Election talks under shadow of legal threat from Pheu Thai

[webfact]

POLL
Election talks under shadow of legal threat from Pheu Thai
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- AS PHEU THAI leaders sit down to discuss issues surrounding the February 2 election with the Election Commission (EC) and academics today, the party has threatened legal action against the five EC commissioners to force them to complete the election.

Pheu Thai Party MP candidates will today file complaints against the five election commissioners at police stations across the country, accusing them of violating the Constitution by scheduling beyond the deadline the election dates for polling stations that were blocked by protesters, party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said yesterday.

The move is in response to the EC's resolution on February 11, which scheduled April 20 as the date to re-hold advance polling at stations where voting had been blocked by protesters on January 26. The resolution also scheduled April 27 as the election date for polling stations the protesters had obstructed on February 2.

Prompong questioned the EC's motive for fixing election dates that would prohibit the House from convening within 30 days after the general election.

He said by March 3 the EC must hold voting at polling stations that had been blocked, since Article 127 of the Constitution stipulates that the House must be convened within 30 days after the election date.

He said the EC must also schedule candidate registration and election dates for eight southern provinces that have no MP candidates, pointing to the fact that the EC has the authority to do so under Articles 135 and 136.

The EC had officially proposed the government issue a royal decree for voting in those provinces.

Prompong said the party instructed its party-list and constituency MP candidates in every province to file complaints at police stations against the five commissioners. "With this measure, the EC cannot avoid its responsibility,'' he said.

Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn posted on his personal Facebook page seven questions, which he said were "homework" assignments for the government representatives and academics attending the meeting today with the EC.

Some of the questions he asked were:

1: How to manage the election in 28 constituencies in the South to prevent violent obstruction by local people and anti-government protesters?

2: How to print ballot cards and deliver them to the polling stations with transparency and without being obstructed by anti-government protesters?

3: How to recruit nine local election officials for each polling station if local people do not support the election?

4: What are the roles of soldiers, police and administration officials in helping the EC manage the election? Can the EC issue orders to every unit, and if any unit does not take the EC's orders, will it be dismissed?

5: How to hold elections in 10,284 polling stations at which voting had not taken place?

6: How to solve problems such as no ballot papers or boxes if protesters obstruct the delivery of election equipment?

Democrat Party deputy leader Ongard Klampaiboon said he hoped the government and the EC today could find solutions that are acceptable to all sides and free the deadlock facing the country.


-- The Nation 2014-02-17

Edited February 16, 2014 by Rooo

[MGP]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

[soundman]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

[dinom]

Let me guess, K. Yingluck assigned some caretaker ministers to deliver Mr. T's. message to the EC. Negotiation Shin-style...

[tezzainoz]

Thaskinites are getting desperate

Time is running out to play there Joker card and get the great thaskin back to Thailand with no responsibilities for the crimes he committed

This has nothing to do with Tha Law or the constitution

just watch the next 2 weeks

Desperation is hitting the fan, and a big big bonus has been promised to the PYP MP who pulls this off

The chess game is getting close to the end

[NCFC]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

Section 93.6 says that 95% of members must be filled in the House of Representatives and that the vacant seats must be filled by elections within 180 days.

Section 109 deals with situations where there is a vacancy by reason other than expiry of term or House dissolution, in these cases there must be an election within 45 days of vacancy. Lawyers will argue whether the current set of vacancies are a result of House dissolution or a result of other circumstances (ie protests) but it isn't clear how the constitution court would rule on that.

On a related matter, Section 107 stipulates that a royal decree must declare a single date for elections to be held. I see the EC are arguing for a new royal decree to be issued for the vacant seats which is a bit "naughty" of them as they must see that a second date would be in direct contradiction to Section 107 and would invalidate the elections of Feb 2nd.

My opinion, of course.

