a bit unrelated insofar as the method of election of a PM does not mean the PM is the head of state . In Israel they have a president the head of state , largely ceremonial post , even when the PM was directly elected by the people .

Difficult one this... I can see that it's impractical for the 'people' to elect the PM - what get's on my nerves is all the rats jumping into different ships and helping others get into power - all because of sincerely held beliefs I'm sure!

[Thai at Heart]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Even in the United States, the President is not elected by a direct popular vote. Each person votes for an elector from his/her district. These people form the electoral college. A snippet from the America.gov website:

"More than 100 million voters are likely to cast ballots in nationwide U.S. elections November 4 (2008). But only 538 men and women will elect the next president of the United States, and those elections will take place in 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C., December 15. This indirect election system, called the Electoral College and devised in 1787 by the framers of the Constitution, puzzles Americans and non-Americans alike. It reflects the federal governing system of allocating powers not only to a national government and to the people but also to the states."

So, even in that bastion of democracy where one man, one vote is the rallying cry - it's only the 538 people who comprise the Electoral College who vote directly for the President. And each one can make a vote of conscience different from the ballot that its constituents have voted for. Even if each elector votes the way his constituency wants, it's still possible to have a President lose the popular vote election yet win the Presidency itself.

As I recall, that's happened four times so far, but I can't be certain of those particular memory cells

What you say is true but in 93% of cases, throughout the entire and tumultuous presidential US history , the vote of the electoral college and the popular vote were the same . Which means that in practice the president is almost always elected by the people of the US .

But an interesting anomaly none the less. So who appoints the electoral college representatives in the states?

Indeed, I never have understood the electoral college system, since it ALWAYS reflects the vote that has been cast in each state.

[TAWP]

Dont strongly disagree unless better informed .

You raise one poorly worded example and then claim that PMs in general are elected directly by the people?

Ok, perhaps you should list the western nations where PMs are approved by the MPs versus elected by the people. And you might get what I am coming to. An exception does not make a rule nor does it invalidate it.

[pornsasi]

veering into things we cannot discuss - but is a large part of all this - if only Thailand trusted it's people and allowed them to SPEAK instead of the draconian censorship laws.

Understand what you try to say . But that is a bit unrelated insofar as the method of election of a PM does not mean the PM is the head of state . In Israel they have a president the head of state , largely ceremonial post , even when the PM was directly elected by the people .

Difficult one this... I can see that it's impractical for the 'people' to elect the PM - what get's on my nerves is all the rats jumping into different ships and helping others get into power - all because of sincerely held beliefs I'm sure!

Precisely . But one should gladly exchange a bit of hassle for some stability . Since democracy exist in Thailand only Mr T has been abble to complete a full (4 years only) terms , in 50 years !!!! . Does that not tell you that something is not working . How do you expect a good PM to do his job if his own post is constantly under threat ?

[ChiangMaiFun]

veering into things we cannot discuss - but is a large part of all this - if only Thailand trusted it's people and allowed them to SPEAK instead of the draconian censorship laws.

Understand what you try to say . But that is a bit unrelated insofar as the method of election of a PM does not mean the PM is the head of state . In Israel they have a president the head of state , largely ceremonial post , even when the PM was directly elected by the people .

Difficult one this... I can see that it's impractical for the 'people' to elect the PM - what get's on my nerves is all the rats jumping into different ships and helping others get into power - all because of sincerely held beliefs I'm sure!

Precisely . But one should gladly exchange a bit of hassle for some stability . Since democracy exist in Thailand only Mr T has been abble to complete a full (4 years only) terms , in 50 years !!!! . Does that not tell you that something is not working . How do you expect a good PM to do his job if his own post is constantly under threat ?

I don't disagree! for a start the Military and 'other' influences should stay out of politics

Edited May 5, 2010 by ChiangMaiFun

[Thai at Heart]

Dont strongly disagree unless better informed .

