Democrat Party to seek Thai court annulment of snap polls

[casualbiker]

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Yours is wishful thinking.

Thaksin changed the attitudes of the northern and northeastern people and made them much stronger and more determined. I don't believe that they will accept much more of the procedural trickery and insurrectionary tactics from Suthep and Abhisit, especially if the election is annulled. They could respond in all kinds of ways: perhaps civil disobedience is one option. Of course the Army can shoot a few people as it did in 2010, but they would need to shoot a lot because the northerners know their own strength now - and actually the shooting option is unlikely because the Army is divided about which 'side' they're on (from what one hears).

I tend to think that the reds would not come to Bangkok again: they've probably given up caring what happens there. The 'home rule' option is more likely.

Much of this conflict has stemmed from the disastrous coup in 2006. If democracy had been allowed to run its course then, the voters would have determined if Thaksin stayed in power or not. Instead we have chaos.

I don't know why you and others say he planned dictatorship. There's no documentation of that being his aim. And why would he need to when he and his parties have kept winning elections? (And now he's had enough of running for office, he says). Certainly he placed 'his people' in positions of authority, but any competent leader does that even in western countries.

Evidently his downfall was due to his break with the 'old boy network' and his single-minded vision for Thailand: that modern approach alienated the old boys - and that's why he was kicked out.

I admit it is possible that the rice fiasco has antagonised so many voters that they could become fatalistic and just accept the next boring Abhisit government, if that is foisted on them - but I doubt it.

It is a possibility that they might WANT a " boring Abhisit government" that doesn't spend over $40 billion (one trillion baht) on the rice pledging scheme. The scheme that seems to have actually destroyed Thailand's standing in the rice export market, which may take some time to get back. I hope it doesn't for the countries and farmers sake.

only good thing is the scheme has finally been cancelled.. They were quiet about that. I wonder if the farmers know?

Thailand's National Rice Policy Committee, headed by the caretaker Prime Minister, has decided not to extend the government rice mortgage program, which is due to expire at the end of February 2014, according to the Thai Public Broadcasting Service.

The Caretaker Commerce Minister told local sources that the government cannot continue the program as it was already under pressure to fund the program and cannot put greater burden on the country’s finances. The government is under pressure to clear delayed payments for purchase of paddy from farmers under the rice mortgage program. According to the Commerce Minister, the government has so far paid about 680 billion baht (around $20.6 billion) to farmers, but still has to pay another 700 billion baht (around $21.2 billion) for the rice pledged from the 2012-13 crop season (October – September). Under the first season of the current rice mortgage program 2013-14 (October – February), the government has already paid around 54.95 billion baht (around $1.7 billion) to farmers and needs an additional 180 billion baht (around $5.5 billion) to clear delayed payments, the minister says.

- See more at: http://oryza.com/news/rice-news/thailand-national-rice-policy-committee-terminates-rice-mortgage-program#sthash.aM2S5ru1.dpuf

[northernjohn]

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Yours is wishful thinking.

Thaksin changed the attitudes of the northern and northeastern people and made them much stronger and more determined. I don't believe that they will accept much more of the procedural trickery and insurrectionary tactics from Suthep and Abhisit, especially if the election is annulled. They could respond in all kinds of ways: perhaps civil disobedience is one option. Of course the Army can shoot a few people as it did in 2010, but they would need to shoot a lot because the northerners know their own strength now - and actually the shooting option is unlikely because the Army is divided about which 'side' they're on (from what one hears).

I tend to think that the reds would not come to Bangkok again: they've probably given up caring what happens there. The 'home rule' option is more likely.

Much of this conflict has stemmed from the disastrous coup in 2006. If democracy had been allowed to run its course then, the voters would have determined if Thaksin stayed in power or not. Instead we have chaos.

I don't know why you and others say he planned dictatorship. There's no documentation of that being his aim. And why would he need to when he and his parties have kept winning elections? (And now he's had enough of running for office, he says). Certainly he placed 'his people' in positions of authority, but any competent leader does that even in western countries.

Evidently his downfall was due to his break with the 'old boy network' and his single-minded vision for Thailand: that modern approach alienated the old boys - and that's why he was kicked out.

