Referendum: A Vote Thai Democrats Are Happy To Shun

[webfact]

ANALYSIS

Referendum: a vote Democrats are happy to shun

Opas Boonlom, Jintana Panyaarvudh

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- It remains unclear how the Democrat Party will campaign after its latest call for the public to "abort" a planned national referendum on changing the Constitution - but the easy way to obstruct the process might be to urge voters not to vote. However, that entails legal risks.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva did not make clear yesterday how he would campaign to try to kill the charter rewrite. But he said his ultimate goal was for Thais to reject the move, which he claims is being done to try to amend Article 309 of the 2007 charter.

Article 309 legalises the actions and orders of the coup-makers in 2006. Removing that would help Thaksin clear charges taken against him after the coup that toppled his government, the Opposition says.

Legally, there are two ways to abort the referendum.

The first would be to discourage voter turnout so that less than half of all eligible voters participate.

According to the Constitution and referendum law, a referendum requires more than half of all eligible voters to come out to vote. And the resolution must come from the majority of those who vote.

Currently, there are around 46 million eligible voters. That means the referendum would be legitimate only if over 23 million people vote.

If the Democrats succeed in keeping the voter turnout low, the referendum process would be killed.

One camp said it would not be easy to get 23 million people to vote. Wiratana Kalayasiri, a Songkhla Democrat MP and a legal expert for the party, said in the last election, Pheu Thai won 15 million votes in the party-list system while other coalition partners received around three million votes. So, the coalition parties could get a total of 18 million votes in the referendum, leaving them needing to find five million votes to support a charter rewrite.

Back in the last referendum on 2007's charter draft, the turnout was only 57 per cent - or 25 million out of 45 million eligible voters casting a vote.

But others say it shouldn't be difficult to get 23 million people to cast a ballot. This camp compared the turnout in the last election, in which 35 million people came out to vote, and the referendum.

Some observers argued that the turnout between a general election and national referendum cannot be compared.

"People are normally more enthusiastic and more familiar with a general election than a national referendum. The election is more involved or closer to their lives than the referendum," an observer said.

Moreover, it is a "duty" for every eligible voter to cast a vote in a general election - otherwise they lose some electoral and political rights. Whereas, it is a "right" for eligible voters to support or oppose a referendum. And there is no punishment if they don't take part.

The second way to reject the charter amendment is to campaign for the public to vote against the charter rewrite. According to Article 9 of the referendum law, an organic law, a resolution for a referendum must come from the majority of voters who turn out. In this case, if the Democrats want the charter rewrite proposed by the government to fail, they must encourage millions to vote against the rewrite.

However, this way would seem harder for the Democrats, who have already lost an election to Thaksin's camp.

"The most effective way [against the charter rewrite move] is not to exercise the people's vote. When the turnout is high, it is unlikely there will be more No votes than Yes votes," Wirat explained.

-- The Nation 2012-12-18

[righteous]

>The Democrat Party and its' electoral record are often held up as being indicative of a normal electoral process by its' supporters. Those who see the Democrat Party as something entirely different, ususally refer to it as essentially a political entity not strongly beholden to the principle of Electoral Democracy. They look at its' support base as being political elements who will consider anything as feasible, as long as it results in their political success.

An example of this is that most of the anti-politician rhetoric comes from their base. Because they have difficulty winning elections, those sources will systemically denigrate politicians, who are the result of electoral democracy. This goes far beyond the normal jibes at lawyers and politicians.

This article points to another indicator, that being the Democrat Party's 'happiness' at frustrating Charter reform. The fact the current charter originates from political circumstances immediately following a coup, does not bother them. This re-affirms other critics, who will often point out that when following the 'bouncing ball' of political events, it is this Political Party who normally benefits from coup's.

>To be so firmly against Charter reform, even to the point of simplistically questioning motives as being singular in nature, confirms all these criticisms.

>For the Democrat Party to come out so vociforously against reforming a coup-based charter is unfortunate. One would hope that their political strategy would be more all-encompassing, and focus on electability in the future. It is to the benefit of Thailand and Democracy, to have two competing parties in elections, instead of one consistently being unelectable via normal electoral processes.

