Thai Poll Sees Major Parties In Tight Election Finish

[ChiangMaiFun]

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.

Yes I don't think the Thais I know, or their friends, are very interested in politics and will sit down and think about tactical voting - they are not politically smart enough - but you twisted this into 'the electorate are not smart enough' in a general context - which is not what I said and you know it very well and so it's a flame - anyway get back to the topic and leave the flaming please

[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.

Yes I don't think the Thais I know, or their friends, are very interested in politics and will sit down and think about tactical voting - they are not politically smart enough - but you twisted this into 'the electorate are not smart enough' in a general context - which is not what I said and you know it very well and so it's a flame - anyway get back to the topic and leave the flaming please

I'm sorry that I twisted "I don't think the electorate" into a general statement, when it's so obvious that you really meant "I don't think a small selection of Thai people".

Flaming?? Commenting on what you posted is flaming???

Anyway, back on topic ... It's going to be a tight election finish, and some people think that the minority should rule.

[animatic]

'ChiangMaiFun timestamp='1302018164' post='4337611'

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'

"I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest"

Funny but I had the same thought as whybother yesterday,

but said why bother and didn't post on it. Yes you sounded JUST like PAD logic there. Sorry dude caught with your own words.

The PAD logic is; the public is not smart enough to avoid being controlled by the dishonest politicians that control their areas, and so other means of governance is needed. You bemoan the same point, but don't provide any solution, good or bad. They postulated a bad solution, but at least threw out ideas for a cure. Brainstorming ideas and lambasted ever since.

Well Daw Ang San Sukyi is not controlling anything and Abhisit is doing more to clean up Thailand than she has succeeded to do in Burma, sad to say. He takes the practical work within the system and she has to be an icon and has no ability beyond that to change anything. But even she has started to come closer to working within, since without hasn't done squat.

Edited April 6, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

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.

A vote for any party but PTP is a vote against PTP,

and against the other parties not voted for also.

[ChiangMaiFun]

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.

A vote for any party but PTP is a vote against PTP,

and against the other parties not voted for also.

not very Observant... Observant Member

[h90]

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.

undecided means "not received any payment yet".

years ago someone argued: "in Thailand it does not matter which party is in power, all do the same sh*t, so he votes for who, who gives him more money".

At that time I was shocked, but now after seeing many governments I start to understand......

[animatic]

A vote for any party but PTP is a vote against PTP,

and against the other parties not voted for also.

not very Observant... Observant Member

Not at all sure how you conclude this.

If you are voting for anyone, you are voting against all others.

It's avery simple concept.

[ballpoint]

Let me assure you that in this part of Buri Ram the Thais I have contact with, which is more than a few, both rural and urban, see the election simply as voting for Thaksin or voting for Newin. They know that, as things now stand, a vote for Newin is effectively a vote for the current coalition. What they won't be expecting is voting for Newin only to see him realign with Thaksin. While I honestly don't believe that too many would be greatly upset by that eventuality, other than a few joining the PAD protest that would be sure to erupt - the CTP's back tracking and alliance with the PPP showed that to be the case, I do believe that there are some who believe that a "Thaksin / Newin" alliance will not happen, and considering the chances of the Democrats winning in Buri Ram to be negligible, clearly see that any vote for them here is effectively a vote for Thaksin, as it removes one from Newin. Let me also assure you that Newin is well aware of that, and is already using it to effectively tell the voters "me or Thaksin, no one else counts here". The Thai electorate may or may not be simple, but those controlling them are not.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ballpoint

[hammered]

Let me assure you that in this part of Buri Ram the Thais I have contact with, which is more than a few, both rural and urban, see the election simply as voting for Thaksin or voting for Newin. They know that, as things now stand, a vote for Newin is effectively a vote for the current coalition. What they won't be expecting is voting for Newin only to see him realign with Thaksin. While I honestly don't believe that too many would be greatly upset by that eventuality, other than a few joining the PAD protest that would be sure to erupt - the CTP's back tracking and alliance with the PPP showed that to be the case, I do believe that there are some who believe that a "Thaksin / Newin" alliance will not happen, and considering the chances of the Democrats winning in Buri Ram to be negligible, clearly see that any vote for them here is effectively a vote for Thaksin, as it removes one from Newin. Let me also assure you that Newin is well aware of that, and is already using it to effectively tell the voters "me or Thaksin, no one else counts here". The Thai electorate may or may not be simple, but those controlling them are not.