You raise one poorly worded example and then claim that PMs in general are elected directly by the people?

Ok, perhaps you should list the western nations where PMs are approved by the MPs versus elected by the people. And you might get what I am coming to. An exception does not make a rule nor does it invalidate it.

Interesting how many versions there actually are of Prime Ministers. Is this technically true about Thailand however? Wikepedia is normally ok for this type of thing, but would just like to clarify. If it is true, if the point of the constitution was to end up mirroring in some way Italy, no wonder we have a political mess.

These are the others, after the British system was explained.

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

Appointment by the head of state after parliament nominates a candidate: Example: The Republic of Ireland where the President of Ireland appoints the Taoiseach on the nomination of the Dáil Éireann.

The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment as prime minister: Example: Spain, where the King sends a nomination to parliament for approval. Also Germany where under the German Basic Law (constitution) the Bundestag votes on a candidate nominated by the federal president. In these cases, parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the head of state.

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

The head of state appoints the leader of the political party with the majority of the votes in the Parliament as Prime Minister: (Example: Greece)

Direct election by parliament: (Example: Japan, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan.)

Direct election by popular vote: (Example: Israel, 1996–2001, where the prime minister was elected in a general election, with no regard to political affiliation.)

Nomination by a state office holder other than the head of state or his/her representative: (Example: Under the modern Swedish Instrument of Government, the power to appoint someone to form a government has been moved from the monarch to the Speaker of Parliament and the parliament itself. The speaker nominates a candidate, who is then elected to prime minister (statsminister) by the parliament if an absolute majority of the members of parliament does not vote no (i.e. he can be elected even if more MP:s vote no than yes).

[pornsasi]

Dont strongly disagree unless better informed .

You raise one poorly worded example and then claim that PMs in general are elected directly by the people?

Ok, perhaps you should list the western nations where PMs are approved by the MPs versus elected by the people. And you might get what I am coming to. An exception does not make a rule nor does it invalidate it.

Sorry if i offended you , by beeing less then polite .

I never said that the PM is always DIRECTLY elected by the people , in the majority of case he is not .

Nevertheless you got example of the contrary as demonstrated .

Yes the parlementary democracy british style systems works very fine in mature democracy . They dont have corruption problems and

a whole lot of problems that affect Thailand . Thailand is not a mature democracy ... yet

The system works ok in emerging democracies , but mainly when there is a very strong and dominant party (singapore , malaysia) ,

again not the case in Thailand . Problem in Thailand is governement instability that borders the ridicule .

Edited May 5, 2010 by pornsasi

[noahvail]

<snip>

So, even in that bastion of democracy where one man, one vote is the rallying cry - it's only the 538 people who comprise the Electoral College who vote directly for the President. And each one can make a vote of conscience different from the ballot that its constituents have voted for. Even if each elector votes the way his constituency wants, it's still possible to have a President lose the popular vote election yet win the Presidency itself.

As I recall, that's happened four times so far, but I can't be certain of those particular memory cells

What you say is true but in 93% of cases, throughout the entire and tumultuous presidential US history , the vote of the electoral college and the popular vote were the same . Which means that in practice the president is almost always elected by the people of the US .

We are in agreement here.

[pornsasi]

<snip>

So, even in that bastion of democracy where one man, one vote is the rallying cry - it's only the 538 people who comprise the Electoral College who vote directly for the President. And each one can make a vote of conscience different from the ballot that its constituents have voted for. Even if each elector votes the way his constituency wants, it's still possible to have a President lose the popular vote election yet win the Presidency itself.

As I recall, that's happened four times so far, but I can't be certain of those particular memory cells

What you say is true but in 93% of cases, throughout the entire and tumultuous presidential US history , the vote of the electoral college and the popular vote were the same . Which means that in practice the president is almost always elected by the people of the US .

We are in agreement here.

[noahvail]

What you say is true but in 93% of cases, throughout the entire and tumultuous presidential US history , the vote of the electoral college and the popular vote were the same . Which means that in practice the president is almost always elected by the people of the US .

