Thai Voters Should Elect The PM, Academic Says

[ChiangMaiFun]

OK .. in your definition "all" certainly means anything BUT an absolute. Germany --- how large is the German economy? Japan .. etc etc etc I would suggest that Denmark and Sweden and Germany are certainly "stable organized democracies."

Coalition governments and multi-party systems are common ... but hey! I certainly think "organized stable democracy" when I think China and Russia :-)

China and Russia are stable by the way - ever been have you? I doubt it

China will lead the economies of the world very soon - and India is catching up. Russia remains a dominant power as does the US - oh nearly forgot your 'examples' Sweden (Abba anyone?), Denmark (can't think of anything about them) and Germany (well they did do well after the war).

Can you stop being 'personal' and get back to the thread??? thanks

[ChiangMaiFun]

USA? name another? UK? 2 major and 1 VERY minor who struck mathematically lucky for first time in decades - enough?

No. List of political parties in the United States

And No. List of political parties in the United Kingdom

All they have are two large parties, a number of small parties, and a lot of very small parties.

Not very different to Thailand really. Maybe the only difference is time.

list the votes - no difference to Thailand? wow I am almost speachless - I rest my case

[whybother]

are you two married? of course they have other parties - but are considered 2/3 party systems as the other parties votes are NEGLIGIBLE now list the others parties votes Einstein

can we get BACK to the topic? now JD has hijacked it yet again - I'm sure if I posted about Snow White he come in with his buddy whybother and say she was really called Snow Black and she was a commie

How is Thailand so different from Australia and the UK?

In Thailand, there are 2 large parties, 1 medium party and a number of smaller parties.

The only reason the smaller parties get anywhere in Thailand is they are local parties. The local party represents the local people. Should the local people be forced to support one of the large parties just because they are large parties?

So, before you took us off topic with your '2 - 3 parties', I asked "How would a popularly elected PM get anything done if he didn't have the support of the majority of MPs?"

The MPs have to vote and get a majority to pass new laws. What is the point of a PM that can't do anything? What do you want the people to do? Have another election?

[ChiangMaiFun]

are you two married? of course they have other parties - but are considered 2/3 party systems as the other parties votes are NEGLIGIBLE now list the others parties votes Einstein

can we get BACK to the topic? now JD has hijacked it yet again - I'm sure if I posted about Snow White he come in with his buddy whybother and say she was really called Snow Black and she was a commie

How is Thailand so different from Australia and the UK?

In Thailand, there are 2 large parties, 1 medium party and a number of smaller parties.

The only reason the smaller parties get anywhere in Thailand is they are local parties. The local party represents the local people. Should the local people be forced to support one of the large parties just because they are large parties?

So, before you took us off topic with your '2 - 3 parties', I asked "How would a popularly elected PM get anything done if he didn't have the support of the majority of MPs?"

The MPs have to vote and get a majority to pass new laws. What is the point of a PM that can't do anything? What do you want the people to do? Have another election?

What do you want the people to do? Have another election?

possibly or a run-off - and it wasn't me who took us off topic but that's by the by - let's stay here huh?

[whybother]

USA? name another? UK? 2 major and 1 VERY minor who struck mathematically lucky for first time in decades - enough?

No. List of political parties in the United States

And No. List of political parties in the United Kingdom

All they have are two large parties, a number of small parties, and a lot of very small parties.

Not very different to Thailand really. Maybe the only difference is time.

list the votes - no difference to Thailand? wow I am almost speachless - I rest my case

Where did I say "no difference"?

The current Australian government consists of Labor (which is basically just a group of factions) and some independent MPs that could have gone either way in the bargaining after the election?

Australia currently has 4 large parties (Labor, Liberal, National, Greens) and a number of smaller ones (or independents) that might be a part of the next government. How is that different to Thailand?

In the UK, a party "sold out" (your words I think) to form government. Not too different to the BJT, is it?

[whybother]

What do you want the people to do? Have another election?

possibly or a run-off - and it wasn't me who took us off topic but that's by the by - let's stay here huh?

Actually, I think the run-off's need to be for the MPs.

The MPs should have to get a majority of the vote of the electorate.

[jdinasia]

OK .. in your definition "all" certainly means anything BUT an absolute. Germany --- how large is the German economy? Japan .. etc etc etc I would suggest that Denmark and Sweden and Germany are certainly "stable organized democracies."

