Thai Politicians Have Failed The People Yet Again

[philw]

-snip-

That still doesn't make it a PTP majority.

I'm familiar with these hair-splitting arguments.

53% of the seats for the PTP is called winning a majority

48.14% of the popular vote for the PTP

60% of the seats for the current government

54.04% of the popular vote for the current government

The democrats won 35.15% of the popular vote and only 31.8% of the contested seats. That is an 18 - 21 point spread.

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

Thank you................

I guess it's just too difficult for some people.

Why they bother is beyond me.

Phil

[whybother]

-snip-

That still doesn't make it a PTP majority.

I'm familiar with these hair-splitting arguments.

53% of the seats for the PTP is called winning a majority

48.14% of the popular vote for the PTP

60% of the seats for the current government

54.04% of the popular vote for the current government

The democrats won 35.15% of the popular vote and only 31.8% of the contested seats. That is an 18 - 21 point spread.

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

When others are trying to use "a majority" as a reason for the PTP to do anything that they wish, pointing out that they didn't get a majority is the correct thing to do.

What the Democrats got is irrelevant.

The point is, a majority did NOT vote for PTP.

[TAWP]

As a person that doesn't support any part in the parliament, I think it is highly dishonest to proclaim that any party got votes 'by the majority of Thai people who voted' when the fact is that they did not.

The constituency-problem aside, that gives disproportionally high amount of MPs to some low-population areas, the term 'majority of the Thai people who voted' explicitly refers to actual people - voters - and not anything else. Hence it is incorrect to proclaim that they got a majority of the people who voted, much less of the people in total.

They where voted in by a minority of a reduced population-count (not everyone is elegable to vote nor did everyone elegable to vote infact vote).

And this brings us as to why altering the Constitution to suit one man is even more so wrong by using the 'x number of people voted for us'-argument.

[TAWP]

I guess it's just too difficult for some people.

Why they bother is beyond me.

Too difficult? On the opposite, argue with facts on the hand is easy.

What is difficult is constantly having the energy to stand against the tide of misinformed posts or pure propaganda posts that dry to shovel their drivel across, in face of facts.

I guess I could agree that it is beyond you why we bother, but I think it is because we don't want people to spread misinformation and propaganda - even if it will not change the position of the original poster of such nonsense.

[rixalex]

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

Stick to the facts, and there is no argument, hair-splitting or otherwise.

Fact: A majority of people did not vote PTP. Close to a majority did. State it as such, and there is no discussion. It's really not that difficult.

[tlansford]

-snip-

That still doesn't make it a PTP majority.

I'm familiar with these hair-splitting arguments.

53% of the seats for the PTP is called winning a majority

48.14% of the popular vote for the PTP

60% of the seats for the current government

54.04% of the popular vote for the current government

The democrats won 35.15% of the popular vote and only 31.8% of the contested seats. That is an 18 - 21 point spread.

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

When others are trying to use "a majority" as a reason for the PTP to do anything that they wish, pointing out that they didn't get a majority is the correct thing to do.

What the Democrats got is irrelevant.

The point is, a majority did NOT vote for PTP.

The point is that the PTP and their coalition partners have been elected to lead the government, and not by a small margin... Yes, they have a mandate to implement their policies, and in Thailand, they have an obligation to do so.

Another point is that the PTP, their coalition partners, as well as the opposition MPs were all elected to represent the Thai people in the government. It would be nice if all parties exercised their responsibilities to represent the people and govern.

As for being the correct thing to do to correct people, I disagree. The common usage of "Majority" in English is defined as "majority [məˈdʒɒrɪtɪ] n pl -ties 1. the greater number or part of something the majority of the constituents". The use as such above is normal, natural, and is completely correct. Your "correction" is just to say "yeah, but they didn't win an absolute majority" and nothing more. Imagine if the PTP HAD won just 1.5% more of the popular vote - then, from 40 parties in the election, they would have won an absolute majority in the popular vote, an absolute majority in seats, and their main competitor would have lost by more than 20% in the popular vote and close to 25% or more in the number of seats. Wow, what would be the sports analogy for that? Clean-sweep, shut-out, grand slam, slam-dunk, ... ?

As for less that 50% of the Thai voters voting for any single party, bring it up all you want, but it is irrelevant. Even in the USA, a defacto 2-party system, George W Bush did not win the majority in the popular vote, but went on to be the "Leader of the Free World" for 8 years. His opponent - & winner of the popular vote - Al Gore, went on the lecture circuit.

[tlansford]

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

Stick to the facts, and there is no argument, hair-splitting or otherwise. Fact: A majority of people did not vote PTP. Close to a majority did. State it as such, and there is no discussion. It's really not that difficult.

