Good luck to him then its in the family

If Abhisit's key goal was the wellbeing of the nation rather than some personal vendetta, then perhaps the electorate might vote him into office.

Are you saying they didn't.

We get some far out claims here ion Thai Visa but you are in a class of your own.

Not even a paid Thackson mouth piece would try that one and we get some pretty dodgy ones here.

I'm saying that at the last election, Abhisit was voted out by the electorate. Had he made better efforts to improve people's wellbeing, he may well have been re-elected. The result of the last election indicates that the electorate thought he hadn't done enough.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point even if it eludes you.Abhisit was a disaster for the Democrats leading them to a significant defeat.He has failed to persuade the Thai people of his quality and has never won a general election as leader of his party.You appear to be saying that he won his own seat in parliament - as though that is some brilliant debating point.But it is totally irrelevant.So did Gordon Brown at the last British general election even though his party crashed and burned (like Abhisit's) around him.Come to think of it there are similarities between the two - both clever men, rotten politicians and both lacking courage, one of the cardinal political virtues.

If Abhisit's key goal was the wellbeing of the nation rather than some personal vendetta, then perhaps the electorate might vote him into office.

Are you saying they didn't.

We get some far out claims here ion Thai Visa but you are in a class of your own.

Not even a paid Thackson mouth piece would try that one and we get some pretty dodgy ones here.

I'm saying that at the last election, Abhisit was voted out by the electorate. Had he made better efforts to improve people's wellbeing, he may well have been re-elected. The result of the last election indicates that the electorate thought he hadn't done enough.

When a political candidate cannot campaign in the North and Northeast geographical location of their home country for fear of his/her life being taken it speaks volumns about the opposition and their motives. If you had been Abhisit would you have risked your life to campaign in these areas?

After all an assault on his life by the red thugs had already happened once.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point even if it eludes you.Abhisit was a disaster for the Democrats leading them to a significant defeat.He has failed to persuade the Thai people of his quality and has never won a general election as leader of his party.You appear to be saying that he won his own seat in parliament - as though that is some brilliant debating point.But it is totally irrelevant.So did Gordon Brown at the last British general election even though his party crashed and burned (like Abhisit's) around him.Come to think of it there are similarities between the two - both clever men, rotten politicians and both lacking courage, one of the cardinal political virtues.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

I always thought that Abhisit was not strong enough in his legitimate accusations against Thaksin and his mob. That Thaksin is a socio-path I have no dount. His ability to manipulate, bully, cheat and lie fits the profile of a socio-path to a 'T'. One of their traits is to accuse the accuser and this has been done in spades with Thaksin and his henchmen creating an unwarranted atmosphere of hate against Abhisit. Unwarranted because Abhisit is an intelligent and thoughtful man who understands democracy. However, he has been out-manipulated by Thaksin on nnumerous occasions - the worst event being the theft of the word'democracy' in a masterstroke of deceit and lies by the Thaksin camp. It is obvious to all that understand politics that PTP and Thaksin himself are no more democrats than Saddam, Gahdaffi, Mussolini, the Burmese generals and so on. However, through their deceit they have managed to convince half of the population that they are fighting for democracy which they apparently will not get under Abhisit! Anyone with even half a brain can understand the game, the rewriting of history, the corruption, the lies, the implied threat of violence, the actual violence and so on. He has managed to put the reds on a short-fuse. Unfortunately a lot of these people (the reds) cannot manage their emotions - we have seen this in the past with the hordes that followed Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and so on - and this in itself is actually very dangerous for Thailand and for the safety of business, the general public and the health of the nation. We've seen this in Bangkok and I am still convinced that the occupation of Bangkok was just a foretaste of what could come if these people are let off the leash again. Dangerous times ahead. That's why, for me, it is so important for Abhisit to lay it on the line, expose what is really happening and ensure that the message is constantly hammered home. Make no mistake: Thaksin has only one aim in mind and Abhisit and all right thinking people know what that is.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

You simply confirm my point about obsessive posting.I don't even know what you are arguing about frankly.And please stay on topic without descending into personal attacks.Thanks.