[Moruya]

>The Democrat Party and its' electoral record are often held up as being indicative of a normal electoral process by its' supporters. Those who see the Democrat Party as something entirely different, ususally refer to it as essentially a political entity not strongly beholden to the principle of Electoral Democracy. They look at its' support base as being political elements who will consider anything as feasible, as long as it results in their political success.

An example of this is that most of the anti-politician rhetoric comes from their base. Because they have difficulty winning elections, those sources will systemically denigrate politicians, who are the result of electoral democracy. This goes far beyond the normal jibes at lawyers and politicians.

This article points to another indicator, that being the Democrat Party's 'happiness' at frustrating Charter reform. The fact the current charter originates from political circumstances immediately following a coup, does not bother them. This re-affirms other critics, who will often point out that when following the 'bouncing ball' of political events, it is this Political Party who normally benefits from coup's.

>To be so firmly against Charter reform, even to the point of simplistically questioning motives as being singular in nature, confirms all these criticisms.

>For the Democrat Party to come out so vociforously against reforming a coup-based charter is unfortunate. One would hope that their political strategy would be more all-encompassing, and focus on electability in the future. It is to the benefit of Thailand and Democracy, to have two competing parties in elections, instead of one consistently being unelectable via normal electoral processes.

"Via normal electoral processes".....

Is paying for votes "normal"?

Is physically and violently preventing your opponents from canvassing "normal"?

Is buying votes through ridiculously wasteful and corrupt populist policies "normal"?

[nurofiend]

if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

[alstaxi]

Is it "normal" to be running a country that you fled from, after being convicted and sentenced for a tiny portion of the corruption and mayhem you are responsible for? Just wondering.

[smedly]

rules are rules

maybe the govenment has time to change them before the vote LMAO

[saltandpepper]

EVERY thing will be good to avoid Thaksin to come back. This government is working really hard, really. But unfortunately not for Thai people. They'd better change their way, and start to do what they have been "elected" for

[virtualtraveller]

The govt aren't being very transparent about their objectives, and the process to select a CDA to draft it isn't very fair either, so is it considered a dirty tactic for the democrats to encourage their supporters to show a disinterest (and therefore not show up). It's certainly a tactic I imagine the Peua Thai would use if it was the other way around. And you can sure they will be encouraging their faithful to turn out and vote yes (using tax payers money).

[muttley]

rules are rules

maybe the govenment has time to change them before the vote LMAO

It would be interesting to note when the supposedly new requirement for 50% of the eligible electorate voting necessary to validate a referendum was made law. This requirement was obviously not in place when the last referendum took place on the acceptance, or not, of the Junta 2007 constitution.

"According to the Electoral Commission of Thailand, 57.81 percent voted in favor of the draft constitution whilst 42.19 percent rejected it. There was a total voter turnout of 57.61 percent of approximately 45 million registered voters"

This meant that only a number shy of 26 million voters bothered to vote (mind you 35 states were under martial law, mainly upstate from Bangkok, quel suprise). The Yes vote - just short of 15 million voters, a third of the eligible electorate.

Yet it is suddenly now a rule that 50% of the the elegible voters have to vote Yes before a the decision to write a new constitution is allowed. And if permission is granted they then have to hold another referendum on whether or not to accept the newly crafted constitution. Double Standards?

In a way it would be interesting if the referendum resultled in a vote "against" as per Abhisits desperate plan to get back into office.

Then the constitution could be re written piece by piece in parliament with a government majority, all agreed by the Constitution Court. This being the end result of the PAD and Democrat Party hissy fit over invoking Section 68 over the 3rd reading.

Does anybody still think that Abhisit really stands for democracy for the people?

[whybother]

rules are rules

maybe the govenment has time to change them before the vote LMAO

It would be interesting to note when the supposedly new requirement for 50% of the eligible electorate voting necessary to validate a referendum was made law. This requirement was obviously not in place when the last referendum took place on the acceptance, or not, of the Junta 2007 constitution.