Even most analysts get caught in the Dems versus PTP meme when in fact they are going head to head in very few constituencies. It is BJT versus PTP in the areas that count.

Unless a party wins 50% + 1 it is irrelevent who gets the most seats etc. All that counts is who can cobble together a coalition. To talk of a party winning if they fail to get 50% + 1 or better is just obsessing on win or lose. Failure to reach the magic mark means nobody has a mandate andso those who can agree on something get to govern. This is not unique to Thailand. Parliamentary democracy is about a mahjority of reopresentatives controlling givernment through parliament. Have the election and then see who can get a coalition together without interference by street nutters with shooters or military hardmen. Let parliamentary democracy work. If the people want a one party government they will vote one in, if they dont it will be coalition by agreement between MPs. There are and alwayshave been largest parties in opposition. Until recently it happened after Ukrainian election. Israel is another place. Thailand is not the only country that has also seen MPs defect and cross to another side. Italy sees Burlusconi in trouble over this right now. The ultimate thing is if the voters dont like what their reps do they can vote them out but after the election the reps can use their own judgement to do what they think is best for the country. The upcoming Thaila election gives the people to roundly reject the way the current government were out together by electing a majority PTP government. Lets seeif that is what the people want or whetherwe are going to get anothetr hung parliament with no mandate for any party and clear division within the country

[ChiangMaiFun]

Let me assure you that in this part of Buri Ram the Thais I have contact with, which is more than a few, both rural and urban, see the election simply as voting for Thaksin or voting for Newin. They know that, as things now stand, a vote for Newin is effectively a vote for the current coalition. What they won't be expecting is voting for Newin only to see him realign with Thaksin. While I honestly don't believe that too many would be greatly upset by that eventuality, other than a few joining the PAD protest that would be sure to erupt - the CTP's back tracking and alliance with the PPP showed that to be the case, I do believe that there are some who believe that a "Thaksin / Newin" alliance will not happen, and considering the chances of the Democrats winning in Buri Ram to be negligible, clearly see that any vote for them here is effectively a vote for Thaksin, as it removes one from Newin. Let me also assure you that Newin is well aware of that, and is already using it to effectively tell the voters "me or Thaksin, no one else counts here". The Thai electorate may or may not be simple, but those controlling them are not.

Even most analysts get caught in the Dems versus PTP meme when in fact they are going head to head in very few constituencies. It is BJT versus PTP in the areas that count.

Unless a party wins 50% + 1 it is irrelevent who gets the most seats etc. All that counts is who can cobble together a coalition. To talk of a party winning if they fail to get 50% + 1 or better is just obsessing on win or lose. Failure to reach the magic mark means nobody has a mandate andso those who can agree on something get to govern. This is not unique to Thailand. Parliamentary democracy is about a mahjority of reopresentatives controlling givernment through parliament. Have the election and then see who can get a coalition together without interference by street nutters with shooters or military hardmen. Let parliamentary democracy work. If the people want a one party government they will vote one in, if they dont it will be coalition by agreement between MPs. There are and alwayshave been largest parties in opposition. Until recently it happened after Ukrainian election. Israel is another place. Thailand is not the only country that has also seen MPs defect and cross to another side. Italy sees Burlusconi in trouble over this right now. The ultimate thing is if the voters dont like what their reps do they can vote them out but after the election the reps can use their own judgement to do what they think is best for the country. The upcoming Thaila election gives the people to roundly reject the way the current government were out together by electing a majority PTP government. Lets seeif that is what the people want or whetherwe are going to get anothetr hung parliament with no mandate for any party and clear division within the country

but the problem is all the other small parties will side with dems and their cohorts - hardly seems fair to me (or to millions of Thais)

[animatic]

All areas count, not just those with large, close, party clashes

[hammered]

