PAD Campaigns For 'No Vote' To Change Politics

[webfact]

PAD Campaigns for 'No Vote' to Change Politics

The People's Alliance for Democracy has called on voters in the forthcoming snap election to tick the 'no vote' box in protest against electing from a pool of dirty politicians.

Spokesperson of the People's Alliance for Democracy, Panthep Phuaphongphan, has urged members of the public to vote 'no' in the next general poll, to generate a change in Thailand's politics.

He said the 'no vote' and a turnout of less than 50 percent will result in the appointment of the Civil Constitution Drafting Committee for the very first time, which will have to amend the Constitution.

Apart from the symbolic political gesture, the move will make all elected MPs become minority government and immediately lose righteousness.

Panthep added that the PAD will continue its 'no vote' campaign through online media after a poll that indicated most people have not yet decided which party to vote for.

The ABAC poll even suggested that both coalition and opposition parties have significantly lost popularity.

The spokesperson dismissed the proposal by former Deputy Prime Minister Police Captain Purachai Piamsomboon calling on those who want to tick the 'no vote' box on their ballots to choose his 'Rak Santi' or 'Love Peace' Party.

-- Tan Network 2011-04-04

[whybother]

So, all the people that might have voted NPP will now vote "No" - all 100 of them.

[asiawatcher]

These idiots expect to change things to suit themselves - are these just petulant people - and should be treated like children? Then send them to a "time out" - like Cambodia - for a few months at least. If they don't make it back - who cares? They can keep Veera company.

[hammered]

Why would he think a no vote and low turnout would mean anything. The last US election saw under 50% turnout and it wasnt even commented on, and in Thailand it wont even drop to 50%. A no vote is a valid option as in Thailand voting is mandatory (even if nothing is done to those who dont or cant vote) but constitutionally a no vote is meaningless. It is a form of civil protest. It is not a "none of the above" option that can have teeth.

Now there is a possibility that a meme will be started that those the party with the most seats whether Dem or PTP (PAD hate them both) only got like 20% of the electorate vote for them etc as there are always around 30% of the electorate who do not bother voting. And this time around with single seat constituency it will be apparent exactly what percent each party got in the constituency vote as well as the party list vote. This was almost impossible to work out at the last election as some voters got more votes than others.

[jdinasia]

Why would he think a no vote and low turnout would mean anything. The last US election saw under 50% turnout and it wasnt even commented on, and in Thailand it wont even drop to 50%. A no vote is a valid option as in Thailand voting is mandatory (even if nothing is done to those who dont or cant vote) but constitutionally a no vote is meaningless. It is a form of civil protest. It is not a "none of the above" option that can have teeth.

Now there is a possibility that a meme will be started that those the party with the most seats whether Dem or PTP (PAD hate them both) only got like 20% of the electorate vote for them etc as there are always around 30% of the electorate who do not bother voting. And this time around with single seat constituency it will be apparent exactly what percent each party got in the constituency vote as well as the party list vote. This was almost impossible to work out at the last election as some voters got more votes than others.

I MOSTLY agree with you. Has the 20% rule changed AND can the PAD influence any one constituency enough to get that ploy to work again?

(Personally I doubt they have the juice)

[Siripon]

I apologise for repetition, but I think the bright members of PAD with futures such as Suriyasai, will soon defect to the Democrats.

[animatic]

Why would he think a no vote and low turnout would mean anything. The last US election saw under 50% turnout and it wasnt even commented on, and in Thailand it wont even drop to 50%. A no vote is a valid option as in Thailand voting is mandatory (even if nothing is done to those who dont or cant vote) but constitutionally a no vote is meaningless. It is a form of civil protest. It is not a "none of the above" option that can have teeth.

Now there is a possibility that a meme will be started that those the party with the most seats whether Dem or PTP (PAD hate them both) only got like 20% of the electorate vote for them etc as there are always around 30% of the electorate who do not bother voting. And this time around with single seat constituency it will be apparent exactly what percent each party got in the constituency vote as well as the party list vote. This was almost impossible to work out at the last election as some voters got more votes than others.