"According to the Electoral Commission of Thailand, 57.81 percent voted in favor of the draft constitution whilst 42.19 percent rejected it. There was a total voter turnout of 57.61 percent of approximately 45 million registered voters"

This meant that only a number shy of 26 million voters bothered to vote (mind you 35 states were under martial law, mainly upstate from Bangkok, quel suprise). The Yes vote - just short of 15 million voters, a third of the eligible electorate.

Yet it is suddenly now a rule that 50% of the the elegible voters have to vote Yes before a the decision to write a new constitution is allowed. And if permission is granted they then have to hold another referendum on whether or not to accept the newly crafted constitution. Double Standards?

In a way it would be interesting if the referendum resultled in a vote "against" as per Abhisits desperate plan to get back into office.

Then the constitution could be re written piece by piece in parliament with a government majority, all agreed by the Constitution Court. This being the end result of the PAD and Democrat Party hissy fit over invoking Section 68 over the 3rd reading.

Does anybody still think that Abhisit really stands for democracy for the people?

No. 50% of the eligible voters have to vote (Yes or No) to make referendum valid. Of those, 50% have to vote Yes for the vote to pass.

So, with 45 million registered voters, a minimum of 22.5 million need to vote. If 22.5 million did vote, 11.25 million (+1) would need to vote Yes.

Edited December 18, 2012 by whybother

[xminator]

Where is the news about EC going after Abhsit now that he tried to do "option 1" on facebook? From how I read the news there is a potential 10 year jail sentence waiting Abhsit if he fronts an attempt to derail the referendum.

[JurgenG]

Let me explain how it works.

In any given election, there is usually around 30% of abstention (worldwide, nothing specific to Thailand). On the people who vote, based on recent election, the majority votes for the government which leaves around 40% of the voters, or 28% of the population, supporting the democrats.

Now if the democrats call for abstention, they will be able to pretend to have the support of around 58% of the population (30% who won't vote anyway + 28% democrats) and therefore claim a "landslide" victory.

Very smart isn't it ?

You could rightly add that it is not very honest or democratic but when you haven't win an election for as long as anybody can remember and not clue on how to change this trend, it's probably the best they can do.

Edited December 18, 2012 by JurgenG

[whybother]

Let me explain how it works.

In any given election, there is usually around 30% of abstention (worldwide, nothing specific to Thailand). On the people who vote, based on recent election, the majority votes for the government which leaves around 40% of the voters, or 28% of the population, supporting the democrats.

Now if the democrats call for abstention, they will able to pretend to have the support of around 58% of the population (30% who won't vote anyway + 28% democrats) and therefore claim a "landslide" victory.

Very smart isn't it ?

You would rightly add that is not very democratic but when you haven't win an election for as long as anybody can remember and not clue on how to change this trend, it's probably the best they can do.

Not very smart. 58% is useless if more than 50% of the 42% that voted, voted Yes.

[muttley]

rules are rules

maybe the govenment has time to change them before the vote LMAO

It would be interesting to note when the supposedly new requirement for 50% of the eligible electorate voting necessary to validate a referendum was made law. This requirement was obviously not in place when the last referendum took place on the acceptance, or not, of the Junta 2007 constitution.

"According to the Electoral Commission of Thailand, 57.81 percent voted in favor of the draft constitution whilst 42.19 percent rejected it. There was a total voter turnout of 57.61 percent of approximately 45 million registered voters"

This meant that only a number shy of 26 million voters bothered to vote (mind you 35 states were under martial law, mainly upstate from Bangkok, quel suprise). The Yes vote - just short of 15 million voters, a third of the eligible electorate.

Yet it is suddenly now a rule that 50% of the the elegible voters have to vote Yes before a the decision to write a new constitution is allowed. And if permission is granted they then have to hold another referendum on whether or not to accept the newly crafted constitution. Double Standards?

In a way it would be interesting if the referendum resultled in a vote "against" as per Abhisits desperate plan to get back into office.

Then the constitution could be re written piece by piece in parliament with a government majority, all agreed by the Constitution Court. This being the end result of the PAD and Democrat Party hissy fit over invoking Section 68 over the 3rd reading.