I always thought that Abhisit was not strong enough in his legitimate accusations against Thaksin and his mob. That Thaksin is a socio-path I have no dount. His ability to manipulate, bully, cheat and lie fits the profile of a socio-path to a 'T'. One of their traits is to accuse the accuser and this has been done in spades with Thaksin and his henchmen creating an unwarranted atmosphere of hate against Abhisit. Unwarranted because Abhisit is an intelligent and thoughtful man who understands democracy. However, he has been out-manipulated by Thaksin on nnumerous occasions - the worst event being the theft of the word'democracy' in a masterstroke of deceit and lies by the Thaksin camp. It is obvious to all that understand politics that PTP and Thaksin himself are no more democrats than Saddam, Gahdaffi, Mussolini, the Burmese generals and so on. However, through their deceit they have managed to convince half of the population that they are fighting for democracy which they apparently will not get under Abhisit! Anyone with even half a brain can understand the game, the rewriting of history, the corruption, the lies, the implied threat of violence, the actual violence and so on. He has managed to put the reds on a short-fuse. Unfortunately a lot of these people (the reds) cannot manage their emotions - we have seen this in the past with the hordes that followed Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and so on - and this in itself is actually very dangerous for Thailand and for the safety of business, the general public and the health of the nation. We've seen this in Bangkok and I am still convinced that the occupation of Bangkok was just a foretaste of what could come if these people are let off the leash again. Dangerous times ahead. That's why, for me, it is so important for Abhisit to lay it on the line, expose what is really happening and ensure that the message is constantly hammered home. Make no mistake: Thaksin has only one aim in mind and Abhisit and all right thinking people know what that is.

Abhisit is too much of a gentleman for the dirty, unprincipled world of Thai politics. Thaksin on the other hand is as unscrupulous as they come and is ideally suited to it and that's a key reason why he has been more successful.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

You simply confirm my point about obsessive posting.I don't even know what you are arguing about frankly.And please stay on topic without descending into personal attacks.Thanks.

without descending into personal attacks.

WOW! Jayboy. You are the true, POT calling the KETTLE BLACK.

I always thought that Abhisit was not strong enough in his legitimate accusations against Thaksin and his mob. That Thaksin is a socio-path I have no dount. His ability to manipulate, bully, cheat and lie fits the profile of a socio-path to a 'T'. One of their traits is to accuse the accuser and this has been done in spades with Thaksin and his henchmen creating an unwarranted atmosphere of hate against Abhisit. Unwarranted because Abhisit is an intelligent and thoughtful man who understands democracy. However, he has been out-manipulated by Thaksin on nnumerous occasions - the worst event being the theft of the word'democracy' in a masterstroke of deceit and lies by the Thaksin camp. It is obvious to all that understand politics that PTP and Thaksin himself are no more democrats than Saddam, Gahdaffi, Mussolini, the Burmese generals and so on. However, through their deceit they have managed to convince half of the population that they are fighting for democracy which they apparently will not get under Abhisit! Anyone with even half a brain can understand the game, the rewriting of history, the corruption, the lies, the implied threat of violence, the actual violence and so on. He has managed to put the reds on a short-fuse. Unfortunately a lot of these people (the reds) cannot manage their emotions - we have seen this in the past with the hordes that followed Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and so on - and this in itself is actually very dangerous for Thailand and for the safety of business, the general public and the health of the nation. We've seen this in Bangkok and I am still convinced that the occupation of Bangkok was just a foretaste of what could come if these people are let off the leash again. Dangerous times ahead. That's why, for me, it is so important for Abhisit to lay it on the line, expose what is really happening and ensure that the message is constantly hammered home. Make no mistake: Thaksin has only one aim in mind and Abhisit and all right thinking people know what that is.

Abhisit is too much of a gentleman for the dirty, unprincipled world of Thai politics. Thaksin on the other hand is as unscrupulous as they come and is ideally suited to it and that's a key reason why he has been more successful.

Too much of a gentleman? I find Thaksin to be abhorrent . . . but to paint Abhisit as a gentleman or anything even close to that is simply absurd. And ridiculous

If Abhisit's key goal was the wellbeing of the nation rather than some personal vendetta, then perhaps the electorate might vote him into office.

.

1. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.

2. The electorate did vote Abhisit into office.

.

Here we go again - but just spare us the lecture on parliamentary democracy please.We know the military helped him bribe Newin's faction to allow him to form a government.Abhisit has however never won an election and the Democrats are unlikely to without heaving him overboard or marginalising him gracefully.