I admit it is possible that the rice fiasco has antagonised so many voters that they could become fatalistic and just accept the next boring Abhisit government, if that is foisted on them - but I doubt it.

You realize of course that the red shirts are now fighting with in there own members. They do not all want Thaksin back. They have come to understand that his populist policies are just costing them money. No they will not mobilize again to descend on Bangkok. They no longer are receiving pay checks for that. Thaksin may be dumb as a board fence but he now realizes all that money got him was a worse name than he had before he started the 2010 armed peaceful protest.

[LazyCat]

As I said many times before, if you looked to see what made protester came out in the place, there you will find your answer. It's not the present problem that is the problem, it's always the past. Everyone know well that the YS administration committed crime by illegally amending the constitution. And now, we know that they have defrauded the taxpayers and the farmers. There are a lot more to add, but I am sure everyone on TV are fully aware of it. If you are not, I am sure many on here can clarify it for you, including me.

Let's be real, most of you came from somewhat functioning democracy, with the all things being done by this administration, wouldn't you think they would be out by now? Instead, all of you fell into the trap of an election. It is the election that the YS government is using to hide from their criminal acts and garner sympathy from the international community. As I see here on TV quite clearly, it's very effective.

Straight up!

and you know what... I really do not mind that they came out to protest...its their rights to protest BUT for the to be affiliated with Sutep.... that's not good... Really... it's like having friends with wrong kids in a school... what he propose is crazy and is NOT a democracy ... what he wants is just a share of POWER HIS OWN SHARE OF POWER for Christ sake thats all he wants... do you think he will NOT try to shove as much money into his own pocket once he can grab some??? Like I said when it was in Russia and I'd say it here too... I really don't care much I know none of those crooks are here in politics for people... Mother Teresa is dead you know... let him and his party win and you will all see that this is even worse of two evils...

When I see two crooks fighting over power i hope they will both kill each other OR the rich one wins ( at least he is already rich! so will not be stuffing his pockets just as much as the less fortunate one )

[retsdon]

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Yours is wishful thinking.

Thaksin changed the attitudes of the northern and northeastern people and made them much stronger and more determined. I don't believe that they will accept much more of the procedural trickery and insurrectionary tactics from Suthep and Abhisit, especially if the election is annulled. They could respond in all kinds of ways: perhaps civil disobedience is one option. Of course the Army can shoot a few people as it did in 2010, but they would need to shoot a lot because the northerners know their own strength now - and actually the shooting option is unlikely because the Army is divided about which 'side' they're on (from what one hears).

I tend to think that the reds would not come to Bangkok again: they've probably given up caring what happens there. The 'home rule' option is more likely.

Much of this conflict has stemmed from the disastrous coup in 2006. If democracy had been allowed to run its course then, the voters would have determined if Thaksin stayed in power or not. Instead we have chaos.

I don't know why you and others say he planned dictatorship. There's no documentation of that being his aim. And why would he need to when he and his parties have kept winning elections? (And now he's had enough of running for office, he says). Certainly he placed 'his people' in positions of authority, but any competent leader does that even in western countries.

Evidently his downfall was due to his break with the 'old boy network' and his single-minded vision for Thailand: that modern approach alienated the old boys - and that's why he was kicked out.

I admit it is possible that the rice fiasco has antagonised so many voters that they could become fatalistic and just accept the next boring Abhisit government, if that is foisted on them - but I doubt it.

You realize of course that the red shirts are now fighting with in there own members. They do not all want Thaksin back. They have come to understand that his populist policies are just costing them money. No they will not mobilize again to descend on Bangkok. They no longer are receiving pay checks for that. Thaksin may be dumb as a board fence but he now realizes all that money got him was a worse name than he had before he started the 2010 armed peaceful protest.

"You realize of course that the red shirts are now fighting with in there own members. They do not all want Thaksin back. They have come to understand that his populist policies are just costing them money'

Very likely true. So what's wrong with taking PTP on at the hustings and beating them in an election? Why plunge the country into yet another political crisis? Suthep and the dopey DP are actually FORCING people who value their right to vote to side with Yingluck. Their political ineptitude is mind-boggling.