Coalition governments and multi-party systems are common ... but hey! I certainly think "organized stable democracy" when I think China and Russia :-)

China and Russia are stable by the way - ever been have you? I doubt it

China will lead the economies of the world very soon - and India is catching up. Russia remains a dominant power as does the US - oh nearly forgot your 'examples' Sweden (Abba anyone?), Denmark (can't think of anything about them) and Germany (well they did do well after the war).

Can you stop being 'personal' and get back to the thread??? thanks

I love it ... you are suggesting that China is an "organized stable democracy"! I thought we were discussing democracies, at least! I didn't realize we were talking relative strength on the world scene particularly when the comparison point has to be Thailand. The tradition of coalition governments and consensus building in the EU is something to be admired. The fact that you relegate Germany to "well they did do well after the war" is .. well ... I think perhaps it alone proves my point.

as to "ever been have you? I doubt it" ---- LOL yes this is "personal " ... nothing that I posted was. (BTW the answer is "yes" in both cases)

Maybe what you really want is a "democracy" like China has?

This might help you discuss "democracy" in China in the future .... http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/China-POLITICAL-PARTIES.html

Thailand's issue isn't the form of government it has. This form of government works well in many places that are stable organized democracies contrary to claims by others. The issue here in Thailand is the entrenched regional power blocs/political machines. Coalition governments are probably the only practical way forward in Thailand until corruption laws for political office holders have more teeth. The idea floated in the OP just doesn't work. It would work in a country that doesn't have a tradition of coalition governments, but not here in Thailand.

[animatic]

OK .. in your definition "all" certainly means anything BUT an absolute. Germany --- how large is the German economy? Japan .. etc etc etc I would suggest that Denmark and Sweden and Germany are certainly "stable organized democracies."

Coalition governments and multi-party systems are common ... but hey! I certainly think "organized stable democracy" when I think China and Russia :-)

China and Russia are stable by the way - ever been have you? I doubt it

China will lead the economies of the world very soon - and India is catching up. Russia remains a dominant power as does the US - oh nearly forgot your 'examples' Sweden (Abba anyone?), Denmark (can't think of anything about them) and Germany (well they did do well after the war).

Can you stop being 'personal' and get back to the thread??? thanks

I love it ... you are suggesting that China is an "organized stable democracy"! I thought we were discussing democracies, at least! I didn't realize we were talking relative strength on the world scene particularly when the comparison point has to be Thailand. The tradition of coalition governments and consensus building in the EU is something to be admired. The fact that you relegate Germany to "well they did do well after the war" is .. well ... I think perhaps it alone proves my point.

as to "ever been have you? I doubt it" ---- LOL yes this is "personal " ... nothing that I posted was. (BTW the answer is "yes" in both cases)

Maybe what you really want is a "democracy" like China has?

This might help you discuss "democracy" in China in the future .... http://www.nationsen...AL-PARTIES.html

Thailand's issue isn't the form of government it has. This form of government works well in many places that are stable organized democracies contrary to claims by others. The issue here in Thailand is the entrenched regional power blocs/political machines. Coalition governments are probably the only practical way forward in Thailand until corruption laws for political office holders have more teeth. The idea floated in the OP just doesn't work. It would work in a country that doesn't have a tradition of coalition governments, but not here in Thailand.

Or my earlier suggestion of runoff elections of the two biggest winners of a main election to elect one side for sure 50.1% plurality. This will settle all coalition issues and the

horse trading for plumb positions and graft before hand.

France does it and it works well.

No one wins 50.1% then the two largest have a run off.

All the little parties get to run, but if there are 2-3-4 good sized ones, and their ratios change at different times, who ever is #2 in an all under 50% election, gets a chance at the brass ring without the other little parties siphoning off their votes.

This will give the electorate a clear either or decisions,

after giving all the niche parties a fighting chance.

And then clearing them out of the main vote.

********************************************************

An example in a weird election the far right Front Nationale beat the major league Socialist party to everyones shock. With the usual collection of Trotskyite, Unionist, Communist, and fringe right parties participating.

Then in round two, Rally For The Republic with Chirac went head to head with Front Nationale and wiped their butts a clear 80-20% no doubts who was on top and in control.

THis didn't mean all would have voted for Chirac before, they didn't but when faced with a clear choice and nothing to leach of votes a clear electorates decision was made.