Let me assure you that in this part of Buri Ram the Thais I have contact with, which is more than a few, both rural and urban, see the election simply as voting for Thaksin or voting for Newin. They know that, as things now stand, a vote for Newin is effectively a vote for the current coalition. What they won't be expecting is voting for Newin only to see him realign with Thaksin. While I honestly don't believe that too many would be greatly upset by that eventuality, other than a few joining the PAD protest that would be sure to erupt - the CTP's back tracking and alliance with the PPP showed that to be the case, I do believe that there are some who believe that a "Thaksin / Newin" alliance will not happen, and considering the chances of the Democrats winning in Buri Ram to be negligible, clearly see that any vote for them here is effectively a vote for Thaksin, as it removes one from Newin. Let me also assure you that Newin is well aware of that, and is already using it to effectively tell the voters "me or Thaksin, no one else counts here". The Thai electorate may or may not be simple, but those controlling them are not.

Even most analysts get caught in the Dems versus PTP meme when in fact they are going head to head in very few constituencies. It is BJT versus PTP in the areas that count.

Unless a party wins 50% + 1 it is irrelevent who gets the most seats etc. All that counts is who can cobble together a coalition. To talk of a party winning if they fail to get 50% + 1 or better is just obsessing on win or lose. Failure to reach the magic mark means nobody has a mandate andso those who can agree on something get to govern. This is not unique to Thailand. Parliamentary democracy is about a mahjority of reopresentatives controlling givernment through parliament. Have the election and then see who can get a coalition together without interference by street nutters with shooters or military hardmen. Let parliamentary democracy work. If the people want a one party government they will vote one in, if they dont it will be coalition by agreement between MPs. There are and alwayshave been largest parties in opposition. Until recently it happened after Ukrainian election. Israel is another place. Thailand is not the only country that has also seen MPs defect and cross to another side. Italy sees Burlusconi in trouble over this right now. The ultimate thing is if the voters dont like what their reps do they can vote them out but after the election the reps can use their own judgement to do what they think is best for the country. The upcoming Thaila election gives the people to roundly reject the way the current government were out together by electing a majority PTP government. Lets seeif that is what the people want or whetherwe are going to get anothetr hung parliament with no mandate for any party and clear division within the country

but the problem is all the other small parties will side with dems and their cohorts - hardly seems fair to me (or to millions of Thais)

We dont actually know that. However, if it is true then the millions can reject that by giving a majority to PTP. If they dont get a majority, and to do so doesnt even need 50% of the votes, then they have no mandate to govern and it goes to parliament to decide after the people have spoken.

[ballpoint]

but the problem is all the other small parties will side with dems and their cohorts - hardly seems fair to me (or to millions of Thais)

If people are going to make that assumption, and they want the PTP in power, then they will just have to vote for the PTP and not one of the cohorts. Nothing unfair about that. Conversely, if they make that assumption and don't want the PTP in power, then they will vote for any party other than the PTP. The more politically savvy will weigh up the chances of the smaller parties taking votes from one another, to the benefit of the PTP, and vote (or, this being Thailand, instruct, order or pay others to vote) accordingly.

Coalition politics is alive and well in many Western countries too. In Australia the Liberal and National parties are joined in all but name. National party supporters must weigh up the chance of getting more seats in the coalition against splitting the vote and handing the seat to Labour. Of course, they can always hedge their bets and vote Liberal for the constituency and National for the party list. Very similar to how Thai politics (should) work. Imagine the outcry in Australia if the National party were to side with Labour, simply because it (Labour) got the single largest number of seats out of the three - but still not an absolute majority? (Yes, I'm ignoring the Greens, other small parties and independants). Is it unfair to millions of Australians that they don't, and always side with the Liberals?

Edited April 6, 2011 by ballpoint

[whybother]

but the problem is all the other small parties will side with dems and their cohorts - hardly seems fair to me (or to millions of Thais)

Why is that a problem or unfair?

The only reason it's a problem for you (or millions of Thais) is that the smaller parties may not be backing the PTP.

Is it unfair to all the Democrat or BJT supporters if the smaller parties back the PTP?

If people vote for the smaller parties, they can back whoever they want. Particularly, if the smaller parties are already supporting the Democrats, then the people voting for them expect them to continue supporting the Democrats (unless they state otherwise).

