Thai Red Shirts Warn Election Commission Of Backlash

[nurofiend]

yes i did mean that if the votes had been counted and accepted as valid votes, by that i meant valid votes as in there was no messing around with the vote count etc and they were valid votes from the people

i totally agree with you that if a winning candidate himself did in fact break the law in how they went about their campaign, then they should be disqualified

what i meant by the relevance of the laws broken meant basically by whom it was broken, if it could be proven that the candidate himself wasn't aware of it then it's completely relevant

but really i think if they are themselves proven to have broken the law, there should be a re-vote and i'm sure the outcome would be the same

the opposition clutching at straws springs to mind here tbh

Valid votes have nothing to do with whether a candidate was legally elected or not. If they broke the law, the votes are irrelevant.

Classic law quote: "Ignorance is no excuse". If the candidate isn't aware of the electoral law then it's their own fault if they happen to break it.

The outcome of any by-election would probably be the same, BUT given the back tracking on some policies announcements by the PTP ... you just never know.

Which "opposition"? The Democrats and the PTP (and lots of others) have lodged complaints. It's up to the EC to decide whether the complaints are valid. We'll find out on Tuesday (from latest reports) whether Yingluck and Abhisit will be endorsed. Given that they weren't asked for more information probably points to them being endorsed.

Ofcourse, that won't stop the PTP from being disbanded for "Thaksin thinks. Pheu Thai acts". But that won't stop Yingluck from being PM or the PTP staying in government in their new guise.

Valid votes do have something to do with whether a candidate is legally elected or not, if they were invalid votes then they are illegally elected...that's why i made the point about valid votes, trust me i do understand the concept of when a candidate breaks the law in getting votes then the votes become worthless

on 2nd point, i meant if someone else in their campaign team broke a law but the candidate wasn't aware of it, which i know is not likely but i'm sure they'd claim it

i used the word 'opposition' precisely because there is more than one opposing party

as i said, i think all of this is irrelevant to the outcome....clearly the majority of the country want PTP in power

[lannarebirth]

No one ever has to guess when i'm being condescending, which i wasn't in this case. My point is that a majority vote might mean nothing if it was garnered illegally. I expect some of the votes were and that the party may be disbanded for legal reasons, but I don't expect that the new party coming to power will change. As I've said before, I have great sympathy for the voters that are installing this new party. Where i disagree is whether installing this new new party is in the best interests of those i sympathize with. I'm not a Thai citizen so I can only wish them well.

you say your point is, ^as quoted above^, yet you made no such point to me....

all you said to me, was firstly to assume that i had a limited and simplistic knowledge of democracy

then just invalidated any point i was trying to make by basically saying i was just talking crap, ie nothing i've been saying has any merit whatsoever, that in my book is condescending

why couldn't you have just replied like you just have now, in a mature fashion and say what your view is....that's all i was getting at

Anyone interested, and I can't believe anyone might be, could go back and follow the course of our conversation, but for the record, this is the portion of a post of yours that i was responding to:

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

I don't accept your "no matter what" comment and that is what I responded to. I DO accept that I'm not a Thai citizen and that what I think has little importance here.

[whybother]

Valid votes do have something to do with whether a candidate is legally elected or not, if they were invalid votes then they are illegally elected...that's why i made the point about valid votes, trust me i do understand the concept of when a candidate breaks the law in getting votes then the votes become worthless

You can't be legally or illegally elected with invalid votes. If a vote is invalid, it doesn't go towards a candidate, so it is irrelevant. Only the valid votes count.

on 2nd point, i meant if someone else in their campaign team broke a law but the candidate wasn't aware of it, which i know is not likely but i'm sure they'd claim it

If someone in the campaign team broke the law, it would probably lead to a yellow card rather than a red card.

i used the word 'opposition' precisely because there is more than one opposing party

They are all opposing parties. Which one(s) were you referring to? All parties?

as i said, i think all of this is irrelevant to the outcome....clearly the majority of the country want PTP in power

Clearly the majority DON'T want PTP in power. Only 48% voted for PTP. 52% didn't. But the PTP got the right votes in the right places to give them a majority of seats.

And that brings us back to whether they got the votes legally or not. If they got the votes illegally, then it's irrelevant how many people voted for them.

Edited July 15, 2011 by whybother

[moe666]

Threats and intimadation the only thing the redshirts understand.