Does anybody still think that Abhisit really stands for democracy for the people?

No. 50% of the eligible voters have to vote (Yes or No) to make referendum valid. Of those, 50% have to vote Yes for the vote to pass.

So, with 45 million registered voters, a minimum of 22.5 million need to vote. If 22.5 million did vote, 11.25 million (+1) would need to vote Yes.

OK Having read another article it is made clear as you state above.I take back my accusation of double standards on this issue. However, I still stand by my viewpoint on Abhisit calling for a boycott of the vote.

Though apparently today he says he did not mean a boycott by not voting, he actually meant vote No.

Yeah, OK, we believe you, It's not as if you have a habit of being disingenuous of the truth...............

[ballpoint]

Amazing to see a number of posters, who in the past have sworn that the majority of Thais want Thaksin back, getting all worked up about a less than 50% turnout. Surely, if they want him back so much, much more than 50% will vote, and they'll all vote yes? So why the whining and excuses? Don't even believe your own posts eh guys?

[rayw]

I reckon the Referendum rules here in Thailand are very fair indeed. Much better that many other countries in the West where there is no such sensible and fair requirement for more than 50% of the electorate to actually vote. If less than 50% turn out to vote in a referendum then even disregarding those against who do not vote it is still obviously not important to far to many folk so no constitutional changes seem right to apply ion such a case. Fair and sound in my view.

If most folk really want such constitutional changes (that would indeed likely remove all charges against Thaksin) then they would go out and vote for it surely. I am sure that many more thinking PTP supporters who can really see the facts with open eyes will likely not want Thaksin back as he is a convicted fraudster and a total discredit to their party.in many many folks eyes making the PTP have a very low credibility...

Australia have the best scheme IMHO by making voting compulsory by law, but they should have an abstention box on all their ballot papers with that being the case as it is and must be everyone's democratic right to be able to abstain. So I believe that you now in Oz have the stupidity of abstainers having to deliberately spoil their ballot papers, and come on now that is so daft and should be unnecessary with a simple abstention box made available to tick.

[whybother]

<snip>

Australia have the best scheme IMHO by making voting compulsory by law, but they should have an abstention box on all their ballot papers with that being the case as it is and must be everyone's democratic right to be able to abstain. So I believe that you now in Oz have the stupidity of abstainers having to deliberately spoil their ballot papers, and come on now that is so daft and should be unnecessary with a simple abstention box made available to tick.

There is nothing stopping you from putting a blank ballot paper in the box.

[antpet]

Politics in Thailand is not about reasoned debate.

It is about abuse of power, vote buying, bribery of the judiciary and organised violent protest.

What is the point in playing at democracy when you have a system run by an off shore fugitive from justice whose proxy poxy rule is delegated to his sister.

[antpet]

if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

You fail to see that this is a failed democracy.

When there is no chance that a debate will win the day due to external corrupting influence where politicians go through the motions in order to present a veneer of due process, the better option is to veto that process.

Those in power remain abusers making a circus out of the democratic process. The most powerful response is not to support that process in order to isolate it and expose it for what it is: a Sham.

That message is a clear and simple one that an ill-educated, ill-informed Thai populace can grasp.

Commenting from ivory western towers doesn't help.

Obama has a chance of chaning US gun law right now. It will be debated. He may well lose. But he will lose fairly or win fairly. He will not be subject to corrosive corrupting influence before he starts. That is a mature democracy in process.

Thailand?

Forget it. Use the boycott.

[kimamey]

if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

Have the Democrats actually said that is what they will do. It doesn't appear so from the OP although it is from the Nation so perhaps you know better.

[kimamey]

<snip>

Australia have the best scheme IMHO by making voting compulsory by law, but they should have an abstention box on all their ballot papers with that being the case as it is and must be everyone's democratic right to be able to abstain. So I believe that you now in Oz have the stupidity of abstainers having to deliberately spoil their ballot papers, and come on now that is so daft and should be unnecessary with a simple abstention box made available to tick.

There is nothing stopping you from putting a blank ballot paper in the box.