[Thai at Heart]

I love how in thailand there is often an apparently seperarate concurrent time warp of events.

The SOE caused the problem. Wow.

[Thai at Heart]

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Yours is wishful thinking.

Thaksin changed the attitudes of the northern and northeastern people and made them much stronger and more determined. I don't believe that they will accept much more of the procedural trickery and insurrectionary tactics from Suthep and Abhisit, especially if the election is annulled. They could respond in all kinds of ways: perhaps civil disobedience is one option. Of course the Army can shoot a few people as it did in 2010, but they would need to shoot a lot because the northerners know their own strength now - and actually the shooting option is unlikely because the Army is divided about which 'side' they're on (from what one hears).

I tend to think that the reds would not come to Bangkok again: they've probably given up caring what happens there. The 'home rule' option is more likely.

Much of this conflict has stemmed from the disastrous coup in 2006. If democracy had been allowed to run its course then, the voters would have determined if Thaksin stayed in power or not. Instead we have chaos.

I don't know why you and others say he planned dictatorship. There's no documentation of that being his aim. And why would he need to when he and his parties have kept winning elections? (And now he's had enough of running for office, he says). Certainly he placed 'his people' in positions of authority, but any competent leader does that even in western countries.

Evidently his downfall was due to his break with the 'old boy network' and his single-minded vision for Thailand: that modern approach alienated the old boys - and that's why he was kicked out.

I admit it is possible that the rice fiasco has antagonised so many voters that they could become fatalistic and just accept the next boring Abhisit government, if that is foisted on them - but I doubt it.

It is a possibility that they might WANT a " boring Abhisit government" that doesn't spend over $40 billion (one trillion baht) on the rice pledging scheme. The scheme that seems to have actually destroyed Thailand's standing in the rice export market, which may take some time to get back. I hope it doesn't for the countries and farmers sake.

only good thing is the scheme has finally been cancelled.. They were quiet about that. I wonder if the farmers know?

Thailand's National Rice Policy Committee, headed by the caretaker Prime Minister, has decided not to extend the government rice mortgage program, which is due to expire at the end of February 2014, according to the Thai Public Broadcasting Service.

The Caretaker Commerce Minister told local sources that the government cannot continue the program as it was already under pressure to fund the program and cannot put greater burden on the countrys finances. The government is under pressure to clear delayed payments for purchase of paddy from farmers under the rice mortgage program. According to the Commerce Minister, the government has so far paid about 680 billion baht (around $20.6 billion) to farmers, but still has to pay another 700 billion baht (around $21.2 billion) for the rice pledged from the 2012-13 crop season (October September). Under the first season of the current rice mortgage program 2013-14 (October February), the government has already paid around 54.95 billion baht (around $1.7 billion) to farmers and needs an additional 180 billion baht (around $5.5 billion) to clear delayed payments, the minister says.

- See more at: http://oryza.com/news/rice-news/thailand-national-rice-policy-committee-terminates-rice-mortgage-program#sthash.aM2S5ru1.dpuf

Revealed: the £130bn cost of Trident replacement

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed

Just to put it in context and all that...the issue is not the subsidy, but how it was done.

[Thai at Heart]

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Yours is wishful thinking.

Thaksin changed the attitudes of the northern and northeastern people and made them much stronger and more determined. I don't believe that they will accept much more of the procedural trickery and insurrectionary tactics from Suthep and Abhisit, especially if the election is annulled. They could respond in all kinds of ways: perhaps civil disobedience is one option. Of course the Army can shoot a few people as it did in 2010, but they would need to shoot a lot because the northerners know their own strength now - and actually the shooting option is unlikely because the Army is divided about which 'side' they're on (from what one hears).

I tend to think that the reds would not come to Bangkok again: they've probably given up caring what happens there. The 'home rule' option is more likely.

Much of this conflict has stemmed from the disastrous coup in 2006. If democracy had been allowed to run its course then, the voters would have determined if Thaksin stayed in power or not. Instead we have chaos.

