Democrat, Pheu Thai To Win 400 Seats: Abhisit

[pisico]

Incorrect--- Bush won the electoral College #'s but lost the popular vote in 2000. Gore got about 500,000 more votes than Bush.

Prove it!

http://en.wikipedia....ational_results

Presidential candidate 	Party 		Home state 	Popular vote 		Electoral vote
						Count 		Pct
George W. Bush 		Republican 	Texas 		50,456,002 	47.87% 		271
Al Gore 		Democratic 	Tennessee 	50,999,897 	48.38% 		266

I was not explicit in my previous posting.

I wanted anyone to prove that the popular vote was indeed a DECIDING factor that determines the election of a presidential candidate in the USA.

The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the pledge of allegiance itself numerous times refers to the USA as being a Republic.

My quick response addressed specious information that fosters the impression that there was corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA, because the Supreme Court adhered to the rules and laws of the land regarding the outcome of a presidential election, .

That is the law and the rules.

Thailand also has it rules, whether we like it or not, as Animatic explained earlier. Those laws and rules may be similar in appearance to the laws of the USA, which is a Representative Democracy.

Additionally, I do not parse or take out of context poster's comments. I have no hidden agenda: I am an Independent of many many years.

I would state facts, not opinion. Much less to instruct other members what to do in terms of ideology and/ or behavior. That shows arrogance, a supercilious attitude we can do without in this forum.

Edited June 5, 2011 by pisico

[jdinasia]

I was not explicit in my previous posting.

I wanted anyone to prove that the popular vote was indeed a DECIDING factor that determines the election of a presidential candidate in the USA.

The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the pledge of allegiance itself numerous times refers to the USA as being a Republic.

My quick response addressed specious information that fosters the impression that there was corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA, because the Supreme Court adhered to the rules and laws of the land regarding the outcome of a presidential election, .

That is the law and the rules.

Thailand also has it rules, whether we like it or not, as Animatic explained earlier. Those laws and rules may be similar in appearance to the laws of the USA, which is a Representative Democracy.

Additionally, I do not parse or take out of context poster's comments. I have no hidden agenda: I am an Independent of many many years.

I would state facts, not opinion. Much less to instruct other members what to do in terms of ideology and/ or behavior. That shows arrogance, a supercilious attitude we can do without in this forum.

Wouldn't it be both more honest and simpler to make the statement ... "I was wrong, Bush did NOT receive more people's votes than Gore." ?? Your statement that Bush won both was "specious information" that fostered the impression that Bush was who the people of the USA chose in 2000, and that is simply wrong by over 500,000 votes.

Thailand's parliamentary democracy (which is a Representative democracy) is not comparable to the USA's Republican democracy (which is also a Representative democracy) in any other significant ways other than neither are a Direct democracy.

[pisico]

I was not explicit in my previous posting.

I wanted anyone to prove that the popular vote was indeed a DECIDING factor that determines the election of a presidential candidate in the USA.

The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the pledge of allegiance itself numerous times refers to the USA as being a Republic.

My quick response addressed specious information that fosters the impression that there was corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA, because the Supreme Court adhered to the rules and laws of the land regarding the outcome of a presidential election, .

That is the law and the rules.

Thailand also has it rules, whether we like it or not, as Animatic explained earlier. Those laws and rules may be similar in appearance to the laws of the USA, which is a Representative Democracy.

Additionally, I do not parse or take out of context poster's comments. I have no hidden agenda: I am an Independent of many many years.

I would state facts, not opinion. Much less to instruct other members what to do in terms of ideology and/ or behavior. That shows arrogance, a supercilious attitude we can do without in this forum.

Wouldn't it be both more honest and simpler to make the statement ... "I was wrong, Bush did NOT receive more people's votes than Gore." ?? Your statement that Bush won both was "specious information" that fostered the impression that Bush was who the people of the USA chose in 2000, and that is simply wrong by over 500,000 votes.

Thailand's parliamentary democracy (which is a Representative democracy) is not comparable to the USA's Republican democracy (which is also a Representative democracy) in any other significant ways other than neither are a Direct democracy.

It is obvious that there are differences between the two systems of governance: Thailand and the USA are different. Laws and rules are sui generis to each one of them.

