Parties Now At Core Of Ideological Battle: Thailand

[pastitche]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

France had a run off for the position of President ie head of state. Are you suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy - or are you just lacking in knowledge?

Having run-off elections for MPs doesn't mean a change from a constitutional monarchy.

A similar process is preference voting, which Australia uses, and its a constitutional monarchy also with the Westminster system.

Sent from my shoe phone

It's very noble of you to try to defend HelloDolly's ill-researched post but he was apparently talking about the election of the President of France ie head of state, not the Prime Minister, and attempting to apply it to Thailand for selection of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of France is not elected in that way but perhaps someone with a US-centric view might think that is how the system works.

What happened in France has no bearing on, or relevance to Parliamentary procedures and the role of Prime Minister in a constitutional monarchy; I am sure that you are well aware that France is a republic.

Run-off elections for MPs are completely irrelevant to what I was disputing, viz HelloDolly had misunderstood what happened in the French Presidential election.

[whybother]

It's very noble of you to try to defend HelloDolly's ill-researched post but he was apparently talking about the election of the President of France ie head of state, not the Prime Minister, and attempting to apply it to Thailand for selection of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of France is not elected in that way but perhaps someone with a US-centric view might think that is how the system works.

What happened in France has no bearing on, or relevance to Parliamentary procedures and the role of Prime Minister in a constitutional monarchy; I am sure that you are well aware that France is a republic.

Run-off elections for MPs are completely irrelevant to what I was disputing, viz HelloDolly had misunderstood what happened in the French Presidential election.

I was not "defending" hellodolly. I was just asking how run off elections for MPs (since Thailand doesn't elect their head of state) mean a change from a constitutional monarchy.

And then I pointed out another method of election.

If I suggested an election method that the School Parents Association used, is that suggesting that Thailand should be run by school parents? (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing)

So ... the question still stands. How does a run off election for MPs affect the constitutional monarchy?

Edited July 4, 2012 by whybother

[h90]

d. A just and fair judiciary that treats the poor and the rich completely equally

When Thailand manages to find a way of doing this, please could they send a delegation over to Britain and the US and let us know how?

Thailand provide equal voting rights to rich and poor (one vote each). That is how.

(Apart from 50% of the senator which is selected by the powerful elites and loyals)

since when do rich or poor elect the judges in Thailand?

[pastitche]

It's very noble of you to try to defend HelloDolly's ill-researched post but he was apparently talking about the election of the President of France ie head of state, not the Prime Minister, and attempting to apply it to Thailand for selection of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of France is not elected in that way but perhaps someone with a US-centric view might think that is how the system works.

What happened in France has no bearing on, or relevance to Parliamentary procedures and the role of Prime Minister in a constitutional monarchy; I am sure that you are well aware that France is a republic.

Run-off elections for MPs are completely irrelevant to what I was disputing, viz HelloDolly had misunderstood what happened in the French Presidential election.

I was not "defending" hellodolly. I was just asking how run off elections for MPs (since Thailand doesn't elect their head of state) mean a change from a constitutional monarchy.

And then I pointed out another method of election.

If I suggested an election method that the School Parents Association used, is that suggesting that Thailand should be run by school parents? (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing)

So ... the question still stands. How does a run off election for MPs affect the constitutional monarchy?

Come on, you know that's silly. You responded to my post by introducing completely irrelevant run-off MPs in Australia. I was attempingt to encourage Hellodolly to seek information beyond his limited horizon of North America. I said that since Thailand does not have a president as head of state, he was wrong and he is still wrong.

Using your favourite tactic, where did I suggest that run off elections would affect the constitutinal monarchy?

Edited July 5, 2012 by pastitche

[waza]

Time for dialogue by all parties to create a real road map for peace in Thailand

Edited July 5, 2012 by waza

[whybother]

Come on, you know that's silly. You responded to my post by introducing completely irrelevant run-off MPs in Australia. I was attempingt to encourage Hellodolly to seek information beyond his limited horizon of North America. I said that since Thailand does not have a president as head of state, he was wrong and he is still wrong.

Using your favourite tactic, where did I suggest that run off elections would affect the constitutinal monarchy?

"where did I suggest that run off elections would affect the constitutinal monarchy?"

That would be here:

France had a run off for the position of President ie head of state. Are you suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy - or are you just lacking in knowledge?

hellodolly wasn't suggesting a run-off election for "head of state". He was talking about the PM and then mentioned an alternative election method.

I responded to your question of "Are suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy?" with "Why would it need changing?" You haven't answered that question.

Then, since hellodolly had suggested an alternative election method, I suggested another election method that is used in Australia. Not irrelevant given that hellodolly was talking about alternative election methods.

When talking about election methods, what is being elected is irrelevant. It's the method that is relevant. There was nothing wrong with what hellodolly said.

Neither of us were talking about the "head of state". We were talking about election methods.