Party With Most Seats Must Get Chance To Form Govt: Yingluck

[webfact]

Party with most seats must get chance to form govt: Yingluck

By THE NATION

Pheu Thai's prime-minister candidate Yingluck Shinawatra reiterated yesterday that the party with the biggest mandate from voters should get first preference in forming a government.

"If Pheu Thai comes second, of course we'll let the winner try to |form the government first," Yingluck told Sorrayuth Sutthassanachinda |during an interview on his TV talk show.

If the Democrats or any other party is the runner-up, it should also let the leading party have priority, she said.

"Democracy means respect for the voice of the people," she said.

Reacting to reports that her party could be heading for a landslide victory, she said, "That's what we've heard [from the polls] so far."

However, she did not want to make that prediction, as they have to wait for the survey results.

Yingluck vowed to respect the military's role after the election. Pheu Thai "will only implement defence policies as promised to voters".

During the interview, Yingluck looked more confident when dwelling on sensitive issues, but was elusive when asked if there was a chance that the pardon would not take place.

She denied that she was just a decoy.

"If the people pick me, I'll be ready [to be the prime minister]".

Yingluck was also hard to pin down on whether the planned amnesty would cover those "responsible" for the deaths of 91 red-shirt protesters.

"Legal and justice principles will be adhered to" when dealing with the case of the crackdowns on the red shirts, she said.

-- The Nation 2011-06-10

[whybother]

That's correct. The leading party gets first chance to form government. That doesn't give them the *right* to be there though.

[Ricardo]

One recalls that party-leader Abhisit did stand back, and give Samak some weeks to put together his coalition, last time. And has recently said that he'd do the same again this time.

[Buchholz]

but was elusive

Yingluck was also hard to pin down on

Sounds like her response style with the ABC Australia interview is continuing...

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

[jayboy]

That's correct. The leading party gets first chance to form government. That doesn't give them the *right* to be there though.

Agreed, I think!

I'm still however unclear however whether the party with the largest number of seats has a constitutional right to make an attempt to form a government or whether this is just an informal convention.Anyone know exactly how this works? What if for example the Democrats had fewer seats than the PTP but Abhisit was able to put together a coalition immediately without giving the PTP an opportunity to try.Is that allowed?

[whybother]

That's correct. The leading party gets first chance to form government. That doesn't give them the *right* to be there though.

Agreed, I think!

I'm still however unclear however whether the party with the largest number of seats has a constitutional right to make an attempt to form a government or whether this is just an informal convention.Anyone know exactly how this works? What if for example the Democrats had fewer seats than the PTP but Abhisit was able to put together a coalition immediately without giving the PTP an opportunity to try.Is that allowed?

I don't believe it's a constitutional right, otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. I think it's formal convention, or more likely just common sense - the largest party would find it easier to find partners, so most often they end up forming government.

It doesn't make sense that the "losing" party would sit back and let negotiations happen between the "winning" party and the smaller parties. The smaller parties would need to weigh up offers from both sides to make a decision. (That's not just corrupt financial offers, as everyone would expect in Thailand, but offers on policy etc.)

The last elections in both Australia and the UK could have gone either way, with all large parties negotiating with the smaller parties and independents. In Aus, a couple of the independents were ex-Lib/Nat MPs, but ended up supporting Labor.

[koosdeboer]

but was elusive

Yingluck was also hard to pin down on

Sounds like her response style with the ABC Australia interview is continuing...

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

One more amazing interview of Ying Luck in the washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/yingluck-says-thai-consumer-goods-prices-must-be-free/2011/06/09/AGYHo2MH_video.html

[animatic]

I believe technically it's first past the post in the voting, same as UK voting for MP positions, but conventionally the largest party gets 1-2 votes to do it. But typically while they are cobbling together their creation the next largest is not being still and doing nothing at all about putting a coalition together for a vote. If it is a vote for ONE PM candidate from largest block, up or down, yea or nay.

If it is a vote for ALL PM candidates at the same time,

it can go anyway the whole of the MP's decide to vote.

Actually if there is a 1st vote and most MPs vote for the #2 party's candidate as PM, and another party with more MP's of their own doesn't get more MP votes, all the other parties can decide to join or not.

So, in a 1st MP vote, if PTP gets a minority 1st on election, but 2nd in MP Votes, Dems 1st with MORE than 50% of the MP vote, then BJP 3rd, The Dems can ask for other parties to form a coalition.

