Democrat Party to seek Thai court annulment of snap polls

[whybother]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Anyone should have the legal right to petition for the invalidation of the election results if they have good reason to show that it was unconstitutional.

1. The constitutionality of the election is not in question. CC even said the election can be postponed if EC and the Government agreed to postpone it.

2. EC can red card or yellow card a candidate based on the evidence given by involved voter/s and after investigation.

3. The DEM has no right because they boycotted the GE and should be seen as an attempt to sabotage it.

4. More than 50 political parties participated in the GE.

5. 89.2 of the constituencies participated.

Of course, the DEM who boycotted the GE can try petitioning to invalidate election results. However, it should be highlighted and question why

1. Only the DEM dominated constituencies were afected?

2. Had the DEM voiced their disapproval when registration centres and polling stations were blocked by thugs?

These are at least, circumstantial evidence that the DEM is trying to sabotage the election. If found guilty is liable of party being dissolved and its executive could also face a maximum 10 years jail sentence.

Of course, the DEM is always depending on its grandfather/father court/independence agencies for goodies. Their parents had spoiled them and they never grow up.

1. The constitutionality of the election IS in question. The Democrats are questioning it. What does the CC saying it could be postponed have to do with anything? It wasn't postponed.

2. What does that have to do with someone asking the courts if the election is valid?

3. Someone who doesn't stand should have a right to challenge the results of an election. Look at what happened in the April 2006 election.

4. See point 2.

5. Actually, IIRC, 89.2% of the polling booths reported no problems. Not constituencies. Not that is relevant to whether the election is constitutional or not.

The Bangkok constituencies that were affected are not all Democrat dominated. What does Democrat disapproval of blocking the election have to do with whether it is unconstitutional or not?

I am not saying that the election is unconstitutional, but the reasons you give don't prove anything either way, and anyone has the right to ask the courts if they have a valid reason.

[DirtFarmer]

Democrat Party to seek Thai court annulment of snap polls...<deleted>? (sarcasm)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,

pol·i·ti·cian (pŏl′ĭ-tĭsh′ən)

n.

1.

a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.

b. One who holds or seeks a political office.

2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process" (John F. Kennedy).

3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Urban Dictionary

politician

1. A person who practices politics.

"Politics" is derived from the words "poly" meaning "many", and "tics" meaning "blood-sucking parasites."

2. One who was perfected the art of lying.

3. A highly paid yes-man.

George W. Bush promised a man mission to Mars, of course we should believe him!

by Gnuoyh October 24, 2004

It's what they do... but I worry about the skill sets of any of them...anywhere...

Two Quotes come to mind..

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

-Benjamin Franklin

and

Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.

-Winston Churchill

No one is going to stop doing what they do... Abbey, Siggie, Taksee, or the Wizard of Oz... lest they are perceived to be doing nothing.... but we must remember that just because they are moving doesn't mean they are doing...one can only hope that some good will come out of all of this... some progression away from tit for tat..revenge, power grabs and so forth ( I must be delusional...sorry... my bad...)

Edited February 3, 2014 by DirtFarmer

[Evilbaz]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Since voting is complusory, a person who fails to vote without explanation will lose his or her right to file any objection to the MP election and senatorial selection. He or she will also lose the right to apply for candidacy for national and local elections and to be nominated for the senatorial selection. At the same time, that person will not be allowed to apply for a position as a subdistrict headman and village headman. These rights will be given back to a voter when he or she votes in the next election, at whatever level. In order to exercise their voting rights, voters must bring along their citizen identification cards or other official cards with a photo and the ID number of the card holder. A person intentionally destroying a ballot paper will be subject to a jail term of up to one year or a fine of up 20,000 baht, or both. These penalties may also include a revocation of voting rights for five years, by a court’s order.

[bigbamboo]

Come on Dems, if you don't play the game you can't complain about the rules.

Yes the country needs a good sweep and maybe Sooty is the man to do it but the people have to know the state of play and the way to do that was to run in the election. It's no use relying on Democrat spoilt votes and most of the PT folk (though not all ) know how to vote properly anyway.

