Abhisit's Key Goal Is Ousting Thaksin From Politics

[longway]

^ Are there any legislated consequences to a majority ticking this box in an election?

[h90]

So not creating more jobs or implementing some social welfare projects or for the Republicans out there cutting 'taxes'.

This dude is worthless.

Ahhh the independent publication that is The Nation. Never gets old...

Are you aware that one of the very first things the PTP government did was to cut corporate taxes by one third? They also shelved Abhisit's project for land reform, so that large land owners would have to pay taxes, removed Abhisit's policy of providing free books and uniforms to schoolchildren, etc, etc...

It never ceases to amaze when some people think of PTP as some sort of progressive liberal party.

And changed from free medical care to 30 Baht....

[Pimay1]

So not creating more jobs or implementing some social welfare projects or for the Republicans out there cutting 'taxes'.

This dude is worthless.

Ahhh the independent publication that is The Nation. Never gets old...

Are you aware that one of the very first things the PTP government did was to cut corporate taxes by one third? They also shelved Abhisit's project for land reform, so that large land owners would have to pay taxes, removed Abhisit's policy of providing free books and uniforms to schoolchildren, etc, etc...

It never ceases to amaze when some people think of PTP as some sort of progressive liberal party.

And changed from free medical care to 30 Baht....

It is evident from his rant angsta is not aware of much at all.

[hellodolly]

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.

Did I miss some thing here.

Are you saying it is not a noble goal to try and keep a convicted criminal out of politics?

For my way of thinking that is a noble cause also the first step in rooting out corruption. The next step would be to keep out criminals even if they have not been convicted. That would most assuredly bring in a whole lot of new faces.

Not never going to happen but still a good idea.

[OzMick]

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".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

[hellodolly]

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.

Sorry mate have to disagree

Weather we like it or not. Weather it has merit or not to set intellectual limits on who can and can not vote is not democracy.

Also though it is not common knowledge their is a lot of intelligent people who can not read.

If it comes down to saying who can and can not vote I volunteer to do the job.

[jayboy]

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".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"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."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

[billd766]

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.

Do you have ANY REAL proof of all you have just said here?

1 self-aggrandising I had to look up as I couldn't remember. exhibiting self-importance; "big talk",

alternatively feeling self-respect or pleasure in something by which you measure your

self-worth; or being a reason for pride; "proud parents"; "proud of his

accomplishments"; "a proud moment"; "proud to serve his country"; "a

proud name"; "proud princes"

2 Murderous, really do you have ANY proof? If so, please publish it and send it to Tarit, c/o DSI

3 Corrupt, again do you have ANY proof? If so, please publish it and send it to Tarit, c/o DSI

4 Power grabbing politician? Where and when?

[longway]

^ Are there any legislated consequences to a majority ticking this box in an election?

A friend told me during the last general election that he cant bring himself to vote for anyone, but he ticked a box that was effectively a null vote ie has no meaning. Its not the same as what I meant. Am I wrong? The ballot pictures are too small to read read what is written next to the box.

Its quite interesting to know, as it is not being used, even when people are clearly dissatisfied with their politicians.

[hellodolly]

So not creating more jobs or implementing some social welfare projects or for the Republicans out there cutting 'taxes'.

This dude is worthless.

Ahhh the independent publication that is The Nation. Never gets old...

Are you aware that one of the very first things the PTP government did was to cut corporate taxes by one third? They also shelved Abhisit's project for land reform, so that large land owners would have to pay taxes, removed Abhisit's policy of providing free books and uniforms to schoolchildren, etc, etc...

It never ceases to amaze when some people think of PTP as some sort of progressive liberal party.

And changed from free medical care to 30 Baht....

And the really sad part of that is that the hospitals now get 30 baht that it cost them 50 baht to administer net loss to the hospitals of 20 baht. = worse medical care.

I tell you these PTP people are real financial geniuses buy rice high sell rice low. Spend 50 baht to get 30 baht.

If there was a way to cut all forms of communication from the man in Dubai Thailand might have a chance. Alas no hope there except eternal peace.

[Buchholz]

^ Are there any legislated consequences to a majority ticking this box in an election?

A friend told me during the last general election that he cant bring himself to vote for anyone, but he ticked a box that was effectively a null vote ie has no meaning. Its not the same as what I meant. Am I wrong? The ballot pictures are too small to read read what is written next to the box.