See post above for the first definition of "majority".

Yes the majority DID vote for the PTP. Their % of the total vote was 48+%

[tlansford]

-snip- That still doesn't make it a PTP majority.

I'm familiar with these hair-splitting arguments. 53% of the seats for the PTP is called winning a majority 48.14% of the popular vote for the PTP 60% of the seats for the current government 54.04% of the popular vote for the current government The democrats won 35.15% of the popular vote and only 31.8% of the contested seats. That is an 18 - 21 point spread. Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

Thank you................ I guess it's just too difficult for some people. Why they bother is beyond me. Phil

And several posts later, ... we're still in the same boat. I think this thread is dead...

Anyway, according to The Nation, Thai politicians have failed the people. According to me, The Nation has failed as journalism.

Latté time

[whybother]

See post above for the first definition of "majority".

Yes the majority DID vote for the PTP. Their % of the total vote was 48+%

From the same definition as you quoted:

ma·jor·i·ty (m-jôr-t, -jr-)

n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties

1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.

People may use 'majority' to describe the PTP votes, but that doesn't make it correct. And it especially doesn't make it correct when it's used to say that more people want a certain thing than don't.

An "absolute majority" refers to a majority of all eligible voters, not just those that voted.

Certainly, PTP have been elected to be in government and they do have a comfortable majority. I am not denying that.

[tlansford]

See post above for the first definition of "majority".

Yes the majority DID vote for the PTP. Their % of the total vote was 48+%

From the same definition as you quoted:

ma·jor·i·ty (m-jôr-t, -jr-)

n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties

1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.

People may use 'majority' to describe the PTP votes, but that doesn't make it correct. And it especially doesn't make it correct when it's used to say that more people want a certain thing than don't.

An "absolute majority" refers to a majority of all eligible voters, not just those that voted.

Certainly, PTP have been elected to be in government and they do have a comfortable majority. I am not denying that.

you are learning. Good. ;-)

"n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties

1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total."

relative and absolute majority are adjectives used to specify more precisely which of the correct usages of "majority" is meant. Which is the point I made in my previous post.

You are aware that the order in which definitions appear in a dictionary is indicative of the usage, ... ?

[Oberkommando]

Still bitter about election results after all this time. Where's the facepalm smiley?

[Thaddeus]

Better than Horlicks.

[Reasonableman]

Better than Horlicks.

zzzzzzzz...

[xthAi76s]

There is not a single good soul amongst all politicians in Thailand. I will not vote for anyone unless I see fresh faces; those that are not connected in anyways with present and past politicians.

They are just a product of the people they represent.

+1 -- more or less a reflection of Thai society. Yingluck is rather the epitome of majority Thai values: 1) white face, 2) extraordinary wealth, 3) power, 4) Chinese.

Sorry, but it's at least somewhat true. You can change to fresh faces, and, chances are, all you will have changed are the faces.

EDIT: 5) despite her grisly teeth, quite 'sanuk' if you've seen her in interviews

Edited December 28, 2011 by ThailandMan

[TAWP]

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

Stick to the facts, and there is no argument, hair-splitting or otherwise. Fact: A majority of people did not vote PTP. Close to a majority did. State it as such, and there is no discussion. It's really not that difficult.

See post above for the first definition of "majority".

Yes the majority DID vote for the PTP. Their % of the total vote was 48+%

PTP got a majority of the MP seats, the majority of the voters did NOT vote or them.

Why is this so hard?

[hellodolly]

Isn't it amazing that every time there is an editorial criticizing the current government, the same people come out and moan about the Nation being biased and the old "yeah, but what about the PAD" arguments are rehashed?

It does not change anything. This government is crap, regardless of what previous governments did or did not do.

If MPs don't even bother to show up during important sessions, then that is blatant sign of disrespect and ingratitude towards their voters.

It is pathetic that Yingluck (Cinderella as she was dubbed in a previous editorial) does not ever get stuck in and answers the accusations leveled at her. She gets others to fight for her. Claims many times that she does not know what is being discussed in Parliament.

Pure incompetence. Some PM.

And then she has the NERVE to visit Suu Kyi so "support" her. Cinderella should be bowing her head to Suu Kyi's feet.

Since The Nation now seems to have stooped to the level of playground name calling and claiming it is an annual tradition I am not sure how the PM is supposed to reply - maybe sticking her fingers in her ears and going la-la-la-la-la is something these sorry excuses for journalists might understand.

So, you disagree with the assertion of the article saying that the PTP have been ineffectual?

Nick names aside.

Can't see where the article specifically says that (I could be wrong though!).