Maybe you missed the last lines in my previous posting. I hope that you can understand and maybe remember them instead of lecturing others suggesting they are dishonest. I know that you will find a way to follow up with arguments to suit your purpose and not what the thread is about..

It is obvious that there are differences between the two systems of governance: Thailand and the USA are different. Laws and rules are sui generis to each one of them.

Maybe you missed the last lines in my previous posting. I hope that you can understand and maybe remember them instead of lecturing others suggesting they are dishonest. I know that you will find a way to follow up with arguments to suit your purpose and not what the thread is about..

Edited June 5, 2011 by pisico

[TAWP]

pisico>> You are boringly off-topic.

[whybother]

I was not explicit in my previous posting.

I wanted anyone to prove that the popular vote was indeed a DECIDING factor that determines the election of a presidential candidate in the USA.

The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the pledge of allegiance itself numerous times refers to the USA as being a Republic.

My quick response addressed specious information that fosters the impression that there was corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA, because the Supreme Court adhered to the rules and laws of the land regarding the outcome of a presidential election, .

That is the law and the rules.

Thailand also has it rules, whether we like it or not, as Animatic explained earlier. Those laws and rules may be similar in appearance to the laws of the USA, which is a Representative Democracy.

Additionally, I do not parse or take out of context poster's comments. I have no hidden agenda: I am an Independent of many many years.

I would state facts, not opinion. Much less to instruct other members what to do in terms of ideology and/ or behavior. That shows arrogance, a supercilious attitude we can do without in this forum.

even after manual count of thousands of ballots (the famous and ludicrous hanging chads) and a convoluted legal appeal following the manual count by Al Gore before the Supreme Court, the popular and electoral votes gave Bush the victory.

Incorrect--- Bush won the electoral College #'s but lost the popular vote in 2000. Gore got about 500,000 more votes than Bush.

Who said anything about the popular vote being a "deciding factor"?

Who said anything about there being "corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA"?

Who's comments were taken out of context? You made a statement that was incorrect which JD picked you up on, and you responded with "Prove it".

Maybe you read a bit too much into JD's comments.

[animatic]

In this case the USA 'Electoral College' is duplicated in, or superimposed on top of the Thailand legislative voting for a PM to form a cabinet, by the Lower House MPs in Thailand. In USA some 'Electors' did change their votes against the explicit vote tallies of their constituents. It was a scandal in several districts. But in Thailand there is a difference.

Ideologically biased 'Electors voted conservative for Bush against their voters wishes.

Where this differs from Thailand, is that large party voters vote blocks as MPs here, but OTHER small parties, not getting voted into more than a under minority, DO join and or form coalition blocks to get into government, relatively based on their voters wanting them in government one way or another.

Thus joining a coalition, and being a kingmaker, is what the voters expect, as part of their local allegiance vote or their protest vote vs the larger parties. This may be complicated by stump speech promises to join or not join certain large parties.

In the last Thai election several smaller parties promised their voters they would NOT join PPP to form a coalition, and promptly did just that. And THAT was the scandal at that time.

Then after essentially a no-confidence vote against the TRT 3rd string fledgling, PTP, a kingmaker party stayed in office, BJT, but earned the undieing rath of the party it left. HYet did exactly what it's voters expected. It stayed in government and delivered services to Buriram, as the voters wanted.

Like them or not, they did what was expected by their constituents.

Edited June 5, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Incorrect--- Bush won the electoral College #'s but lost the popular vote in 2000. Gore got about 500,000 more votes than Bush.

Prove it!

http://en.wikipedia....ational_results

Presidential candidate 	Party 		Home state 	Popular vote 		Electoral vote
						Count 		Pct
George W. Bush 		Republican 	Texas 		50,456,002 	47.87% 		271
Al Gore 		Democratic 	Tennessee 	50,999,897 	48.38% 		266

I was not explicit in my previous posting.

I wanted anyone to prove that the popular vote was indeed a DECIDING factor that determines the election of a presidential candidate in the USA.

The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the pledge of allegiance itself numerous times refers to the USA as being a Republic.