Its quite interesting to know, as it is not being used, even when people are clearly dissatisfied with their politicians.

It is being used, but not as much as it could be. The no vote does have meaning.

The "none of the above" option can have huge ramifications and is a powerful instrument potentially. It's a lengthy explanation to detail the specifics of it, but find a online copy of the Organic Act on MP Elections. It is the election law that describes its use and implications (the Constitution doesn't).

The no vote was a part of the 20% rule, which is what led to part of TRT's electoral fraud to try and circumvent it and led to their dissolution.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/68522-breaking-news-constitutional-court-nullifies-elections/

.

.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Buchholz

[Sing_Sling]

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.

This must be one of the worst posts I have read in a long time . . . you talk about ideals yet slam reality . . . and then go on to describe elitism for exactly what it is and then decry any attempt to criticise it.

You then go on to talk about improving the quality of electors . . . good grief.

Ok, then - let us know how you would handle the current system, realistically. Do you really advocate turning Thailand into an oligarchy?

I'd be interested in your method of having a fully fledged democracy . . . quickly, because these nasty elections come along at a rate of knots.

[Sing_Sling]

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.

Do you have ANY REAL proof of all you have just said here?

1 self-aggrandising I had to look up as I couldn't remember. exhibiting self-importance; "big talk",

alternatively feeling self-respect or pleasure in something by which you measure your

self-worth; or being a reason for pride; "proud parents"; "proud of his

accomplishments"; "a proud moment"; "proud to serve his country"; "a

proud name"; "proud princes"

2 Murderous, really do you have ANY proof? If so, please publish it and send it to Tarit, c/o DSI

3 Corrupt, again do you have ANY proof? If so, please publish it and send it to Tarit, c/o DSI

4 Power grabbing politician? Where and when?

1 - well done.

2 - how many people were killed during the demonstrations . . . how many were killed by snipers. Who was the civilian head of state during this time?

3 - The building of 396 police stations without public tender . . . given to one company . . . article 157 of the criminal code etc etc etc

4 - Elected by the people? No. Where and when? You're serious?

Please publish it and send proof? My God - you are childish . . . calm down, you're bursting a blood vessel. Anyway, DSI already has it - so your outburst and faux indignation are quite misplaced

And no - the other mob are just as bad, if not worse. I have no bone in this fight and find it funny how foreigners take sides and defend them so vigorously when they would never accept anything close to this back in their home country

Edited March 13, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[candypants]

good luck wit dat.

[waza]

“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???

Might be the ex wife too

[Robby nz]

With what is going on now with the "working seamlessly" with the new BKK governor I cant help thinking how much worse it would be if the Dems won the next general election.

In light of that getting Thaksin out of the picture would seem a reasonable goal.

[Sing_Sling]

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.

Ok, OzMick. Let's set the guidelines then.

School - Cranbrook

Home Suburb - Vaucluse

Education - MBA (Bachelor's at UNSW)

If you don't at least equal the above then I deign you not worthy of being able to vote.

Fun, isn't it.

Here's your brand of 'democracy':

[hellodolly]

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.

Ok, OzMick. Let's set the guidelines then.

School - Cranbrook

Home Suburb - Vaucluse

Education - MBA (Bachelor's at UNSW)

If you don't at least equal the above then I deign you not worthy of being able to vote.

Fun, isn't it.

Here's your brand of 'democracy':

I saw no problem with the education system when I was working in Cranbrook did I miss some thing.

[Sing_Sling]

You did miss something, obviously . . . what are you trying to say and what did you do at Cranbroook?

[longway]

^ Are there any legislated consequences to a majority ticking this box in an election?

A friend told me during the last general election that he cant bring himself to vote for anyone, but he ticked a box that was effectively a null vote ie has no meaning. Its not the same as what I meant. Am I wrong? The ballot pictures are too small to read read what is written next to the box.

Its quite interesting to know, as it is not being used, even when people are clearly dissatisfied with their politicians.

It is being used, but not as much as it could be. The no vote does have meaning.

The "none of the above" option can have huge ramifications and is a powerful instrument potentially. It's a lengthy explanation to detail the specifics of it, but find a online copy of the Organic Act on MP Elections. It is the election law that describes its use and implications (the Constitution doesn't).

The no vote was a part of the 20% rule, which is what led to part of TRT's electoral fraud to try and circumvent it and led to their dissolution.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/68522-breaking-news-constitutional-court-nullifies-elections/

.

