Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[nurofiend]

"It seems that the electorate didn't want the PPP in charge either."

here we go with the twisting, surprise, surprise... this is why i made clear in my posts that i was talking about the MAIN ruling party.

so yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party, if of course you're referring to the proof of this coming from the vote of the electorate when they had a chance to vote, i assume you are.

"And certainly, the representatives of the electorate didn't want the PTP in charge in 2008."

which ignores the question i asked.

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

"Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you" "Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government."

Surely those votes represent the people who want your party to win. If we follow the logic that those votes are now irrelevant because the MPs themselves can swap parties and allegiances to get the most seats together to form a government, that makes all your previous and subsequent arguments that the majority of people do not support the PTP also irrelevant.

You are saying that the peoples vote is irrelevant - it is purely down to the MP's and what they are swayed by (in the last governments case, money).

Now can you see why people say that abhisits government was illegal and was brokered by the army and ultimately, why he wasn't re-elected.

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.

yes mr ozmick, the voters elect a representative, we all know this, but that's more of a decision based on the party they represent other than anything else.

so you can cut the suggestion that voting isn't party based in the electorates mind.

the only argument that's codswallop, is that the abhisit led government was wanted by the electorate....they snuck in the back door and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

[Thaddeus]

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

And 8 out of 10 cats like cat food, in a tin, with a nice picture of a happy cat on it.

[473geo]

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.

Does that also mean the representative should be allowed to change the constitution?......or does REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY have limitations if certain elements of power oppose the REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

[OzMick]

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.

yes mr ozmick, the voters elect a representative, we all know this, but that's more of a decision based on the party they represent other than anything else.

so you can cut the suggestion that voting isn't party based in the electorates mind.

the only argument that's codswallop, is that the abhisit led government was wanted by the electorate....they snuck in the back door and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

Educated voters pick a representative who is recognised as a person with a proven record of good work for the community, as just occurred in Don Mueang. Note she also has been a member of several parties.

Politically naive voters choose a representative as put forward by the party offering the most goodies, directly or indirectly, and shouldn't be overly surprised when they get some hack selected by cronyism or nepotism who couldn't give a rat's anus for what is best for the community or the nation.

Changing parties is one of the lesser evils they can expect, and is not unusual in multi-party governments. In fact, I am sure that the vast majority of current PTP MPs have been members of other parties (besides TRT/PPP) as Thaksin formed his political base by buying up smaller party MPs. I don't recall you or anyone else decrying the perversion of voter's wishes.

Edited September 8, 2012 by OzMick

[Thai at Heart]

There is subtle difference in meaning between an election and a vote.

Parliamentary members are selected by election, but the pm is selected by parliamentary vote.

By definition only a party can be said to win the parliamentary election, but an individual can win the parliamentary vote.

[Ricardo]

and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

Two and a half years isn't "long" ?

[OzMick]

and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

Two and a half years isn't "long" ?

It could have been much longer if an insurrection had not been started with the deliberate intention of labeling the Democrats as murderers of the people.

[rubl]

Although discussions on electorate decisions and peoples mandate in 2007/2008 are very interesting, the topic here is still a mandate in 2012:

Victory by the Democrats' Bangkok council candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa over Prawase Wallopbanharn from Pheu Thai was a big surprise, as Constituency 1 has been a strong vote base for Prawase's backer, Karun Hosakul, for a long time.

[473geo]

Although discussions on electorate decisions and peoples mandate in 2007/2008 are very interesting, the topic here is still a mandate in 2012:

Victory by the Democrats' Bangkok council candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa over Prawase Wallopbanharn from Pheu Thai was a big surprise, as Constituency 1 has been a strong vote base for Prawase's backer, Karun Hosakul, for a long time.

Mick is congratulating the 'Educated' voters who chose this lady for her qualities and her unselfish work for the electorate, Rubl, while attempting to label voters "politically naive" who chose to vote against a government they perceived as not enhancing their quality of life.

[whybother]

"Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you" "Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government."

Surely those votes represent the people who want your party to win. If we follow the logic that those votes are now irrelevant because the MPs themselves can swap parties and allegiances to get the most seats together to form a government, that makes all your previous and subsequent arguments that the majority of people do not support the PTP also irrelevant.

You are saying that the peoples vote is irrelevant - it is purely down to the MP's and what they are swayed by (in the last governments case, money).

Now can you see why people say that abhisits government was illegal and was brokered by the army and ultimately, why he wasn't re-elected.

Well, given that a few MPs were voted in after they said that they wouldn't join the PPP, it seems that the peoples vote IS irrelevant. It's funny that the Thaksin supports didn't jump up and down when those MPs decided to back the PPP, but got all high and mighty when they supported Abhisit.