[thesetat2013]

Yes i agree. The same it worked for the reds previously

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[pookiki]

It's simply amazing to me that a party that can show no adverse impact in an election they CHOOSE to boycott can now have standing to nullify the results. Not to mention all the illegal acts of the PDRC to sabotage the election itself. The first thing that should happen is that all the PDRC members responsible for disrupting the polls should be arrested and charged -- and maybe have their voting rights nullified for life if guilty of the charges. That way there would be no future need for a campaign not to vote!

[Thait Spot]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Everyone has a right - it's called democracy

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[northernjohn]

Well, that's a suprise, I must say.

Well yes it may be a surprise but it is the wrong thing to do.

They should seek to have elections held only once every 4 or 5 years. That way a corrupt government can not call for an election every time they see the end in sight and still have enough support. Elections are just a part of democracies and the way they are practiced here is more like a supported dictatorship through the election process. All they are doing is putting a new 5 watt light bulb in the Prime Ministers office.

It once again points out the lack of education in Thailand and other countries that people who support them lack. To knowingly take a corrupt government and reelect them when you know there is a way to make the government more honest is like trying to read a book in the darkest room possible with just a 2 watt light bulb when you have 20 200 vision.

[icommunity]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Anyone should have the legal right to petition for the invalidation of the election results if they have good reason to show that it was unconstitutional.

1. The constitutionality of the election is not in question. CC even said the election can be postponed if EC and the Government agreed to postpone it.

2. EC can red card or yellow card a candidate based on the evidence given by involved voter/s and after investigation.

3. The DEM has no right because they boycotted the GE and should be seen as an attempt to sabotage it.

4. More than 50 political parties participated in the GE.

5. 89.2 of the constituencies participated.

Of course, the DEM who boycotted the GE can try petitioning to invalidate election results. However, it should be highlighted and question why

1. Only the DEM dominated constituencies were afected?

2. Had the DEM voiced their disapproval when registration centres and polling stations were blocked by thugs?

These are at least, circumstantial evidence that the DEM is trying to sabotage the election. If found guilty is liable of party being dissolved and its executive could also face a maximum 10 years jail sentence.

Of course, the DEM is always depending on its grandfather/father court/independence agencies for goodies. Their parents had spoiled them and they never grow up.

1. The constitutionality of the election IS in question. The Democrats are questioning it. What does the CC saying it could be postponed have to do with anything? It wasn't postponed.

2. What does that have to do with someone asking the courts if the election is valid?

3. Someone who doesn't stand should have a right to challenge the results of an election. Look at what happened in the April 2006 election.

4. See point 2.

5. Actually, IIRC, 89.2% of the polling booths reported no problems. Not constituencies. Not that is relevant to whether the election is constitutional or not.

The Bangkok constituencies that were affected are not all Democrat dominated. What does Democrat disapproval of blocking the election have to do with whether it is unconstitutional or not?

I am not saying that the election is unconstitutional, but the reasons you give don't prove anything either way, and anyone has the right to ask the courts if they have a valid reason.

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

[rics21]

If you know you can't win by legal, democratic means, you can always try the illegal, undemocratic ways. That seems to work for the Dems pretty well at times.

What is illegal about what they are trying to do?

stop people from voting.

[Thait Spot]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Anyone should have the legal right to petition for the invalidation of the election results if they have good reason to show that it was unconstitutional.

1. The constitutionality of the election is not in question. CC even said the election can be postponed if EC and the Government agreed to postpone it.

2. EC can red card or yellow card a candidate based on the evidence given by involved voter/s and after investigation.

3. The DEM has no right because they boycotted the GE and should be seen as an attempt to sabotage it.

4. More than 50 political parties participated in the GE.

5. 89.2 of the constituencies participated.

Of course, the DEM who boycotted the GE can try petitioning to invalidate election results. However, it should be highlighted and question why

1. Only the DEM dominated constituencies were afected?

2. Had the DEM voiced their disapproval when registration centres and polling stations were blocked by thugs?

These are at least, circumstantial evidence that the DEM is trying to sabotage the election. If found guilty is liable of party being dissolved and its executive could also face a maximum 10 years jail sentence.

Of course, the DEM is always depending on its grandfather/father court/independence agencies for goodies. Their parents had spoiled them and they never grow up.

Never grow up?

They know what box to put their votes in!!!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[icommunity]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Everyone has a right - it's called democracy

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

[northernjohn]

If you know you can't win by legal, democratic means, you can always try the illegal, undemocratic ways. That seems to work for the Dems pretty well at times.