I don't know why you and others say he planned dictatorship. There's no documentation of that being his aim. And why would he need to when he and his parties have kept winning elections? (And now he's had enough of running for office, he says). Certainly he placed 'his people' in positions of authority, but any competent leader does that even in western countries.

Evidently his downfall was due to his break with the 'old boy network' and his single-minded vision for Thailand: that modern approach alienated the old boys - and that's why he was kicked out.

I admit it is possible that the rice fiasco has antagonised so many voters that they could become fatalistic and just accept the next boring Abhisit government, if that is foisted on them - but I doubt it.

It is a possibility that they might WANT a " boring Abhisit government" that doesn't spend over $40 billion (one trillion baht) on the rice pledging scheme. The scheme that seems to have actually destroyed Thailand's standing in the rice export market, which may take some time to get back. I hope it doesn't for the countries and farmers sake.

only good thing is the scheme has finally been cancelled.. They were quiet about that. I wonder if the farmers know?

Thailand's National Rice Policy Committee, headed by the caretaker Prime Minister, has decided not to extend the government rice mortgage program, which is due to expire at the end of February 2014, according to the Thai Public Broadcasting Service.

The Caretaker Commerce Minister told local sources that the government cannot continue the program as it was already under pressure to fund the program and cannot put greater burden on the countrys finances. The government is under pressure to clear delayed payments for purchase of paddy from farmers under the rice mortgage program. According to the Commerce Minister, the government has so far paid about 680 billion baht (around $20.6 billion) to farmers, but still has to pay another 700 billion baht (around $21.2 billion) for the rice pledged from the 2012-13 crop season (October September). Under the first season of the current rice mortgage program 2013-14 (October February), the government has already paid around 54.95 billion baht (around $1.7 billion) to farmers and needs an additional 180 billion baht (around $5.5 billion) to clear delayed payments, the minister says.

- See more at: http://oryza.com/news/rice-news/thailand-national-rice-policy-committee-terminates-rice-mortgage-program#sthash.aM2S5ru1.dpuf

Revealed: the £130bn cost of Trident replacement

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed

Just to put it in context and all that...the issue is not the subsidy, but how it was done.

[Gweiloman]

It is poor form to belittle and insult others.

I think what you mean (based on what happened, not your own opinion).....

RESULTS: The anti government protesters affected the election as (5 out of every 10) voters either were not affected by or ignored the demonstrators call to boycott the election, this represents a drop from around 7.5 out of every 10 voters in the past who turned out to vote.

Of the (5 out of 10) Thai voters who backed PTP position to vote, we do not yet know what proportion out of those 5 out of 10 voted NO or did not vote for PTP, which was the other option offered by the protesters as a form of protest vote.

As I have previously posted (not that most things are referenced):

This is what we know for now:

- "Thai voters cast ballots across almost 90 percent of the country yesterday" ref Business Week

http://www.businessw...-to-hamper-vote

- this is by area representing potential to cast a vote NOT total number of voters

- " 49 million eligible voters for 375 constituencies" ref. Rueters

http://www.reuters.c...EA1100X20140202

(therefore your claim of 90% would mean approximately 44m people voted - which they didn't - closer estimate is )

- "Voting was disrupted in 18 percent or 69 of 375 constituencies nationwide, the Election Commission said, affecting 18 of 77 provinces, Reuters reported"

http://www.aljazeera...3752606651.html

(disrupted means just that)

- "In southern provinces, voter turnout was estimated at 20 to 30 per cent, much lower than previous elections.Voter turnout was a little over 40 per cent in Chai Nat, less than 50 per cent in Phichit, about 50 per cent in Ayutthaya, according to local election officials."

-- The Nation 2014-02-03

- turnout in Chiang Rai (stronghold of PT) voter turnout around 60% less than the last election turnout of 76% (ignoring the voters who chose to vote NO VOTE)

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/region/400797

- turnout in Buriram (stronghold of BJT) voter turnout around 50%

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/400775

Furthermore....

- EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen said about 13 million voters who could not exercise their right to vote made up about 25% of the entire electorate of almost 49 million eligible voters. (note this excludes the number who also chose NOT to vote which was at least a similar number IMHO)

- Bangkok Metropolitan Administration reported unofficial voter turnouts yesterday in Bangkok at 1.14 million people, or 26.18% of a total of 4.36 million eligible voters, compared to voter turnouts of 71.62% in the July 3, 2011 election.