"(in the last governments case, money)" ... Can you please explain that one to BirdPoo? He seems to have a problem understanding that.

[whybother]

yes mr ozmick, the voters elect a representative, we all know this, but that's more of a decision based on the party they represent other than anything else.

so you can cut the suggestion that voting isn't party based in the electorates mind.

the only argument that's codswallop, is that the abhisit led government was wanted by the electorate....they snuck in the back door and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

You can't have been in Thailand very long if you think all the people vote based on party. More often than not, they vote for the name regardless of how often they change parties. That's how Thaksin won elections, particularly in 2005, by bringing into his fold the various names that people had voted for for years. That came back to bite him when a regional block decided to support someone else en masse.

[phiphidon]

The winning Democrat Party candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa

Phwoar, she's a looker, where did she get her degree from, can she even speak english, wonder if she's well known at the holiday Inn, what did she do for a job before she got this one, who's her daddy, does she even know where parliament is, doesn't matter 'cos she'll be shopping for handbags as soon as your back's turned.

And all because the PM MP is a woman.......................................

Regardless of politics has your misogyny meter failed?

Those reality checks produced locally may be defective.

I take it you're either new on here and haven't read the quality of comments written by the army/democrat party/ PAD supporting posters on here wrt the incumbent PM and/or do not understand irony...............

[rubl]

Although discussions on electorate decisions and peoples mandate in 2007/2008 are very interesting, the topic here is still a mandate in 2012:

Victory by the Democrats' Bangkok council candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa over Prawase Wallopbanharn from Pheu Thai was a big surprise, as Constituency 1 has been a strong vote base for Prawase's backer, Karun Hosakul, for a long time.

Mick is congratulating the 'Educated' voters who chose this lady for her qualities and her unselfish work for the electorate, Rubl, while attempting to label voters "politically naive" who chose to vote against a government they perceived as not enhancing their quality of life.

Probably OzMick will have something to say about your explanation of his words. H wrote 'voters choose for' you write 'choose against':

"Politically naive voters choose a representative as put forward by the party offering the most goodies, directly or indirectly, and shouldn't be overly surprised when they get some hack selected by cronyism or nepotism who couldn't give a rat's anus for what is best for the community or the nation."

Anyway after my rather intersting with another member here I try to focus on normal life again, like 'flooding or no flooding, that is the question'

[rubl]

Regardless of politics has your misogyny meter failed?

Those reality checks produced locally may be defective.

I take it you're either new on here and haven't read the quality of comments written by the army/democrat party/ PAD supporting posters on here wrt the incumbent PM and/or do not understand irony...............

To be fair, phiphidon, the comments by Ms Yingluck/Thai ladies smiling/Pheu Thai/Thaksin/UDD/'peaceful protesters'/(any group forgotten) supporting posters were exquisite at times as well

[473geo]

Although discussions on electorate decisions and peoples mandate in 2007/2008 are very interesting, the topic here is still a mandate in 2012:

Victory by the Democrats' Bangkok council candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa over Prawase Wallopbanharn from Pheu Thai was a big surprise, as Constituency 1 has been a strong vote base for Prawase's backer, Karun Hosakul, for a long time.

Mick is congratulating the 'Educated' voters who chose this lady for her qualities and her unselfish work for the electorate, Rubl, while attempting to label voters "politically naive" who chose to vote against a government they perceived as not enhancing their quality of life.

Probably OzMick will have something to say about your explanation of his words. H wrote 'voters choose for' you write 'choose against':

"Politically naive voters choose a representative as put forward by the party offering the most goodies, directly or indirectly, and shouldn't be overly surprised when they get some hack selected by cronyism or nepotism who couldn't give a rat's anus for what is best for the community or the nation."

Anyway after my rather intersting with another member here I try to focus on normal life again, like 'flooding or no flooding, that is the question'

Mick kindly put me on ignore Rubl for which I am grateful.....means I can comment on his posts without contradiction........you think? or will the old rather ridiculous through a second party poster route come into play

But your observation is correct.

Edited September 8, 2012 by 473geo

[phiphidon]

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.

yes mr ozmick, the voters elect a representative, we all know this, but that's more of a decision based on the party they represent other than anything else.

so you can cut the suggestion that voting isn't party based in the electorates mind.

the only argument that's codswallop, is that the abhisit led government was wanted by the electorate....they snuck in the back door and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy............

[phiphidon]

and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

Two and a half years isn't "long" ?