Of course vote buying and populist policies are a much more democratic way? That seems to work for the PTP pretty well at times.

Err policies that appeal to the majority of the population ARE democracy ... that's kinda how it's SUPPOSED to work ...

... and as for buying people, well how do you think Khun Suthep kept his protesters there for as long as he did ... free food and music/rent-a-thug/rent-a-crowds is still vote buying no matter how you spin it ... spending money to get people to support you is literally vote buying ... campaigning and advertising of your policies is also vote buying, but a type of vote buying that's considered acceptable ... some people literally give you cash to vote for them (Thaksin is neither the first nor last to do this), but most do it indirectly via one scheme or another ... anytime a politician spends money to get your support, they are literally trying to buy your votes. Most countries put a cap on how much money a politician can spend campaigning because otherwise the court has to sit there and try to decide whether or not the vote buying was ethical or not ... it's a minefield of issues that is usually best handled buy accepting a certain percentage is ok ... it's a part of democracy whether you like it or not. Indeed the absolute opposite of this is lobby groups paying politicians cash to support their cause ... again its part of the process. It might not seem right to you but that's how the system works everywhere ... it's ACCEPTABLE .... thuggery to stop people voting is NOT

Planet earth calling Mot Leei

The anti government protestors were not buying votes as they did not run any body.

Not like the red shirts of 2010 who not only bought the voters with free food and entertainment they paid them to stay there so they would not have to go do an honest days work.

[kikoman]

What gives the Democrat party the right to file a suit on an Election, they as a party boycotted, that was lead by a protest by at least (9) members of that party and whose leadership and rank and file actively protested in the Anti-government demonstrations and the only constituencies that were closed or failed to field candidates to contest the election, are in areas that Democrat party voters dominate (10.90%) of the polling places actively block voters from fulfilling their Constitutional right to vote!

All this was done with the public backing of the Democrats, who publicly stated prior to the election that was their intentions!

PTP should begin a proactive campaign and file a sue to have the Democratic party dissolves for backing a non-constitutional and non Democratic appointed peoples counsel, The Democrats should also be sued for the disaster their protest cause to the city of Bangkok over the last 3 or 4 months and for the cost of the election, by their fascist tactic and boycott of the royally decreed election that clearly abided by the dictation of the Thai constitution.

It is plain that the ex ruling elite is hell bend on forcing a civil war in Bangkok, though the actions of their puppet EC and court system.

The nation has been very careful not to offer the EC a reason to cancel the election, the EC by putting off the advance election for 3 more weeks and in hopes that the Court will nullify the election, and the EC will not be required to post the election results.

The issue was not the results or who would win the election, but if there was to be an a election at all , the overwhelming majority chose the election process and voted, that "majority of 89%" of the eligible voters in Thailand.

The EC and the Courts by following the dictates of their masters and not for the good of the nation, will set a Legal precedence that any minority in the future of Thailand can disrupt the will of the majority and will lead to additional decades of political unrest in Thailand!

Cheers

Edited February 3, 2014 by kikoman

[icommunity]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Anyone should have the legal right to petition for the invalidation of the election results if they have good reason to show that it was unconstitutional.

1. The constitutionality of the election is not in question. CC even said the election can be postponed if EC and the Government agreed to postpone it.

2. EC can red card or yellow card a candidate based on the evidence given by involved voter/s and after investigation.

3. The DEM has no right because they boycotted the GE and should be seen as an attempt to sabotage it.

4. More than 50 political parties participated in the GE.

5. 89.2 of the constituencies participated.

Of course, the DEM who boycotted the GE can try petitioning to invalidate election results. However, it should be highlighted and question why

1. Only the DEM dominated constituencies were afected?

2. Had the DEM voiced their disapproval when registration centres and polling stations were blocked by thugs?

These are at least, circumstantial evidence that the DEM is trying to sabotage the election. If found guilty is liable of party being dissolved and its executive could also face a maximum 10 years jail sentence.

Of course, the DEM is always depending on its grandfather/father court/independence agencies for goodies. Their parents had spoiled them and they never grow up.

Never grow up?

They know what box to put their votes in!!!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You argument is irrelevant.

How many of the DEM put their vote in the box?????