As to the thread's topic I suspect for Abhisit the matter is primarily personal.He is an intelligent man and knows better than most that if Thaksin disappeared prmanently, the toothpaste can't be squeezed back into the tube.The Thai political class can't take the majority of the people for granted any more.That's permanent.Deference is dead.

I dont think Abihist is opposed to Thaksin for the sake of popularity but as a good Thai who cares for his fellow citizen he like the rest of us can see what a greedly, self serving, violent thug Thaksin is. He could have accepted Thaksins offer to join the coalition and a place in the cabinet and therby a place at the trough but he refused. Ahibist is a good man and hes not prepared to sit idly by ...........

Thaksin devil.jpgAll that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing:

Instead, he chose to throw in with sleazy Suthep. How smart is that?

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

You simply confirm my point

And you mine.

Perhaps best if you just avoided quoting my posts for the time being. If you can't confine your remarks to what I actually post and instead, continually misrepresent them, for which you justifiably get called up on for, and voila' you've initiated another bickering session.

All started from your quoting my post and twisting what I post.

.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write..I think most people will have grasped the pointI think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.As if just to start bickering is your primary point..You simply confirm my pointAnd you mine.Perhaps best if you just avoided quoting my posts for the time being. If you can't confine your remarks to what I actually post and instead, continually misrepresent them, for which you justifiably get called up on for, and voila' you've initiated another bickering session.All started from your quoting my post and twisting what I post..

Please try and focus on the topic and avoid personalising the discussion.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

You simply confirm my point

And you mine.

Perhaps best if you just avoided quoting my posts for the time being. If you can't confine your remarks to what I actually post and instead, continually misrepresent them, for which you justifiably get called up on for, and voila' you've initiated another bickering session.

All started from your quoting my post and twisting what I post.

.

I think you may be conversing with someone under the influence of ear medication

Please try and focus on the topic

.

Please try and focus on what I posted.

The post that you replied to begin your latest bickering.

My straight-forward and brief post simply corrected a factual error.

There was never a need for you to go off on your first tangent with misrepresenting what my correction said and began implying things I didn't post and finished with switching the topic of what I posted on to something else.

.

No one has said anything about Prime Minister.

If you are going to quote posters, try to follow what all other posters, besides yourself, write.

.

I think most people will have grasped the point

I think they have grasped that you put words that don't exist into people's posts.

If you simply confined your comments to what members actually post instead of all your added-on misrepresentation and attempts to ascribe meanings that don't exist to them, you'd end up with far fewer of the bickering sessions you're renowned for.

If you wish to make some other point, then just post them without quoting someone else post as a base in which to make them. You don't address what I post, you twist it into something I never said in order to make your separate point.

As if just to start bickering is your primary point.

.

You simply confirm my point

And you mine.

Perhaps best if you just avoided quoting my posts for the time being. If you can't confine your remarks to what I actually post and instead, continually misrepresent them, for which you justifiably get called up on for, and voila' you've initiated another bickering session.

All started from your quoting my post and twisting what I post.

.

I think you may be conversing with someone under the influence of ear medication

.

I suppose that could easily explain it.

Whatever the origin, I'm done.

.

“Someone wants me to return while someone who says they love me
doesn’t in fact want me to return because of fears that they will become
less important,” he said

Does this perhaps mean that little sister is enjoying her ride???

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has charted a clear and unyielding course to root out his nemesis Thaksin Shinawatra from the political landscape or at least die trying.

INHO This is a very noble goal to prevent a convicted felon from holding poltical office!!

...perhaps if Abhisit had correctly applied an arrest warrant for Thaksin via Interpol when he was in office, things would be different now...

What could have been.

Interpol were never going to accept that warrant.

Now, they could have called the bounty hunter

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has charted a clear and unyielding course to root out his nemesis Thaksin Shinawatra from the political landscape or at least die trying.

INHO This is a very noble goal to prevent a convicted felon from holding poltical office!!

Again: Gentleman. Noble.

He's a self-aggrandising, murderous, corrupt, power-grabbing politician. No more. No less

This is Thailand.

