Election talks under shadow of legal threat from Pheu Thai

[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.

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.

Well Forbes magazine having an opinion on whether the Dems could be dissolved for boycotting two elections is a little bit different to your claim that PTP aim is to get the Dems disbanded. As I point out the Dems seem to be doing a good job all by themselves in getting themselves made redundant by the fact that many of them seemed not to have voted at the last election. I doubt they need help from anyone else.

[Gweiloman]

Can any anti-election / pro-election-to-be-annulled supporters give any clear and logical reason for rescheduling the elections in April? We are now only in the middle of Feb. Upon dissolution of the parliament, the constitution states clearly that elections must take place within 60 days. That's for the whole country!! Why is the EC trying to arrange for elections that is only 1/10th the scale of a national election in more time than it would take to run a national election?

With regards to the royal decree, PT has stated that they think this might be a trap. Has the EC come out to reassure PT that a second royal decree will not invalidate the 02 Feb election?

I think it is pretty obvious to everyone that the EC is stalling and that they have an ulterior motive that is not in line with their duties and responsibilities.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I don't think that you have a full grasp of Thai politics yet!!

[NCFC]

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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

[SICHONSTEVE]

Can any anti-election / pro-election-to-be-annulled supporters give any clear and logical reason for rescheduling the elections in April? We are now only in the middle of Feb. Upon dissolution of the parliament, the constitution states clearly that elections must take place within 60 days. That's for the whole country!! Why is the EC trying to arrange for elections that is only 1/10th the scale of a national election in more time than it would take to run a national election?

With regards to the royal decree, PT has stated that they think this might be a trap. Has the EC come out to reassure PT that a second royal decree will not invalidate the 02 Feb election?

I think it is pretty obvious to everyone that the EC is stalling and that they have an ulterior motive that is not in line with their duties and responsibilities.

It's not in the EC's remit to reassure the PTP on legalities. They should look into it and decide whether it is legal themselves.

The odds are stacked against them making the right decision though as whatever they do seems to be wrong or get cocked up!!!

Edited February 17, 2014 by SICHONSTEVE

[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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Did anyone promote a boycott or start a 'respect my vote' activity in that constituency?

BTW with English elections as they are, was this a safe seat for some party? The winner seems to have got 68% of votes cast.

Possible answer: Sale is constituency in Greater Manchester with seat won by Labour Candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wythenshawe_and_Sale_East_by-election,_2014

Edited February 17, 2014 by rubl

[NCFC]

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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Did anyone promote a boycott or start a 'respect my vote' activity in that constituency?

BTW with English elections as they are, was this a safe seat for some party? The winner seems to have got 68% of votes cast.

Possible answer: Sale is constituency in Greater Manchester with seat won by Labour Candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wythenshawe_and_Sale_East_by-election,_2014

Well I doubt the voters in Sale were concerned that they might be intimidated, harassed or threatened with violence on the way to the polling booth, unlike the voters in many parts of Thailand on Feb 2nd, so I think anybody who went out to vote in Thailand was remarkably brave.

But this is a little beside the point because as you quite rightly point out it is the the candidate with the highest number of votes cast is the winner. As someone from Europe, you obviously are aware of how multi-party elections produce results where winners often achieve not more than 50% of the votes cast, not even 50% of the electorate.

So I was curious as to why your original post not just claims that 75% of the population are not represented by the government but that it is somehow a Thaksin plot to usurp democracy, or something.

I would say your claim is bizarre but then there are still people around who blame Margaret Thatcher for everything.

[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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Did anyone promote a boycott or start a 'respect my vote' activity in that constituency?

BTW with English elections as they are, was this a safe seat for some party? The winner seems to have got 68% of votes cast.

Possible answer: Sale is constituency in Greater Manchester with seat won by Labour Candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wythenshawe_and_Sale_East_by-election,_2014

Well I doubt the voters in Sale were concerned that they might be intimidated, harassed or threatened with violence on the way to the polling booth, unlike the voters in many parts of Thailand on Feb 2nd, so I think anybody who went out to vote in Thailand was remarkably brave.