[whybother]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

Actually, you said they have no legal right. You haven't shown any valid argument as to why they don't.

I didn't say the election is not unconstitutional.

[northernjohn]

If you know you can't win by legal, democratic means, you can always try the illegal, undemocratic ways. That seems to work for the Dems pretty well at times.

Name one time that the Democrats won the illegal way.

[whybother]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

You really should make up your mind.

[Thait Spot]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Everyone has a right - it's called democracy

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

Not when the reason for not voting has been explained to the EC already

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thait Spot]

What gives the Democrat party the right to file a suit on an Election, they as a party boycotted, that was lead by a protest by at least (9) members of that party and whose leadership and rank and file actively protested in the Anti-government demonstrations and the only constituencies that were closed or failed to field candidates to contest the election, are in areas that Democrat party voters dominate (10.90%) of the polling places actively block voters from fulfilling their Constitutional right to vote!

All this was done with the public backing of the Democrats, who publicly stated prior to the election that was their intentions!

PTP should begin a proactive campaign and file a sue to have the Democratic party dissolves for backing a non-constitutional and non Democratic appointed peoples counsel, The Democrats should also be sued for the disaster their protest cause to the city of Bangkok over the last 3 or 4 months and for the cost of the election, by their fascist tactic and boycott of the royally decreed election that clearly abided by the dictation of the Thai constitution.

It is plain that the ex ruling elite is hell bend on forcing a civil war in Bangkok, though the actions of their puppet EC and court system.

The nation has been very careful not to offer the EC a reason to cancel the election, the EC by putting off the advance election for 3 more weeks and in hopes that the Court will nullify the election, and the EC will not be required to post the election results.

The issue was not the results or who would win the election, but if there was to be an a election at all , the overwhelming majority chose the election process and voted, that "majority of 89%" of the eligible voters in Thailand.

The EC and the Courts by following the dictates of their masters and not for the good of the nation, will set a Legal precedence that any minority in the future of Thailand can disrupt the will of the majority and will lead to additional decades of political unrest in Thailand!

Cheers

89% is not the number of voters.

The Dems all resigned from the party so your plan fails.

The election will be declared null and void and your machinations will be flying in the wind

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[icommunity]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

Actually, you said they have no legal right. You haven't shown any valid argument as to why they don't.

I didn't say the election is not unconstitutional.

Your posting #32 said

"I am not saying that the election is unconstitutional, but the reasons you give don't prove anything either way, and anyone has the right to ask the courts if they have a valid reason."

A person who fails to vote without explanation will lose his or her right to file any objection to the MP election and senatorial selection. He or she will also lose the right to apply for candidacy for national and local elections and to be nominated for the senatorial selection. At the same time, that person will not be allowed to apply for a position as a sub-district headman and village headman. These rights will be given back to a voter when he or she votes in the next election, at whatever level. In order to exercise their voting rights, voters must bring along their citizen identification cards or other official cards with a photo and the ID number of the card holder. A person intentionally destroying a ballot paper will be subject to a jail term of up to one year or a fine of up 20,000 baht, or both. These penalties may also include a revocation of voting rights for five years, by a court’s order.

[icommunity]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

You really should make up your mind.

Have you make up your mind??? Constitutional or not unconstitutional?

Edited February 3, 2014 by icommunity

[northernjohn]

What gives the Democrat party the right to file a suit on an Election, they as a party boycotted, that was lead by a protest by at least (9) members of that party and whose leadership and rank and file actively protested in the Anti-government demonstrations and the only constituencies that were closed or failed to field candidates to contest the election, are in areas that Democrat party voters dominate (10.90%) of the polling places actively block voters from fulfilling their Constitutional right to vote!

All this was done with the public backing of the Democrats, who publicly stated prior to the election that was their intentions!

PTP should begin a proactive campaign and file a sue to have the Democratic party dissolves for backing a non-constitutional and non Democratic appointed peoples counsel, The Democrats should also be sued for the disaster their protest cause to the city of Bangkok over the last 3 or 4 months and for the cost of the election, by their fascist tactic and boycott of the royally decreed election that clearly abided by the dictation of the Thai constitution.

It is plain that the ex ruling elite is hell bend on forcing a civil war in Bangkok, though the actions of their puppet EC and court system.