Since this is an annual award I assume it also covers the previous governments performance since they were in charge for most of the year so if the implication is that all goverments over the last year have been ineffectual then I might possibly agree as it is more even handed,however, it would have to be tempered by the fact the the PT government only came to power in August and since then has had to deal with the worst natural disaster in over 50 years so would be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that they maybe haven't had time to be effective yet.

Give me a break.

Floods do not wait for you to become effective.

They are very insistent.

Or are you trying to say that after four years in power the PT would be so effective all they would have to do is snap their finger and it would have gone away.

Edited December 29, 2011 by hellodolly

[tlansford]

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.

Stick to the facts, and there is no argument, hair-splitting or otherwise. Fact: A majority of people did not vote PTP. Close to a majority did. State it as such, and there is no discussion. It's really not that difficult.

See post above for the first definition of "majority".

Yes the majority DID vote for the PTP. Their % of the total vote was 48+%

PTP got a majority of the MP seats, the majority of the voters did NOT vote or them.

Why is this so hard?

Because people do not understand the correct and common use of the word majority in English and because the PTP almost, but not quite, won an absolute majority in both seats and popular vote. Majority can and does correctly refer to a relative and an absolute majority. The "corrections" should be questions on precision.

A true statement : The majority of Thais voted for the PTP

A true statement = The PTP won a majority of seats

The first is relative majority, the second is absolute majority.

You're right, it is not that hard. And since most posters are well aware of the election results and can reference them with a single click in google, we can all understand when a poster meant absolute or relative with the use of the word majority...

[Orac]

Since The Nation now seems to have stooped to the level of playground name calling and claiming it is an annual tradition I am not sure how the PM is supposed to reply - maybe sticking her fingers in her ears and going la-la-la-la-la is something these sorry excuses for journalists might understand.

So, you disagree with the assertion of the article saying that the PTP have been ineffectual?

Nick names aside.

Can't see where the article specifically says that (I could be wrong though!).

Since this is an annual award I assume it also covers the previous governments performance since they were in charge for most of the year so if the implication is that all goverments over the last year have been ineffectual then I might possibly agree as it is more even handed,however, it would have to be tempered by the fact the the PT government only came to power in August and since then has had to deal with the worst natural disaster in over 50 years so would be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that they maybe haven't had time to be effective yet.

Give me a break.

Floods do not wait for you to become effective.

They are very insistent.

Or are you trying to say that after four years in power the PT would be so effective all they would have to do is snap their finger and it would have gone away.

Exactly my point - the floods were already happenning when the PT government took power and have not fully gone away yet. On top of that the economic effect on the whole of Thailand will be significant both in rebuilding and taking the steps needed for preventing such damage again in the future.

I do not think it unreasonable, though I am sure you will, that this has hindered the effectiveness of the Yingluck government in putting in place its policy promises so, personally, I think they need more time to prove themselves.

[Moruya]

I do you you're not an accountant, tlansford!

15 million is the majority of 65 million?

Emmmmmmmmmm. No!

[rixalex]

A true statement : The majority of Thais voted for the PTP

A true statement = The PTP won a majority of seats

The first is relative majority, the second is absolute majority.

You're right, it is not that hard. And since most posters are well aware of the election results and can reference them with a single click in google, we can all understand when a poster meant absolute or relative with the use of the word majority...

I'm no linguist, but my feeling is that most people, when reading about majorities, think first of this word in the sense of a number more than half. If therefore you make the first statement - the majority of Thais voted PTP - but without qualifying that statement - without going on to explain in which sense you mean a majority, most casual readers who aren't in the habit of checking everything they read on google, would assume you meant that more than 50% of voters voted PTP. I think the onus is on the people who use the word majority to talk about numbers which do not represent more than 50%, to make sure they are not misleading the reader, intentionally or otherwise.

[tlansford]

I do you you're not an accountant, tlansford!

15 million is the majority of 65 million?

Emmmmmmmmmm. No!

What is your point, Moruya? I did not say anything of the sort.

[Moruya]

I do you you're not an accountant, tlansford!

15 million is the majority of 65 million?

Emmmmmmmmmm. No!

What is your point, Moruya? I did not say anything of the sort.

What does this mean then? "A true statement : The majority of Thais voted for the PTP"

[tlansford]

A true statement : The majority of Thais voted for the PTP

A true statement = The PTP won a majority of seats

The first is relative majority, the second is absolute majority.

You're right, it is not that hard. And since most posters are well aware of the election results and can reference them with a single click in google, we can all understand when a poster meant absolute or relative with the use of the word majority...