But this is a little beside the point because as you quite rightly point out it is the the candidate with the highest number of votes cast is the winner. As someone from Europe, you obviously are aware of how multi-party elections produce results where winners often achieve not more than 50% of the votes cast, not even 50% of the electorate.

So I was curious as to why your original post not just claims that 75% of the population are not represented by the government but that it is somehow a Thaksin plot to usurp democracy, or something.

I would say your claim is bizarre but then there are still people around who blame Margaret Thatcher for everything.

Those gone out to vote brave? You mean like those in North and NorthEast? The areas were traditionally all peaceful protesters with red-shirts are loved and others to be scared away? Very brave indeed!

My 75% is just guestimate. We only know 20m voted already, mostly brave voters in Isaan. No official figures, but it would seem less for Pheu Thai than expected, lots of no/invalid votes. My guestimate is that this time Pheu Thai seems heading for less than the 15m voters of July 2011. That time they had 43% of the total electorate voting for them.

As for the English situation, indeed not comparable. England is a well-established democracy as some have it and we had a simple by-election only.

[Melyn]

Can any anti-election / pro-election-to-be-annulled supporters give any clear and logical reason for rescheduling the elections in April? We are now only in the middle of Feb. Upon dissolution of the parliament, the constitution states clearly that elections must take place within 60 days. That's for the whole country!! Why is the EC trying to arrange for elections that is only 1/10th the scale of a national election in more time than it would take to run a national election?

With regards to the royal decree, PT has stated that they think this might be a trap. Has the EC come out to reassure PT that a second royal decree will not invalidate the 02 Feb election?

I think it is pretty obvious to everyone that the EC is stalling and that they have an ulterior motive that is not in line with their duties and responsibilities.

You ask some interesting points and let them all down with your last paragraph.

Imagine that this is a democracy and that regions A and B get between 45 and 60 days to register candidates but region B gets waylaid and needs to rerun. Should the parties get the same time to prepare as Region A?

Imagine that a royal decree allows for an election to be completed on one date and it isn't. And that a new bielection needs a new royal decree. And that the constitution doesn't really cater for such extraordinary circumstances and therefore a legal compromise must be agreed to either complete the mangled election or start a new one.

But you've already made your mind up

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Melyn]

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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Ah! But Yingluck said that voters can make their decision at the polls.

They did.

She lost her mandate

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[airconsult]

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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Ah! But Yingluck said that voters can make their decision at the polls.

They did.

She lost her mandate

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

[Publicus]

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.

Have you met Oliver Stone? Neither of course have I but he'd be your guy to grab hold of a script of Shakespearean proportions from this something's rotten in Denmark place, the former LOS. And since money per se is devoid of ideology or morality, PM me cause I have some ideas that might make you and I the soon to be suddenly unusually wealthy odd couple co-editors of a script for a future Oliver Stone Film about a country called Thaitania. I presume of course you would require compensation of your talents as a writer of, well, true OTT fiction.

That's from the introduction to your post above. From its final sentences, I must say that given your massive body of guesswork at these many threads of late, it's no surprise you've missed that when the CC summarily rejected nullifying the election, it also fairly declared itself out of the judicial coup business, wholesale.The CC has very likely checked out of that roach motel as a direct consequence of the present anarchy of Suthep, Abhisit, the DP. Which must also be causing considerable consternation over at the NACC, where they as with so many of your cohorts have rice on the brain.

More to the thread, however, you've also missed the EC's long rap sheet in opposition to the Feb 2nd election, which is well documented publicly and again in the posts to this thread. Maybe you were busy writing your post while other posters were refreshing readers of the already well known EC record of trying unsuccessfully to abort the election, then unsuccessfully to delay it, and unsuccessfully to......well, read the posts - they're well presented and right here at this thread for your browsing convenience.