The nation has been very careful not to offer the EC a reason to cancel the election, the EC by putting off the advance election for 3 more weeks and in hopes that the Court will nullify the election, and the EC will not be required to post the election results. results.

The issue was not the results or who would win the election, but the if there was to be an a election at all , the overwhelming majority chose the election process and voted, that "majority of 89%" of the eligible voters in Thailand.

The EC and the Courts by following the dictates of their masters and not for the good of the nation, will set a Legal precedence that any minority in the future of Thailand can disrupt the will of the majority and will lead to additional decades of political unrest in Thailand!

Cheers

the overwhelming majority chose the election process and voted, that "majority of 89%" of the eligible voters in Thailand.

The PTP do not want the election nullified. But they sure do not want the results publicized. That will show there over all weakness. An election with no major opposition and I am thinking they get a lot less votes than they did when they had opposition. Going to prove embarrassing to them.

Not as embarrassing as claiming that 89% of the voters voted but never the less embarrassing. People like you willing to believe any thing is what they base their whole support on.

[northernjohn]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

You really should make up your mind.

He is a fine example of a graduate of red shirt democracy.

[icommunity]

Those individuals, groups, parties who boycotted the 2 Feb 2014 election has no legal right to petition for the invalidation of election results.

The election was called, planned nationwide according to the 2007 constitution election law that was amended by DEM led government.

Had anyone petitioned to the court that the election was unconstitutional before the election?

Everyone has a right - it's called democracy

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

Not when the reason for not voting has been explained to the EC already

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Had they? EC accepted? AV although on personal basis, said he won't explain to EC since his reason is not listed. Arrogant behavious!

[kikoman]

90% of the country turned up to vote. There cannot be a clearer indication that the PEOPLE disagrees with Mr. Suthep's call to boycott the election. Only think is the Mr. Suthep and the Democrats are blind to this obvious FACT.

90%???

What a maroon! LMAO

Are you saying this to prove you are an idiot about maths, or is there some deeper trouble??

Wrong again it was 89% as posted in this mornings B.P!

What dose the color,"maroon" have to do with his statement, Its Redshirt not all shades of red any moron would know that!

Cheers

[Thait Spot]

Chalerm, by announcing a "victory" for PTP, may have screwed the election pooch.

How funny that would be

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[icommunity]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

What right? When you refused to vote - boycott, you lost the right to challenge.

You really should make up your mind.

He is a fine example of a graduate of red shirt democracy.

You are a typical example of a loser.

[Thait Spot]

90% of the country turned up to vote. There cannot be a clearer indication that the PEOPLE disagrees with Mr. Suthep's call to boycott the election. Only think is the Mr. Suthep and the Democrats are blind to this obvious FACT.

90%???

What a maroon! LMAO

Are you saying this to prove you are an idiot about maths, or is there some deeper trouble??

Wrong again it was 89% as posted in this mornings B.P!

What dose the color,"maroon" have to do with his statement, Its Redshirt not all shades of red any moron would know that!

Cheers

I suggest you read a bit more.

But feel free to dig a bigger hole

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thaddeus]

So you are saying the election is not unconstitutional. So, follow the election laws when filing complaints to invalidate results.

Of course, the DEM can file complaint, but whether it should be accepted by court or not is why I came out with my arguments.

I also warn about the consequences of their childish action.

Actually, you said they have no legal right. You haven't shown any valid argument as to why they don't.

I didn't say the election is not unconstitutional.

Your posting #32 said

"I am not saying that the election is unconstitutional, but the reasons you give don't prove anything either way, and anyone has the right to ask the courts if they have a valid reason."

A person who fails to vote without explanation will lose his or her right to file any objection to the MP election and senatorial selection. He or she will also lose the right to apply for candidacy for national and local elections and to be nominated for the senatorial selection. At the same time, that person will not be allowed to apply for a position as a sub-district headman and village headman. These rights will be given back to a voter when he or she votes in the next election, at whatever level. In order to exercise their voting rights, voters must bring along their citizen identification cards or other official cards with a photo and the ID number of the card holder. A person intentionally destroying a ballot paper will be subject to a jail term of up to one year or a fine of up 20,000 baht, or both. These penalties may also include a revocation of voting rights for five years, by a court’s order.

Just because the Dem MPs didn't stand in the election does not mean that they didn't cast a vote.

Bad assumption to make.