Thai Poll Sees Major Parties In Tight Election Finish

[webfact]

Poll sees major parties in tight election finish

By The Nation

Abac Poll has predicted a close battle between the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties in the upcoming election.

In results of a nationwide survey released yesterday, pollster Noppadon Kannikar said the Democrats would win the South and Central regions, while the main opposition party was poised to win in Bangkok and the Northeast.

"The balloting outcome could swing either way because a large number of people are still undecided," Noppadon said.

The survey was conducted among 5,212 respondents in 17 provinces selected to represent a national sample between March 25 and April 2.

In terms of overall popularity, the Democrats enjoyed a slight lead of 26.4 per cent in comparison to Pheu Thai's 25.5 per cent.

Statistically speaking, the lead was too minimal to predict a winning party, the pollster said.

About one in three people were undecided. These people were considering whether to vote for an alternative party instead of throwing their support to either of the two major parties.

The proportion of votes from male and female voters would be about the same for the two parties.

The Democrats would have the lead on votes from civil servants and businessmen. Workers and farmers were also equally split on the two parties.

People in the upper income bracket appeared to be leaning towards the Democrats while those in the lower income group would vote for Pheu Thai.

About seven in 10 people from the South remained loyal to the Democrats.

Some three in 10 people from Bangkok said they would vote for Pheu Thai. The Democrats' popularity in the capital trailed behind the main opposition party by almost 10 per cent.

In the North, the Democrats were behind Pheu Thai by about five per cent but enjoyed the lead in the Central region by more than six per cent.

In the Northeast, Pheu Thai was leading by a wide margin of about 33 per cent to the Democrats' 16 per cent.

Reacting to the survey, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said the main opposition party needed to be judged by an actual voting outcome instead of a pollster.

Suthep said he was confident the Democrats would win and form the next coalition government.

"I will not rush to judge anything because the people will have the final say," he said, commenting on a new party led by Purachai Piumsombun, a possible dark horse candidate for the premiership.

Democrat MP Sathit Pitudecha said his party had finished about 80 per cent of the work on drawing up a list of electoral candidates.

Sathit called for Pheu Thai to reason with its red-shirt movement to stop rallying at key locations like Ratchaprasong Intersection during the campaign.

The red shirts should also pledge not to interfere with the campaigning of rival candidates, he said.

People's Alliance for Democracy spokesman Panthep Pourpongpan said the yellow shirts would continue campaigning for "no votes," and for political reforms.

"Voting for a given party is not an answer but the people must form a consensus to launch political reforms," he said.

Panthep said the poll would be just a way for politicians to grab and cling to power for the sake of partisan rather than national interests.

He said the country should suspend the election in order to bring about genuine changes in the political landscape.

If more than 50 per cent of voters cast a blank ballot, then the next government could not claim to represent a majority and must heed the demand for reforms, he said.

-- The Nation 2011-04-04

[animatic]

So the Dems have whittled down the PTP former lead, but neither is clearly a 50% er yet. But all those undecideds are both the wild card and the watering down factor. Will the go strictly ny what their regional power brokers say to do or are the truly free voters? I really think a run off between the 2 biggest vote getters nationally is the most fair way to install a government. It insures 50% governance by popular choice. But many don't trust that and prefer to horse trade a majority.

It does say something about the PTP that they are too scared to name their candidate for PM too early because they can then be criticized. It says even more about PTP that it comes down to only Thaksin's dictate on who is their PM candidate.

Of course using ONLY 5,000 polled persons is an easily manipulatable poll and by doing it in a selected location and selected sets of questions it can easily be skewed into meaninglessness as Suthep is rightly pointing up.

Edited April 4, 2011 by animatic

[Phuket Stan]

"In results of a nationwide survey released yesterday, pollster Noppadon Kannikar said the Democrats would win the South and Central regions, while the main opposition party was poised to win in Bangkok and the Northeast."

"Some three in 10 people from Bangkok said they would vote for Pheu Thai. The Democrats' popularity in the capital trailed behind the main opposition party by almost 10 per cent."

Cant quite get to grips on this poll ... 30 % of people in Bangkok will vote Pheu Thai....and the Democrats are 10% behind them

Where r the rest of the votes going ???

I always thought the Dems were much more popular in Bangkok and recent local and national elections have proved this..I dont think the Dems have p....d off the Bkk voters that much

Some enlightment how to read this poll would help

Edited April 4, 2011 by Phuket Stan

[ChiangMaiFun]

heading for another split - personally i hate all this horse trading as it leads to such discontent

[whybother]

Just remember, being the largest party does not give them the right to be in government (unless they get more than 50% of the MPs, which is very unlikely for any party in the next election).

It just gives them the right to have first go at forming a coalition government.

If they can't form government, then it falls to the next biggest party to try and form a coalition government.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Just remember, being the largest party does not give them the right to be in government (unless they get more than 50% of the MPs, which is very unlikely for any party in the next election).

It just gives them the right to have first go at forming a coalition government.