They have certainly had plenty of exposure to it.

You may want to talk to the staff and patient at Chulongkorn Hospital about Red Shirt threats and intimadation they had plenty of exposure to it. There is no way you are other red shirt supporter can justify that invasion. But I am sure you will try.

Edited July 15, 2011 by moe666

[nurofiend]

No one ever has to guess when i'm being condescending, which i wasn't in this case. My point is that a majority vote might mean nothing if it was garnered illegally. I expect some of the votes were and that the party may be disbanded for legal reasons, but I don't expect that the new party coming to power will change. As I've said before, I have great sympathy for the voters that are installing this new party. Where i disagree is whether installing this new new party is in the best interests of those i sympathize with. I'm not a Thai citizen so I can only wish them well.

you say your point is, ^as quoted above^, yet you made no such point to me....

all you said to me, was firstly to assume that i had a limited and simplistic knowledge of democracy

then just invalidated any point i was trying to make by basically saying i was just talking crap, ie nothing i've been saying has any merit whatsoever, that in my book is condescending

why couldn't you have just replied like you just have now, in a mature fashion and say what your view is....that's all i was getting at

Anyone interested, and I can't believe anyone might be, could go back and follow the course of our conversation, but for the record, this is the portion of a post of yours that i was responding to:

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

I don't accept your "no matter what" comment and that is what I responded to. I DO accept that I'm not a Thai citizen and that what I think has little importance here.

actually what you responded to first was my comment about me saying democracy means a majority vote being adhered to, and you replied implying i thought that's all democracy means......i still think you were just being condescending and trying to be funny in your responses instead of just taking me up on it

lol anyway i'm over it

fair enough, i did word that wrong....i meant a fair majority vote

[lannarebirth]

Threats and intimadation the only thing the redshirts understand.

They have certainly had plenty of exposure to it.

You may want to talk to the staff and patient at Chulongkorn Hospital about Red Shirt threats and intimadation they had plenty of exposure to it. There is no way you are other red shirt supporter can justify that invasion. But I am sure you will try.

I may come off as an "elitist" here, but it is mind boggling to me how anyone could support individuals who would carry out such acts. Don't any of these people have a family. particularly elderly? How could you support people who broke into grandma's hospital room, jeopradizing her health, for no reason whatsoever? I know the rank and file Red Shirts would never commit such an act, but their leaders can only be considered as barbarians for doing so. Now they're your party list MP's

[rubl]

does democracy not mean the people's vote being accepted?

is this not a valid argument they have?

The peoples votes are accepted. That doesn't mean all illegal, partially legal, maybe legal, possibly legal machinations of political parties should be ignored. Heaven forbid if one of the political parties misled voters. Like Dem's saying ' we can do better', or Phue Thai 'Thaksin thinks, PT acts'

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

edit: i'm not sure if you were being sarcastic and agreeing with me there or not tbh

You seem to fail to see the difference between a vote and how that vote was acquired. Votes therefor do not automatically mean the person voted for is a valid, legally elected MP. This is even besides the 'normal' misleading of voters by politicians' as you call it.

There is no such thing as a 'majority public vote'. A majority of the public may vote for the same person or party. The EC will endorse votes and candidates as far as there are no irregularities reported. If reported, the EC will investigate. All very legal.

(edit: slight rephrase on EC)

Edited July 15, 2011 by rubl

[rubl]

yes i did mean that if the votes had been counted and accepted as valid votes, by that i meant valid votes as in there was no messing around with the vote count etc and they were valid votes from the people

i totally agree with you that if a winning candidate himself did in fact break the law in how they went about their campaign, then they should be disqualified

what i meant by the relevance of the laws broken meant basically by whom it was broken, if it could be proven that the candidate himself wasn't aware of it then it's completely relevant

but really i think if they are themselves proven to have broken the law, there should be a re-vote and i'm sure the outcome would be the same

the opposition clutching at straws springs to mind here tbh

Valid votes have nothing to do with whether a candidate was legally elected or not. If they broke the law, the votes are irrelevant.

Classic law quote: "Ignorance is no excuse". If the candidate isn't aware of the electoral law then it's their own fault if they happen to break it.

The outcome of any by-election would probably be the same, BUT given the back tracking on some policies announcements by the PTP ... you just never know.