[ramrod711]

If the EC continues to disregard the Constitution, they may find themselves in trouble with the CC. The threats from PTP are meaningless and empty, they are clearly finished, just trying to muddle through a situation that has no happy solution for them. They should step down, but it seems that Yingluck, like her brother, can't spell lose.

[Fryslan boppe]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

"The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held"

Probably correct in one form or another...And is exactly the intent of the EC.

This is not the "independent" body the PAD-Dem's would like to characterize it as.

Such a conclusion cannot be avoided when assessing all their actions....most eggregiously the one whereby they tried to further the aims of the Coup-mongers and their shadowy Elitist supporters by cancelling the election....Thereby throwing Thailand into a Political 'black hole'.........Everything considered, one cannot avoid the conclusion that it is 'election' or 'coup'........diddling with the process that threatens an election as the PTP charges the EC with, is by extension and in effect, opting for a coup.

Anyone who disagrees with this, is not considering the views of the electoral majority, who faithfully trooped to the voting booths on Feb. 2nd. Or at least that is what I am hearing from the UDD/RS's, and is their firm belief.......But then the electoral minority protesting on the streets of BKK have nothing but disdain for that electoral majority....believing to their very bones they have exclusive and unassailable political insight to which all others must conform...exactly bass-ackwards from political parties in traditional Democracies. They spend millions segmenting the electorate and developing policies attractive to those segments.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Fryslan boppe

[Baerboxer]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

"The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held"

Probably correct in one form or another...And is exactly the intent of the EC.

This is not the "independent" body the PAD-Dem's would like to characterize it as.

Such a conclusion cannot be avoided when assessing all their actions....most eggregiously the one whereby they tried to further the aims of the Coup-mongers and their shadowy Elitist supporters by cancelling the election....Thereby throwing Thailand into a Political 'black hole'.........Everything considered, one cannot avoid the conclusion that it is 'election' or 'coup'........diddling with the process that threatens an election as the PTP charges the EC with, is by extension and in effect, opting for a coup.

Anyone who disagrees with this, is not considering the views of the electoral majority, who faithfully trooped to the voting booths on Feb. 2nd. Or at least that is what I am hearing from the UDD/RS's, and is their firm belief.......But then the electoral minority protesting on the streets of BKK have nothing but disdain for that electoral majority....believing to their very bones they have exclusive and unassailable political insight to which all others must conform...exactly bass-ackwards from political parties in traditional Democracies. They spend millions segmenting the electorate and developing policies attractive to those segments.

Fortunately PTP have to obey the law. They don't like that and their attempts at bullying, intimidation and blatant threat are there for all to see time and time again.

Constantly claiming all courts, government agencies, banks, media, NGO's, business leaders and academics who express a different view to PTP's will are "biased. unfair, elitist HiSo puppets are ridiculous and beginning to sound like a broken record.

The EC announced last week that if anyone threatens legal action against them, clearly an attempt at intimidation, then they will ask that they leave the meeting,

So what do PTP do. They allow their criminal spokesman, who should be serving a jail sentence for his conviction, (DSI don't seem to want a warrant here), to issue threats. He must also be breaching the SOE if any of the people he is suggesting file law suits are in the areas covered by the SOE.

People are realizing that PTP's idea of a negotiation or discussion is - Thaksin thinks, we say, you do. It's understandable why no one wants to bother to talk with them. A track record of promises and actions that speak for themselves.

PTP have never had an electoral majority but their supporters still drivel on as if they did, presumably believing the so often stated landslide bull shit.

All a struggle to keep power until they get the amnesty bill back and try and ram it through into law, claiming once again falsely that they have the people's mandate and listen to the people.

The future really looks bleak.

[BlueNoseCodger]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

Section 93.6 says that 95% of members must be filled in the House of Representatives and that the vacant seats must be filled by elections within 180 days.

Section 109 deals with situations where there is a vacancy by reason other than expiry of term or House dissolution, in these cases there must be an election within 45 days of vacancy. Lawyers will argue whether the current set of vacancies are a result of House dissolution or a result of other circumstances (ie protests) but it isn't clear how the constitution court would rule on that.