[ChiangMaiFun]

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

[whybother]

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

The flaw in your argument is that every party is made of individual MPs, and more relevantly, factions. Just because they call themselves one party doesn't change anything.

If Y and Z actually became a single party, does it make any difference? Instead of 50% voting for two parties, 50% have voted for one party.

If one of the smaller parties merged with the Democrats giving them a larger percentage than the PTP, would that make you (or millions of Thais - PTP supporters) happy? Probably not. You would probably say "But they just merged to get the extra MPs. It's not fair".

You are still getting your terms mixed up. 40% is only a minority. You still seem to think that a minority should rule the majority.

[jdinasia]

The best thing about a parliamentary system is that it does require compromise most of the time. If party x gets 40% and parties y and z each get 25.1%, then it is not only fair to say that a coalition of y and z represents the will of the people better than party X. The only thing that can be said about party X is that they are the largest minority.

The worst thing about a parliamentary system is that it requires compromise. In Thailand that compromise easily lends itself to corruption

To suggest that in a situation where smaller regional political machines are bought up and brought under one banner is better or more representative than those smaller regional political machines keeping their independence and horsetrading after an election instead of before one, just doesn't make much sense to me in Thai politics.

Looking back to the 2007 elections, there were smaller parties that ran on a platform that they would not join PPP to form a coalition government. After the elections they joined with PPP to form a coalition government. Calling "foul" on them doesn't make sense, since their duty is to respond to their electorate and if they fail to do so then their electorate can get rid of them at the next election. Earlier is even possible.

It is the same with internal factional politics inside a party. When PPP was dissolved the 'friends of Newin' decided NOT to join with the new PTP party. That faction was never loyal to PPP, they were loyal to Newin. When several of them came up for election in the by-elections of last year, it would be fair and accurate to say that the electorate did not punish them for choosing not to become part of PTP, since they won under the banner of BJT.

edit to make a new paragraph -- to show that two ideas were similar but not the same.

Edited April 6, 2011 by jdinasia

[ChiangMaiFun]

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

The flaw in your argument is that every party is made of individual MPs, and more relevantly, factions. Just because they call themselves one party doesn't change anything.

If Y and Z actually became a single party, does it make any difference? Instead of 50% voting for two parties, 50% have voted for one party.

If one of the smaller parties merged with the Democrats giving them a larger percentage than the PTP, would that make you (or millions of Thais - PTP supporters) happy? Probably not. You would probably say "But they just merged to get the extra MPs. It's not fair".

You are still getting your terms mixed up. 40% is only a minority. You still seem to think that a minority should rule the majority.

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that

[ChiangMaiFun]

The best thing about a parliamentary system is that it does require compromise most of the time. If party x gets 40% and parties y and z each get 25.1%, then it is not only fair to say that a coalition of y and z represents the will of the people better than party X. The only thing that can be said about party X is that they are the largest minority.

The worst thing about a parliamentary system is that it requires compromise. In Thailand that compromise easily lends itself to corruption

To suggest that in a situation where smaller regional political machines are bought up and brought under one banner is better or more representative than those smaller regional political machines keeping their independence and horsetrading after an election instead of before one, just doesn't make much sense to me in Thai politics.

Looking back to the 2007 elections, there were smaller parties that ran on a platform that they would not join PPP to form a coalition government. After the elections they joined with PPP to form a coalition government. Calling "foul" on them doesn't make sense, since their duty is to respond to their electorate and if they fail to do so then their electorate can get rid of them at the next election. Earlier is even possible.

It is the same with internal factional politics inside a party. When PPP was dissolved the 'friends of Newin' decided NOT to join with the new PTP party. That faction was never loyal to PPP, they were loyal to Newin. When several of them came up for election in the by-elections of last year, it would be fair and accurate to say that the electorate did not punish them for choosing not to become part of PTP, since they won under the banner of BJT.

edit to make a new paragraph -- to show that two ideas were similar but not the same.