Which "opposition"? The Democrats and the PTP (and lots of others) have lodged complaints. It's up to the EC to decide whether the complaints are valid. We'll find out on Tuesday (from latest reports) whether Yingluck and Abhisit will be endorsed. Given that they weren't asked for more information probably points to them being endorsed.

Ofcourse, that won't stop the PTP from being disbanded for "Thaksin thinks. Pheu Thai acts". But that won't stop Yingluck from being PM or the PTP staying in government in their new guise.

Valid votes do have something to do with whether a candidate is legally elected or not, if they were invalid votes then they are illegally elected...that's why i made the point about valid votes, trust me i do understand the concept of when a candidate breaks the law in getting votes then the votes become worthless

on 2nd point, i meant if someone else in their campaign team broke a law but the candidate wasn't aware of it, which i know is not likely but i'm sure they'd claim it

i used the word 'opposition' precisely because there is more than one opposing party

as i said, i think all of this is irrelevant to the outcome....clearly the majority of the country want PTP in power

The validity of votes is relatively simple. Correct ID, correct mark, correct ..., OK. The election of candidates is another matter. Two things are needed, votes and endorsement by the EC. Endorsement by the EC depends on the process and (lack of) irregularities. Just having the votes doesn't make an endorsed MP.

Clearly a larger part of the Thai population may want Pheu Thai to form the coming government. That still doesn't mean irregularities reported shouldn't be investigated. Why all this nonsense about 'they stole our election'? Dem's ask EC to investigate Pheu Thai and reds start to protest. Pheu Thai asks EC to investigate Dem's and BJT and ... 'we wait for the comments of the EC'.

Something rotten in the party of Pheu Thai ?

Edited July 15, 2011 by rubl

[nurofiend]

A valid or invalid vote does not day anything about whether the candidate did something illegal.

You can't have "the highest majority". It's either A majority (> 50%) or it isn't. The PTP got the most votes of any party, but they didn't get a majority.

They did get the majority of seats (>50%) so that allows them to form government.

you're going in circles here, i already said i know "A valid or invalid vote does not day anything about whether the candidate did something illegal." ive said i agree on this numerous times already

you said you can't be legally or illegally elected on invalid votes, which is not true

ok they have a plurality not a majority

[nurofiend]

does democracy not mean the people's vote being accepted?

is this not a valid argument they have?

The peoples votes are accepted. That doesn't mean all illegal, partially legal, maybe legal, possibly legal machinations of political parties should be ignored. Heaven forbid if one of the political parties misled voters. Like Dem's saying ' we can do better', or Phue Thai 'Thaksin thinks, PT acts'

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

edit: i'm not sure if you were being sarcastic and agreeing with me there or not tbh

You seem to fail to see the difference between a vote and how that vote was acquired. Votes therefor do not automatically mean the person voted for is a valid, legally elected MP. This is even besides the 'normal' misleading of voters by politicians' as you call it.

There is no such thing as a 'majority public vote'. A majority of the public may vote for the same person or party. The EC will endorse votes and candidates as far as there are no irregularities reported. If reported, the EC will investigate. All very legal.

(edit: slight rephrase on EC)

i'm not sure what your first sentence even means, you mean i can't differentiate between what a vote is and what campaigning is, or if it's acquired legally or not? baffling sentence

anyway, how could they be on the ballot if they had no legal right to be, surely that would've been sorted out long ago pre-vote?

"majority public vote" meaning the majority of the public voted for......but yes i was mistaken, the PTP had a plurality not a majority

[lannarebirth]

anyway, how could they be on the ballot if they had no legal right to be, surely that would've been sorted out long ago pre-vote?

You would be absolutely justified in believing this, but sadly that is not the case. Election commissions here since 2001 are most notable for their lack of a spine and feet of clay.

[rubl]

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

edit: i'm not sure if you were being sarcastic and agreeing with me there or not tbh

You seem to fail to see the difference between a vote and how that vote was acquired. Votes therefor do not automatically mean the person voted for is a valid, legally elected MP. This is even besides the 'normal' misleading of voters by politicians' as you call it.

There is no such thing as a 'majority public vote'. A majority of the public may vote for the same person or party. The EC will endorse votes and candidates as far as there are no irregularities reported. If reported, the EC will investigate. All very legal.

