Vote buying 'not decisive factor in an election'

[mojorison]

Vote buying may not be a decisive factor, but "get out the vote" is. Isn't vote buying in Thailand not, in reality, an effort to get the most people possible to vote, hopefully, for your side? In a democracy, isn't a large voter turnout a good thing?

In Australia, everyone has the 'right to vote' If you don't vote you get fined. Make it compulsory if they want to ensure full turn out. It won't stop politicians using populist policies though.

Technically speaking, voting is not compulsory in Australia. It is if you enrol to vote however. If you don't enrol, you don't have to vote... simple. As for the article, I must be "satoopid" also, because I thought it described the reality in Thailand completely accurately... in fact I would have said pretty much the same verbatim..

[Crushdepth]

BOTH sides buy votes and if they didn't the results would be the same. The practice should end, but that is not why the reds keep winning elections.

absolutely right and most Thais take it and then vote the way they want anyway - it's bad but it's irrelevant

And you'd know? Pardon my scepticism but you have a remarkable ability to disregard any fact that does not conform to your world view.

[oztaurus]

simple fact of economics; if vote buying didn't work - it wouldn't happen.

Why would any party spend hundreds of millions of baht on something that wouldn't help them get what they wanted?

Edited January 25, 2014 by oztaurus

[pipkins]

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

You don't educate people who to vote for. That is extreme comunnism.

Take that one step further (if you are capable of thought) why don't we educate you to vote for PT or support them? That easy is it?

You form parties and the partys make policy and present it.

The Dems have been so self serving and found such easy access to power (coups and Judicial coups) that then never got around to forming policies that they could present to anyone other than their own clique.

Was one of many articles debunking that old chestnut and even the Dems admitting it in an interview. But, it does not suit some of the biggotted elite minded on here so they don't read it.

[Thai at Heart]

It's vote buying with populist policies when the people in power use policies such as the Rice Scheme (at taxpayers expense) to directly benefit their supporters (in theory), something that the opposition cannot do. This happens worldwide however and it's up to the "people" to be able to see through the charade and actually think whether it will benefit them or the country in the long term. Long term thinking (past this moment in time) is not a strong suit of many here.

The actual direct handing over of cash to vote for one party or another goes on on both sides and does have an influence, however less so now than before since people seem to have (somewhat) woken up to the fact that they can take the money from one side and still vote for whoever they want to.

The democrats as their own subsidy. It would have been possible to make the system acceptable under trade laws and the farmer would still have got paid.

Is it paying the subsidy you don't like or the corruption. I think the subsidy is fair. Christ sake, they give tax breaks to Toyota to open factories as though they need it.

What's wrong with giving farmers a better living.

Nothing wrong with subsidies per se and I have nothing against giving the farmers a better living. My issue is with the overinflated pricing of the scheme, the mismanagement and the corruption. Anyone with half a brain could see where this particular scheme was headed BEFORE it was implemented and it's killed the Thai Rice market for years to come. How has that helped the farmers?

Ok.

But I have a feeling that this is a different story to the one being explained in bangkok. I think they hate the subsidy full stop.

[JRSoul]

Vote buying may not be a decisive factor, but "get out the vote" is. Isn't vote buying in Thailand not, in reality, an effort to get the most people possible to vote, hopefully, for your side? In a democracy, isn't a large voter turnout a good thing?

In Australia, everyone has the 'right to vote' If you don't vote you get fined. Make it compulsory if they want to ensure full turn out. It won't stop politicians using populist policies though.

Technically speaking, voting is not compulsory in Australia. It is if you enrol to vote however. If you don't enrol, you don't have to vote... simple. As for the article, I must be "satoopid" also, because I thought it described the reality in Thailand completely accurately... in fact I would have said pretty much the same verbatim..

Much the same happens here where voting is also "compulsory". One major difference though - in Oz you have to get your name marked off, after that what you do with your ballot is your business and you can simply bin it if you want. In Thailand, which has the alternative of a NO vote, damaging your ballot is a criminal offense.

[darren84310]

....so the voters that have confessed to selling their votes are......???

....cut the crap......

They have openly admiited to me that they get paid for voting and I also spoke with taxi drivers who admitted they received payments for blocking roads in 2010.

[citizen33]

The OP is pretty much spot on.

Anybody who has lived in an Isaan village through several elections (as I have, though I'm not in Thailand now), will know that more than one Party offers money. The claim of the usual suspects that this is a TRT/PTP phenomenon has zero credibility if one has seen the reverse with one's own eyes - and just serves to cast doubt on other claims they make.

The same research that highlights the strong cultural dimension of vote buying also states that it is not decisive in determining the outcome.

Korn and other Democrat Party 'intellectuals' are well aware of that fact, something which the usual suspects contrive to ignore.