The worst thing about a parliamentary system is that it requires compromise. In Thailand that compromise easily lends itself to corruption

we will agree on that and requires PMs to appoint horrific DPMs

[jdinasia]

The worst thing about a parliamentary system is that it requires compromise. In Thailand that compromise easily lends itself to corruption

we will agree on that and requires PMs to appoint horrific DPMs

Another flawed argument since the PM and DPM are from the same party. It may have been internal compromise or simply a reflection that love him or hate him, Suthep is a major force in Thai politics. You are free to call him "horrific" as all people are welcome to their own opinion In my estimation he's about average on the Thai political scale and was the right person for the job last year. When faced with "hawks", you want at least one "hawk" working with you. Suthep is the only visible hawk in the Democrat led government and his being there allowed Abhisit to follow the "dovish" negotiator/peacekeeper role. Abhisit caught a lot of crap for not cracking down on the reds in BKK after they started getting violent in April. Having Suthep stand out as a more menacing figure calmed some of that criticism down and (for good or bad) allowed more time for attempts at negotiations with the red shirt leaders. (Those same leaders that turned down offers of early elections TWICE, preferring ,apparently, violence over reason.)

No matter how you count it .. 30% is 30%, 40% is 40%, neither are a majority, However, 30% + 25% IS a majority and reflects the will of the majority of the people, meaning a 40% minority has no automatic right to rule.

[whybother]

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that

OK ... so you mean the largest party. Nothing to do with majority/minority. I think I understand now.

"therefore 40% who voted for the majority largest party are dis-enfranchised."

It always happens that a large percentage are dis-enfranchised. The positive thing is, 60% (or 51%) who voted for the parties that got into government (ie the majority) are not dis-enfranchised.

[ChiangMaiFun]

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that

OK ... so you mean the largest party. Nothing to do with majority/minority. I think I understand now.

"therefore 40% who voted for the majority largest party are dis-enfranchised."

It always happens that a large percentage are dis-enfranchised. The positive thing is, 60% (or 51%) who voted for the parties that got into government (ie the majority) are not dis-enfranchised.

that's not positive because you are taking different parties and adding them together when people did not vote that way. Let's leave this now as you will never accept any argument apart from what suits you and it must get boring for others to read the same old stuff from both sides

[whybother]

that's not positive because you are taking different parties and adding them together when people did not vote that way. Let's leave this now as you will never accept any argument apart from what suits you and it must get boring for others to read the same old stuff from both sides

You're right. It's seems we can't agree. I can't understand your reasoning. I suppose you would disagree with all of the Liberal/National governments that Australia has had.

Let me ask you this: If the Democrats were to get a higher percentage of votes (shown by the party-list vote), but PTP were to get more MPs, who do you think should be in government?

[animatic]

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that

OK ... so you mean the largest party. Nothing to do with majority/minority. I think I understand now.

"therefore 40% who voted for the majority largest party are dis-enfranchised."

It always happens that a large percentage are dis-enfranchised. The positive thing is, 60% (or 51%) who voted for the parties that got into government (ie the majority) are not dis-enfranchised.

No one is disenfranchised if they got to vote.

[animatic]

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that

OK ... so you mean the largest party. Nothing to do with majority/minority. I think I understand now.

"therefore 40% who voted for the majority largest party are dis-enfranchised."

It always happens that a large percentage are dis-enfranchised. The positive thing is, 60% (or 51%) who voted for the parties that got into government (ie the majority) are not dis-enfranchised.

that's not positive because you are taking different parties and adding them together when people did not vote that way. Let's leave this now as you will never accept any argument apart from what suits you and it must get boring for others to read the same old stuff from both sides

People vote for the smaller parties, but not specifically the smaller parties in specific alliances. But simply for said party's own causes, and their localized benefits. Following the dictum; "All politics is local."

If that was not the case, then parties that ran on the, ' we will not ally with PPP platform' would have totally enraged their party voters, by their joining with PPP when it appeared PPP was the larger minority. We don't hear of Buri Ram people complaining because Newin said switch sides to the Dems, only those who are PTP aligned are whining about it. Buri Ram voters got what they wanted; their party in the power block of the day.

Small party voters vote for the the leaders of those parties with the intent of letting those leaders get the best bargain for the voting block. If they evenb think that far ahead. Said small party may or may not have a particular platform it pushes harder than other parties, but it is still a block to be bargained with to reach it's own goals. Nothing more nothing less.