- Voter turnouts nationwide even in the strongholds of Peua Thai were consistently lower than 2011, with a significant number of people electing not to vote - I heard percentages by changwat this morning being between 45 - 60% in the north and north east

- updated: EC Commissioner estimates turnout at around 45% I think somewhere in this thread (I have not seen this reference, but would seem to be about right)

You say 90%. Reality is around half that at 45-50%, and again, that's not counting the people who used their vote to NO VOTE.

Thank you for gathering all of this information, Steve. It is truly amazing stuff. Only 26% of eligible voters in Bangkok (the nation's political, economic, and cultural center) casting ballots, and only 50% or so even in the north and northeastern Red strongholds, where no Suthep forces were present to discourage people from turning out. What this suggests to me is that after the election is ruled invalid and the Thaksin puppets are tossed from office, the Reds will be unable to marshall anywhere near the same number of protesters to descend on Bangkok and terrorize the citizenry as in 2010. To be sure, they will gather some -- screaming "judicial coup!" -- and black-shirted assassins will be hired to kill people: some targeted, some at random. But this will have the effect of alienating even more voters; the downward spiral has begun. I think we're finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: the beginning of the end of the entire Thaksin phenomenon, his 15-year-long megalomaniacal drive to establish a populist dictatorship.

Let's see..........

It's truly amazing stuff............

You are obviously very easily amazed if you can't (or won't) see the reason for the low turnout. Btw, what has Bkk being the nation's political, economic, and cultural center has to do with turnout figures? The people have to vote where they are registered to vote. You cast doubt as to whether you live in Thailand with your insidious comment.

After the election is ruled invalid......

Please kindly state your case, rather than just repeating what your fellow supporters are incanting

The second half of your rant is not worthy of address.

[Gweiloman]

Your arguments about percentages and mandates are irrelevant. PT won according to the rules and so they won. Simple as that. Elections all over the world are run on this or a similar basis: You have an election, you count up which party got most MPs elected and then, if they have an absolute majority of MPs, that party wins - as PT did in 2011 (with a substantial swing to PT).

For a more detailed examination of the 2011 election you should look at the analysis in Asian Survey Jul/Aug 2013.

In my experience, in other countries elections are won and lost in similar ways, and absolute absolute majorities of votes would be, I believe, quite a rarety (except in North Korea I suppose).

Yes, they won (or rather will win when the result is finalised in 2-3 months). But it's not "the will of the people", "a massive landslide" or "a majority".

Would the result have been different if the Dems have participated? If yes, why didn't they (Dems)? If not, then it's isn't it the will of the "people"? (please note the absence of the word majority - that's the way the law is set up).

[kikoman]

What part of that, do you not understand, "(89%) of Thai registered voters chose to vote"yesterday!

The Yellows and their backers were trying to stop the election and told all of it supporters not to vote, in contrast the Yingluck government stated that people should support the Thai Democracy and vote.

"89% of eligible voters voted in the February 2 national election, 10.9% of voters chose not to vote or were blocked from voting"

RESULTS: The Suthep, Democrat party, lost the election as (1 out of 10) voters backed the demonstrators call to boycott the election!

In sharp contrast (9 out of 10) Thai voters backed PTP position to vote.

All I have read today is the pathetic post from posters trying to "save face" as the real Thai majority, burst their bubble and voted in over whelming numbers!

I would laugh to, but I chose not to add insult to injury!

It is poor form to belittle and insult others.

I think what you mean (based on what happened, not your own opinion).....

RESULTS: The anti government protesters affected the election as (5 out of every 10) voters either were not affected by or ignored the demonstrators call to boycott the election, this represents a drop from around 7.5 out of every 10 voters in the past who turned out to vote.

Of the (5 out of 10) Thai voters who backed PTP position to vote, we do not yet know what proportion out of those 5 out of 10 voted NO or did not vote for PTP, which was the other option offered by the protesters as a form of protest vote.