That's the same as spoiling it. I think rayw is suggesting a box so that the number of abstainers can be separated from those who spoil their papers for other reasons and can therefore be counted and announced as are the votes for the candidates.

[Foodie]

if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

You fail to see that this is a failed democracy.

When there is no chance that a debate will win the day due to external corrupting influence where politicians go through the motions in order to present a veneer of due process, the better option is to veto that process.

Those in power remain abusers making a circus out of the democratic process. The most powerful response is not to support that process in order to isolate it and expose it for what it is: a Sham.

That message is a clear and simple one that an ill-educated, ill-informed Thai populace can grasp.

Commenting from ivory western towers doesn't help.

Obama has a chance of chaning US gun law right now. It will be debated. He may well lose. But he will lose fairly or win fairly. He will not be subject to corrosive corrupting influence before he starts. That is a mature democracy in process.

Thailand?

Forget it. Use the boycott.

And you really think that the NRA and gun lobby in the US are any different. How many American politicians have taken money from them for their election campaigns and are therefore beholding to them when it come to voting on gun control legislation.

Sometimes I wonder about some of the posters (Farang) on TV. You seem to think that bribery and corruption is something that only happens in Thailand.

Try looking in your own back yards !!! This government was elected democratically by a majority of the Thai people. It is the government that they want.

If you don't agree with them and/or don't like the government, try to become Thai Citizens and vote in

in the elections.

If you really don't like it here there are many ways to leave the country, by air, car, train or boat. Then you can go back to your allegedly democratic, non corrupt, bribery free country.

Meanwhile,the government that the Thais want is really none of your business, just as the government that your countrymen want is none of the Thais business.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Foodie

[whybother]

The other paper is saying that Chalerm doesn't think that "the proposal to amend the constitution would be endorsed by the people in a nationwide referendum".

He also indicated that half the eligible voters were required to vote Yes to pass the referendum, not just half the actual turnout.

[khunken]

I have to laugh when the PTP are supposed to be the democratic ones & the Dems are not.

The fugitive leader of PTP doesn't know what democracy means. Suppress or infiltrate any check & balance body, place your extended family members in key posts, intimidate any body (e.g. the CC) that you haven't yet gained control of, pay protestors & local leaders & make sure that election 'expenses' are recouped by corrupt mega-projects.

There is nothing wrong with anyone who shuns an election or referendum because they don't know who or what to vote for, don't like either side or feel that abstaining is another way to say no.

[Konini]

I reckon the Referendum rules here in Thailand are very fair indeed. Much better that many other countries in the West where there is no such sensible and fair requirement for more than 50% of the electorate to actually vote. If less than 50% turn out to vote in a referendum then even disregarding those against who do not vote it is still obviously not important to far to many folk so no constitutional changes seem right to apply ion such a case. Fair and sound in my view.

If most folk really want such constitutional changes (that would indeed likely remove all charges against Thaksin) then they would go out and vote for it surely. I am sure that many more thinking PTP supporters who can really see the facts with open eyes will likely not want Thaksin back as he is a convicted fraudster and a total discredit to their party.in many many folks eyes making the PTP have a very low credibility...

Australia have the best scheme IMHO by making voting compulsory by law, but they should have an abstention box on all their ballot papers with that being the case as it is and must be everyone's democratic right to be able to abstain. So I believe that you now in Oz have the stupidity of abstainers having to deliberately spoil their ballot papers, and come on now that is so daft and should be unnecessary with a simple abstention box made available to tick.

<snip>

Australia have the best scheme IMHO by making voting compulsory by law, but they should have an abstention box on all their ballot papers with that being the case as it is and must be everyone's democratic right to be able to abstain. So I believe that you now in Oz have the stupidity of abstainers having to deliberately spoil their ballot papers, and come on now that is so daft and should be unnecessary with a simple abstention box made available to tick.

There is nothing stopping you from putting a blank ballot paper in the box.

That's the same as spoiling it. I think rayw is suggesting a box so that the number of abstainers can be separated from those who spoil their papers for other reasons and can therefore be counted and announced as are the votes for the candidates.