If the party with most MP votes gets a partner that puts them over the top that is totally proper vs. arbitrarily saying PTP with the most party MP's, but no outright MP majority, gets to ask for coalition partners without an MP vote.

Technically it is not how many MP's you win from the people for your party, but how many votes your PM candidate gets in a vote by ALL MPs, voting for PM candidates to make a majority coalition.

First past the post or first group to garner 50+% or more.

No matter how a minority candidate states it, they STILL must win a vote amongst ALL MP's for PM and the RIGHT to form a government.

Of course as whybother stated, the points of negotiation are many and varied and, envelopes, promises and policy compromises will fly like birds scattering at a shotgun blast, every day from election count finish to final PM vote tally.

Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

I believe technically it's first past the post in the voting, same as UK voting for MP positions, but conventionally the largest party gets 1-2 votes to do it. But typically while they are cobbling together their creation the next largest is not being still and doing nothing at all about putting a coalition together for a vote.

Actually if there is a 1st vote and most MPs vote for the #2 party's candidate as PM, and another party with more MP's of their own doesn't get more MP votes, all the other parties can decide to join or not.

So, in a 1st MP vote, if PTP gets a minority 1st on election, but 2nd in MP Votes Dems 1st and MORE than 50% of the MP vote, then BJP 3rd, The Dems can ask for other parties to form a coalition.

If the party with most MP votes gets a partner that puts them over the top that is totally proper vs. arbitrarily saying PTP with the most MP's, but no outright MP majority, gets to ask for coalition partners without an MP vote.

Technically it is not how many MP's you win from the people for your party, but how many votes your PM candidate gets in a vote by ALL MPs, voting for PM candidates to make a majority coalition.

First past the post or first group to garner 50+% or more.

No matter how a minority candidate states it, they STILL must win a vote amongst ALL MP's for PM and the RIGHT to form a government.

In Thailand, voting for MPs is "first past the post" (ie the candidate with the most votes wins).

Voting for PM requires a majority, otherwise PTP would have no issue with coalitions. I don't know how it actually works in parliament, but I would expect that most of the negotiations would have been worked out before the vote.

[pedro01]

Well - it's going to be interesting if the Dems get more votes. I expect a turnaround on PTs stance if they do.

[animatic]

I believe technically it's first past the post in the voting, same as UK voting for MP positions, but conventionally the largest party gets 1-2 votes to do it. But typically while they are cobbling together their creation the next largest is not being still and doing nothing at all about putting a coalition together for a vote.

Actually if there is a 1st vote and most MPs vote for the #2 party's candidate as PM, and another party with more MP's of their own doesn't get more MP votes, all the other parties can decide to join or not.

So, in a 1st MP vote, if PTP gets a minority 1st on election, but 2nd in MP Votes Dems 1st and MORE than 50% of the MP vote, then BJP 3rd, The Dems can ask for other parties to form a coalition.

If the party with most MP votes gets a partner that puts them over the top that is totally proper vs. arbitrarily saying PTP with the most MP's, but no outright MP majority, gets to ask for coalition partners without an MP vote.

Technically it is not how many MP's you win from the people for your party, but how many votes your PM candidate gets in a vote by ALL MPs, voting for PM candidates to make a majority coalition.

First past the post or first group to garner 50+% or more.

No matter how a minority candidate states it, they STILL must win a vote amongst ALL MP's for PM and the RIGHT to form a government.

In Thailand, voting for MPs is "first past the post" (ie the candidate with the most votes wins).

Voting for PM requires a majority, otherwise PTP would have no issue with coalitions. I don't know how it actually works in parliament, but I would expect that most of the negotiations would have been worked out before the vote.

A bit of London School Of Economics blogging about FPTP

http://blogs.lse.ac....-past-the-post/

In this case the post is 50%+ 1 MPs voting for a PM candidate.

Since neither Big Two parties will likely win more than 35% each, that leaves 30% totally up for grabs.

Either they vote for their marginal candidate 1st MP vote, or they decide which larger party to vote for. If none of the smaller parties make up the 15%+ percent difference in a single candidate yea nay vote, it goes back to negotiations.

If it is a all all party candidates together vote, expect party line 1st vote, and then negotiations, but it CAN go to ANY candidate 1st vote than has deals in place with smaller parties.