On a related matter, Section 107 stipulates that a royal decree must declare a single date for elections to be held. I see the EC are arguing for a new royal decree to be issued for the vacant seats which is a bit "naughty" of them as they must see that a second date would be in direct contradiction to Section 107 and would invalidate the elections of Feb 2nd.

My opinion, of course.

From the Constitution:

93.p6 In the case where there occurs, during the general election, any cause resulting in the members of the House of Representatives elected from the election being less than four hundred and eighty in number but not less than ninety-five per cent of the total number of members of the House of Representatives, such members is deemed to constitute the House of Representatives. In this case, the acquisition for the fulfillment of the total number of members of the House of Representatives shall be completed within one hundred and eighty days and the new coming members shall hold office for the remaining term of the House of Representatives.

This clause does not apply, the current number is below 95% (i.e. "but not less than ninety-five per cent" is false), EC don't get the 180 extra days to do their job. They can't keep stalling I think.

93.p4 In the case where the office of a member of the House of Representatives becomes vacant for any reason and an election of a member of the House of Representatives has not been held to fill the vacancy, the House of Representatives shall consist of the existing members of the House.

Now this one does apply, the seat became vacant due to dissolution (= any reason), and an election has not yet happened for those seats. So they can form a government with less than 95% here. That requires the EC obey 236/7 and release the result of the election as they're required to do by the Constitution.

Section 127. The National Assembly shall, within thirty days as from the date of the election of members of the House of Representatives, be summoned for the first sitting.

I don't think that compels EC to act, more it's section 236/6. Their duty to organize elections.

On a related matter, Section 107 stipulates that a royal decree must declare a single date for elections to be held. I see the EC are arguing for a new royal decree to be issued for the vacant seats which is a bit "naughty" of them as they must see that a second date would be in direct contradiction to Section 107 and would invalidate the elections of Feb 2nd.

Bit naughty asking for a 108? More like illegal. Section 108 specifically stops you calling more than one dissolution of the house:

Section 108. The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed for not less than forty-five days but not more than sixty days as from the day the House of Representatives has been dissolved and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives may be made only once under the same circumstance.

Also unnecessary, section 236 requires EC fix any problems with fresh elections in those stations. Since an election is a registration + ballots + vote, they have all the authority they need to do their job (including registrations), they're just pretending they don't.

Section 236. The Election Commission shall have the following powers and duties:

(6) to order a new election or a new voting at a referendum to be held in any or all polling stations when there occurs convincing evidence that the election or the voting at a referendum in that or those polling stations has not proceeded in an honest and fair manner;

Edited February 17, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[gerry1011]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

What negotiation?

There is nothing to negociate...

Under the Constitution the EC has the duty and obligation to organize the election, following established rules and within a given time frame.

If the EC does not perform its duty, then the persons blocking the democratic process must be punished.

What is there to negotiate in that crystal clear process?

Why would the caretaker government negotiate with the people within the EC who try as hard as they can not to have an election?

Once again Yingluck and the PT play safe and wise against those who aim at destroying democracy

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited February 17, 2014 by gerry1011

[BlueNoseCodger]

To sum up my post in a more readable form:

I think:

1) EC has a duty and power to organize fresh elections in the problem seats under Thai Constitution 236/6.

2) EC does not get the 180 extra days to do that, because there are less than 95% of seats filled. It is in violation of the time limit already.

3) EC has a duty to release the result, under Constitution 236/7. Their excuse of 'not wanting a vote in one seat to affect another' has no basis under the Constitution.

4) The government can form with less than 95% because the constitution trumps all lesser laws and says they sit in 30 days. It certainly trumps any excuses EC invents.