If they can't form government, then it falls to the next biggest party to try and form a coalition government.

coalitions just lead to watering down of policy and introducing people to positions they do not deserve just to get POWER and the country teeters on with enormous energy spent on horse trading and switching sides and all that instead of serving the people who need them most - the poor, downtrodden and uneducated mostly.

[KKvampire]

Democratic Party is stronger in Bangkok .FACT. Of course the Poo Thai financial backer will be pumping millions baht in their campaign which wont be declared in the party's election accounts. The favours promised and given along with the Baht handovers will flood across the cities.

Edited April 4, 2011 by KKvampire

[ChiangMaiFun]

Democratic Party is stronger in Bangkok .FACT. Of course the Poo Thai financial backer will be pumping millions baht in their campaign which wont be declared in the party's election accounts. The favours promised and given along with the Baht handovers will flood across the cities.

same all parties - just read up on the land dealings of the DPM! I can't see a true, good man amongst them all

[tigermonkey]

Democratic Party is stronger in Bangkok .FACT. Of course the Poo Thai financial backer will be pumping millions baht in their campaign which wont be declared in the party's election accounts. The favours promised and given along with the Baht handovers will flood across the cities.

I dont know how soon " the Baht handovers will flood across the cities", but it has already begun here in our village, and I imagine the same is happening in many other villages across Thailand. Yesterday ( Sunday) the Democrats took over the meeting hall in our village in Tambon Ban Hong, Lamphun, complete with loud music and many speeches. There were free shirts for those who attended ( some yellow,. some pink and some blue) and 150 Baht for each who attended to listen.

In the speeches, they promised money to be given for any who would find it to be a financial hardship to go and vote -- but not "vote buying " -- clever. More money was promised for those who brought others to vote.

About 80 attended but many left with the free shirt, and about 50 stayed for the speeches -- these were amost exclusively women.

[hammered]

Before the last election every poll except for the army one was fairly to very inaccurate.

[animatic]

Before the last election every poll except for the army one was fairly to very inaccurate.

Exactly.

And polls can be purchased, and then disseminated, to make what ever preconceived idea you want come out on top.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Before the last election every poll except for the army one was fairly to very inaccurate.

Exactly.

And polls can be purchased, and then disseminated, to make what ever preconceived idea you want come out on top.

I seriously doubt (unfortunately) that any but the Dems will win Bangkok and the South - I think there really will be a split North/South - but I do think we should support whoever wins if it can be shown that it was, generally, clean.

[whybother]

I seriously doubt (unfortunately) that any but the Dems will win Bangkok and the South - I think there really will be a split North/South - but I do think we should support whoever wins if it can be shown that it was, generally, clean.

I doubt the red shirts will accept a Democrat led government, especially if PTP win the most seats.

The PAD won't accept anything, and will continue protesting regardless of what happens. They will get more than 100 people protesting with them if a PTP led government start changing the constitution or other laws to get Thaksin off his jail sentence and other outstanding charges.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I seriously doubt (unfortunately) that any but the Dems will win Bangkok and the South - I think there really will be a split North/South - but I do think we should support whoever wins if it can be shown that it was, generally, clean.

I doubt the red shirts will accept a Democrat led government, especially if PTP win the most seats.

The PAD won't accept anything, and will continue protesting regardless of what happens. They will get more than 100 people protesting with them if a PTP led government start changing the constitution or other laws to get Thaksin off his jail sentence and other outstanding charges.

well I do have some sympathy with them - if they win the most seats they should lead the government (and yes I do understand the concept of other parties 'selling their souls' to get power)

[Oberkommando]

I predict a comfortable PT win.

[whybother]

well I do have some sympathy with them - if they win the most seats they should lead the government (and yes I do understand the concept of other parties 'selling their souls' to get power)

If the party with the most seats doesn't get a majority, that means a majority of voters don't want them in government (which currently applies to all parties in Thailand). If their are a majority of MPs willing to get together to form government, then it's irrelevant which party gets the most seats.

[whybother]

I predict a comfortable PT win.

Majority or just most seats?

[Oberkommando]

I predict a comfortable PT win.

Majority or just most seats?

Probably just the most seats given the state of the affairs at the moment. Wouldn't a majority be nice though?

[whybother]

I predict a comfortable PT win.

Majority or just most seats?

Probably just the most seats given the state of the affairs at the moment. Wouldn't a majority be nice though?

I wouldn't say nice, but it would certainly settle a few arguments. Actually, what ever the result of the election it's going to settle some arguments. Only some though.

[ChiangMaiFun]

well I do have some sympathy with them - if they win the most seats they should lead the government (and yes I do understand the concept of other parties 'selling their souls' to get power)

If the party with the most seats doesn't get a majority, that means a majority of voters don't want them in government (which currently applies to all parties in Thailand). If their are a majority of MPs willing to get together to form government, then it's irrelevant which party gets the most seats.