First large party to hit 50% + 1 votes, with help, for it's candidate wins. Discounting the 5 smaller parties idea, because 5 smaller parties in Thailand don't add up to 50%+1.

And since 35% plus 30% = 65%,

neither largest party can truly say they have a 'Mandate' since 65% of the country did NOT vote for them, no matter how you look at it or try to spin it.

Thus what will count is making that perceived mandate happen by policy and MP/ministry placement deals to create a coalition, which brings more than 50% of the countries MPs into a grouping, and thus a mandate via coalition.

Of course in this scenario the losing large party or it's proxy voices will scream unfair.... As the PTP and Reds have since the last time they couldn't put together a winning coalition.

Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

That's correct. The leading party gets first chance to form government. That doesn't give them the *right* to be there though.

Agreed, I think!

I'm still however unclear however whether the party with the largest number of seats has a constitutional right to make an attempt to form a government or whether this is just an informal convention.Anyone know exactly how this works? What if for example the Democrats had fewer seats than the PTP but Abhisit was able to put together a coalition immediately without giving the PTP an opportunity to try.Is that allowed?

There is no right. As as we have seen in Europe, 5 smaller parties often end up in coalition above 2 slightly bigger parties that didn't get support from any of the smaller - and often coalition-discussions are held even before the elections.

No-one needs to cry, everyone is allowed to talk.

[lungmi]

That's correct. The leading party gets first chance to form government. That doesn't give them the *right* to be there though.

Agreed, I think!

I'm still however unclear however whether the party with the largest number of seats has a constitutional right to make an attempt to form a government or whether this is just an informal convention.Anyone know exactly how this works? What if for example the Democrats had fewer seats than the PTP but Abhisit was able to put together a coalition immediately without giving the PTP an opportunity to try.Is that allowed?

I don't believe it's a constitutional right, otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. I think it's formal convention, or more likely just common sense - the largest party would find it easier to find partners, so most often they end up forming government.

It doesn't make sense that the "losing" party would sit back and let negotiations happen between the "winning" party and the smaller parties. The smaller parties would need to weigh up offers from both sides to make a decision. (That's not just corrupt financial offers, as everyone would expect in Thailand, but offers on policy etc.)

The last elections in both Australia and the UK could have gone either way, with all large parties negotiating with the smaller parties and independents. In Aus, a couple of the independents were ex-Lib/Nat MPs, but ended up supporting Labor.

seconded.

It's a convention in Germany too.

[wolfmanjack]

but was elusive

Yingluck was also hard to pin down on

Sounds like her response style with the ABC Australia interview is continuing...

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

One more amazing interview of Ying Luck in the washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/yingluck-says-thai-consumer-goods-prices-must-be-free/2011/06/09/AGYHo2MH_video.html

How can she had free market pricing based on supply and demand when she is saying she will maintain price caps and have a guaranteed minimum price for rice? Unless i misunderstood what she said.

[rixalex]

"Legal and justice principles will be adhered to" when dealing with the case of the crackdowns on the red shirts, she said.

OK that's great. So in certain cases, legal and justice principles will be adhered to, and in others, they will be tossed out the window. Why not be done with and get rid of courts and judges altogether, and just let her family hand down sentences as they see fit.

[OzMick]

The perjurer maintains her form, not controlled by her brother, competent and experienced. What a load of cobblers!

[OzMick]

As PTP has ruled out (never, ever) coalition with BJT and Chart Thai (who have reciprocated), the Dems have the basis of a workable coalition already. And Yingluk says that the red-shirts will accept this because their main desire was democracy. Of course, she has told a few porkies in the past!

[animatic]

As PTP has ruled out (never, ever) coalition with BJT and Chart Thai (who have reciprocated), the Dems have the basis of a workable coalition already. And Yingluk says that the red-shirts will accept this because their main desire was democracy. Of course, she has told a few porkies in the past!

She and a few facetime 'leaders' may say so,

but what of the other 5 million in this minority group?

Yes, if it is open voting for multiple MPs for PM position,

IT MAY WELL GO DIRECTLY TO THE DEMS COALITION,

in full view of the nation. more than 50% of the MPs do NOT vote for a party that got only 35%.

I suspect PTP's only shot is a true majority...

and the only time Thaksin got that was when he had successfully pre-purchased partner parties he has since quite thoroughly lost.