The OP is quite clear about the difference between vote buying and subsidies offered via populist policies, so it is perverse to claim that he neglects the latter. This is the more sophisticated version of the 'uneducated' rural voters argument. However, the claim that populist policies necessarily result in unsustainable debt does not seem to be supported by the economic data since 2001. I am not a fan of the current rice pledging scheme, but the earlier TRT policies did not have the negative impact some on here claim. See this article by Walker, paying attention to the graph (Thailand Government Debt to GDP) showing falling government debt in the 2000s under Thaksin.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/01/03/how-bad-is-thaksinomics/

I must confess that the paradox whereby 'educated' Bangkokians who protest about corruption often had their educational success 'bought' is something that has also crossed my mind. In my experience an awful lot of Thai Ph.D. candidates are not great scholars.

Edited January 25, 2014 by citizen33

[Tatsujin]

It's vote buying with populist policies when the people in power use policies such as the Rice Scheme (at taxpayers expense) to directly benefit their supporters (in theory), something that the opposition cannot do. This happens worldwide however and it's up to the "people" to be able to see through the charade and actually think whether it will benefit them or the country in the long term. Long term thinking (past this moment in time) is not a strong suit of many here.

The actual direct handing over of cash to vote for one party or another goes on on both sides and does have an influence, however less so now than before since people seem to have (somewhat) woken up to the fact that they can take the money from one side and still vote for whoever they want to.

The democrats as their own subsidy. It would have been possible to make the system acceptable under trade laws and the farmer would still have got paid.

Is it paying the subsidy you don't like or the corruption. I think the subsidy is fair. Christ sake, they give tax breaks to Toyota to open factories as though they need it.

What's wrong with giving farmers a better living.

Nothing wrong with subsidies per se and I have nothing against giving the farmers a better living. My issue is with the overinflated pricing of the scheme, the mismanagement and the corruption. Anyone with half a brain could see where this particular scheme was headed BEFORE it was implemented and it's killed the Thai Rice market for years to come. How has that helped the farmers?

Ok.

But I have a feeling that this is a different story to the one being explained in bangkok. I think they hate the subsidy full stop.

Not the middle class and elitists I know. They would agree with what I posted. Maybe they are the minority tho.

[Scully]

The rural voters have been given money for years, whether it be local or national elections. The last coup I remember hundreds of red shirts collecting their baht before boarding buses going to fight (sometimes to the death) in Bangkok.

The votes didn't pay as well as a bangkok brawl but the rural majority still see this as money for nothing, they would probably vote Shinawat anyway. The young blood from issan having been educated at University and having a mind of their own, read and write, follow the news are eventually going to change vote buying.

Well that's my fantasy for the future, there are still too many uneducated youth who will just ask maa who to vote for but there has to be hope for the future.

[Dogmatix]

There are a lot of red shirt apologists (the author, Chris Baker, included) labouring this point about vote buying doesn't make a difference any more. Interestingly, you never hear Democrat supporters saying this, even though it is widely acknowledged that that the Dems have to buy votes too.

Although the apologists like to argue that voters can easily just pocket the money and vote for someone else with impunity, there are others who argue that there is heavy intimidation in red villages to ensure that voters vote the way they have been ordered and paid to vote by the village headman, who is supposed to be a government official. This intimidation includes forcing voters to write their name on the ballot, peering over their shoulder etc and later censuring those who are known to have voted for the "wrong" candidate.

Apart from anything else the vote buying system creates a barrier to entry by making it very expensive to stand in elections and encourages the perpetuation of the concept that politics is a business to invest in and get a return on your money as quickly as possible. It is not surprising that there is no labour movement in Thai politics. Labour union activists approached PT for funding as candidates in the 2011 elections but all were turned down as being unaligned with the PT party platform, despite the fact that PT claims to represent the poor.

Thailand can never hope to be democratic while a large proportion of voters are paid for their votes with little or no risk to the vote buyers.

[tonneke breda]

Vote buying??

I guess the rice-sceme was the decisive vote buying factor with the last election

[tullynagardy]

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

Saying it ad nauseum wont make it true and you need to offer a better rationale than this BS to even have a debate, that is before we consider the known fact it happens in equal measure on both sides.

You don`t need to be educated to understand how populist policies benefit you. Where my wife is from people are pro Thaskin because of the populist policies he introduced that changed their lives (access to healthcare, education, cheap loans etc) not because his cronies may or may not give them enough to buy a bottle of sangsom.

They sell to the highest offer

If thats the case why dont the Dems go in and offer more? Afterall we all know they buy votes also and have financial backing far in excess of what Thaskin has? The reason is it wouldnt work because its the policies that count. (with a bit of history thrown in as well.)

Lets put this one to bed and talk about whether these populist policies are sustainable. That is the real issue and one worth debating.