.

Ironically the government site that hosts the Organic Act is flagged as having had malware recently, so I will have to give a miss for the time being.

The only way the 'none of the above' vote will work is if it does not lead to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty, as in the April 2006 election, which was anulled for a number of reasons. Imagine if the 'no' vote led to all the candidates in those areas being unable to contest again, would the same type of electoral games have been attempted?

For the 'none of the above' option to work It has to have a clearly defined and well thought outcome and specified time frames, and the key feature would be to remove bad candidates for that particular election cycle. Its the candidates that need to sweat the 'none of the above' option not the electorate.

Its similar to the red card system in Thailand, but one issued directly by the electorate and to all candidates in that constituency at the same time. On a national level, the party list vote would be at stake, so it would be a very powerful tool that even the most senior politicians would have to fear.

Politicians as a whole are on a very long leash, even in electoral democracies, they need to be on a short leash, and have their focus on their constituents, rather than their bank accounts, egos, god-fathers, lobbyists, party faction etc and should stop them from using divisive politics to maintain a grip on power, in short make them accountable to their electorate as whole, rather than whoever can buy them, and the electorate in turn would have to take responsibility for who they elect, as they have the power to get rid of poor candidates.

[MaiChai]

I wonder where the author gets Abhisits viewpoint from and is it correct?

The irony is the richest man in Thailand sides with the poorest? Cynics amongst us might think he is just using them? Fortunately some of the poor are clever and can see through this?

[Buchholz]

^ Are there any legislated consequences to a majority ticking this box in an election?

A friend told me during the last general election that he cant bring himself to vote for anyone, but he ticked a box that was effectively a null vote ie has no meaning. Its not the same as what I meant. Am I wrong? The ballot pictures are too small to read read what is written next to the box.

Its quite interesting to know, as it is not being used, even when people are clearly dissatisfied with their politicians.

It is being used, but not as much as it could be. The no vote does have meaning.

The "none of the above" option can have huge ramifications and is a powerful instrument potentially. It's a lengthy explanation to detail the specifics of it, but find a online copy of the Organic Act on MP Elections. It is the election law that describes its use and implications (the Constitution doesn't).

The no vote was a part of the 20% rule, which is what led to part of TRT's electoral fraud to try and circumvent it and led to their dissolution.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/68522-breaking-news-constitutional-court-nullifies-elections/

.

.

Ironically the government site that hosts the Organic Act is flagged as having had malware recently, so I will have to give a miss for the time being.

The only way the 'none of the above' vote will work is if it does not lead to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty, as in the April 2006 election, which was anulled for a number of reasons. Imagine if the 'no' vote led to all the candidates in those areas being unable to contest again, would the same type of electoral games have been attempted?

For the 'none of the above' option to work It has to have a clearly defined and well thought outcome and specified time frames, and the key feature would be to remove bad candidates for that particular election cycle. Its the candidates that need to sweat the 'none of the above' option not the electorate.

Its similar to the red card system in Thailand, but one issued directly by the electorate and to all candidates in that constituency at the same time. On a national level, the party list vote would be at stake, so it would be a very powerful tool that even the most senior politicians would have to fear.

Politicians as a whole are on a very long leash, even in electoral democracies, they need to be on a short leash, and have their focus on their constituents, rather than their bank accounts, egos, god-fathers, lobbyists, party faction etc and should stop them from using divisive politics to maintain a grip on power, in short make them accountable to their electorate as whole, rather than whoever can buy them, and the electorate in turn would have to take responsibility for who they elect, as they have the power to get rid of poor candidates.

,

You raise some very valid points.

Perhaps in its rush to amend the Constitution, the Pheu Thai Party/Red Shirts could also incorporate some changes to the no vote situation to give it even more bite.

I'll not hold my breath waiting on them to do that, particularly as Party Financier Thaksin has designated his priorities for constitutional amendments to:.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/625420-skype-address-shows-thaksin-orders-pheu-thai-follows/page-2#entry6197984

.

[OzMick]

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.

Ok, OzMick. Let's set the guidelines then.

School - Cranbrook

Home Suburb - Vaucluse

Education - MBA (Bachelor's at UNSW)

If you don't at least equal the above then I deign you not worthy of being able to vote.

Fun, isn't it.

