Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 In the example ballot, the "vote no" is designated by putting an "X" in the box at the lower right hand corner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Not only Dems, but anyone who does not vote As repeated previously, it very simply comes down to all anyone, including the Dems, have to do is show up and vote (utilizing the aforementioned vote no box if they are so inclined). The same as the vast majority does every election, with the exception being some brain dead candidates and red shirt leaders who were fugitives at the time of the election (Arisaman) or a red shirt leader who was incarcerated at the time of the election because of repeatedly failing to meet the conditions of his bail (Jatuporn disqualified in the last election)). Other than those sort of misfits and thugs and terrorist suspects, most Thais are easily able to comply with the reasonable law at each and every election. It's very revealing to the vetting process by a Party when they overlook this very rudimentary requirement as the disqualification is so automatic and usually irreversible. It shows a lack of the Party giving even a cursory look at the background of the candidates its selecting. It's as fundamental to become a successful candidate as being able to prove citizenship. Edited January 7, 2014 by Maha Sarakham Marty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeO Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Great job! Everyone whoever had some implication in any dirty business, crime and corruption should be banned for life to be eligible to run for elections. Finally, an understanding of the real purpose behind the demand for reforms. I am all for expelling from politics, and bringing to justice, anyone who is found to be skimming from the nation's wealth, and that's goes for any member of any party...!! Many anti-Pheu Thai Party commenters seem to be reading way too much into these disqualifications. They just failed to exercise their voting right. No one was expelled for any injustice, crimes, corruption, etc. Since these candidates can take their cases to the attention of the election division of the Supreme Court, they may still be in the election. So a little premature to shout a victory. First of all the word your'e looking for is either 'posters' or 'commentators', not commenters (sic)..., and secondly, I am not an anti-Pheu-Thai 'commenter', I am someone who stands on the side of 'right'...! Going on, did you actually read my post? Did I say anything about disqualifications for failing to exercise voting rights? The point that I made was that anyone skimming from the nation's coffers - from any party - should be banned. Arisman will eventually be banned as a result of a prison sentence for inciting his Red Shirt hordes to burn the city down ... a completely different matter...!! Victory...??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukebowling Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. Lots of countries are "silly" then... Full list of countries with compulsory voting Austria Argentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Fiji France (senate only) Gabon Greece Guatemala Honduras Italy Liechtenstein Luxembourg Mexico Nauru Paraguay Peru Philippines Singapore Switzerland (Schaffhausen) Thailand Turkey Uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Great job! Everyone whoever had some implication in any dirty business, crime and corruption should be banned for life to be eligible to run for elections. Finally, an understanding of the real purpose behind the demand for reforms. I am all for expelling from politics, and bringing to justice, anyone who is found to be skimming from the nation's wealth, and that's goes for any member of any party...!! Many anti-Pheu Thai Party commenters seem to be reading way too much into these disqualifications. They just failed to exercise their voting right. No one was expelled for any injustice, crimes, corruption, etc. Since these candidates can take their cases to the attention of the election division of the Supreme Court, they may still be in the election. So a little premature to shout a victory. That's right. They simply failed to follow a law that every registered Thai voter is aware of. Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icare999 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Does this mean a whole lot of democrats will have problems running in the election after feb 2nd? Or will we see Mark sneak into a voting boot so he can run for the next elections if their fellow hotheads run out of steam? simple answer you can vote no on ballet paper their is a place for that meaning none of them or simply spoil your paper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icare999 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I thought voting was compulsory here. Is there a box to mark if you don't want any of the candidates or can you just spoil your ballot? 1. Spoiling a ballot is illegal. 2. There is a specific box on the ballot itself where a person can cast a no vote (as in, none of the above). 3. Voting is compulsory. yes of course but then they don't know do they so impossible to check if you spoilt your ballet and yes illegal same as here prostitutuion iso legal, corruption is illegal, not wearing a crash helmet ………………… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I thought voting was compulsory here. Is there a box to mark if you don't want any of the candidates or can you just spoil your ballot? 1. Spoiling a ballot is illegal. 2. There is a specific box on the ballot itself where a person can cast a no vote (as in, none of the above). 3. Voting is compulsory. yes of course but then they don't know do they so impossible to check if you spoilt your ballet and yes illegal same as here prostitutuion iso legal, corruption is illegal, not wearing a crash helmet ………………… There are usually several people arrested during every election for ruining their ballot, usually in the form of publicly tearing them up as a form of protest. An example to google is Somdet Phiansuwan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukebowling Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. Lots of countries are "silly" then... Full list of countries with compulsory voting Austria Argentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Fiji France (senate only) Gabon Greece Guatemala Honduras Italy Liechtenstein Luxembourg Mexico Nauru Paraguay Peru Philippines Singapore Switzerland (Schaffhausen) Thailand Turkey Uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk Yes agreed, silly laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The two red shirts who were ranked the 75th and 93rd respectively on the Pheu Thai’s party-list candidates With 125 MPs in total that can be elected as party list MPs, PTP will need about 80 % of the vote to get these two elected anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. It does actually say somewhere that if you don't vote, then you can't run for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRSoul Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. Lots of countries are "silly" then... Full list of countries with compulsory voting Austria Argentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Fiji France (senate only) Gabon Greece Guatemala Honduras Italy Liechtenstein