As I have previously posted (not that most things are referenced):

This is what we know for now:

- "Thai voters cast ballots across almost 90 percent of the country yesterday" ref Business Week

http://www.businessw...-to-hamper-vote

- this is by area representing potential to cast a vote NOT total number of voters

- " 49 million eligible voters for 375 constituencies" ref. Rueters

http://www.reuters.c...EA1100X20140202

(therefore your claim of 90% would mean approximately 44m people voted - which they didn't - closer estimate is )

- "Voting was disrupted in 18 percent or 69 of 375 constituencies nationwide, the Election Commission said, affecting 18 of 77 provinces, Reuters reported"

http://www.aljazeera...3752606651.html

(disrupted means just that)

- "In southern provinces, voter turnout was estimated at 20 to 30 per cent, much lower than previous elections.Voter turnout was a little over 40 per cent in Chai Nat, less than 50 per cent in Phichit, about 50 per cent in Ayutthaya, according to local election officials."

-- The Nation 2014-02-03

- turnout in Chiang Rai (stronghold of PT) voter turnout around 60% less than the last election turnout of 76% (ignoring the voters who chose to vote NO VOTE)

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/region/400797

- turnout in Buriram (stronghold of BJT) voter turnout around 50%

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/400775

Furthermore....

- EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen said about 13 million voters who could not exercise their right to vote made up about 25% of the entire electorate of almost 49 million eligible voters. (note this excludes the number who also chose NOT to vote which was at least a similar number IMHO)

- Bangkok Metropolitan Administration reported unofficial voter turnouts yesterday in Bangkok at 1.14 million people, or 26.18% of a total of 4.36 million eligible voters, compared to voter turnouts of 71.62% in the July 3, 2011 election.

- Voter turnouts nationwide even in the strongholds of Peua Thai were consistently lower than 2011, with a significant number of people electing not to vote - I heard percentages by changwat this morning being between 45 - 60% in the north and north east

- updated: EC Commissioner estimates turnout at around 45% I think somewhere in this thread (I have not seen this reference, but would seem to be about right)

You say 90%. Reality is around half that at 45-50%, and again, that's not counting the people who used their vote to NO VOTE.

Again, the primary issue as advocated by the Suthep protester was the aim of "shutting down the election".

Did the election take place or not?

To most it is quite obvious that the protesters failed to shut the election down!

More people turned out to vote, then those people who supported Suthep and boycotted the election!

The count and numbers are immaterial as no one was campaigning or trying to get elected to any office, the sole issue on the table was there to be a national election or not!

Suthep and the Democrats did not back any type of protest vote, period! had they asked their supporters to "vote No", then the figures and count would be an indicator, who won the election., since their stated goal was to stop the election. Then the indicator of how many voter cast their ballot on election day, would decide whose side prevailed on election day!

It is again immaterial for whom they voted or if they cast a no vote ballot. They showed up to vote in support of the Democratic process in Thailand and rejected the undemocratic, unelected peoples counsel by the simple act of voting their mind.

The Suthepites other objective also failed, as Yingluck never resigned and is still PM today!

Cheers.

Edited February 3, 2014 by kikoman

[Gweiloman]

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.

PT has never won 'by legal, democratic means' either as Thailand doesn't have democracy. The demonstrators are demonstrating because with the Shin's gone there is a slim chance that real democracy could take root here if the necessary reforms are carried out....

PT won the last election legally and democratically ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THAILAND. Which part of this statement would you lie to contest?

[DrDweeb]

Useless factoids from my sphere of contacts.

• It seems no rice farmer in the area my GF family comes (in Ubon province) from has been paid for their rice. Months have passed. I predict many will fall into the waiting arms of the loan sharks in order to put rice on the table.
• My GFs mother crawled out of her hospital bed to go vote, at least one poor farmer understands the symbolic importance of that action.
• Sadly, many villagers loudly continue to blame the opposition for their woes, which indicates the shallow understanding they possess and how easily they are, and have been manipulated

Isn't there a minimum number of votes that need to be cast, seats contested etc. etc. necessary for an election to be valid under the current Thai legislation? Did (or indeed will) this poll meet those requirements?