I MOSTLY agree with you. Has the 20% rule changed AND can the PAD influence any one constituency enough to get that ploy to work again?

(Personally I doubt they have the juice)

I believe the 20% rule only applies if the winner ran completely unopposed.

[jdinasia]

I MOSTLY agree with you. Has the 20% rule changed AND can the PAD influence any one constituency enough to get that ploy to work again?

(Personally I doubt they have the juice)

I believe the 20% rule only applies if the winner ran completely unopposed.

LOL .. you are correct I think! ... ooops

[jdinasia]

I apologise for repetition, but I think the bright members of PAD with futures such as Suriyasai, will soon defect to the Democrats.

If they have anything to bring to the table they will probably be welcome.

[tombkk]

In general, the vote is the most important right a citizen has in a democracy. To not vote means to not take advantage of the right to influence politics. I fail to understand how not voting can lead to change.

He who does not vote automatically agrees with the majority of the voters, as their vote counts and will influence politics. A small party telling their followers not to vote therefore in fact tells them to agree with the party that receives the majority of the votes.

This being Thailand, I believe that the reason for the PAD to tell their followers not to vote is that they will lose not so much face if they receive only a very few votes. That's all. If they were for democracy (as their name suggests), they would campaign for their followers to exercise their democratic right and vote! Hopefully for the party they back, but vote in any case and make your voice count.

I am certain the other parties are having a field day about the PAD's campaign, as there is one less competitor.

Edited April 4, 2011 by tombkk

[jdinasia]

In general, the vote is the most important right a citizen has in a democracy. To not vote means to not take advantage of the right to influence politics. I fail to understand how not voting can lead to change.

He who does not vote automatically agrees with the majority of the voters, as their vote counts and will influence politics. A small party telling their followers not to vote therefore in fact tells them to agree with the party that receives the majority of the votes.

This being Thailand, I believe that the reason for the PAD to tell their followers not to vote is that they will lose not so much face if they receive only a very few votes. That's all. If they were for democracy (as their name suggests), they would campaign for their followers to exercise their democratic right and vote! Hopefully for the party they back, but vote in any case and make your voice count.

I am certain the other parties are having a field day about the PAD's campaign, as there is one less competitor.

The PAD is not a political party and is not competing The NPP (the party most closely associated with the PAD) did not agree not to field candidates.

Democracies are about freedom aren't they? The freedom to express your dissatisfaction in the choices given you by voting "none of the above" is certainly an option.

BTW -- in Thailand voting is compulsory (you don't really legally have the right NOT to vote!)

Your assertion that voting is not as important to me as the basic concept of the protections a democracy provide. Some places voting is far more important than where I come from, where even if 2,000,000 people vote for one side and only 2,000,001 vote for the other ... ALL the representative votes that determine the winner of the highest seat in the land go to the guy with one more vote. That means it is possible for the guy that wins the popular vote is not always the one that wins the elections. (yes the US still uses the Electoral College tht in effect disenfranchises many people)

Multiple seat constituencies that some other places have solve that problem but introduce a whole new batch of issues.

[tombkk]

In general, the vote is the most important right a citizen has in a democracy. To not vote means to not take advantage of the right to influence politics. I fail to understand how not voting can lead to change.

He who does not vote automatically agrees with the majority of the voters, as their vote counts and will influence politics. A small party telling their followers not to vote therefore in fact tells them to agree with the party that receives the majority of the votes.

This being Thailand, I believe that the reason for the PAD to tell their followers not to vote is that they will lose not so much face if they receive only a very few votes. That's all. If they were for democracy (as their name suggests), they would campaign for their followers to exercise their democratic right and vote! Hopefully for the party they back, but vote in any case and make your voice count.

I am certain the other parties are having a field day about the PAD's campaign, as there is one less competitor.

The PAD is not a political party and is not competing The NPP (the party most closely associated with the PAD) did not agree not to field candidates.

Democracies are about freedom aren't they? The freedom to express your dissatisfaction in the choices given you by voting "none of the above" is certainly an option.