(edit: slight rephrase on EC)

i'm not sure what your first sentence even means, you mean i can't differentiate between what a vote is and what campaigning is, or if it's acquired legally or not? baffling sentence

anyway, how could they be on the ballot if they had no legal right to be, surely that would've been sorted out long ago pre-vote?

"majority public vote" meaning the majority of the public voted for......but yes i was mistaken, the PTP had a plurality not a majority

Oh my, and here I am thinking you are a native English speaker. If I'm wrong in that I do apologize.

If votes are accepted as valid, the person or party who got the votes may be elected by those votes, but that only a first step in the formalization of the Election result. If the person or party voted for has been involved in irregularities of a kind against the Election Law and the EC concludes so, the EC may either decide on red/yellow carding MP's or forward a case to the Election Court for a ruling. Don't ask me for details, I don't have any.

Candidates could easely be on a ballot and still be illegal, invalid, cheats. With only 45/60 days between House dissolution and Elections and 4000+ candidates to check all takes a bit of time

Lastly 'majority public vote' is incorrect English or an incorrect description even if what you meant is what I assumed you might have meant 'a majority of the public voted ...'

(PS: plurality? In North American English, the term plurality, used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes to be received by any candidate or referendum.[1] It is contrasted with a majority, which is more than half of the votes. According to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting))

(PPS, from your Dutch uncle rubl )

Edited July 15, 2011 by rubl

[nurofiend]

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

edit: i'm not sure if you were being sarcastic and agreeing with me there or not tbh

You seem to fail to see the difference between a vote and how that vote was acquired. Votes therefor do not automatically mean the person voted for is a valid, legally elected MP. This is even besides the 'normal' misleading of voters by politicians' as you call it.

There is no such thing as a 'majority public vote'. A majority of the public may vote for the same person or party. The EC will endorse votes and candidates as far as there are no irregularities reported. If reported, the EC will investigate. All very legal.

(edit: slight rephrase on EC)

i'm not sure what your first sentence even means, you mean i can't differentiate between what a vote is and what campaigning is, or if it's acquired legally or not? baffling sentence

anyway, how could they be on the ballot if they had no legal right to be, surely that would've been sorted out long ago pre-vote?

"majority public vote" meaning the majority of the public voted for......but yes i was mistaken, the PTP had a plurality not a majority

Oh my, and here I am thinking you are a native English speaker. If I'm wrong in that I do apologize.

If votes are accepted as valid, the person or party who got the votes may be elected by those votes, but that only a first step in the formalization of the Election result. If the person or party voted for has been involved in irregularities of a kind against the Election Law and the EC concludes so, the EC may either decide on red/yellow carding MP's or forward a case to the Election Court for a ruling. Don't ask me for details, I don't have any.

Candidates could easely be on a ballot and still be illegal, invalid, cheats. With only 45/60 days between House dissolution and Elections and 4000+ candidates to check all takes a bit of time

Lastly 'majority public vote' is incorrect English or an incorrect description even if what you meant is what I assumed you might have meant 'a majority of the public voted ...'

(PS: plurality? In North American English, the term plurality, used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes to be received by any candidate or referendum.[1] It is contrasted with a majority, which is more than half of the votes. According to wiki http://en.wikipedia....urality_(voting))

(PPS, from your Dutch uncle rubl )

i thought you were an english speaker, hence my statement about your sentence ... but it still doesn't make sense...explain to me how i couldn't see the difference between a vote and how a vote is acquired and then maybe i'll understand it

and jesus, don't be such a grammar nazi... 'majority public vote' sorry 'majority of the public vote'.....it wasn't hard to understand what i meant

i could use incorrect english against you too eg 'but that only a first step' is incorrect english, but i knew what you meant

and yes plurality, it applies here...

Edited July 15, 2011 by nurofiend

[rubl]

You seem to fail to see the difference between a vote and how that vote was acquired. Votes therefor do not automatically mean the person voted for is a valid, legally elected MP. This is even besides the 'normal' misleading of voters by politicians' as you call it.

There is no such thing as a 'majority public vote'. A majority of the public may vote for the same person or party. The EC will endorse votes and candidates as far as there are no irregularities reported. If reported, the EC will investigate. All very legal.

(edit: slight rephrase on EC)

i'm not sure what your first sentence even means, you mean i can't differentiate between what a vote is and what campaigning is, or if it's acquired legally or not? baffling sentence

anyway, how could they be on the ballot if they had no legal right to be, surely that would've been sorted out long ago pre-vote?