In the words of our great Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Dr. weng, I think k. Thaksin should be eradicated, democratically of course :-)

It might be a drastic measure but these days we need drastic measures. To stop populism which is basically 100 Baht to all illiterates to place their X in the preferred box the votes should be given to people who at least have a basic understanding of what they are voting for and why they are voting.

OK, voting is already too complicated for some people and it ponders the question if these people should be voting in the first place.

Why not use a simple form with 10 basic but poignant multichoice questions with a pass rate of 7 out of 10. If the people cannot even read or tick the correct boxes, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The same questionnaire should be tried on all politicians who must score 10 out of 10.

This can also be tried in other countries e.g. in the US the first question could be "Can you name a country beginning with U". This would stop many people voting who only vote for the prettiest face or "Prolife".

It might be a drastic measure but these days we need drastic measures. To stop populism which is basically 100 Baht to all illiterates to place their X in the preferred box the votes should be given to people who at least have a basic understanding of what they are voting for and why they are voting.

OK, voting is already too complicated for some people and it ponders the question if these people should be voting in the first place.

Why not use a simple form with 10 basic but poignant multichoice questions with a pass rate of 7 out of 10. If the people cannot even read or tick the correct boxes, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The same questionnaire should be tried on all politicians who must score 10 out of 10.

This can also be tried in other countries e.g. in the US the first question could be "Can you name a country beginning with U". This would stop many people voting who only vote for the prettiest face or "Prolife".

While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote" simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Any attempt to restrict/remove the voting rights of the uneducated, ill-informed or stupid will be branded as elitism.

Sadly, there will be little attempt to improve the "quality" of electors, to restrict populist vote-buying or outright vote-buying by a government that used those flaws to get themselves elected.

And even if Abhisit win, the reds are gonna be back in Bangkok, Ratchaprasong, and we have the same scenario....

It might be a drastic measure but these days we need drastic measures. To stop populism which is basically 100 Baht to all illiterates to place their X in the preferred box the votes should be given to people who at least have a basic understanding of what they are voting for and why they are voting.

OK, voting is already too complicated for some people and it ponders the question if these people should be voting in the first place.

Why not use a simple form with 10 basic but poignant multichoice questions with a pass rate of 7 out of 10. If the people cannot even read or tick the correct boxes, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The same questionnaire should be tried on all politicians who must score 10 out of 10.

This can also be tried in other countries e.g. in the US the first question could be "Can you name a country beginning with U". This would stop many people voting who only vote for the prettiest face or "Prolife".

While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote" simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Any attempt to restrict/remove the voting rights of the uneducated, ill-informed or stupid will be branded as elitism.

Sadly, there will be little attempt to improve the "quality" of electors, to restrict populist vote-buying or outright vote-buying by a government that used those flaws to get themselves elected.

It's significant that you regard any view that you disagree with as "flaming".

If one has studied the political history of today's advanced democracies (US,UK, Germany, France etc) over the last 150 years it is very clear that all the arguments you advance against the one man one vote approach were consistently made by the entrenched ruling class and their middle class hangers on.Thus as there was pressure from beneath (and to be fair from some sections of the elite) to extend the franchise, establishment groups argued that there should be a limitation through educational, property and income qualifications to restrict the participation of what you describe as the "uneducated, ill informed or stupid."Though some of the elite no doubt believed all this sincerely it was essentially self deceiving.Those who were doing well wanted to hang on to what they had, and saw the empowerment of the lower orders as a threat.Actually the process of broad political participation is inextricably linked with rising prosperity.Some may point to China as an exception to this rule but it's too early to draw any firm conclusions as to whether dictatorship will be sustained there.In practice the established classes in all these democracies ended up doing well because they generally had a sense of enlightened self interest, meaning an awareness that they would have to dilute their political control to retain most of their wealth.Where the ruling class had no sense of enlightened self interest the results were catratrophic for them (eg Tsarist Russia).Politics is essentially a rather selfish business - voters opt for policies that will benefit themselves, their families and their communities.The great nineteenth century statesmen like Bismarck and Disraeli (both very conservative figures) were criticised by the fearful elite and some middle class for their social programmes as "populist" and "vote buying".Plus ca change.