BTW -- in Thailand voting is compulsory (you don't really legally have the right NOT to vote!)

Your assertion that voting is not as important to me as the basic concept of the protections a democracy provide. Some places voting is far more important than where I come from, where even if 2,000,000 people vote for one side and only 2,000,001 vote for the other ... ALL the representative votes that determine the winner of the highest seat in the land go to the guy with one more vote. That means it is possible for the guy that wins the popular vote is not always the one that wins the elections. (yes the US still uses the Electoral College tht in effect disenfranchises many people)

Multiple seat constituencies that some other places have solve that problem but introduce a whole new batch of issues.

Sure, I didn't mean "PAD gets votes" but the party they support. Never mind, I think I got my point across: It is not a sign of supporting democracy if you tell your followers not to vote.

Whether all votes go to the party that won 1 vote more than their closest follower in any constituancy, depends on the constitution. Every country has they own view on this. As the constitution of Thailand keeps changing, I have lost track how it works here, so won't comment.

[jdinasia]

Sure, I didn't mean "PAD gets votes" but the party they support. Never mind, I think I got my point across: It is not a sign of supporting democracy if you tell your followers not to vote.

Whether all votes go to the party that won 1 vote more than their closest follower in any constituancy, depends on the constitution. Every country has they own view on this. As the constitution of Thailand keeps changing, I have lost track how it works here, so won't comment.

I think you missed mine when it comes to voting --- a No Vote campaign is a valid expression of the democratic processes in a country where voting is compulsory. Thailand has (some?)

multi-seat constituencies.

[whybother]

... Thailand has (some?) multi-seat constituencies.

The recent changes mean that they are all now single seat constituencies.

[tombkk]

Sure, I didn't mean "PAD gets votes" but the party they support. Never mind, I think I got my point across: It is not a sign of supporting democracy if you tell your followers not to vote.

Whether all votes go to the party that won 1 vote more than their closest follower in any constituancy, depends on the constitution. Every country has they own view on this. As the constitution of Thailand keeps changing, I have lost track how it works here, so won't comment.

I think you missed mine when it comes to voting --- a No Vote campaign is a valid expression of the democratic processes in a country where voting is compulsory. Thailand has (some?)

multi-seat constituencies.

I fail to see that. If you do not want to vote for any of the existing parties, found your own party and vote for that. That's what happened in Germany when the Green Party was founded, in fact many different parties were founded and later merged into what is now the Green Party. I do not see that giving up your most fundamental right in a democracy as any expression of democracy, au contraire.

But that's OK. In a democracy, we also have to accept other people's opinions.

[Siripon]

The news that Veera's family have asked Thaksin to help secure his release from jail takes the farce that the PAD has become to new levels. Will we being see Veera waiing Thaksin as he's released from jail?!

The idiot played into Hun Sen and Thaksin's hands from day one of his border escapade. Perhaps he's secretely working for Thaksin!

[hammered]

In general, the vote is the most important right a citizen has in a democracy. To not vote means to not take advantage of the right to influence politics. I fail to understand how not voting can lead to change.

He who does not vote automatically agrees with the majority of the voters, as their vote counts and will influence politics. A small party telling their followers not to vote therefore in fact tells them to agree with the party that receives the majority of the votes.

This being Thailand, I believe that the reason for the PAD to tell their followers not to vote is that they will lose not so much face if they receive only a very few votes. That's all. If they were for democracy (as their name suggests), they would campaign for their followers to exercise their democratic right and vote! Hopefully for the party they back, but vote in any case and make your voice count.

I am certain the other parties are having a field day about the PAD's campaign, as there is one less competitor.

I never vote and it isnt because I agree with the majority of voters. That is a meme that those with power like to perpetuate. I dont vote as I do not see I have a democratic option to vote for that represents my ideals, and I am not going to prostitute myself by voting for a best of a bad bunch. If there were direct democracy or if there were parties not slavishly ties to status quo thinking in my country I may vote. Please do not assign a value to people whose motivation you know nothing about and please dont be taken in by civics 101 nonsense that is basically propaganda anyway.