I really think at this point, if EC won't do its job, you go to the CC and demand the result be released under 236/7, form a government and begin a civil case against EC members. In particular their December statements, which they threatened to resign on mass unless they were allowed to mediate between Suthep and elected Government, was a gross violation of their duty to organize elections!

Edited February 17, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[Bakseeda]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

"The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held"

Probably correct in one form or another...And is exactly the intent of the EC.

This is not the "independent" body the PAD-Dem's would like to characterize it as.

Such a conclusion cannot be avoided when assessing all their actions....most eggregiously the one whereby they tried to further the aims of the Coup-mongers and their shadowy Elitist supporters by cancelling the election....Thereby throwing Thailand into a Political 'black hole'.........Everything considered, one cannot avoid the conclusion that it is 'election' or 'coup'........diddling with the process that threatens an election as the PTP charges the EC with, is by extension and in effect, opting for a coup.

Anyone who disagrees with this, is not considering the views of the electoral majority, who faithfully trooped to the voting booths on Feb. 2nd. Or at least that is what I am hearing from the UDD/RS's, and is their firm belief.......But then the electoral minority protesting on the streets of BKK have nothing but disdain for that electoral majority....believing to their very bones they have exclusive and unassailable political insight to which all others must conform...exactly bass-ackwards from political parties in traditional Democracies. They spend millions segmenting the electorate and developing policies attractive to those segments.

Any possibility of you re-writing this article in plain easy to read English... there is one born every second..!

[BlueNoseCodger]

Here's Somchai's full quote, (my underlining):

EC member Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said:

'The elections will not take place unless both parties and other stakeholders hold talks and reach an agreement. The EC is ready to act as a go-between.'

'After the registration of constituency candidates ends on Jan 1, the EC will hold a meeting on Jan 2 and make a decision,'

'Some people may say we are crossing the line. In some cases we might overstep our authority. But if that can resolve the situation, we have to do it,'

'And if the public thinks that we have crossed the line, we will take responsibility.'

Now the constitution puts a duty on them to run elections. Not 'resolve the situation' by acting 'as a go-between'. Just run elections.

This condition does not apply: will not take place unless both parties and other stakeholders hold talks and reach an agreement. Even if they don't talk he still has a duty to organize elections, even if they don't reach agreement EC's job is still to organize elections.

[ggold]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

Section 93.6 says that 95% of members must be filled in the House of Representatives and that the vacant seats must be filled by elections within 180 days.

Section 109 deals with situations where there is a vacancy by reason other than expiry of term or House dissolution, in these cases there must be an election within 45 days of vacancy. Lawyers will argue whether the current set of vacancies are a result of House dissolution or a result of other circumstances (ie protests) but it isn't clear how the constitution court would rule on that.

On a related matter, Section 107 stipulates that a royal decree must declare a single date for elections to be held. I see the EC are arguing for a new royal decree to be issued for the vacant seats which is a bit "naughty" of them as they must see that a second date would be in direct contradiction to Section 107 and would invalidate the elections of Feb 2nd.

My opinion, of course.

Well it's pretty obvious that the FEB 2 elections were a failure! So how long before that election is invalidated! I guess we're waiting on the courts to decide this, in the mean time PTP keep pushing their miss management to the limit.

[BlueNoseCodger]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

Section 93.6 says that 95% of members must be filled in the House of Representatives and that the vacant seats must be filled by elections within 180 days.

Section 109 deals with situations where there is a vacancy by reason other than expiry of term or House dissolution, in these cases there must be an election within 45 days of vacancy. Lawyers will argue whether the current set of vacancies are a result of House dissolution or a result of other circumstances (ie protests) but it isn't clear how the constitution court would rule on that.

On a related matter, Section 107 stipulates that a royal decree must declare a single date for elections to be held. I see the EC are arguing for a new royal decree to be issued for the vacant seats which is a bit "naughty" of them as they must see that a second date would be in direct contradiction to Section 107 and would invalidate the elections of Feb 2nd.

My opinion, of course.