But an interesting anomaly none the less. So who appoints the electoral college representatives in the states?

Indeed, I never have understood the electoral college system, since it ALWAYS reflects the vote that has been cast in each state.

This will either help or will muddy the waters, from the america.gov site:

Who Selects the Electors? The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State.

Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate.

Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

• There are some <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#appointing">restrictions for appointing electors.
  
• Certificates of Ascertainment confirm the names of the appointed electors
  

[pornsasi]

But an interesting anomaly none the less. So who appoints the electoral college representatives in the states?

Indeed, I never have understood the electoral college system, since it ALWAYS reflects the vote that has been cast in each state.

I think you have to ask from a US citizen , which am not . Honestly i dont know the true reason for the electoral

college .

I only guess that there must be a body that controls if the election was done properly according to

the US constitution but that is pure speculation on my part and probably wrong . US Supreme court could do that

Edited May 5, 2010 by pornsasi

[4223rhodes]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Either way, it will be nice to have an elected PM rather than one appointed by the unelected.

[whybother]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Either way, it will be nice to have an elected PM rather than one appointed by the unelected.

Abhisit was elected to PM by elected MPs.

The only reason it wasn't a PTP MP that was elected, is because Newin's group decided not support them as they had done before.

[pornsasi]

I don't disagree! for a start the Military and 'other' influences should stay out of politics

The problem i suppose is a lack of powerful system of check and balance in Thailand .

How do you make sure that the PM does not abuse his power ?

That points once again to corruption

How long do you think a corrupt PM , or one that orders extrajudiciary killings

would last in a western democracy ? Not very long . He would be kicked out in no time

by the courts (supreme court say in USA )

In Thailand they have an answer for that , and its the army . But I 100% agree

with you that the army should not get involved in politics

Edited May 5, 2010 by pornsasi

[4223rhodes]

Another reason why the PM should be elected by the thai people rather then by a fleety coalition of conflicting and changing interests .

Within the constitutional monarchy and under the supreme authority of HM that is ...

I strongly disagree. A president is elected by the people, a PM is elected by the MPs that are elected by the people. That is how it is done in most countries.

Either way, it will be nice to have an elected PM rather than one appointed by the unelected.

Abhisit was elected to PM by elected MPs.

The only reason it wasn't a PTP MP that was elected, is because Newin's group decided not support them as they had done before.

The PTP MP was elected, but an unelected elite decided that a minor performance in a cooking show was a threat to all that is sacred in Thailand. It is quite comical to defend these appointed bodies.

[whybother]

Abhisit was elected to PM by elected MPs.

The only reason it wasn't a PTP MP that was elected, is because Newin's group decided not support them as they had done before.

The PTP MP was elected, but an unelected elite decided that a minor performance in a cooking show was a threat to all that is sacred in Thailand. It is quite comical to defend these appointed bodies.

A PPP MP was elected after the election (which they didn't "win"), with the help of coalition parties. A judge decided to apply the law that the PM shouldn't have a second job.

A PPP MP was elected again, with the help of coalition parties. A judge decided that the executive of the PPP should be banned for electoral fraud.

The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government with a care-taker PM, and could have called elections, but decided to go to a vote for PM again. This time their coalition parties decided that the PTP were incompentent and did not support them.

The vote for PM (called by the PTP) resulted in Abhisit being elected.

[rabo]

I don't disagree! for a start the Military and 'other' influences should stay out of politics

The problem i suppose is a lack of powerful system of check and balance in Thailand .

How do you make sure that the PM does not abuse his power ?

That points once again to corruption

How long do you think a corrupt PM , or one that orders extrajudiciary killings

would last in a western democracy ? Not very long . He would be kicked out in no time

by the courts (supreme court say in USA )

In Thailand they have an answer for that , and its the army . But I 100% agree

with you that the army should not get involved in politics

This then begs the question, under the rules of the constitutional monarchy, what is the official role of the military? I had always assumed that protection of the monarchy, who is the head of state, would be one such responsibility, though I don't know for sure.