In the last election in the US over 50% of the eligible voters didnt vote. This little snippet wasnt widely reported. It isnt unique by a long way that the amount not voting exceeds the amount the winning party got in many developed democracies. Maybe if someone offered a "none of the above" option this silent mass may vote. However, dont expect any establishment elite that dominates democracy to allow that kind of thing to happen.

[tombkk]

I never vote and it isnt because I agree with the majority of voters. That is a meme that those with power like to perpetuate. I dont vote as I do not see I have a democratic option to vote for that represents my ideals, and I am not going to prostitute myself by voting for a best of a bad bunch. If there were direct democracy or if there were parties not slavishly ties to status quo thinking in my country I may vote. Please do not assign a value to people whose motivation you know nothing about and please dont be taken in by civics 101 nonsense that is basically propaganda anyway.

In the last election in the US over 50% of the eligible voters didnt vote. This little snippet wasnt widely reported. It isnt unique by a long way that the amount not voting exceeds the amount the winning party got in many developed democracies. Maybe if someone offered a "none of the above" option this silent mass may vote. However, dont expect any establishment elite that dominates democracy to allow that kind of thing to happen.

Well, if you don't agree with the majority, you should vote against them. It is called a protest vote. The issue is more complex than that, but you are certainly not protesting against the established parties if you don't vote. All you do is say that you are not interested and thus let others decide who rules in your country.

If you don't vote, regardless of your intentions, you will help the majority gain power. I am sorry you do not understand this basic principle of democracy. That's reality. I didn't know it's also taught in Civics 101, but if you do, you shold have listened. Good that they teach it.

Yes, the US is famous for their citizens not voting. A very sad state of awareness of democracy that is. I believe Bush 43, term 1, became president with only 24% of the eligible voters actually exercising their right. Sad, very sad, for a country that not only calls itself democratic but is out to teach democracy to other countries. As with other countries, the problem is the lack of education about what democracy is all about.

[animatic]

Sure, I didn't mean "PAD gets votes" but the party they support. Never mind, I think I got my point across: It is not a sign of supporting democracy if you tell your followers not to vote.

Whether all votes go to the party that won 1 vote more than their closest follower in any constituancy, depends on the constitution. Every country has they own view on this. As the constitution of Thailand keeps changing, I have lost track how it works here, so won't comment.

I think you missed mine when it comes to voting --- a No Vote campaign is a valid expression of the democratic processes in a country where voting is compulsory. Thailand has (some?)

multi-seat constituencies.

I fail to see that. If you do not want to vote for any of the existing parties, found your own party and vote for that. That's what happened in Germany when the Green Party was founded, in fact many different parties were founded and later merged into what is now the Green Party. I do not see that giving up your most fundamental right in a democracy as any expression of democracy, au contraire.

But that's OK. In a democracy, we also have to accept other people's opinions.

A No vote means you do not find any of the available parties

or candidates suitable. It is a protest vote, and exists on the ballot.

I am a registered Republican in USA even as a loath the direction the party has gone, I vote in primaries for the best candidate, even knowing he will likely lose, because that can send a message to those running the party that members disagree with their methods. When election time comes I vote for the man or woman I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. If no candidate meets my requirements I vote for the one who does closest in hopes his success will urge others forward in that direction.

But sometimes there is no acceptable candidate. This must happen a lot more in Thailand I can imagine with little prodding.

Edited April 5, 2011 by animatic

[gregb]

I never vote and it isnt because I agree with the majority of voters. That is a meme that those with power like to perpetuate. I dont vote as I do not see I have a democratic option to vote for that represents my ideals, and I am not going to prostitute myself by voting for a best of a bad bunch. If there were direct democracy or if there were parties not slavishly ties to status quo thinking in my country I may vote. Please do not assign a value to people whose motivation you know nothing about and please dont be taken in by civics 101 nonsense that is basically propaganda anyway.