[chonburimaster]

Even the EC said vote buying is a problem, but understandable at the same time. Most Bangkokians don't realise just how poor many people in this country are. 500 or even 200 baht can make a difference to them. Having said that, the wealthy should not criticize them when they prefer to pay the bribe to a cop 200 baht rather then the 500 baht at the station for a traffic violation. The problem is that the poor are generally less educated about the effect of populist policies on the economy. They may make some short term gain (many rice farmers might disagree), but the government ends up in the red at the end of the day. The rice scam is a fine example. I bet all workers are still not getting 15K a month and most P1 students still do not have their tablets. Those kinds of policies were just another form of vote buying because they were directed at fast financial gain for a large portion of the voting population. The problem is that none of these policies are debated in front of a national audience before an election. Then people can decide if a short financial gain is really better than a major loss over the following few years.

Police is encouraging people to pay on spot rather than going to police station by taking the license away. If you have to go to police station for a mere traffic ticket every single time, you waste too much of your time. Police sould not take away drivers license and offenders should be able to pay fines at banks, 7-11, etc.

[citizen33]

There are a lot of red shirt apologists (the author, Chris Baker, included) labouring this point about vote buying doesn't make a difference any more. Interestingly, you never hear Democrat supporters saying this, even though it is widely acknowledged that that the Dems have to buy votes too.

Didn't you see Korn's admission? It has been posted here enough times! Dogmatic indeed.

Edited January 25, 2014 by citizen33

[takkatan in the land]

everywhere in the world politicians have always bought, are buying and will buy votes.

It is called politics, negotiate/deal with certain people and giving/providing them some benefits/privileges expecting they will vote them again and again.

There is no free vote, all votes are bought. Always there is some reason or interest which makes people choose one party instead other.

In some countries there are entire provinces bought by politicians. They call it subventions.

Some people in the land did not realize this yet. Ingenuous.

[Thai at Heart]

It's vote buying with populist policies when the people in power use policies such as the Rice Scheme (at taxpayers expense) to directly benefit their supporters (in theory), something that the opposition cannot do. This happens worldwide however and it's up to the "people" to be able to see through the charade and actually think whether it will benefit them or the country in the long term. Long term thinking (past this moment in time) is not a strong suit of many here.

The actual direct handing over of cash to vote for one party or another goes on on both sides and does have an influence, however less so now than before since people seem to have (somewhat) woken up to the fact that they can take the money from one side and still vote for whoever they want to.

The democrats as their own subsidy. It would have been possible to make the system acceptable under trade laws and the farmer would still have got paid.

Is it paying the subsidy you don't like or the corruption. I think the subsidy is fair. Christ sake, they give tax breaks to Toyota to open factories as though they need it.

What's wrong with giving farmers a better living.

Nothing wrong with subsidies per se and I have nothing against giving the farmers a better living. My issue is with the overinflated pricing of the scheme, the mismanagement and the corruption. Anyone with half a brain could see where this particular scheme was headed BEFORE it was implemented and it's killed the Thai Rice market for years to come. How has that helped the farmers?

Ok.

But I have a feeling that this is a different story to the one being explained in bangkok. I think they hate the subsidy full stop.

Not the middle class and elitists I know. They would agree with what I posted. Maybe they are the minority tho.

The ones I know, just don't want subsidies in full stop.

[aimbc]

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

This is some what true. But I would like to add that many people who accepts money are honorable people. City folks forget what honor is thinking that they are being smart because we took the money and voted for some else. Hence, city folks are not trustworthy. "City Slickers"

If the citizens in the villages are asked to vote for a certain party, they will keep their words. Even if they don't know or understand the issue. All you have to pay is the village leaders, as most will follow there wishes. No one wants to upset the Pooyai. They know that whatever the outcome is, it won't matter much to their lives. But what matters is if the Village head gives them a hard time for not voting for their party, they will live in hell till the next election. Some are even scorn or belittle if they vote non red. You can consider that voter intimidation. So vote buying is definitely there still, but makes more sense to pay one person than many little people.

[edwardandtubs]

A lot of posters are still making it out to be purely an issue of Phue Thai buying votes but there's no evidence they're any worse than any other party. The Democrats are just as guilty of vote buying. It's a secret ballot so people could just take Phue Thai's money and vote Democrat anyway but they don't because the Democrats have no policies at all to attract rural and working class voters.

If you want evidence for how much the importance of vote buying has decreased, look at the poor election results of Bhum Jai Thai, the biggest vote buyers of all.

[tullynagardy]

. All you have to pay is the village leaders, as most will follow there wishes. No one wants to upset the Pooyai.

Nonsense nonsense nonsense.

The voting booths are completely private (as verified by international observers) so no village leader can ever know who you vote.

There are countless stories on here on posters wives accepting money and voting for a different party.

As some posters dont seem to realise there are other parties as well as PTP and the Dems. Where my Mrs is from neither party is in power.