My quick response addressed specious information that fosters the impression that there was corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA, because the Supreme Court adhered to the rules and laws of the land regarding the outcome of a presidential election, .

That is the law and the rules.

Thailand also has it rules, whether we like it or not, as Animatic explained earlier. Those laws and rules may be similar in appearance to the laws of the USA, which is a Representative Democracy.

Additionally, I do not parse or take out of context poster's comments. I have no hidden agenda: I am an Independent of many many years.

I would state facts, not opinion. Much less to instruct other members what to do in terms of ideology and/ or behavior. That shows arrogance, a supercilious attitude we can do without in this forum.

Most often the popular vote is directly and accurately mirrored by the Electoral College, but in close votes it has been manipulated in the past.

And IMHO and that of many others the USA Supreme Court acted incorrectly and in a biased manner, but with the final say.

But had Clintons wandering willy not alienated many Tennessee conservatives, Gore would have one his own state, and the SC and manipulated Florida vote would not have been an issue.

Hard to imagine the world has been utterly changed by a cigar and a tawdry BJ. behind closed doors, but with a little thoughtless kiss in tell afterwards. But it has been.

Edited June 5, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

The US election in 2000 is OFF TOPIC.

[jdinasia]

I was not explicit in my previous posting.

I wanted anyone to prove that the popular vote was indeed a DECIDING factor that determines the election of a presidential candidate in the USA.

The Federalist papers, the Constitution and the pledge of allegiance itself numerous times refers to the USA as being a Republic.

My quick response addressed specious information that fosters the impression that there was corruption on the part of the Supreme Court of the USA, because the Supreme Court adhered to the rules and laws of the land regarding the outcome of a presidential election, .

That is the law and the rules.

Thailand also has it rules, whether we like it or not, as Animatic explained earlier. Those laws and rules may be similar in appearance to the laws of the USA, which is a Representative Democracy.

Additionally, I do not parse or take out of context poster's comments. I have no hidden agenda: I am an Independent of many many years.

I would state facts, not opinion. Much less to instruct other members what to do in terms of ideology and/ or behavior. That shows arrogance, a supercilious attitude we can do without in this forum.

Wouldn't it be both more honest and simpler to make the statement ... "I was wrong, Bush did NOT receive more people's votes than Gore." ?? Your statement that Bush won both was "specious information" that fostered the impression that Bush was who the people of the USA chose in 2000, and that is simply wrong by over 500,000 votes.

Thailand's parliamentary democracy (which is a Representative democracy) is not comparable to the USA's Republican democracy (which is also a Representative democracy) in any other significant ways other than neither are a Direct democracy.

It is obvious that there are differences between the two systems of governance: Thailand and the USA are different. Laws and rules are sui generis to each one of them.

Maybe you missed the last lines in my previous posting. I hope that you can understand and maybe remember them instead of lecturing others suggesting they are dishonest. I know that you will find a way to follow up with arguments to suit your purpose and not what the thread is about..

It is obvious that there are differences between the two systems of governance: Thailand and the USA are different. Laws and rules are sui generis to each one of them.

Maybe you missed the last lines in my previous posting. I hope that you can understand and maybe remember them instead of lecturing others suggesting they are dishonest. I know that you will find a way to follow up with arguments to suit your purpose and not what the thread is about..

off-topic reply

"I would post facts not ..." --- right. You got your facts wrong about Bush/Gore perhaps you have stated that you were wrong and I missed it ... if you did say you were wrong then I apologize for beating a dead horse. If not then everything else is just trying to justify you stated "specious information" .... what I saw as response to me stating you were incorrect was "Prove it" which someone else showed that I was correct with a link ... while I only stated the truth. Gore won 500k+ more votes from the people than Bush did.

on-topic reply

In Thailand there is not a "first past the post" guideline in place for parliamentary votes on the PM position in cases where there is no clear majority winner (50%+1 MP). In cases requiring a coalition government it is a free-for-all in who gets to form the government and who gets elected PM. (Note --- even Thaksin, in the event PTP gets 50%+1, has stated that he might not run his sister/surrogate daughter/clone for PM even though she is party-list #1 for PTP. That would appear to be wrong to me --- BUT it is parliament that decides who the PM is ... not the voters.