Thai Poll Sees Major Parties In Tight Election Finish

[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.

The Democrats have already thought of a way round this;

...

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

They are both right from a "convincing people we should be the ones in government" point of view.

Korbsak may just be working on getting the party list vote too. The more party list votes they get, the more party list MPs they have. That's one of the reasons they pushed for a 375/125 split.

[ChiangMaiFun]

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?

but it's ok for the even smaller parties with even LESS votes to form the government? you are saying this only because you don't like PT - I am saying it as a matter of principal even if the Dems were in that position and I would uphold that principal even whilst regretting the 'Suthep Party' got in

[whybother]

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.

That's a sure bet. The yellows will be out there regardless of who gets into government.

[whybother]

but it's ok for the even smaller parties with even LESS votes to form the government? you are saying this only because you don't like PT - I am saying it as a matter of principal even if the Dems were in that position and I would uphold that principal even whilst regretting the 'Suthep Party' got in

It's not about smaller parties. It's about the majority of MPs.

Both sides will use smaller parties to try and get a majority. The smaller parties WILL decide who forms government.

You can't have a party that only gets 25% of the vote having a 'god given' right to be in government just because they happen to be the largest party. (that's an example, before anyone says "but the PTP...")

I am saying it as a matter of principal, that the majority of MPs should decide who is in government.

edit: it should really be the majority of votes, but one reason for MPs is local representation.

Edited April 5, 2011 by whybother

[ChiangMaiFun]

but it's ok for the even smaller parties with even LESS votes to form the government? you are saying this only because you don't like PT - I am saying it as a matter of principal even if the Dems were in that position and I would uphold that principal even whilst regretting the 'Suthep Party' got in

It's not about smaller parties. It's about the majority of MPs.

Both sides will use smaller parties to try and get a majority. The smaller parties WILL decide who forms government.

You can't have a party that only gets 25% of the vote having a 'god given' right to be in government just because they happen to be the largest party. (that's an example, before anyone says "but the PTP...")

I am saying it as a matter of principal, that the majority of MPs should decide who is in government.

edit: it should really be the majority of votes, but one reason for MPs is local representation.

but if every other party get's below 25% why not? they won the largest vote - the problem is the 'system' it would be far better if there were 2 or possibly 3 major parties and not all these little parties running around for self-glory - it's not good for Thailand - but as this system is here it should be the largest party but the system is flawed.

[whybother]

but if every other party get's below 25% why not? they won the largest vote - the problem is the 'system' it would be far better if there were 2 or possibly 3 major parties and not all these little parties running around for self-glory - it's not good for Thailand - but as this system is here it should be the largest party but the system is flawed.

The "largest" vote is not what the majority wanted.

The majority didn't want any one particular party, BUT if a majority of MPs get together, then that's what the majority of the people voted for.

It might be better with a 2-party system, but in any large party there are factions - which in a sense are just smaller parties that form a coalition. That's what the TRT/PPP/PTP are - a coalition of smaller parties (factions) working together under one umbrella. I don't know how factional the Democrats are, but you never seem to hear about it.

[Bagwan]

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 operative word is should I wonder if they can in the event of not gaining a majority. Then they will need the blessing of some of the larger other parties to take power or we might watch the farce of an immediate no confidence vote with chaos reigning. I don't think that Thailand or its politicians are mature enough to embrace a two party system.

All this pantomime needs is a leading boy (who, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with pantomimes is a girl), and this being LoS would probably be a katoey.

[ChiangMaiFun]

but if every other party get's below 25% why not? they won the largest vote - the problem is the 'system' it would be far better if there were 2 or possibly 3 major parties and not all these little parties running around for self-glory - it's not good for Thailand - but as this system is here it should be the largest party but the system is flawed.

The "largest" vote is not what the majority wanted.

The majority didn't want any one particular party, BUT if a majority of MPs get together, then that's what the majority of the people voted for.

It might be better with a 2-party system, but in any large party there are factions - which in a sense are just smaller parties that form a coalition. That's what the TRT/PPP/PTP are - a coalition of smaller parties (factions) working together under one umbrella. I don't know how factional the Democrats are, but you never seem to hear about it.

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

[whybother]

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

You are using the wrong term. It isn't the "largest majority", it's the largest minority.

The largest minority wanted X, but a majority got together and decided Y. Do you want a minority to decide what the everyone should do, or do you want the majority to decide?

They might be "self serving coalitions of convenience", but the people have voted for MPs, and MPs have decided that it's serves their interests (whether it's personal or voters, the voters voted for the MP).

And anyway, what is PTP, but a self-serving coalition of convenience?

[ChiangMaiFun]

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

You are using the wrong term. It isn't the "largest majority", it's the largest minority.

The largest minority wanted X, but a majority got together and decided Y. Do you want a minority to decide what the everyone should do, or do you want the majority to decide?