Well it's pretty obvious that the FEB 2 elections were a failure! So how long before that election is invalidated! I guess we're waiting on the courts to decide this, in the mean time PTP keep pushing their miss management to the limit.

On what grounds would you invalidate them? The CC already rejected the Dems attempt to invalidate the election.

[ggold]

The way I read it is that if a quorum cannot be reached in 30 days, a new house cannot be convened and a new election must be held.

Is there any part of the constitution that forces the EC to hold elections in a certain time frame in the case of a quorum not being met?

If not, all bullying, bluster, and bluff as per usual.

Section 93.6 says that 95% of members must be filled in the House of Representatives and that the vacant seats must be filled by elections within 180 days.

Section 109 deals with situations where there is a vacancy by reason other than expiry of term or House dissolution, in these cases there must be an election within 45 days of vacancy. Lawyers will argue whether the current set of vacancies are a result of House dissolution or a result of other circumstances (ie protests) but it isn't clear how the constitution court would rule on that.

On a related matter, Section 107 stipulates that a royal decree must declare a single date for elections to be held. I see the EC are arguing for a new royal decree to be issued for the vacant seats which is a bit "naughty" of them as they must see that a second date would be in direct contradiction to Section 107 and would invalidate the elections of Feb 2nd.

My opinion, of course.

Well it's pretty obvious that the FEB 2 elections were a failure! So how long before that election is invalidated! I guess we're waiting on the courts to decide this, in the mean time PTP keep pushing their miss management to the limit.

On what grounds would you invalidate them? The CC already rejected the Dems attempt to invalidate the election.

Because the voting was not held in a single day as per the constitution! I realise the dems failed in their attempt to invalidate the elections, But if the same thing happens again when they announce the other polling dates, and people can't vote, then what happens!

PTP may have to request the election be declared invalid, to hold new national elections. Truth is no one knows how it will end!

[NCFC]

Here's Somchai's full quote, (my underlining):

EC member Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said:

'The elections will not take place unless both parties and other stakeholders hold talks and reach an agreement. The EC is ready to act as a go-between.'

'After the registration of constituency candidates ends on Jan 1, the EC will hold a meeting on Jan 2 and make a decision,'

'Some people may say we are crossing the line. In some cases we might overstep our authority. But if that can resolve the situation, we have to do it,'

'And if the public thinks that we have crossed the line, we will take responsibility.'

Now the constitution puts a duty on them to run elections. Not 'resolve the situation' by acting 'as a go-between'. Just run elections.

This condition does not apply: will not take place unless both parties and other stakeholders hold talks and reach an agreement. Even if they don't talk he still has a duty to organize elections, even if they don't reach agreement EC's job is still to organize elections.

I think I have to agree with everything you have written there. Section 6 of the constitution states:

"The Constitution is the supreme law of the State. The provisions of any law, rule or regulation, which are contrary to or inconsistent with this Constitution, are unenforceable."

In other words, the constitution trumps everything else. And I don't see anything in the constitution that says the government (caretaker or otherwise) has to sit down with Tom, Dick or Harry to agree anything.

Once the Royal Decree has been proclaimed to dissolve the House there would naturally be a need for the Government to talk with the EC on performing the electoral procedures (and maybe they could start this process before the Royal Decree is published, I don't know) but the point is the EC is obligated to run the election, and to continue to run the election according to the articles of the constitution until a House of Representative is formed.

There are no grounds to invalidate the election. The constitution does not say that elections must be held on a single day. If this was true there could be no advanced voting or absentee voting. There could be no by-election to fill a vacant seat. Those who claim this need to read the relevant section carefully. The article says the royal decree must stipulate a single date for elections, and that is exactly what the royal decree said.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Well it's pretty obvious that the FEB 2 elections were a failure! So how long before that election is invalidated! I guess we're waiting on the courts to decide this, in the mean time PTP keep pushing their miss management to the limit.