"majority public vote" meaning the majority of the public voted for......but yes i was mistaken, the PTP had a plurality not a majority

Oh my, and here I am thinking you are a native English speaker. If I'm wrong in that I do apologize.

If votes are accepted as valid, the person or party who got the votes may be elected by those votes, but that only a first step in the formalization of the Election result. If the person or party voted for has been involved in irregularities of a kind against the Election Law and the EC concludes so, the EC may either decide on red/yellow carding MP's or forward a case to the Election Court for a ruling. Don't ask me for details, I don't have any.

Candidates could easely be on a ballot and still be illegal, invalid, cheats. With only 45/60 days between House dissolution and Elections and 4000+ candidates to check all takes a bit of time

Lastly 'majority public vote' is incorrect English or an incorrect description even if what you meant is what I assumed you might have meant 'a majority of the public voted ...'

(PS: plurality? In North American English, the term plurality, used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes to be received by any candidate or referendum.[1] It is contrasted with a majority, which is more than half of the votes. According to wiki http://en.wikipedia....urality_(voting))

(PPS, from your Dutch uncle rubl )

i thought you were an english speaker, hence my statement about your sentence ... but it still doesn't make sense...explain to me how i couldn't see the difference between a vote and how a vote is acquired and then maybe i'll understand it

and jesus, don't be such a grammar nazi... 'majority public vote' sorry 'majority of the public vote'.....it wasn't hard to understand what i meant

i could use incorrect english against you too eg 'but that only a first step' is incorrect english, but i knew what you meant

and yes plurality, it applies here...

Rumour has it that on the 4th of July Sarah Palin may have said 'if we hadn't won our independence we'd all be speaking English today'

[metisdead]

Posts have been deleted for failure to use quote function leading to misunderstanding of who posted what.

[nurofiend]

maybe ye should have a hide option in the bb code or whatever ye use, so then you don't have to limit the amount of quotes allowed

when replying, posters can just highlight all the quoted text, click a hide button and then users can choose whether to click it open or not when reading the post....just an idea

Edited July 16, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

Oh my, and here I am thinking you are a native English speaker. If I'm wrong in that I do apologize.

If votes are accepted as valid, the person or party who got the votes may be elected by those votes, but that only a first step in the formalization of the Election result. If the person or party voted for has been involved in irregularities of a kind against the Election Law and the EC concludes so, the EC may either decide on red/yellow carding MP's or forward a case to the Election Court for a ruling. Don't ask me for details, I don't have any.

Candidates could easely be on a ballot and still be illegal, invalid, cheats. With only 45/60 days between House dissolution and Elections and 4000+ candidates to check all takes a bit of time

Lastly 'majority public vote' is incorrect English or an incorrect description even if what you meant is what I assumed you might have meant 'a majority of the public voted ...'

(PS: plurality? In North American English, the term plurality, used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes to be received by any candidate or referendum.[1] It is contrasted with a majority, which is more than half of the votes. According to wiki http://en.wikipedia....urality_(voting))

(PPS, from your Dutch uncle rubl )

i thought you were an english speaker, hence my statement about your sentence ... but it still doesn't make sense...explain to me how i couldn't see the difference between a vote and how a vote is acquired and then maybe i'll understand it

and jesus, don't be such a grammar nazi... 'majority public vote' sorry 'majority of the public vote'.....it wasn't hard to understand what i meant

i could use incorrect english against you too eg 'but that only a first step' is incorrect english, but i knew what you meant

and yes plurality, it applies here...

Rumour has it that on the 4th of July Sarah Palin may have said 'if we hadn't won our independence we'd all be speaking English today'

if someone can understand the relevance of that post, please do tell

[scorecard]

Posts have been deleted for failure to use quote function leading to misunderstanding of who posted what.

Is there a tutorial on using the quote function, please.

[whybother]

Posts have been deleted for failure to use quote function leading to misunderstanding of who posted what.

Is there a tutorial on using the quote function, please.

It's all about matching open and close quotes. The first 'quote' in square brackets is matched with the last '/quote' (end quote) in square brackets.

When deleting a quote pair, delete the inner most pair first.

Here's a thread about quoting.

Edited July 17, 2011 by whybother