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

[whybother]

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

[Buchholz]

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

The Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader Plodprasop Suraswadi would disagree with you. In an article in today's other paper, he insisted that ONLY the party with the highest number of MP's should be able to form the government.

[ChiangMaiFun]

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

but its not true is it? the voters voted for different policies and for different parties not for a mish-mash who give up their policies to get power over a party who won MORE seats than the others individually.

[whybother]

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

but its not true is it? the voters voted for different policies and for different parties not for a mish-mash who give up their policies to get power over a party who won MORE seats than the others individually.

And the majority would have decided that their policies are close enough to be able to work together, or at least, there is enough compromise for them to work together.

That's what has happened in Aus and the UK. In Canada, they have been forming minority governments, but that hasn't been too successful.

edit: actually, in Aus there has been a long term coalition that has been in and out of federal and state government. They have different policies, and often compete against each other in elections. But they have decided that the only way they can get into government over the (often) largest party is by coalition.

edit 2: and where do you draw the line? what if the largest party got only 25%?

Edited April 5, 2011 by whybother

[whybother]

The Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader Plodprasop Suraswadi would disagree with you. In an article in today's other paper, he insisted that ONLY the party with the highest number of MP's should be able to form the government.

That's why they will continue protesting after the election when they are not in government.

It's not about biggest, it's about majority.

[ChiangMaiFun]

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

but its not true is it? the voters voted for different policies and for different parties not for a mish-mash who give up their policies to get power over a party who won MORE seats than the others individually.

And the majority would have decided that their policies are close enough to be able to work together, or at least, there is enough compromise for them to work together.

That's what has happened in Aus and the UK. In Canada, they have been forming minority governments, but that hasn't been too successful.

edit: actually, in Aus there has been a long term coalition that has been in and out of federal and state government. They have different policies, and often compete against each other in elections. But they have decided that the only way they can get into government over the (often) largest party is by coalition.

it hasn't happened in the UK at all - what happened is the small Lib Dems sold out - first time it happened in decades and it's a disgrace which will send the Lib Dems into obscurity for selling out their values for 'power' - and to the hated enemy the Tories!!! they will never be forgiven.

and in Aus we have 3 'obscure' MP's deciding the fate of the nation and giving long, long TV addresses to get their fame? it's not what I call democracy (though legal I grant you).

in Thailand? the majority vote for the party they want? and the smaller parties 'sell out' and 'fall in love' to get positions and form a coalition? and you expect those who voted and won the largest majority are going to be happy? come on...

[ChiangMaiFun]

The Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader Plodprasop Suraswadi would disagree with you. In an article in today's other paper, he insisted that ONLY the party with the highest number of MP's should be able to form the government.

That's why they will continue protesting after the election when they are not in government.

It's not about biggest, it's about majority.

but the PT leader is RIGHT 100% - surely you can see that?

[whybother]

it hasn't happened in the UK at all - what happened is the small Lib Dems sold out - first time it happened in decades and it's a disgrace which will send the Lib Dems into obscurity for selling out their values for 'power' - and to the hated enemy the Tories!!! they will never be forgiven.

and in Aus we have 3 'obscure' MP's deciding the fate of the nation and giving long, long TV addresses to get their fame? it's not what I call democracy (though legal I grant you).

The 3 obscure MPs would have been deciding the fate of the nation which ever way they went.

But what's important is that they decided to support one side rather than another to make a majority. The independents/smaller parties didn't sell out. They got concessions from the bigger party which matched what they wanted for their constituents.

in Thailand? the majority vote for the party they want? and the smaller parties 'sell out' and 'fall in love' to get positions and form a coalition? and you expect those who voted and won the largest majority are going to be happy? come on...

but the PT leader is RIGHT 100% - surely you can see that?

We are not talking about "the largest majority", we are talking about "the largest minority".

Why should a minority decide what is good for a nation?

If the largest (but not majority) party can't get enough support to make a majority, then they shouldn't be in government. Can't you see that?

[phiphidon]

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

The Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader Plodprasop Suraswadi would disagree with you. In an article in today's other paper, he insisted that ONLY the party with the highest number of MP's should be able to form the government.

The Democrats have already thought of a way round this;

(Korbsak Sabhavasu is PM Abhisit Vejjajiva's close aide who has quit his post as the PM's secretary-general to lead the election campaign.)

Asked whether the party with the highest number of MPs should form the next government, Korsak came up with a new twist:

"Yes, that's the legitimate right. But then, it isn't easy. What if we don't consider the number of MPs in the House? What if we count the popular votes? One MP from a certain constituency might have won the seat with only 30,000 or so votes while another mighthave got over 100,000 votes? Therefore, the number of MPs voted in from constituencies may not be the real measure of the people's wishes..."

That's an indication of what the Democrat election strategists are using as their platform for returning to power after the election.

http://suthichaiyoon...ular-votes.html

[canuckamuck]

In Thailand they form a government so they can determine which color of shirts get first run at mass protests and random acts of vandalism/brutality.

Odds are that Yellow will get the nod to go first.