On what grounds would you invalidate them? The CC already rejected the Dems attempt to invalidate the election.

Because the voting was not held in a single day as per the constitution! I realise the dems failed in their attempt to invalidate the elections, But if the same thing happens again when they announce the other polling dates, and people can't vote, then what happens!

PTP may have to request the election be declared invalid, to hold new national elections. Truth is no one knows how it will end!

Constitutional Court already ruled on that Feb 12th, they rejected Dems attempt to annul the election. (e.g. see yahoo news)

Bangkok, Feb 12 (IANS) Thailand's Constitution Court Wednesday rejected a petition filed by an opposition leader seeking the court's ruling on whether the Feb 2 general elections were constitutional.... The petition, filed by Wirat Kanlayasiri, a former Democrat MP from Songkhla,... According to Wirat, the elections did not take place across the nation Feb 2 and hence should be declared unconstitutional... But the court said there was no evidence of the elections violating Section 68 and dismissed the petition.

Realize there's a whole section 236/6 dealing with problem in individual areas, If you had to re-run the election each time there was a problem in some areas, that clause would not exist. Plus this is not exactly the first time 236/6 and it's earlier forms in earlier constitutions, have been used!

But also common sense, if you have an election and one place has a problem, then you re-ran the whole election, you would likely have problems in another place, and would be playing whack-a-mole.

But if the same thing happens again when they announce the other polling dates, and people can't vote, then what happens!

I think at that point, government, voters and other opposition parties, would go for civil and criminal prosecution of the EC members. Really they have their duty, this is not the first election with protests! EC's before them have run elections anyway, the Constitution requires it, and they did not do their duty by failing to run elections, or their other games and threats.

The EC 'negotiated' with protestors to clear the ballot / registration and polling stations, protestors refused. EC went with the refusal of the protestors, over their constitutional legal duty and didn't ask army to clear the protestors! As if the protestors get a say in whether the EC runs elections!

Once they go outside their jobs, they open themselves to liability. It's not them as inidividuals that have legal protection, it's their roles that have legal protection.

Edited February 17, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[SICHONSTEVE]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

They are like children whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Just as with the farmers rice scam debacle they seem to have run out of options to recue their position.

I find it quite funny really as these elections are NEVER going to be finished and there will be no way that they can not be annulled.

I know what their aims are - they want the Dem's disbanded for failing to field any candidates in consecutive elections.

What I would have done to avoid this potential scenario is agree to take part in the elections and field a single candidate somewhere in the South.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

They are like children whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Just as with the farmers rice scam debacle they seem to have run out of options to recue their position.

I find it quite funny really as these elections are NEVER going to be finished and there will be no way that they can not be annulled.

I know what their aims are - they want the Dem's disbanded for failing to field any candidates in consecutive elections.

What I would have done to avoid this potential scenario is agree to take part in the elections and field a single candidate somewhere in the South.

By Sweets you mean Constitutionally defined elections?

whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Who is daddy in this instance?

Edited February 17, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[tomacht8]

A party which welcomes 200 electoral fraudsters in their party, has lost all credibility with regards to decency, morality and ethics.

[NCFC]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

They are like children whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Just as with the farmers rice scam debacle they seem to have run out of options to recue their position.

I find it quite funny really as these elections are NEVER going to be finished and there will be no way that they can not be annulled.

I know what their aims are - they want the Dem's disbanded for failing to field any candidates in consecutive elections.

What I would have done to avoid this potential scenario is agree to take part in the elections and field a single candidate somewhere in the South.

It would be hard to ban the Dems on the grounds you suggest. They would have to show the party had been fraudulent in some way or had broken the constitution. I don't know any article of the constitution that says a political party is obliged to stand, only if a member does not vote he/she can not stand as a candidate at the next election. And because they didn't stand it would hard to know what fraud the Dems would have committed in the election. If they were found to have bribed other parties not to take part in the election, for example, that might b grounds for banning.