They might be "self serving coalitions of convenience", but the people have voted for MPs, and MPs have decided that it's serves their interests (whether it's personal or voters, the voters voted for the MP).

And anyway, what is PTP, but a self-serving coalition of convenience?

but the majority did not - the MP's did - I guess what you are suggesting is ok IF the MP's told the electorate BEFORE the election - we want your vote for our policies BUT we will jump into bed with Y after you vote us in

[whybother]

but the majority did not - the MP's did - I guess what you are suggesting is ok IF the MP's told the electorate BEFORE the election - we want your vote for our policies BUT we will jump into bed with Y after you vote us in

I am not suggesting anything. You're making an assumption that by joining a coalition, they are not doing what the people that voted for them want. Maybe, to get what they campaigned for, they need to make deals with particular parties. Ofcourse, not everyone will be happy, particularly the losing party. But that's politics.

Certainly, if they campaign for one thing, then do another, then they will get appropriately punished by the electorate at the next election. But if the voters voted for a dishonest MP (yes, they are all dishonest ... they're politicians!), then they have to live with the decisions that they make. How often do we see a party that wins a majority do something different than what they campaigned on.

If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised?

Thailand doesn't have a system where they vote directly for the prime minister, so they have to vote for an MP to do that. The majority of MPs decide who is in government, and since the MP is representing the electorate, the majority of the electorate decide who is government, NOT the minority.

[otherstuff1957]

While there are certainly flaws in the multi-party parliamentary system, there are also some distinct advantages. In the US we have a two party system, which means that third parties - which usually represent minority views - have no political power and are essentially disenfranchised.

In a multi-party system, the smaller parties have much more political leverage, as they are often needed by the bigger parties to make up a coalition government. If there were any ideology based parties in Thailand (I would say that most of the current parties are power based) they would have a much better chance of making their views known in this sort of system.

[ChiangMaiFun]

While there are certainly flaws in the multi-party parliamentary system, there are also some distinct advantages. In the US we have a two party system, which means that third parties - which usually represent minority views - have no political power and are essentially disenfranchised.

In a multi-party system, the smaller parties have much more political leverage, as they are often needed by the bigger parties to make up a coalition government. If there were any ideology based parties in Thailand (I would say that most of the current parties are power based) they would have a much better chance of making their views known in this sort of system.

they just get banned here - or at least some of them - or a coup takes place

[ballpoint]

... If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised? ...

That sums it up admirably. In the next election, if the current coalition parties combined get over 50% of the vote then it is a clear indication of what the majority of the people want, and were the PTP to get 5% or 49% it wouldn't make the slightest difference. As long as none of the current coalition parties actually comes out before the election and says they will group with the PTP then a vote for any of them is a vote against the PTP.

[hammered]

Guys in a parliamentary system the PM is elected by MPs. Whoever gets a majority of MPs backing them becomes PM. It is a representative system. You elect your representative and then they vote how they want. If you dont like it you get to dump them at the next general election.

If a party wins 50%+1 of the MPs they providing the party dont split whihc is not exactly uncommon will govern alone.

If no party wins an overall majority then etiquette dictates, but it doesnt always happen, that the party with most seats gets to try and form a coalition first. If they fail then the second largest party or some other combination gets a chance to try and form a coalition. In most, but not all cases, any coalition will represent more people than any opposition whatever its composition. In fact often in democracies the combined opposition may represent more voters than a single party government with 50%+1 or more of the MPs. Obviosuly the more people a government represents the more democratic it is and the bigger the mandate it has whatever its composition not that it ever stopped governments with huge majorities based on less than 50% of those who voted from doing whatever they wanted.

The problem in Thailand is that polarization excludes the logical steps of coalition formation after election which would allow the buggets party first go and the second biggest a go after if the biggest couldnt achieve a coalition.

Of course in Thailand coalition formation could easily be forced by intimidation by either street action, grenade action, riots, threats or military force, and add into this that this election will be filthy and that all sides will likely be caught doing something seriously wrong and the whole election outcome could be awaiting decisions on all kinds of cheating and intimidation for quite some time after it is finished. That is exactly what the country doesnt need, so lets hope that the divided elites have agreed on the groundrules and stick to them. Government formation after the election should be done without recourse to any form of pressure whether it be street or army.

[ChiangMaiFun]

... If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised? ...

That sums it up admirably. In the next election, if the current coalition parties combined get over 50% of the vote then it is a clear indication of what the majority of the people want, and were the PTP to get 5% or 49% it wouldn't make the slightest difference. As long as none of the current coalition parties actually comes out before the election and says they will group with the PTP then a vote for any of them is a vote against the PTP.

so you believe ANY vote not for the PTP is a vote against them? so let's follow this logic? ANY vote not for the Dems is a vote against them? therefore any coalition is immoral?