In the case of Abhisit and Thaksin, I continue to believe this conflict is primarily motivated by political rivalry.Abhisit is too intelligent a man not to understand that the political landscape of Thailand has been transformed.He won't admit it openly but I would be very surprised if he didn't fully understand Thaksin was the catalyst.It doesn't mean he should show him any olive branch.Abhisit is a politician with a mission to win over the country.It is perfectly in order for him to attack Thaksin and his proxy governments.So far his record has been poor but nobody would question the man's potential and basic high calibre.Incidentally one never hears the Democrat leadership ( Abhisit, Korn etc) talk about the rural majority in the patronising contempt filled way that is so common on this forum.Perhaps they understand more than a few reactionary foreign cyber warriors that they have a country to win over.

It might be a drastic measure but these days we need drastic measures. To stop populism which is basically 100 Baht to all illiterates to place their X in the preferred box the votes should be given to people who at least have a basic understanding of what they are voting for and why they are voting.

OK, voting is already too complicated for some people and it ponders the question if these people should be voting in the first place.

Why not use a simple form with 10 basic but poignant multichoice questions with a pass rate of 7 out of 10. If the people cannot even read or tick the correct boxes, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The same questionnaire should be tried on all politicians who must score 10 out of 10.

This can also be tried in other countries e.g. in the US the first question could be "Can you name a country beginning with U". This would stop many people voting who only vote for the prettiest face or "Prolife".

While your post tackles one of the acknowledged weaknesses of democracy, be prepared for flames from the "one man, one vote" simplistic view "democrats". Ideally democracy should have an educated and informed populace who elect respected (and respectable) people to make decisions in the best interest of the country.

Any attempt to restrict/remove the voting rights of the uneducated, ill-informed or stupid will be branded as elitism.

Sadly, there will be little attempt to improve the "quality" of electors, to restrict populist vote-buying or outright vote-buying by a government that used those flaws to get themselves elected.

I disagree, I don't think the weakness of the electoral system lies in the electorate. I think it is just the opposite, its that very often politicians and parties are not worthy of our votes, however there is no way of expressing that view by the ballot box as things stand currently. the most you can do is spoil your ballot paper, which could be for anything, and therefore nothing.

Can you imagine the chill that would run down the spines of candidates if there was a 'none of the above' option when voting for MPs? This would mean that the election would have to be re-run with new candidates, should none of the above came first, it would brings politics out of the hands of corporations and the wealthy and well connected into the hands of voters.

I think its a very powerful option and would actually do more to fix the political system rather than an obnoxious attempt to limit the power of voters even further.

I disagree, I don't think the weakness of the electoral system lies in the electorate. I think it is just the opposite, its that very often politicians and parties are not worthy of our votes, however there is no way of expressing that view by the ballot box as things stand currently. the most you can do is spoil your ballot paper, which could be for anything, and therefore nothing.

Can you imagine the chill that would run down the spines of candidates if there was a 'none of the above' option when voting for MPs? This would mean that the election would have to be re-run with new candidates, should none of the above came first, it would brings politics out of the hands of corporations and the wealthy and well connected into the hands of voters.

I think its a very powerful option and would actually do more to fix the political system rather than an obnoxious attempt to limit the power of voters even further.

Been there, done that, April 2006 that is. Didn't help much

^ Are you referring to the April 2006 election? it has no similarity. A false analogy at best.

That was declared null due to voting irregularites, its got nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I was thinking about parlimentary elections around the world in general rather than Thailand in particular, but the same applies here.

In general politicians trick us into believing that they represent us and their fights are our fights, but its just a trick.

When we realise that the nature of politics means that politicians are our common adversary, but they a very necessary evil, then things become much clearer. Its about establishing who holds the whip hand.

I think it is just the opposite, its that very often politicians and parties are not worthy of our votes, however there is no way of expressing that view by the ballot box as things stand currently. the most you can do is spoil your ballot paper, which could be for anything, and therefore nothing.

Can you imagine the chill that would run down the spines of candidates if there was a 'none of the above' option when voting for MPs? This would mean that the election would have to be re-run with new candidates, should none of the above came first, it would brings politics out of the hands of corporations and the wealthy and well connected into the hands of voters.

I think its a very powerful option and would actually do more to fix the political system rather than an obnoxious attempt to limit the power of voters even further.

.

Thailand has a "none of the above" voting option.

It's the box in the lower right hand corner of these sample ballots.