Edited April 12, 2011 by animatic

[stepenwolf1958]

OK .. in your definition "all" certainly means anything BUT an absolute. Germany --- how large is the German economy? Japan .. etc etc etc I would suggest that Denmark and Sweden and Germany are certainly "stable organized democracies."

Coalition governments and multi-party systems are common ... but hey! I certainly think "organized stable democracy" when I think China and Russia :-)

China and Russia are stable by the way - ever been have you? I doubt it

China will lead the economies of the world very soon - and India is catching up. Russia remains a dominant power as does the US - oh nearly forgot your 'examples' Sweden (Abba anyone?), Denmark (can't think of anything about them) and Germany (well they did do well after the war).

Can you stop being 'personal' and get back to the thread??? thanks

Wrong mate. China already has leading economy. India catch(ED) up. Russia understood and joined.

Moreover, Russia and Chinahey already have a bilateral agreement but a new kind of, which is not only standard way about economic cooperation, nor military, but some very new form and very unacceptable for some Western powers.

Thailand wanted to jump to that train.

I remember the news on TV (i think 2004) when ousted PM and Putin were in talk about exported rice. I saw what was asked in return, Su-35 with pilots for to train. I think that was critical moment for PM so later he was ousted.

[jdinasia]

Worth a look (imho)

http://graphics.eiu....ex_2010_web.pdf

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy 2010

Democracy in retreat

This is the third edition of the Economist Intelligence Unit's democracy index. It reflects the

situation as of November 2010. The first edition, published in The Economist's The World in 2007,

measured the state of democracy in September 2006 and the second edition covered the situation

towards the end of 200

For those that like things in a more graphic and orderly layout .. the wiwki on this appears unbiased.

http://en.wikipedia...._by_regime_type

russia ranks 107

china ranks 136

Edited April 12, 2011 by jdinasia

[ChiangMaiFun]

USA? name another? UK? 2 major and 1 VERY minor who struck mathematically lucky for first time in decades - enough?

No. List of political parties in the United States

And No. List of political parties in the United Kingdom

All they have are two large parties, a number of small parties, and a lot of very small parties.

Not very different to Thailand really. Maybe the only difference is time.

list the votes - no difference to Thailand? wow I am almost speachless - I rest my case

Where did I say "no difference"?

The current Australian government consists of Labor (which is basically just a group of factions) and some independent MPs that could have gone either way in the bargaining after the election?

Australia currently has 4 large parties (Labor, Liberal, National, Greens) and a number of smaller ones (or independents) that might be a part of the next government. How is that different to Thailand?

In the UK, a party "sold out" (your words I think) to form government. Not too different to the BJT, is it?

yesI have to agree they 'sold out' and will be severely punished - the Liberals allegiance has always been more 'Labour' than 'Conservative' and I don't think they will be forgiven - but this was the first time since the war and you shouldn't overplay this 'blip' normally it's a two party system - not in the sense there are only two parties - but in the sense that only two, normally, matter.

[ChiangMaiFun]

OK .. in your definition "all" certainly means anything BUT an absolute. Germany --- how large is the German economy? Japan .. etc etc etc I would suggest that Denmark and Sweden and Germany are certainly "stable organized democracies."

Coalition governments and multi-party systems are common ... but hey! I certainly think "organized stable democracy" when I think China and Russia :-)

China and Russia are stable by the way - ever been have you? I doubt it

China will lead the economies of the world very soon - and India is catching up. Russia remains a dominant power as does the US - oh nearly forgot your 'examples' Sweden (Abba anyone?), Denmark (can't think of anything about them) and Germany (well they did do well after the war).

Can you stop being 'personal' and get back to the thread??? thanks

I love it ... you are suggesting that China is an "organized stable democracy"! I thought we were discussing democracies, at least! I didn't realize we were talking relative strength on the world scene particularly when the comparison point has to be Thailand. The tradition of coalition governments and consensus building in the EU is something to be admired. The fact that you relegate Germany to "well they did do well after the war" is .. well ... I think perhaps it alone proves my point.

as to "ever been have you? I doubt it" ---- LOL yes this is "personal " ... nothing that I posted was. (BTW the answer is "yes" in both cases)

Maybe what you really want is a "democracy" like China has?