I'm no linguist, but my feeling is that most people, when reading about majorities, think first of this word in the sense of a number more than half. If therefore you make the first statement - the majority of Thais voted PTP - but without qualifying that statement - without going on to explain in which sense you mean a majority, most casual readers who aren't in the habit of checking everything they read on google, would assume you meant that more than 50% of voters voted PTP. I think the onus is on the people who use the word majority to talk about numbers which do not represent more than 50%, to make sure they are not misleading the reader, intentionally or otherwise.

you are certainly allowed to feel that way.

Purely from a language standpoint, I disagree. Majority in the sense of the largest group and in the sense of an absolute majority are both very common, and the former, perhaps more so than the latter. The dictionaries, which place definitions in the order of their usage, take about the same view. Usually both definitions are together, sometimes the relative majority is first, sometimes the absolute majority is first.

Take this statement as if it were June 2011 :

If the majority of voters vote for the Democrats in July, then they should be allowed to form a government.

The sense here is clearly relative-majority and it is perfectly understandable.

I believe the that onus, if there is one, would be on a person who would like to clarify a statement, to simply ask if absolute or relative were meant. In most cases it is obvious anyway.

In this case, I believe there is nit-picking at this only because it is a relatively rare situation in parliamentary elections that a party does win an absolute majority of the seats or the popular vote, and in this case, the PTP did win an absolute majority of the seats and they almost, but not quite, won an absolute majority of the popular vote.

[tlansford]

I do you you're not an accountant, tlansford!

15 million is the majority of 65 million?

Emmmmmmmmmm. No!

What is your point, Moruya? I did not say anything of the sort.

What does this mean then? "A true statement : The majority of Thais voted for the PTP"

Ah, so you read the post and it was in context, please re-read it. It was clear what was meant.

[TAWP]

** redundant

Edited December 29, 2011 by TAWP

[TAWP]

Purely from a language standpoint, I disagree. Majority in the sense of the largest group and in the sense of an absolute majority are both very common, and the former, perhaps more so than the latter. The dictionaries, which place definitions in the order of their usage, take about the same view. Usually both definitions are together, sometimes the relative majority is first, sometimes the absolute majority is first.

Take this statement as if it were June 2011 :

If the majority of voters vote for the Democrats in July, then they should be allowed to form a government.

The sense here is clearly relative-majority and it is perfectly understandable.

I believe the that onus, if there is one, would be on a person who would like to clarify a statement, to simply ask if absolute or relative were meant. In most cases it is obvious anyway.

In this case, I believe there is nit-picking at this only because it is a relatively rare situation in parliamentary elections that a party does win an absolute majority of the seats or the popular vote, and in this case, the PTP did win an absolute majority of the seats and they almost, but not quite, won an absolute majority of the popular vote.

"With three-cornered contests as common as they now are, we may have occasion to find a convenient single word for what we used to call an absolute majority... In America the word majority itself has that meaning while a poll greater than that of any other candidate, but less than half the votes cast is called a plurality. It might be useful to borrow this distinction..." (Fowler, H.W. 1965 A Dictionary of Modern English Usage)

So they have a plurality of the votes.

I hope you will stand corrected.

[Moruya]

I do you you're not an accountant, tlansford!

15 million is the majority of 65 million?

Emmmmmmmmmm. No!

What is your point, Moruya? I did not say anything of the sort.

What does this mean then? "A true statement : The majority of Thais voted for the PTP"

Ah, so you read the post and it was in context, please re-read it. It was clear what was meant.

Your statement is incorrect. Accept it.

If you want to say that "the majority of Thai voters voted for PTP" you would also be incorrect.

If you want to say that "the PT Party received more votes than any other party" then I would agree.

[rixalex]

Your statement is incorrect. Accept it.

If you want to say that "the majority of Thai voters voted for PTP" you would also be incorrect.

If you want to say that "the PT Party received more votes than any other party" then I would agree.

Indeed. And what is so difficult about saying "the PT Party received more votes than any other party"? You read that sentence, and you understand precisely the meaning, with no chance of misunderstanding. Saying that the majority of voters voted for PTP creates so much confusion, but perhaps that is the intention all along...

[tlansford]

Your statement is incorrect. Accept it.

If you want to say that "the majority of Thai voters voted for PTP" you would also be incorrect.

If you want to say that "the PT Party received more votes than any other party" then I would agree.

whatever

[tlansford]

Alright - call off the yellow dogs, ...

I am not the one who has a problem with the number of votes the PTP received.

Every time a poster states anything close to "the majority of Thais, ..." there is a contingent here who jumps on their post and says "no, no, no, ... only 48%", or whatever else they want to say.

The fact of the matter is the context of most of these statements is clear. The meaning is clear. Majority in the sense of "most votes received" is a perfectly accurate and accepted use of the English language and if there is a group here who cannot accept that, then excuse me, but it is not my fault and I personally don't give a rip if you understand English or not.

Carry on... I'm out of here.