[pornsasi]

This then begs the question, under the rules of the constitutional monarchy, what is the official role of the military? I had always assumed that protection of the monarchy, who is the head of state, would be one such responsibility, though I don't know for sure.

I know that yes they must defend the monarchy as HM are their commander in chief .

I know that they are also in charge of defending the country against external agressor

the classic role for any military but i cant remember of them beeing used ever in this role .

Rest not too sure

[TAWP]

The PTP MP was elected, but an unelected elite decided that a minor performance in a cooking show was a threat to all that is sacred in Thailand. It is quite comical to defend these appointed bodies.

Samak's cooking show screw-up (lieing to courts are bad, mkay) had nothing to do with the Thaksin-agenda losing ruling-power.

[TAWP]

This then begs the question, under the rules of the constitutional monarchy, what is the official role of the military? I had always assumed that protection of the monarchy, who is the head of state, would be one such responsibility, though I don't know for sure.

I know that yes they must defend the monarchy as HM are their commander in chief .

I know that they are also in charge of defending the country against external agressor

the classic role for any military but i cant remember of them beeing used ever in this role .

Rest not too sure

In some countries the military is sworn to defend the nation against any enemies, both 'foreign and domestic'.

[Deeral]

one good upshot of this crisis is that some of the expats reading this thread might begin to learn something of how a normal democracy works - some of the replies on this thread are not even approaching secondary school level....certainly not good enough for GCSE "O"s - year 9 or 10 I'd guess.

[pornsasi]

In some countries the military is sworn to defend the nation against any enemies, both 'foreign and domestic'.

Most countries actually are that way . But usually rules are very strict as to the use of the army

against domestic enemies . Armed insurrection , high treason to agents of foreign power , terrorism ,

, assasination of elected representatives or related plots , comes to mind

Edited May 5, 2010 by pornsasi

[Thai at Heart]

So please, is this correct:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

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

Is this an accurate description of the way in which a PM is officially appointed in Thailand? I would prefer yes or no answers since no one deserves to get into trouble debating such a question.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[Chaimai]

The PTP MP was elected, but an unelected elite decided that a minor performance in a cooking show was a threat to all that is sacred in Thailand. It is quite comical to defend these appointed bodies.

So Samak didn't break any rules - is that what you are saying ?

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

[jdinasia]

So please, is this correct:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

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

Is this an accurate description of the way in which a PM is officially appointed in Thailand? I would prefer yes or no answers since no one deserves to get into trouble debating such a question.

Is "THIS" an accurate description -- THIS is an artcle that describes all Prime Ministers in the world (roughly). The answer to "Is where Thailand is mentioned in this article accurate?" then the answer is "no"

[Deeral]

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

[jdinasia]

The PTP MP was elected, but an unelected elite decided that a minor performance in a cooking show was a threat to all that is sacred in Thailand. It is quite comical to defend these appointed bodies.

So Samak didn't break any rules - is that what you are saying ?

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

It wasn't an unelected elite that removed Samak as PM. It was the constitutional court. Samak could have gone back and been PM again even after lieing under oath. Poor Samak though just no longer had Thaksin's support.

Somchai was an executive of a political party that was convicted of electoral fraud. Video evidence showed a party executive paying off people. PPP could have called new elections even one day before they were disbanded but apparently they didn't think that their coalition government was as weak as it is.

[jackspratt]

This then begs the question, under the rules of the constitutional monarchy, what is the official role of the military? I had always assumed that protection of the monarchy, who is the head of state, would be one such responsibility, though I don't know for sure.

I would speculate that the current position vis a vis the army and the palace suits both parties' interests. Perhaps this is an area that is worthy of further debate as (hopefully) Thailand grows up politically.

[jackspratt]

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

North or South Pole?