In the last election in the US over 50% of the eligible voters didnt vote. This little snippet wasnt widely reported. It isnt unique by a long way that the amount not voting exceeds the amount the winning party got in many developed democracies. Maybe if someone offered a "none of the above" option this silent mass may vote. However, dont expect any establishment elite that dominates democracy to allow that kind of thing to happen.

Well, if you don't agree with the majority, you should vote against them. It is called a protest vote. The issue is more complex than that, but you are certainly not protesting against the established parties if you don't vote. All you do is say that you are not interested and thus let others decide who rules in your country.

If you don't vote, regardless of your intentions, you will help the majority gain power. I am sorry you do not understand this basic principle of democracy. That's reality. I didn't know it's also taught in Civics 101, but if you do, you shold have listened. Good that they teach it.

Yes, the US is famous for their citizens not voting. A very sad state of awareness of democracy that is. I believe Bush 43, term 1, became president with only 24% of the eligible voters actually exercising their right. Sad, very sad, for a country that not only calls itself democratic but is out to teach democracy to other countries. As with other countries, the problem is the lack of education about what democracy is all about.

Disagree. Voting at all gives the process a legitimacy it does not deserve. The US is a country in severe decline, and voting serves no purpose. The best thing that could happen is if everyone simply refused to play the politician's stupid game. Then they might actually start to get the idea that they've overplayed their hand, and we might finally see some real change. As long as you vote, you are supporting the corrupt system we have today, and I will not congratulate you for that nor see participating in a superficial and irrelevant vote as any kind of patriotic duty. Voting under the conditions present in the USA is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

While I don't support the PAD, I certainly understand and support their position that Thai politics is at such a diseased state that it doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

[tombkk]

The "no vote" advocates seem to say that if nobody votes, the policians will understand that there ways are wrong and will change. I doubt that this will happen, there will always be people who vote (even if it's only 24%). But even if nobody voted, I doubt the politicians would change, I believe they would rather become autocrats. But that's an assumption on my side.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[jayboy]

While I don't support the PAD, I certainly understand and support their position that Thai politics is at such a diseased state that it doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

If you take that position you are in agreement with one of the fundamental beliefs of the PAD leadership.... so no nonsense please about not supporting the PAD

[gregb]

While I don't support the PAD, I certainly understand and support their position that Thai politics is at such a diseased state that it doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

If you take that position you are in agreement with one of the fundamental beliefs of the PAD leadership.... so no nonsense please about not supporting the PAD

Yet again you are wrong.

The PAD supports an appointed government. I support objecting to any government period. Just because I think democracy in Thailand is currently untenable, does not mean I support appointing a government of elite criminals. Why you would think that is a mystery to me, but it shows your bias. I think everyone should simply refuse to vote unless there is something worth voting for. Voting gives this farce legitimacy. I don't say vote NO. I say don't vote at all.

[tombkk]

I think everyone should simply refuse to vote unless there is something worth voting for. Voting gives this farce legitimacy. I don't say vote NO. I say don't vote at all.

LOL! If I were representing a political party who has a chance of providing the next PM, I would love you.

Alas, I am in favour of democracy, and not voting just means that you do not exercise your basic democratic right. I have no idea why people would promote this.

But then, not everybody grew up with democracy, so I can accept that some people over here are not ready for it.

[jdinasia]

I think everyone should simply refuse to vote unless there is something worth voting for. Voting gives this farce legitimacy. I don't say vote NO. I say don't vote at all.

LOL! If I were representing a political party who has a chance of providing the next PM, I would love you.

Alas, I am in favour of democracy, and not voting just means that you do not exercise your basic democratic right. I have no idea why people would promote this.

But then, not everybody grew up with democracy, so I can accept that some people over here are not ready for it.

I grew up in a democracy where many (sometimes most) people don't vote. Thailand is a democracy with compulsory voting. The "No" vote is, in fact, voting for "none of the above" and is registered as a vote (a valid ballot), It seems to me that tom would not agree that making a choice to not vote for someone in particular isn't an expression of democratic freedom. I disagree. BTW -- saying "don't vote at all" in Thailand is illegal.