Edited April 7, 2011 by animatic

[hammered]

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

The flaw in your argument is that every party is made of individual MPs, and more relevantly, factions. Just because they call themselves one party doesn't change anything.

If Y and Z actually became a single party, does it make any difference? Instead of 50% voting for two parties, 50% have voted for one party.

If one of the smaller parties merged with the Democrats giving them a larger percentage than the PTP, would that make you (or millions of Thais - PTP supporters) happy? Probably not. You would probably say "But they just merged to get the extra MPs. It's not fair".

You are still getting your terms mixed up. 40% is only a minority. You still seem to think that a minority should rule the majority.

As much as I hate the composition of the government in the UK, I have to admit that for the first time in aeons it actually represents over 50% of those who voted. The governments of Blair and Thatcher never had such a mandate. Coalition government has that advantage whatever the mix of parties, and of course coalition government is government of compromise or at least it needs to be if a party wants to actually be in government

[ChiangMaiFun]

that's not positive because you are taking different parties and adding them together when people did not vote that way. Let's leave this now as you will never accept any argument apart from what suits you and it must get boring for others to read the same old stuff from both sides

You're right. It's seems we can't agree. I can't understand your reasoning. I suppose you would disagree with all of the Liberal/National governments that Australia has had.

Let me ask you this: If the Democrats were to get a higher percentage of votes (shown by the party-list vote), but PTP were to get more MPs, who do you think should be in government?

Dems

[ChiangMaiFun]

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

The flaw in your argument is that every party is made of individual MPs, and more relevantly, factions. Just because they call themselves one party doesn't change anything.

If Y and Z actually became a single party, does it make any difference? Instead of 50% voting for two parties, 50% have voted for one party.

If one of the smaller parties merged with the Democrats giving them a larger percentage than the PTP, would that make you (or millions of Thais - PTP supporters) happy? Probably not. You would probably say "But they just merged to get the extra MPs. It's not fair".

You are still getting your terms mixed up. 40% is only a minority. You still seem to think that a minority should rule the majority.

As much as I hate the composition of the government in the UK, I have to admit that for the first time in aeons it actually represents over 50% of those who voted. The governments of Blair and Thatcher never had such a mandate. Coalition government has that advantage whatever the mix of parties, and of course coalition government is government of compromise or at least it needs to be if a party wants to actually be in government

yes... BUT... if you voted Liberal you did not vote to join a Tory government and if you voted Tory you did not vote for a link with the Libs - I believe the Libs will pay a very heavy price for their dalliance at government (which they do not deserve as they got so few votes) - particularly that lier Clegg who completely backtracked on his promise of not raising University fees - until he got a taste of power and showed he had NO scruples or honesty when the puppet masters the Tories said 'we put up fees'.

[whybother]

yes... BUT... if you voted Liberal you did not vote to join a Tory government and if you voted Tory you did not vote for a link with the Libs - I believe the Libs will pay a very heavy price for their dalliance at government (which they do not deserve as they got so few votes) - particularly that lier Clegg who completely backtracked on his promise of not raising University fees - until he got a taste of power and showed he had NO scruples or honesty when the puppet masters the Tories said 'we put up fees'.

What 'you' DID do is vote for a party to get into government, and they either do that by winning a majority of seats, or by forming a coalition.

Why stop smaller parties from being in government?

If the largest party gets to form a minority government, how do they enact any laws? They don't have a majority in parliament, so they get out voted in everything. It becomes a pointless government.

[ChiangMaiFun]

yes... BUT... if you voted Liberal you did not vote to join a Tory government and if you voted Tory you did not vote for a link with the Libs - I believe the Libs will pay a very heavy price for their dalliance at government (which they do not deserve as they got so few votes) - particularly that lier Clegg who completely backtracked on his promise of not raising University fees - until he got a taste of power and showed he had NO scruples or honesty when the puppet masters the Tories said 'we put up fees'.

What 'you' DID do is vote for a party to get into government, and they either do that by winning a majority of seats, or by forming a coalition.

Why stop smaller parties from being in government?

If the largest party gets to form a minority government, how do they enact any laws? They don't have a majority in parliament, so they get out voted in everything. It becomes a pointless government.

agreed - hold another election