[gregb]

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

You are using the wrong term. It isn't the "largest majority", it's the largest minority.

The largest minority wanted X, but a majority got together and decided Y. Do you want a minority to decide what the everyone should do, or do you want the majority to decide?

Don't confuse him with logic whybother. You are destroying his carefully constructed fantasy world.

Just repeat "I love Thaksin" over and over until you also accept that war is peace and freedom is slavery.

[ballpoint]

... If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised? ...

That sums it up admirably. In the next election, if the current coalition parties combined get over 50% of the vote then it is a clear indication of what the majority of the people want, and were the PTP to get 5% or 49% it wouldn't make the slightest difference. As long as none of the current coalition parties actually comes out before the election and says they will group with the PTP then a vote for any of them is a vote against the PTP.

so you believe ANY vote not for the PTP is a vote against them? so let's follow this logic? ANY vote not for the Dems is a vote against them? therefore any coalition is immoral?

I'm sorry, I'll type slower. Those who want the Democrats to get a majority will vote Democrat, those who want the BJT to get a majority will vote BJT, those who want the PTP to get a majority will vote PTP, those who want the CTP... However, based on current alliances, and assuming the BJT doesn't come out before the election and say they will align with the PTP (not that I'd trust them, their fore runner said the same thing about the PPP, but still joined their coalition), it's pretty obvious that a vote for any of the current coalition parties is a vote against the PTP. I will say that, in my opinion, it is the wheeling and dealing, and the need to placate the same old corrupt (mostly) minority parties, that has been the bane of Thai politics, and one of the main reasons for the country being held back. Even when Thaksin thought he'd solved the problem by buying many of them out and incorporating them into the TRT they just formed factions and continued their bickering, money grabbing and demands for ministerial posts. But what's the solution? A run off between the two highest scoring parties may be a possibility, but it's all too easy to see the smaller parties promising the support of their strongholds to either one in return for poltical / financial favours.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ballpoint

[philw]

While there are certainly flaws in the multi-party parliamentary system, there are also some distinct advantages. In the US we have a two party system, which means that third parties - which usually represent minority views - have no political power and are essentially disenfranchised.

In a multi-party system, the smaller parties have much more political leverage, as they are often needed by the bigger parties to make up a coalition government. If there were any ideology based parties in Thailand (I would say that most of the current parties are power based) they would have a much better chance of making their views known in this sort of system.

they just get banned here - or at least some of them - or a coup takes place

Yep, you got in one !!!

Pm for a beer.

phil

[ChiangMaiFun]

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

You are using the wrong term. It isn't the "largest majority", it's the largest minority.

The largest minority wanted X, but a majority got together and decided Y. Do you want a minority to decide what the everyone should do, or do you want the majority to decide?

Don't confuse him with logic whybother. You are destroying his carefully constructed fantasy world.

Just repeat "I love Thaksin" over and over until you also accept that war is peace and freedom is slavery.

haha gave me a chuckle such a limited argument - he doesn't agree with us so he loves Thaksin hahaha surely you can do better than that?

[ChiangMaiFun]

... If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised? ...

That sums it up admirably. In the next election, if the current coalition parties combined get over 50% of the vote then it is a clear indication of what the majority of the people want, and were the PTP to get 5% or 49% it wouldn't make the slightest difference. As long as none of the current coalition parties actually comes out before the election and says they will group with the PTP then a vote for any of them is a vote against the PTP.

so you believe ANY vote not for the PTP is a vote against them? so let's follow this logic? ANY vote not for the Dems is a vote against them? therefore any coalition is immoral?

I'm sorry, I'll type slower. Those who want the Democrats to get a majority will vote Democrat, those who want the BJT to get a majority will vote BJT, those who want the PTP to get a majority will vote PTP, those who want the CTP... However, based on current alliances, and assuming the BJT doesn't come out before the election and say they will align with the PTP (not that I'd trust them, their fore runner said the same thing about the PPP, but still joined their coalition), it's pretty obvious that a vote for any of the current coalition parties is a vote against the PTP. I will say that, in my opinion, it is the wheeling and dealing, and the need to placate the same old corrupt (mostly) minority parties, that has been the bane of Thai politics, and one of the main reasons for the country being held back. Even when Thaksin thought he'd solved the problem by buying many of them out and incorporating them into the TRT they just formed factions and continued their bickering, money grabbing and demands for ministerial posts. But what's the solution? A run off between the two highest scoring parties may be a possibility, but it's all too easy to see the smaller parties promising the support of their strongholds to either one in return for poltical / financial favours.

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

[jdinasia]

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

Yesterday a democrat, and today implying the Thai electorate are stupid "don't think the electorate are smart enough" and "if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have half a chance!"