Two and a half years expressed in "democrat party in power years" is as you say a long time.

[rubl]

Mick kindly put me on ignore Rubl for which I am grateful.....means I can comment on his posts without contradiction........you think? or will the old rather ridiculous through a second party poster route come into play

You're being naughty then?

The very thought of "old rather ridiculous through a second party poster route" is ridiculous. It suggests posters know each other and/or work together. This is an OPEN forum I'm told. Any member may post or reply to whatever he/she/other likes as long as it doesn't openly breach forum rules.

So, when's the next chance for the electorate to show how much they care

[rubl]

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy.........

Sheesh, the spin in this post ... ...

[phiphidon]

and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

Two and a half years isn't "long" ?

It could have been much longer if an insurrection had not been started with the deliberate intention of labeling the Democrats as murderers of the people.

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

[phiphidon]

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy.........

Sheesh, the spin in this post ... ...

Would you like to point it out or is that comment just "one for the boys". I'd be grateful to you if you could point out just where you disagree and why?

[rubl]

and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

Two and a half years isn't "long" ?

Two and a half years expressed in "democrat party in power years" is as you say a long time.

Now, now, phiphidon. All those negative waves. Think positive thoughts, try it. Like "it's a once in a lifetime experience"

[phiphidon]

Regardless of politics has your misogyny meter failed?

Those reality checks produced locally may be defective.

I take it you're either new on here and haven't read the quality of comments written by the army/democrat party/ PAD supporting posters on here wrt the incumbent PM and/or do not understand irony...............

To be fair, phiphidon, the comments by Ms Yingluck/Thai ladies smiling/Pheu Thai/Thaksin/UDD/'peaceful protesters'/(any group forgotten) supporting posters were exquisite at times as well

But strangely, not insulting which appears to be default position for your peers , and you on occasion........

[rubl]

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy.........

Sheesh, the spin in this post ... ...

Would you like to point it out or is that comment just "one for the boys". I'd be grateful to you if you could point out just where you disagree and why?

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

[KireB]

and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

Two and a half years isn't "long" ?

It could have been much longer if an insurrection had not been started with the deliberate intention of labeling the Democrats as murderers of the people.

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

For the murder of which citizens were they responsible that led to the red siege of Bangkok. I am confused now, please elaborate on these new facts. Or is it fiction dear spin doctor.

[AleG]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

For the murder of which citizens were they responsible that led to the red siege of Bangkok. I am confused now, please elaborate on these new facts. Or is it fiction dear spin doctor.

Nah, he's just looking at things through the mirror again. From that perspective the time line reads "Dead people -> Red Shirt uprising"

[rubl]

I take it you're either new on here and haven't read the quality of comments written by the army/democrat party/ PAD supporting posters on here wrt the incumbent PM and/or do not understand irony...............

To be fair, phiphidon, the comments by Ms Yingluck/Thai ladies smiling/Pheu Thai/Thaksin/UDD/'peaceful protesters'/(any group forgotten) supporting posters were exquisite at times as well

But strangely, not insulting which appears to be default position for your peers , and you on occasion........

You start to loose me here, dear phiphidon.

You find it strange that supporters of the ever smiling, womanly evasive Ms. Yingluck are not insulting? Do you equally find it strange that Democrats supporters are mostly 'nice' about k. Abhisit and a few non-admirers somewhat nasty?

[473geo]

Mick kindly put me on ignore Rubl for which I am grateful.....means I can comment on his posts without contradiction........you think? or will the old rather ridiculous through a second party poster route come into play

You're being naughty then?

The very thought of "old rather ridiculous through a second party poster route" is ridiculous. It suggests posters know each other and/or work together. This is an OPEN forum I'm told. Any member may post or reply to whatever he/she/other likes as long as it doesn't openly breach forum rules.

So, when's the next chance for the electorate to show how much they care

Actually what my comment suggests to you is not at all the "old rather ridiculous through a second party poster route" I had in mind

People who have one on ignore can see a response when a 'second party' responds.......not a complicated conspiracy theory at all Rubl....

At the last general election people voted for change as they are entitled to do, anybody can only guestimate at best on their reasons, at this local election people voted for change as they are entitled to do, anybody can only guestimate at best on their reasons, so where does the two tier description of the electorate cut in......surely it cannot be that a person would project the thought that the party they vote for differentiates the 'educated' voter from the 'Poitically naive' voter.

[phiphidon]

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy.........

Sheesh, the spin in this post ... ...

Would you like to point it out or is that comment just "one for the boys". I'd be grateful to you if you could point out just where you disagree and why?

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

[whybother]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

I think you have your time lines mixed up.