This might help you discuss "democracy" in China in the future .... http://www.nationsen...AL-PARTIES.html

Thailand's issue isn't the form of government it has. This form of government works well in many places that are stable organized democracies contrary to claims by others. The issue here in Thailand is the entrenched regional power blocs/political machines. Coalition governments are probably the only practical way forward in Thailand until corruption laws for political office holders have more teeth. The idea floated in the OP just doesn't work. It would work in a country that doesn't have a tradition of coalition governments, but not here in Thailand.

Good morning dear JD... there are 'some' parallels between China and Thailand actually - censorship? not being able to discuss certain things? I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

[ChiangMaiFun]

What do you want the people to do? Have another election?

possibly or a run-off - and it wasn't me who took us off topic but that's by the by - let's stay here huh?

Actually, I think the run-off's need to be for the MPs.

The MPs should have to get a majority of the vote of the electorate.

not disagreeing

[jdinasia]

Good morning dear JD... there are 'some' parallels between China and Thailand actually - censorship? not being able to discuss certain things? I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

LOL .. I am sorry, if you think China (an authoritarian one party regime) is a democracy then talking with you about democracy is just pointless.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Good morning dear JD... there are 'some' parallels between China and Thailand actually - censorship? not being able to discuss certain things? I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

LOL .. I am sorry, if you think China (an authoritarian one party regime) is a democracy then talking with you about democracy is just pointless.

I didn't say that dear JD... I said 'there are SOME parallels' but I know you lurv mis-quoting - it's become your trademark

[jdinasia]

I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

Again --- per the topic and your remarks about Russia and China .. and my remarks saying that I thought we were talking about democracy (and you adding China and Russia into the discussion of democracies... and your statement above! ......)

I would say that Thailand's democracy is much better because it is ... wait for it .... a democracy You may want to look at the link above --- Russia rates far below Thailand in democracy (both flawed democracies) and China isn't a democracy at all. So " I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organized" tells us all we need to know, now doesn't it?

edit -- see post 37 (and the post it replies to and post 40

Edited April 13, 2011 by jdinasia

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

Again --- per the topic and your remarks about Russia and China .. and my remarks saying that I thought we were talking about democracy (and you adding China and Russia into the discussion of democracies... and your statement above! ......)

I would say that Thailand's democracy is much better because it is ... wait for it .... a democracy You may want to look at the link above --- Russia rates far below Thailand in democracy (both flawed democracies) and China isn't a democracy at all. So " I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organized" tells us all we need to know, now doesn't it?

edit -- see post 37 (and the post it replies to and post 40

I don't think it is much better but that's got nothing to do with my support for democracy - because Thailand isn't really a democracy is it? that's my point - in a democracy their is no censorship. You see this is your problem Dude - you take things out of context and deliberately twist and turn them - Thailand IS NOT a democracy where there is corruption, buying of votes and censorship - get it?

[whybother]

I don't think it is much better but that's got nothing to do with my support for democracy - because Thailand isn't really a democracy is it? that's my point - in a democracy their is no censorship. You see this is your problem Dude - you take things out of context and deliberately twist and turn them - Thailand IS NOT a democracy where there is corruption, buying of votes and censorship - get it?

I always thought of Australia as a democracy, even with their censorship.

[rubl]

I don't think it is much better but that's got nothing to do with my support for democracy - because Thailand isn't really a democracy is it? that's my point - in a democracy their is no censorship. You see this is your problem Dude - you take things out of context and deliberately twist and turn them - Thailand IS NOT a democracy where there is corruption, buying of votes and censorship - get it?

I always thought of Australia as a democracy, even with their censorship.

And the U.K., Germany, France, The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, ... ...

If democracy means no censorship I don't think we've got any democratic countries left, or even had any in the past. The old Greek Democracies would be demoted to Dictatorial States.

[jdinasia]

I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

Again --- per the topic and your remarks about Russia and China .. and my remarks saying that I thought we were talking about democracy (and you adding China and Russia into the discussion of democracies... and your statement above! ......)

I would say that Thailand's democracy is much better because it is ... wait for it .... a democracy You may want to look at the link above --- Russia rates far below Thailand in democracy (both flawed democracies) and China isn't a democracy at all. So " I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organized" tells us all we need to know, now doesn't it?

edit -- see post 37 (and the post it replies to and post 40

I don't think it is much better but that's got nothing to do with my support for democracy - because Thailand isn't really a democracy is it? that's my point - in a democracy their is no censorship. You see this is your problem Dude - you take things out of context and deliberately twist and turn them - Thailand IS NOT a democracy where there is corruption, buying of votes and censorship - get it?