[animatic]

quote > but was elusive

Yingluck was also hard to pin down on

Sounds like her response style with the ABC Australia interview is continuing...

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

One more amazing interview of Ying Luck in the washington post.

http://www.washingto...o2MH_video.html

How can she had free market pricing based on supply and demand when she is saying she will maintain price caps and have a guaranteed minimum price for rice? Unless i misunderstood what she said.

Her Reuters interview was even less coherent.

'Price controls will remain, but the market demand and supply will determine prices.'

HUH????

And somehow, never adequately explained:

Excise taxes will control oil prices, while no oil subsidies will distort the market... Double HUH!!????

Edited June 10, 2011 by animatic

[bdenner]

Well she is fronting up here in Ban Dung, Udon Thani (the Amphur in which I live) Sunday to attend a rally so it should be an interesting day. Might NOT ware my 'yellow' shirt whilst attending our local to have a beer and watch the AFL football.

Edited June 10, 2011 by bdenner

[sirchai]

but was elusive

Yingluck was also hard to pin down on

Sounds like her response style with the ABC Australia interview is continuing...

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

However, she did not want to make that prediction, as they have to wait for the survey results.

You made my day turning into a nightmare by looking at this photo......................:jap:

[sirchai]

Well she is fronting up here in Ban Dung, Udon Thani (the Amphur in which I live) Sunday to attend a rally so it should be an interesting day. Might NOT ware my 'yellow' shirt whilst attending our local to have a beer and watch the AFL football.

Looks like you'd need some companionship out there, don't you? "Ware" your pink shirt and all will be irritated.

Edited June 10, 2011 by sirchai

[jdinasia]

That's correct. The leading party gets first chance to form government. That doesn't give them the *right* to be there though.

Agreed, I think!

I'm still however unclear however whether the party with the largest number of seats has a constitutional right to make an attempt to form a government or whether this is just an informal convention.Anyone know exactly how this works? What if for example the Democrats had fewer seats than the PTP but Abhisit was able to put together a coalition immediately without giving the PTP an opportunity to try.Is that allowed?

There is no right. As as we have seen in Europe, 5 smaller parties often end up in coalition above 2 slightly bigger parties that didn't get support from any of the smaller - and often coalition-discussions are held even before the elections.

No-one needs to cry, everyone is allowed to talk.

There is nothing in the Thai constitution nor organic law that gives the largest party first bite at the apple. Since PTP has publicly ruled out BJT a place in a PTP led coalition ---- (huge mistake) that means there is no reason the Dems and BJT acting in concert can't (and/or are not) negotiate with the small parties well in advance. My question is who will take Chuwit?

[khaowong1]

Well - it's going to be interesting if the Dems get more votes. I expect a turnaround on PTs stance if they do.

Of course... that go's without saying.

[rixalex]

Since PTP has publicly ruled out BJT a place in a PTP led coalition ---- (huge mistake) that means there is no reason the Dems and BJT acting in concert can't (and/or are not) negotiate with the small parties well in advance.

I don't think actually it's such a mistake. Publicly ruling out joining up with BJT was done to try and lure over voters who are anti Dem and who might have voted for BJT but who now know that to do so risks allowing the Dems back in - so they will vote for PT. It might not make much difference but it could mean a few extra seats.

And then in the likely event that PT don't have a majority and do need to form a coalition, they will simply come out and say that although they had stated that they wouldn't work with the BJT, they recognise the need to compromise for the good of the country, and will do their part in joining hands and working together with whoever they need to, because that's how much they care about the country... or some other such bilge.

[samurai]

Since PTP has publicly ruled out BJT a place in a PTP led coalition ---- (huge mistake) that means there is no reason the Dems and BJT acting in concert can't (and/or are not) negotiate with the small parties well in advance.

I don't think actually it's such a mistake. Publicly ruling out joining up with BJT was done to try and lure over voters who are anti Dem and who might have voted for BJT but who now know that to do so risks allowing the Dems back in - so they will vote for PT. It might not make much difference but it could mean a few extra seats.

And then in the likely event that PT don't have a majority and do need to form a coalition, they will simply come out and say that although they had stated that they wouldn't work with the BJT, they recognise the need to compromise for the good of the country, and will do their part in joining hands and working together with whoever they need to, because that's how much they care about the country... or some other such bilge.

Exactly. A "grand" coalition for the reconciliation.