I once was told off - at 40 years old - by an observer in a polling station in for doing just that. I got my name crossed off the list then folded the ballot paper in half and put it in the box in a council election. She said "You can't do that" and I said "There's nobody I want to vote for, I've never heard any of the names before" "But you can't do that". And she attempted to go into a lecture on politics and responsibilities, but I studied politics and could out-talk her. I simply exercised my democratic right not to vote, even though you don't have that right in Aus. Previously, I had ripped them in two, glad I didn't that time, because she didn't like to be very much out smarted by a really scruffy looking Bogan (I was in the middle of painting the garden fence, wearing years old clothes that were far too big for me) and I think she may have called the police officer at the door, although it was pretty obvious that I would have fought it. I even got a few 'Good on yer's from others who had zero interest in a council election but still had to make their way to the local school to vote for someone they had probably never heard of.

[kimamey]

if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

You fail to see that this is a failed democracy.

When there is no chance that a debate will win the day due to external corrupting influence where politicians go through the motions in order to present a veneer of due process, the better option is to veto that process.

Those in power remain abusers making a circus out of the democratic process. The most powerful response is not to support that process in order to isolate it and expose it for what it is: a Sham.

That message is a clear and simple one that an ill-educated, ill-informed Thai populace can grasp.

Commenting from ivory western towers doesn't help.

Obama has a chance of chaning US gun law right now. It will be debated. He may well lose. But he will lose fairly or win fairly. He will not be subject to corrosive corrupting influence before he starts. That is a mature democracy in process.

Thailand?

Forget it. Use the boycott.

And you really think that the NRA and gun lobby in the US are any different. How many American politicians have taken money from them for their election campaigns and are therefore beholding to them when it come to voting on gun control legislation.

Sometimes I wonder about some of the posters (Farang) on TV. You seem to think that bribery and corruption is something that only happens in Thailand.

Try looking in your own back yards !!! This government was elected democratically by a majority of the Thai people. It is the government that they want.

If you don't agree with them and/or don't like the government, try to become Thai Citizens and vote in

in the elections.

If you really don't like it here there are many ways to leave the country, by air, car, train or boat. Then you can go back to your allegedly democratic, non corrupt, bribery free country.

Meanwhile,the government that the Thais want is really none of your business, just as the government that your countrymen want is none of the Thais business.

Here we go with the 'it's none of your business' post.

Firstly some of us are here because we have family here who themselves may or may not agree with the government.

Secondly this is a 'forum'. Try looking up the meaning of that word.

As for bribery and corruption, yes it happens in western countries but I don't think it's anything like here.

[nurofiend]

if you can't beat it, shun it

so basically the 'democrats' will urge people not to use their democratic right to vote, to throw away their vote

the minority trying to get their way based on technicalities, rather than 'democrat'ic means.. fantastic.

if you can't coup it, shun it.

shunning a vote they know they won't win, now where do i remember this from.

Have the Democrats actually said that is what they will do. It doesn't appear so from the OP although it is from the Nation so perhaps you know better.

from the other thread:

"The most effective way [against the charter rewrite move] is not to turn out to vote. When the turnout is high, it is unlikely there will be more No votes than Yes votes," Wiratana said."

he's the democrat legal expert

"Everybody can help by aborting the referendum. … Let's come together to abort the referendum that will allow constitutional amendment for a fugitive. Let's move past Thaksin and bring the country forward," Abhisit said."

now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what they are both saying, some people may just need to take their bias hat off for just a brief moment and look at it with a logical, open mind.

if you want to get into technicalities : have they said this is actually what they'll definitely do? no......

but the seeds are most definitely well and truly planted already from their above comments.

[hellodolly]

>The Democrat Party and its' electoral record are often held up as being indicative of a normal electoral process by its' supporters. Those who see the Democrat Party as something entirely different, ususally refer to it as essentially a political entity not strongly beholden to the principle of Electoral Democracy. They look at its' support base as being political elements who will consider anything as feasible, as long as it results in their political success.

An example of this is that most of the anti-politician rhetoric comes from their base. Because they have difficulty winning elections, those sources will systemically denigrate politicians, who are the result of electoral democracy. This goes far beyond the normal jibes at lawyers and politicians.