[kikoman]

My what a difference a day makes, before the election the yellows advocated only that the election would not take place at all that Suthep manifesto was the position of the great majority of Thailand!

Today they are trying to invent a excuse to diminish the fact that the majority of Thai's chose to vote and not boycott the election.

How even your math works, it adds up that Suthep's boycott lost!

Cheers

[JRSoul]

According to the BP, PTP estimates they received NO MORE than 10 million votes. IMHO they are optimists.

Of course, that gives them a huge mandate to govern with such an overwhelming vote of confidence from the Thai people. Or should that be a vote of no-confidence, as NO was a close second even in their "strongholds".

[aimbc]

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% ?Where did you get that number from ? That would be a personal best for Thailand, I don't believe it for a second, links to creditable sources or stop lieing please....?

Simply put it...PTP...Dead man walking!

[whybother]

My what a difference a day makes, before the election the yellows advocated only that the election would not take place at all that Suthep manifesto was the position of the great majority of Thailand!

Today they are trying to invent a excuse to diminish the fact that the majority of Thai's chose to vote and not boycott the election.

How even your math works, it adds up that Suthep's boycott lost!

Cheers

My maths says 45% is not a majority!

Sent from my phone ...

[Piichai]

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!

It's hard to tell if you're a troll or you really don't get it.

The EC understood already why there shouldn't be a vote. They tried to explain that to Yingluck, but (insert joke about putting ballots in wrong box here).

Some may have valid reasons, as listed by the EC, for missing the election, but AV's reason isn't on the list so he has nothing to say to the EC about it.

The election will be deemed invalid soon enough. Thus he won't have to worry.

So it means AV did not have a valid reason.

One doesn't need a valid reason not to vote in an in-valid election.

[Piichai]

@Piichai

Name calling aside... I'm not so sure they failed as the election turnout in the north and northeast was pretty low.

Sounds like the farmers up their made their point. Even *they* want reforms!

I see you've taken on a new presumptuous air which is to speak imposed things on the people you presume to speak for that they never said or would say. Bad form.

They could have voted PTP... They could have voted none-of-the-above... But instead most of the people in the north and northeast listened to Suthep and boycotted the election.

Sound like a mandate for reform to me!

Edited February 4, 2014 by Piichai

[Piichai]

This news snippet hasn't yet been turned into a full post:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/701591-thailand-live-monday-3-feb-2014/page-3#entry7388629

Ignore the back-slapping, face-saving camaraderie, but hasn't EC Commissioner Somchai just admitted that he screwed up?! Isn't that just the sort of admission to add fuel to those seeking to annul this election?

cynical, me?

It is already on a ongoing thread.

What is also interesting is that the SET finished higher. Seems like the markets are satisfied that the elections have been conducted correctly and satisfactorily and that things will return to normal soon.

More likely the market is happy the turnout was so low!

[tingtongteesood]

The election will be nullified and invalid, the demonstrators didn't stop it entirely but they did enough...

[icommunity]

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!

It's hard to tell if you're a troll or you really don't get it.

The EC understood already why there shouldn't be a vote. They tried to explain that to Yingluck, but (insert joke about putting ballots in wrong box here).

Some may have valid reasons, as listed by the EC, for missing the election, but AV's reason isn't on the list so he has nothing to say to the EC about it.

The election will be deemed invalid soon enough. Thus he won't have to worry.

So it means AV did not have a valid reason.

Reply to Pilchai post #167

One doesn't need a valid reason not to vote in an in-valid election.

My Response

Was the 2 Feb 2014 election ever been announced as invalid by relevant authority or had anyone petitioned to any relevant court for an injunction? Very arrogant, thug behaviour.

[Publicus]

They could have voted PTP... They could have voted none-of-the-above... But instead most of the people in the north and northeast listened to Suthep and boycotted the election.

Sound like a mandate for reform to me!

It is already on a ongoing thread.

What is also interesting is that the SET finished higher. Seems like the markets are satisfied that the elections have been conducted correctly and satisfactorily and that things will return to normal soon.

More likely the market is happy the turnout was so low!

The ways in which you think must be fascinating, to say the least.