But as it stands, by not voting the Dems are effectively banning themselves, so PTP doesn't have to do anything. They can watch the Dems shoot themselves in the foot.

[BlueNoseCodger]

I'm reading the Electoral Commissions website (the english version of their site is badly broken, so here's the Google translate of the Thai version is here, the Thai version here).

It states the importance of elections, and the importance of getting the vote count out quickly to prevent fraud etc. etc. I don't think their bosses have read their own website!

[SICHONSTEVE]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

They are like children whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Just as with the farmers rice scam debacle they seem to have run out of options to recue their position.

I find it quite funny really as these elections are NEVER going to be finished and there will be no way that they can not be annulled.

I know what their aims are - they want the Dem's disbanded for failing to field any candidates in consecutive elections.

What I would have done to avoid this potential scenario is agree to take part in the elections and field a single candidate somewhere in the South.

By Sweets you mean Constitutionally defined elections?

whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Who is daddy in this instance?

By sweets I mean sweets and it could be anyone's daddy.

But the tears when daddy say's no are Yingluck's, whereby the EC is her daddy in just one example to help you get the gist of what I am getting at!!! Understand now??

[airconsult]

A party which welcomes 200 electoral fraudsters in their party, has lost all credibility with regards to decency, morality and ethics.

I feel I should point out that the party dissolution of Thai Rak Thai was based upon convicting General Thammarak Issarangkura and Pongsak Raktaponpaisarn of providing funds to other parties.

On Jan 7 this year the charges against Gen Thammarak were overturned by the Appeals Court and he was aquitted.

I don't know how Pongsak's case is proceeding, but if it is overturned as well, then the entire basis for dissolving TRT and banning the members for 5 years is invalid. I don't know if they would bother sueing for compensation (or who they would sue as it was the military appointed Constitutional Tribunal that handed down the dissolution), but it's a fairly significant event.

So more than 5 years after TRT was dissolved - it is still questionable.

EDIT - found a link from the nation http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Thammarak-escapes-jail-for-2006-poll-fraud-30223679.html

Edited February 17, 2014 by airconsult

[SICHONSTEVE]

Rule Number One for a successful negotiation:

Do not sue, attack, or discredit the opposite part. Use negotiation instead of confrontation.

They are like children whose daddy has refused to let them have sweets!!!

Just as with the farmers rice scam debacle they seem to have run out of options to recue their position.

I find it quite funny really as these elections are NEVER going to be finished and there will be no way that they can not be annulled.

I know what their aims are - they want the Dem's disbanded for failing to field any candidates in consecutive elections.

What I would have done to avoid this potential scenario is agree to take part in the elections and field a single candidate somewhere in the South.

It would be hard to ban the Dems on the grounds you suggest. They would have to show the party had been fraudulent in some way or had broken the constitution. I don't know any article of the constitution that says a political party is obliged to stand, only if a member does not vote he/she can not stand as a candidate at the next election. And because they didn't stand it would hard to know what fraud the Dems would have committed in the election. If they were found to have bribed other parties not to take part in the election, for example, that might b grounds for banning.

But as it stands, by not voting the Dems are effectively banning themselves, so PTP doesn't have to do anything. They can watch the Dems shoot themselves in the foot.

From Forbes magazine:

It’s even possible that the Democrat Party, the oldest in Thailand, could be dissolved for boycotting two elections within an eight-year period. It boycotted an election back in 2006 when Thaksin was still in office.

[ggold]

On what grounds would you invalidate them? The CC already rejected the Dems attempt to invalidate the election.

Because the voting was not held in a single day as per the constitution! I realise the dems failed in their attempt to invalidate the elections, But if the same thing happens again when they announce the other polling dates, and people can't vote, then what happens!

PTP may have to request the election be declared invalid, to hold new national elections. Truth is no one knows how it will end!

