Intimidation works even better, when the village head knows how everyone voted (so everyone votes the way he says) not to mention how the democrats weren't able to even campaign in Isaan.

Perhaps they weren't able to campaign because of their actions......................

Snipers and that sort of thing.....

So you see no problem in having one (or several, as it often is) party being unable to run a campaign in an area due to violence and threats?

This issue pre-date both the riots of 2010 (ergo the 2011 election) and the coup of 2006 (ergo the 2007 election) - so it is useless to blame them on any of those events.

No, I said

"Perhaps they weren't able to campaign because of their actions......................

Snipers and that sort of thing....."

I did not say

"...no problem in having one (or several, as it often is) party being unable to run a campaign in an area due to violence and threats?"

As they say in L'pool, " puttuth not words in my gob."

Anybody have some good links on reports detailing issues with one of these popular politicians and members of their party not being able to campaign in specific regions of Thailand?

Intimidation works even better, when the village head knows how everyone voted (so everyone votes the way he says) not to mention how the democrats weren't able to even campaign in Isaan.

Perhaps they weren't able to campaign because of their actions...................... Snipers and that sort of thing.....

So you see no problem in having one (or several, as it often is) party being unable to run a campaign in an area due to violence and threats? This issue pre-date both the riots of 2010 (ergo the 2011 election) and the coup of 2006 (ergo the 2007 election) - so it is useless to blame them on any of those events.

No, I said "Perhaps they weren't able to campaign because of their actions...................... Snipers and that sort of thing....." I did not say "...no problem in having one (or several, as it often is) party being unable to run a campaign in an area due to violence and threats?" As they say in L'pool, " puttuth not words in my gob."

sorry Phil, you can't avoid it- that is TVF SOP

Vote buying does get rolled out here on the forum quite often in the political threads.

No one has discussed whether or not it really works, however, everyone does have an opinion.

It would be interesting to see an academic study the overall impact of the practice. Does anyone have an idea if this has already been done?

My personal favorite politician of the year has to be Herman Cain - now there is a guy who was really bought and paid for ! (edit : and dam_n entertaining, too )

Yes, there have been some detailed studies done on vote buying and the relative effectiveness and "Thainess" of it.

Not sure exactly where but one could start to look with.

New Mandela.

Bangkok Pundit.

PPT.

Chris Baker

Asiatimes on line.

and maybe 2bangkok

Having a bad day here, one labrador going down with renal failure and the vets will not put her out of her misery even though it's clearly a lost cause and just learned that a mate in Australia died on new years eve.

Sorry about the friend and dog - understand completely.

Thanks for the tips, I had found an article with another reference from one of the comment.

The article was here http://asiapacific.a...uying-bogeyman/

And one of the comments referenced this, with a link to The Nation.

For a useful perspective, I recommend a 2008 Chang Noi article [ http://www.nationmul...on_30082102.php ] – worth reading in full but, to give a flavour, I’ll quote this section: “In the early history of Thai vote-buying, candidates thrust red notes into voters’ hands in order to create an obligation. Once a voter had accepted the candidate’s generosity, it would be bad manners not to repay that generosity when casting the vote. But this kind of naive transaction did not last long. By the mid-1990s, some voters would take money from every candidate, and then vote how they pleased. Others would only take from a candidate they had already decided to vote for, in order not to create an obligation. Candidates still had to offer money. Not doing so would risk being branded as ‘ungenerous’ and thus not worth electing. This was particularly true of candidates known to be rich. Vote-buying has thus become a bit like a candidate’s deposit, distributed among the voters rather than paid to the authorities.”

Vote buying is IMO one of the most important reasons on why Thailand has alot of the problems it has, this 'tradition' is anethema to democracy, and I wonder why the UDD never makes any mention of it.

It not only serves as a barrier ot entry to the political system to anyone without significant personal wealth or sponsors to which the candidate is subsequently completely beholden. It also serves to filter the type of people who want to become involved in politics (is it any wonder that MP seats so often go to memeber of the same family) and also changes how elected offcials behave after they are elected.

It distorts the entire political landscape of thailand, for example it serves to connect politics of all evels to organised crime and its associated violence and the massive corruption that follows it. It is an evil that needs to be stamped out.

Intimidation works even better, when the village head knows how everyone voted (so everyone votes the way he says) not to mention how the democrats weren't able to even campaign in Isaan.

Perhaps they weren't able to campaign because of their actions......................

Snipers and that sort of thing.....

So you see no problem in having one (or several, as it often is) party being unable to run a campaign in an area due to violence and threats?

This issue pre-date both the riots of 2010 (ergo the 2011 election) and the coup of 2006 (ergo the 2007 election) - so it is useless to blame them on any of those events.

No, I said

"Perhaps they weren't able to campaign because of their actions......................

Snipers and that sort of thing....."

I did not say

"...no problem in having one (or several, as it often is) party being unable to run a campaign in an area due to violence and threats?"

As they say in L'pool, " puttuth not words in my gob."

So you ignore the reality and truth, good for you.

Again, Democrats have had problems campaigning in these areas for years before the events of 2010. What do you have to say about that?

And again, so you say that because the army used violence against rioters it is only right if one of the political party in power at the time is meet with violence, threats and in general is stopped from being allowed to have a normal campaign in some areas?