Thailand isn't a democracy now? Amazing!

I am not taking things out of context, I am merely pointing out that your arguments are severely flawed such as around post 37 where you added China and Russia into your list of stable organized democracies.

Again might I point out the link in post 40? There is corruption, and buying of votes (legally with campaign promises) and censorship everywhere. Thailand certainly has all three and is still a democracy. I am not the one that made the statement "organized stable democracy" and then included Russia and China. I would assume that The Economist would be fairly unbiased and after reading the raw report (not just looking at the ranking chart in Wiki) it seems that way to me.

In fact now with your statement that Thailand is not a democracy you seem to be contradicting your earlier statements that it is a democracy.

I will not argue that Thailand doesn't have corruption and vote buying and censorship. I would just argue that Thailand is about middle of the road for democracies. I would also add that many of the parliamentary democracies of the EU, rate at the very highest end of the range on the democratic scale. I would argue that if you want to cope with corruption, and vote-buying, and even censorship that you must start with corruption laws that have teeth, particularly when dealing with politics and civil servants. Banning of political parties wasn't strong enough. Lifetime bans and real jail time might help.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organised.

Again --- per the topic and your remarks about Russia and China .. and my remarks saying that I thought we were talking about democracy (and you adding China and Russia into the discussion of democracies... and your statement above! ......)

I would say that Thailand's democracy is much better because it is ... wait for it .... a democracy You may want to look at the link above --- Russia rates far below Thailand in democracy (both flawed democracies) and China isn't a democracy at all. So " I don't think Thailand's democracy is much better and certainly less organized" tells us all we need to know, now doesn't it?

edit -- see post 37 (and the post it replies to and post 40

I don't think it is much better but that's got nothing to do with my support for democracy - because Thailand isn't really a democracy is it? that's my point - in a democracy their is no censorship. You see this is your problem Dude - you take things out of context and deliberately twist and turn them - Thailand IS NOT a democracy where there is corruption, buying of votes and censorship - get it?

Thailand isn't a democracy now? Amazing!

I am not taking things out of context, I am merely pointing out that your arguments are severely flawed such as around post 37 where you added China and Russia into your list of stable organized democracies.

Again might I point out the link in post 40? There is corruption, and buying of votes (legally with campaign promises) and censorship everywhere. Thailand certainly has all three and is still a democracy. I am not the one that made the statement "organized stable democracy" and then included Russia and China. I would assume that The Economist would be fairly unbiased and after reading the raw report (not just looking at the ranking chart in Wiki) it seems that way to me.

In fact now with your statement that Thailand is not a democracy you seem to be contradicting your earlier statements that it is a democracy.

I will not argue that Thailand doesn't have corruption and vote buying and censorship. I would just argue that Thailand is about middle of the road for democracies. I would also add that many of the parliamentary democracies of the EU, rate at the very highest end of the range on the democratic scale. I would argue that if you want to cope with corruption, and vote-buying, and even censorship that you must start with corruption laws that have teeth, particularly when dealing with politics and civil servants. Banning of political parties wasn't strong enough. Lifetime bans and real jail time might help.

never said China and Russia were democracy's - you are making it up

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thailand can't be a true democracy if people get paid to vote. Coups? how many? 2006? banned political parties? Censorship? Military intervention in elections?

The problem, partly, is some don't have the breadth of experience and/or education to fully comprehend the argument - the argument is just too subtle and this will be my last post on this particular aspect - laugh if you wish but some posters here actually understand and most don't. It's all fine we are just visitors and it makes no odds either way.

Last Thought (from an experienced Thai commentator in Bangkok Post)

Let’s not talk about Thaksin or Ahbisit but let talk about whether we could really give birth to real Democracy in Thailand and how long do you think Thailand will give birth to true Democracy?

No more from me on this so no point in flaming or criticizing

Have a nice evening and a Happy Songkran!

Edited April 13, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun

[jdinasia]

ALL is an absolute and this isn't harassment. It is pointing out extremely flawed logic (in its best possible reading) or outright deceit since there are stable organized democracies that do not fit into your "all"

Democracies with coalition governments currently or recently include ......

the UK

Denmark (no single party with 50%+ since what .. 1909?)