[Thai at Heart]

. All you have to pay is the village leaders, as most will follow there wishes. No one wants to upset the Pooyai.

Nonsense nonsense nonsense.

The voting booths are completely private (as verified by international observers) so no village leader can ever know who you vote.

There are countless stories on here on posters wives accepting money and voting for a different party.

As some posters dont seem to realise there are other parties as well as PTP and the Dems. Where my Mrs is from neither party is in power.

A payment guarantees nothing. All sides offer if they can anyway, and I presume everyone takes as much as they can

[NovaBlue05]

If vote buying is so ineffective, then why do they do it?

I honestly don't know. In my own experience people take the money and vote for their personal preference anyway. Wifey has almost always taken money at local and national elections. Last time she got money from the PT and Dem candidates. She voted Dem!

I can't see the point at all.

Tradition!

[notmyself]

. All you have to pay is the village leaders, as most will follow there wishes. No one wants to upset the Pooyai.

Nonsense nonsense nonsense.

The voting booths are completely private (as verified by international observers) so no village leader can ever know who you vote.

There are countless stories on here on posters wives accepting money and voting for a different party.

As some posters dont seem to realise there are other parties as well as PTP and the Dems. Where my Mrs is from neither party is in power.

A payment guarantees nothing. All sides offer if they can anyway, and I presume everyone takes as much as they can

Ensures high voter turnout regardless of who the individual votes for.

[Ozymandias]

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

It's ironic that you post this here after this article. Are YOU not educated enough to read and understand it or are you just stuck in this mantra forever?

Time & time again it's shown to be true through research that relatively few votes are bought and the money paid changes nothing. In small villages the general vote can be tracked by the parties & the kamnan made to suffer for it. Now ask yourself - what proportion of N & N E Thais live in such places?

[Ozymandias]

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

This is some what true. But I would like to add that many people who accepts money are honorable people. City folks forget what honor is thinking that they are being smart because we took the money and voted for some else. Hence, city folks are not trustworthy. "City Slickers"

If the citizens in the villages are asked to vote for a certain party, they will keep their words. Even if they don't know or understand the issue. All you have to pay is the village leaders, as most will follow there wishes. No one wants to upset the Pooyai. They know that whatever the outcome is, it won't matter much to their lives. But what matters is if the Village head gives them a hard time for not voting for their party, they will live in hell till the next election. Some are even scorn or belittle if they vote non red. You can consider that voter intimidation. So vote buying is definitely there still, but makes more sense to pay one person than many little people.

The point is, however, as stated in the article, that though it is a factor it is not 'decisive', i.e. it will have an impact locally but not on a national scale. This means that if we could subtract voter buying, the change in popularity of the 2 main parties would be minimal. A factor like this might have an impact were elections tight, but as we know over the last 15 years Thaksin-aligned parties have had a clear majority over the Dems.

And, as attested to in honest journalism & countless people's experiences, all parties buy votes. Figures suggest that in the 2011 election Dem voter buying surged, but to no avail. Must be frustrating for them, but if the election is re-run later in the year (as it obviously should be, this is a farce) maybe they can design a raft of policies to attract victims of the rice pledging fiasco.

That would be the educated response.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Ozymandias

[LivinLOS]

Perhaps we first have to agree on what is considered as "Vote buying".

It's not just the handing out of 200 or 500 baht days before the election. Vote-buying is IMO much more. I take my in-laws as an example. This family has always voted for the Democrats, but not this time. One member got a governement subsidy for her new car and - openly admitted that she will now vote for PT, who gave her that "present".

Clearly the government's Firt-Time-Car-Owner program as an example had no deeper benefit for the country, except making the recipients favoring the governemnt. I call that "vote buying" and I know it has an influence on the election.

Other populist programs have not only the same effect but also clearly the same purpose: Vote buying.

And please don't tell me, they all did it. That may be true, but does that make it right? And, to get back to the PO, it certainly has an effect on the election, I believe a decisive effect.

Welcome to 'democracy' why do you think social costs have risen to unsustainable levels in developed countries.. To buy the votes..

Why are seniors given medicaid etc in the states, which will bankrupt the systems as the boomer generation retires ?? Because they vote more !!

[PJcm]

Wrong, in to many small villages it is all that matters

They sell to the highest offer

Too many people in Thailand are not educated on who they should vote for

They do not know and or understand the issues

You don't know what your talking about, 37 years here yes 37 years, and people do know where the rice is cooked, too many expats believe they know more than the average Thai, what fools these expats be.

[phutoie2]

Why should there be any vote buying?, only one candidate in this districts election next Sunday. Number 15, the truck with speakers pass's my place all day long.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[darren84310]

....so the voters that have confessed to selling their votes are......???

....cut the crap......

Are you living in Thailand or on the moon?