Here's your brand of 'democracy':

It's a pity your education and overwhelming sense of self-worth stops you from reading and comprehending clearly. Nowhere in my post did I agree with the sentiments of the first poster, I simply pointed out that there is this acknowledged flaw in the democratic ideal, but that overcoming it is fraught with difficulties.

If that is too difficult for you to grasp, try GFY.

Edited March 14, 2013 by OzMick

[longway]

^ I still think you guys are wrong, for all practical purposes voter choice is restricted between those presented before them, and one of them will be elected no matter what, before focusing on any perceived weakness of voters, this flaw needs to be addressed.

If you were responsible for filling a post and it was mandated that you had to pick one of a pre-selected group of candidates, and the one you picked performed badly, is it your flaw?

[OzMick]

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".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"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."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

What bloody deceit? The post was quite plain and the intent clear - acknowledging a flaw in democracy and that it is both controversial and difficult to overcome. And yes, I do believe that "IDEALLY democracy will have an educated and informed populace........" If you prefer a voting population that is a majority of the uneducated and ill-informed, electing criminals who will cheat and steal because the voters imagine some personal gain, please put forward a valid reason.

i didn't respond to your bombastic propositions because they were of no interest to me, and had nothing to do with my post.

Edited March 14, 2013 by OzMick

[jayboy]

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".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"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."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

What bloody deceit? The post was quite plain and the intent clear - acknowledging a flaw in democracy and that it is both controversial and difficult to overcome. And yes, I do believe that "IDEALLY democracy will have an educated and informed populace........" If you prefer a voting population that is a majority of the uneducated and ill-informed, electing criminals who will cheat and steal because the voters imagine some personal gain, please put forward a valid reason.

i didn't respond to your bombastic propositions because they were of no interest to me, and had nothing to do with my post.

Oh so now you are speaking for yourself.I see the mask has also slipped to show some rather primitive views.I didn't expect a rational or considered response from you.I merely pointed out that the fear of one man one vote based democracy has many historical antecedents.

[OzMick]

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".

It is more significant that your reading/comprehension skills don't allow you to understand that any flaming would be for the prior poster's radical views. My post was intended to acknowledge the problem, and point out the problems associated with addressing it. I did not advocate those views (or refer to any specific country) or advance any argument (as you mis-state).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive..

You say you expressed a view and justified it,

"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."

but it wasn't actually your view just someone else's you were responding to on his behalf.

Needless to say you don't respond to my main set of propositions, whether on your own behalf or someone else's.

What bloody deceit? The post was quite plain and the intent clear - acknowledging a flaw in democracy and that it is both controversial and difficult to overcome. And yes, I do believe that "IDEALLY democracy will have an educated and informed populace........" If you prefer a voting population that is a majority of the uneducated and ill-informed, electing criminals who will cheat and steal because the voters imagine some personal gain, please put forward a valid reason.

i didn't respond to your bombastic propositions because they were of no interest to me, and had nothing to do with my post.

Oh so now you are speaking for yourself.I see the mask has also slipped to show some rather primitive views.I didn't expect a rational or considered response from you.I merely pointed out that the fear of one man one vote based democracy has many historical antecedents.

So does the recognition that the universal right to vote is a weakness. What you describe as primitive is instead a critical look at what is acknowledged as the best system so far devised, but which is far from perfect.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". Winston Churchill

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy

Should I take heed of these men or an over-educated idiot (or 2) with an axe to grind?

Edited March 14, 2013 by OzMick

[MaxLee]

And IF by any miracle, Abhisit and the PAD are on power again, the headlines will be

"Thaksin's key goal is to oust Abhisit"

[chiangmaikelly]

So does the recognition that the universal right to vote is a weakness. What you describe as primitive is instead a critical look at what is acknowledged as the best system so far devised, but which is far from perfect.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". Winston Churchill

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy

Should I take heed of these men or an over-educated idiot (or 2) with an axe to grind?

I get that but what are you suggesting? Smart people get two votes and dumb people only one?

[rubl]

After the historical sidestep let's get back to "Abhisit's key goal is ousting Thaksin from politics"

Obviously k. Abhisit doesn't know that regularly k. Thaksin has proclaimed to have enough of politics, his desire to withdraw and play golf, his wish to be a CEO and run a country from afar, etc., etc.

PS Abhisit's deepest regret is having studied in Oxford rather than Cambridge of course :-)