This article points to another indicator, that being the Democrat Party's 'happiness' at frustrating Charter reform. The fact the current charter originates from political circumstances immediately following a coup, does not bother them. This re-affirms other critics, who will often point out that when following the 'bouncing ball' of political events, it is this Political Party who normally benefits from coup's.

>To be so firmly against Charter reform, even to the point of simplistically questioning motives as being singular in nature, confirms all these criticisms.

>For the Democrat Party to come out so vociforously against reforming a coup-based charter is unfortunate. One would hope that their political strategy would be more all-encompassing, and focus on electability in the future. It is to the benefit of Thailand and Democracy, to have two competing parties in elections, instead of one consistently being unelectable via normal electoral processes.

So have no reason for a rewrite other than you don't like the people who wrote it.

You are the kind who would complain if they didn't hang you with a new rope.

Get a clue.

[hellodolly]

rules are rules

maybe the govenment has time to change them before the vote LMAO

It would be interesting to note when the supposedly new requirement for 50% of the eligible electorate voting necessary to validate a referendum was made law. This requirement was obviously not in place when the last referendum took place on the acceptance, or not, of the Junta 2007 constitution.

"According to the Electoral Commission of Thailand, 57.81 percent voted in favor of the draft constitution whilst 42.19 percent rejected it. There was a total voter turnout of 57.61 percent of approximately 45 million registered voters"

This meant that only a number shy of 26 million voters bothered to vote (mind you 35 states were under martial law, mainly upstate from Bangkok, quel suprise). The Yes vote - just short of 15 million voters, a third of the eligible electorate.

Yet it is suddenly now a rule that 50% of the the elegible voters have to vote Yes before a the decision to write a new constitution is allowed. And if permission is granted they then have to hold another referendum on whether or not to accept the newly crafted constitution. Double Standards?

In a way it would be interesting if the referendum resultled in a vote "against" as per Abhisits desperate plan to get back into office.

Then the constitution could be re written piece by piece in parliament with a government majority, all agreed by the Constitution Court. This being the end result of the PAD and Democrat Party hissy fit over invoking Section 68 over the 3rd reading.

Does anybody still think that Abhisit really stands for democracy for the people?

You can't be for real we all know that there would be no big stumbling blocks in the way if the PT would rewrite it with input from all parties and no chance of a white wash for convicted criminals.

But we all know the only reason for the rewrite is to white wash Thaksin.

In my humble opinion a waste of time. It will let him look good but dumb as he is he would fear for his life if he came back to Thailand. Look what happened when he was going to go across the border from Red shirt country in Burma. He decided it was to dangerous.

[hellodolly]

I reckon the Referendum rules here in Thailand are very fair indeed. Much better that many other countries in the West where there is no such sensible and fair requirement for more than 50% of the electorate to actually vote. If less than 50% turn out to vote in a referendum then even disregarding those against who do not vote it is still obviously not important to far to many folk so no constitutional changes seem right to apply ion such a case. Fair and sound in my view.

If most folk really want such constitutional changes (that would indeed likely remove all charges against Thaksin) then they would go out and vote for it surely. I am sure that many more thinking PTP supporters who can really see the facts with open eyes will likely not want Thaksin back as he is a convicted fraudster and a total discredit to their party.in many many folks eyes making the PTP have a very low credibility...

Australia have the best scheme IMHO by making voting compulsory by law, but they should have an abstention box on all their ballot papers with that being the case as it is and must be everyone's democratic right to be able to abstain. So I believe that you now in Oz have the stupidity of abstainers having to deliberately spoil their ballot papers, and come on now that is so daft and should be unnecessary with a simple abstention box made available to tick.

I agree Thailand has a very sensible system. Not perfect but a very workable system. Forced voting is not the way to go it would just piss some people off and the ones forcing them to go would not get there vote.

The problem the PT would face is they only had 47% percent of the vote and I am quite sure a lot of them thought Yingluck was really going to be the PM. They know better now and will not be voting yes on a referendum to lay the ground work to white wash him.