Germany

Australia

Sweden

etc etc etc etc ...

I would call them all stable and organized. In fact, coalition governments are the norm in the EU aren't they?

Can we put the 2 party winner takes all idea to rest yet?

China? Russia? USA? UK? and you say Denmark? Australia? Sweden? don't talk about the UK - this was a one off fluke and still falls within my 2/3 party system definition -conveniently forgotten by you (again) - get it yet? 2/3 party includes UK? and the EU is hardly 'stable' - think BIG Dude? USA, Russia, China

PS India etc.

never said China and Russia were democracy's - you are making it up

HUH?

Post 27 sure does.

Edited April 13, 2011 by jdinasia

[whybother]

Thailand can't be a true democracy if people get paid to vote. Coups? how many? 2006? banned political parties? Censorship? Military intervention in elections?

The problem, partly, is some don't have the breadth of experience and/or education to fully comprehend the argument - the argument is just too subtle and this will be my last post on this particular aspect - laugh if you wish but some posters here actually understand and most don't. It's all fine we are just visitors and it makes no odds either way.

Last Thought (from an experienced Thai commentator in Bangkok Post)

Let's not talk about Thaksin or Ahbisit but let talk about whether we could really give birth to real Democracy in Thailand and how long do you think Thailand will give birth to true Democracy?

No more from me on this so no point in flaming or criticizing

Have a nice evening and a Happy Songkran!

Can you name a democratic country that doesn't have censorship?

Edited April 13, 2011 by whybother

[ChiangMaiFun]

ALL is an absolute and this isn't harassment. It is pointing out extremely flawed logic (in its best possible reading) or outright deceit since there are stable organized democracies that do not fit into your "all"

Democracies with coalition governments currently or recently include ......

the UK

Denmark (no single party with 50%+ since what .. 1909?)

Germany

Australia

Sweden

etc etc etc etc ...

I would call them all stable and organized. In fact, coalition governments are the norm in the EU aren't they?

Can we put the 2 party winner takes all idea to rest yet?

China? Russia? USA? UK? and you say Denmark? Australia? Sweden? don't talk about the UK - this was a one off fluke and still falls within my 2/3 party system definition -conveniently forgotten by you (again) - get it yet? 2/3 party includes UK? and the EU is hardly 'stable' - think BIG Dude? USA, Russia, China

PS India etc.

never said China and Russia were democracy's - you are making it up

HUH?

Post 27 sure does.

'stable and organised' not democracy's you are misreading the post - I only make this correction no more comment - have a nice day

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thailand can't be a true democracy if people get paid to vote. Coups? how many? 2006? banned political parties? Censorship? Military intervention in elections?

The problem, partly, is some don't have the breadth of experience and/or education to fully comprehend the argument - the argument is just too subtle and this will be my last post on this particular aspect - laugh if you wish but some posters here actually understand and most don't. It's all fine we are just visitors and it makes no odds either way.

Last Thought (from an experienced Thai commentator in Bangkok Post)

Let's not talk about Thaksin or Ahbisit but let talk about whether we could really give birth to real Democracy in Thailand and how long do you think Thailand will give birth to true Democracy?

No more from me on this so no point in flaming or criticizing

Have a nice evening and a Happy Songkran!

Can you name a democratic country that doesn't have censorship?

no more comments from me on this one as I'm fed up being your football - but yes many do not have the Lèse majesté laws they have here which defines this as not a true democracy - no more replies from me bye bye

Edited April 14, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun

[jdinasia]

China? Russia? USA? UK? and you say Denmark? Australia? Sweden? don't talk about the UK - this was a one off fluke and still falls within my 2/3 party system definition -conveniently forgotten by you (again) - get it yet? 2/3 party includes UK? and the EU is hardly 'stable' - think BIG Dude? USA, Russia, China

PS India etc.

never said China and Russia were democracy's - you are making it up

HUH?

Post 27 sure does.

'stable and organised' not democracy's you are misreading the post - I only make this correction no more comment - have a nice day

Yes... then of course I could understand why you bring China and Russia into a discussion on your points of "stable organized discussions" to try and discredit a list of stable and organized democracies that are .. in fact .. democracies I don't understand why you just don't say "I was wrong for mentioning China in this context ... oooops" But hey, deny it all you want, all it takes is looking over the thread