I do think that much of the electorate are smart enough, I also think that as long as the upcountry power families control super strong political machines that not much will change. I do see Abhisit and Korn both as elements of real social reform but they are stuck with the same issues, entrenched political machines. I do think however, that you may have come around to see the basic equation that PTP=UDD=Thaksin is at its heart a true statement even if you don't want it to be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems impossible that after the hew and cry of "we won" when early elections were offered, that you could see their refusal any other way by now

[whybother]

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

So, because "the electorate are not smart enough", you think the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

You should go and talk to the PAD.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

Yesterday a democrat, and today implying the Thai electorate are stupid "don't think the electorate are smart enough" and "if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have half a chance!"

I do think that much of the electorate are smart enough, I also think that as long as the upcountry power families control super strong political machines that not much will change. I do see Abhisit and Korn both as elements of real social reform but they are stuck with the same issues, entrenched political machines. I do think however, that you may have come around to see the basic equation that PTP=UDD=Thaksin is at its heart a true statement even if you don't want it to be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems impossible that after the hew and cry of "we won" when early elections were offered, that you could see their refusal any other way by now

I am a democrat but that doesn't mean I do not recognize the limitations of democracy in an undeveloped country - unlike you. By the way I never, ever said 'we won' there was never any 'we' about it - I stated the fact that the reds had won - I then went on to say how stupid they were to throw it away by turning it down - but you love to selectively quote and twist and misquote - we all know you by now!

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

So, because "the electorate are not smart enough", you think the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

You should go and talk to the PAD.

the PAD are your buddies not mine - the party with the most seats should form the government

[whybother]

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

So, because "the electorate are not smart enough", you think the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

You should go and talk to the PAD.

the PAD are your buddies not mine - the party with the most seats should form the government

They've never been my buddies. But it seems you are thinking along the same lines as they are, with your "the electorate are not smart enough" comment.

You are saying that a minority should be in government. I always thought democracy was about the majority.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

So, because "the electorate are not smart enough", you think the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

You should go and talk to the PAD.

the PAD are your buddies not mine - the party with the most seats should form the government

They've never been my buddies. But it seems you are thinking along the same lines as they are, with your "the electorate are not smart enough" comment.

You are saying that a minority should be in government. I always thought democracy was about the majority.

I didn't say that - please DO NOT misquote me - READ it again:

the electorate are not smart enough.........................to sit down and think like YOU SUGGEST' cannot be translated into 'the electorate are not smart enough' partially and misquoting is against forum rules - please apologize as I was clearly only referring to an aspect of the electoral system 'i.e selectively voting for parties realizing their affiliations'

[whybother]

They've never been my buddies. But it seems you are thinking along the same lines as they are, with your "the electorate are not smart enough" comment.

You are saying that a minority should be in government. I always thought democracy was about the majority.

I didn't say that - please DO NOT misquote me - READ it again:

the electorate are not smart enough.........................to sit down and think like YOU SUGGEST' cannot be translated into 'the electorate are not smart enough' partially and misquoting is against forum rules - please apologize as I was clearly only referring to an aspect of the electoral system 'i.e selectively voting for parties realizing their affiliations'

The quote was there for everyone to see, and I referred to the comment, I didn't quote it.

It's clear what you said, and you clarified it - the electorate are not smart enough to know who they voting for, they are not smart enough to know who the parties are aligned with.

Which goes along with what the PAD have been saying.

And, the fact that you support "minority rules" matches up with the PAD too.

[ChiangMaiFun]

They've never been my buddies. But it seems you are thinking along the same lines as they are, with your "the electorate are not smart enough" comment.

You are saying that a minority should be in government. I always thought democracy was about the majority.

I didn't say that - please DO NOT misquote me - READ it again:

the electorate are not smart enough.........................to sit down and think like YOU SUGGEST' cannot be translated into 'the electorate are not smart enough' partially and misquoting is against forum rules - please apologize as I was clearly only referring to an aspect of the electoral system 'i.e selectively voting for parties realizing their affiliations'

The quote was there for everyone to see, and I referred to the comment, I didn't quote it.

It's clear what you said, and you clarified it - the electorate are not smart enough to know who they voting for, they are not smart enough to know who the parties are aligned with.

Which goes along with what the PAD have been saying.

And, the fact that you support "minority rules" matches up with the PAD too.

you know very well that you took this out of context and I was referring to one thing only - the ability to determine that voting for a smaller party was tactical voting . You clearly are not an honourable person and a troll

[whybother]

you know very well that you took this out of context and I was referring to one thing only - the ability to determine that voting for a smaller party was tactical voting . You clearly are not an honourable person and a troll

Not at all.

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP

You don't think that the electorate are smart enough to know how the parties are aligned, even though it's clear that particular parties are in the government coalition and particular parties are in opposition.

If the PTP field candidates in all electorates, then a vote for a current government coalition party is a vote against the PTP. But you don't think the electorate are smart enough to know that.