Luxembourg Mexico Nauru Paraguay Peru Philippines Singapore Switzerland (Schaffhausen) Thailand Turkey Uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk Yes agreed, silly laws. What is silly about giving citizens non-onerous duties as well as rights? If democracy is government of the people, why shouldn't all the people who meet criteria be required to participate in its choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Oh well that will give him more time to help his wife run their new airline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. Lots of countries are "silly" then... Full list of countries with compulsory voting Austria Argentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Fiji France (senate only) Gabon Greece Guatemala Honduras Italy Liechtenstein Luxembourg Mexico Nauru Paraguay Peru Philippines Singapore Switzerland (Schaffhausen) Thailand Turkey Uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk Yes agreed, silly laws. I don't agree they are silly laws, just highlighting for the apparently unaware that Thailand has lots of company on 5 continents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Oh well that will give him more time to help his wife run their new airline Or his proxy wife can resume her Pheu Thai Party MP seat while he takes the controls of his airline. At least until he is returned to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukebowling Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 One of the silliest provisions in the constitution...everyone must vote...or notify why you cannot vote. If not, you lose your right to vote. Doesn't say anything about running for office though. Of course it is the constitution, but can be amended. That's the beauty of a democracy. Lots of countries are "silly" then...Full list of countries with compulsory voting Austria Argentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Fiji France (senate only) Gabon Greece Guatemala Honduras Italy Liechtenstein Luxembourg Mexico Nauru Paraguay Peru Philippines Singapore Switzerland (Schaffhausen) Thailand Turkey Uruguay http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk Yes agreed, silly laws. What is silly about giving citizens non-onerous duties as well as rights? If democracy is government of the people, why shouldn't all the people who meet criteria be required to participate in its choice? The problem is you create additional potential situations for civil rights violations. By having a mandatory voting system, you open the door the government or corrupt entities in the government to target certain groups and suspend their voting rights arbitrarily. Say send them a notice they cannot vote and when they contest it, let it get caught up in the beaurocratic system to be delayed or put off while the victim spends time and money trying to cut through the red tape. If everyone simply has the right to vote (or not) as in most representative governments vs the small list shown above, then it is less likely their voting rights will be abused or wrongly suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRSoul Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) What is silly about giving citizens non-onerous duties as well as rights? If democracy is government of the people, why shouldn't all the people who meet criteria be required to participate in its choice? The problem is you create additional potential situations for civil rights violations. By having a mandatory voting system, you open the door the government or corrupt entities in the government to target certain groups and suspend their voting rights arbitrarily. Say send them a notice they cannot vote and when they contest it, let it get caught up in the beaurocratic system to be delayed or put off while the victim spends time and money trying to cut through the red tape. If everyone simply has the right to vote (or not) as in most representative governments vs the small list shown above, then it is less likely their voting rights will be abused or wrongly suspended. What a load of old fanny! Voters have to be registered in both systems, and the same abuse could be applied under both. How long ago was it that non-white US citizens were actively "encouraged" not to register? How many millions of people in the US simply don't bother? In Oz, there is no compulsion to vote. You have to turn up at a polling station and have your name crossed off, you can rip up your ballot if you wish. Or you can supply sufficient reason why you didn't attend, (illness, work, travel will do) or pay a small fine. When you move home, if you don't re-register, there is no pursuit of vote defaulters, even when you eventually re-register to vote. You might wonder why Oz is seen as a more democratic country than the US (without having elected judges, police and dog-catchers); perhaps it's because more people participate in the electoral process. Your scenario fails on one major point. If that were to happen to sufficient number of people, an appeal through the courts would undoubtedly see the election results annulled. Edited January 9, 2014 by JRSoul 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukebowling Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 What is silly about giving citizens non-onerous duties as well as rights? If democracy is government of the people, why shouldn't all the people who meet criteria be required to participate in its choice? The problem is you create additional potential situations for civil rights violations. By having a mandatory voting system, you open the door the government or corrupt entities in the government to target certain groups and suspend their voting rights arbitrarily. Say send them a notice they cannot vote and when they contest it, let it get caught up in the beaurocratic system to be delayed or put off while the victim spends time and money trying to cut through the red tape. If everyone simply has the right to vote (or not) as in most representative governments vs the small list shown above, then it is less likely their voting rights will be abused or wrongly suspended. What a load of old fanny! Voters have to be registered in both systems, and the same abuse could be applied under both. How long ago was it that non-white US citizens were actively "encouraged" not to register? How many millions of people in the US simply don't bother? In Oz, there is no compulsion to vote. You have to turn up at a polling station and have your name crossed off, you can rip up your ballot if you wish. Or you can supply sufficient reason why you didn't attend, (illness, work, travel will do) or pay a small fine. When you move home, if you don't re-register, there is no pursuit of vote defaulters, even when you eventually re-register to vote. You might wonder why Oz is seen as a more democratic country than the US (without having elected judges, police and dog-catchers); perhaps it's because more people participate in the electoral process. Your scenario fails on one major point. If that were to happen to sufficient number of people, an appeal through the courts would undoubtedly see the election results annulled. The less you introduce judgment from others in determining civil rights, the more civil society will be. These rights should simply be inherent and not subject to approval by any governing body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now