Constitutional Court already ruled on that Feb 12th, they rejected Dems attempt to annul the election. (e.g. see yahoo news)

Bangkok, Feb 12 (IANS) Thailand's Constitution Court Wednesday rejected a petition filed by an opposition leader seeking the court's ruling on whether the Feb 2 general elections were constitutional.... The petition, filed by Wirat Kanlayasiri, a former Democrat MP from Songkhla,... According to Wirat, the elections did not take place across the nation Feb 2 and hence should be declared unconstitutional... But the court said there was no evidence of the elections violating Section 68 and dismissed the petition.

Realize there's a whole section 236/6 dealing with problem in individual areas, If you had to re-run the election each time there was a problem in some areas, that clause would not exist. Plus this is not exactly the first time 236/6 and it's earlier forms in earlier constitutions, have been used!

But also common sense, if you have an election and one place has a problem, then you re-ran the whole election, you would likely have problems in another place, and would be playing whack-a-mole.

But if the same thing happens again when they announce the other polling dates, and people can't vote, then what happens!

I think at that point, government, voters and other opposition parties, would go for civil and criminal prosecution of the EC members. Really they have their duty, this is not the first election with protests! EC's before them have run elections anyway, the Constitution requires it, and they did not do their duty by failing to run elections, or their other games and threats.

The EC 'negotiated' with protestors to clear the ballot / registration and polling stations, protestors refused. EC went with the refusal of the protestors, over their constitutional legal duty and didn't ask army to clear the protestors! As if the protestors get a say in whether the EC runs elections!

Once they go outside their jobs, they open themselves to liability. It's not them as inidividuals that have legal protection, it's their roles that have legal protection.

That's really the point is it not! that everyone is blaming the other person for not doing their job. for fear of being found responsible of being non constitutional? Or is it that PTP want the power of government, they just don't want to be help responsible for their failures!

It was the government that called the election against the advice of the EC so naturally it is the EC's fault!

The EC should call in the army to disperse protesters? Is it their job to order the army in, Surely that is the governments job. The EC mandate is to organise Elections not tell the army to clear protesters.

At the end of the day it is the government that is to blame for the situation. Totally created this mess themselves, they didn't need any help from anyone.

[rubl]

It would seem that the Pheu Thai party is really anxious to declare 'winning the election', choosing their PM again and govern by a 'clear mandate'.

If Pheu Thai gets 12 or 13 million votes out of a 49++ million electorate with a total of 24m or so votes cast will we get a government which doesn't represent 75% of the population? Democracy Thaksin style?

[Scamper]

It would be hard to sell this script to Hollywood, even under the pretext of a fictional narrative. Even fictional narratives have to have some basis for plausibility. All of that has been outdone here to a degree I don't think anyone would have thought possible. After weeks of trying to meet the administration, the EC is now being presented with criminal charges brought on by Pheu Thai. It seems like a century ago, but just a few weeks ago, the Constitution Court reminded the administration that it is constitutionally bound to work with the EC. Pheu Thai has apparently interpreted " work with " to filing criminal charges. The administration has dragged their feet at every turn with the EC, and now turns around and accuses the EC of stalling tactics. Just two weeks ago, the EC had an urgent plan to open up the eight missing provinces, which in their opinion could only be done with a new election decree. The administration simply ignored it. What do you do when you are a constitutionally empowered institution and you can't get the administration to meet with you, and instead have to face criminal charges unless you follow the exact line and strategy of the administration ? If this is a relationship, this is some gunshot wedding. In an environment where the Thai people are just beginning to try and absorb the alien Pheu Thai concept of " fake farmers " and what that apparently means, Pheu Thai yet again rushes in to fill the quorum-less void with ever more bizarre, far-fetched, and ultimately - self-destroying tactics.

And in the meantime, amidst this poisonous atmosphere of the administration's " banishment " of the EC, the EC's only constitutional route of communication and advice to the Yingluck administration is now reduced to - yep - you guessed it.

Facebook.