The obfuscating and circuitous EC was indeed the agency that got the full brunt of the CC's declaration of judicial withdrawal from the country's chaos caused by the increasingly marginalized DP, Abhisit, Suthep. The CC has pretty much cancelled their boarding pass to what otherwise would be a rendezvous with a large mass of ice floating around out ahead. Around here that's called jumping ship.

[BlueNoseCodger]

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.

No, the Constitution says its EC's fault, and their own words condemned them.

EC's job is to run elections, the choice of army, police, even moving the location to a secure base, or extending the registration deadline etc. was all offered to them, they refused all such offers.

It is their job, and the path they chose to do that job was "negotiate with protestors", their duty however, was "have the elections". So when the protestors said "no", the EC should not have accepted "no" as an answer because it was illegal to do so!

No, the government simply dissolved parliament when Suthep herded his mob into Bangkok, the elections are EC's responsibility.

The EC doesn't get a say in whether elections go ahead, their job is to deliver them, no block them.

[Melyn]

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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Ah! But Yingluck said that voters can make their decision at the polls.

They did.

She lost her mandate

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

Ummmmm

No.

47% voted

32% voted for real parties

Not all were PTP - maybe less than 16%

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[BlueNoseCodger]

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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Ah! But Yingluck said that voters can make their decision at the polls.

They did.

She lost her mandate

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

That suggests Pheu Thai won 67% of Bangkok too and 50% of the few South polls.

I have my doubts about those previous Southern Democrat wins. The way it were so easy to cancel elections in the south, makes you wonder how easy it must be to rig them in the south.

[Robby nz]

I am wondering about the red posters "The Dems did not vote" business.

You see the Dems are a political party and political parties don't get to vote only individuals.

We know that Abhasit did not vote and that was his personal choice but he said it was up to individuals as to whether they would vote or not.

The reds seem to be claiming that every member of the Democrat party and their supporters did not vote and I wonder how they know this.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I am wondering about the red posters "The Dems did not vote" business.

You see the Dems are a political party and political parties don't get to vote only individuals.

We know that Abhasit did not vote and that was his personal choice but he said it was up to individuals as to whether they would vote or not.

The reds seem to be claiming that every member of the Democrat party and their supporters did not vote and I wonder how they know this.

Very good point made!!

[BlueNoseCodger]

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

That suggests Pheu Thai won 67% of Bangkok too and 50% of the few South polls.

I have my doubts about those previous Southern Democrat wins. The way it were so easy to cancel elections in the south, makes you wonder how easy it must be to rig them in the south.

Assuming 'Vote no' is really Democrat votes and adjust the results to see what they would have got if they'd been running:

Votes cast for parties: 18,017,892

Nationwide Democrats 3,426,080

Democrats got only 19% of the vote.

Pheu Thai got 60.8% of the vote.

So even if the democrats had run, they would likely have been wiped out of the voting anyway. But I think that Abhisits backing for the Suthep's-dictator-power-grab really did a lot of that damage, so perhaps they wouldn't have been so badly defeated.

Edited February 17, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[NCFC]

Can any anti-election / pro-election-to-be-annulled supporters give any clear and logical reason for rescheduling the elections in April? We are now only in the middle of Feb. Upon dissolution of the parliament, the constitution states clearly that elections must take place within 60 days. That's for the whole country!! Why is the EC trying to arrange for elections that is only 1/10th the scale of a national election in more time than it would take to run a national election?

With regards to the royal decree, PT has stated that they think this might be a trap. Has the EC come out to reassure PT that a second royal decree will not invalidate the 02 Feb election?

I think it is pretty obvious to everyone that the EC is stalling and that they have an ulterior motive that is not in line with their duties and responsibilities.

You ask some interesting points and let them all down with your last paragraph.

Imagine that this is a democracy and that regions A and B get between 45 and 60 days to register candidates but region B gets waylaid and needs to rerun. Should the parties get the same time to prepare as Region A?

Imagine that a royal decree allows for an election to be completed on one date and it isn't. And that a new bielection needs a new royal decree. And that the constitution doesn't really cater for such extraordinary circumstances and therefore a legal compromise must be agreed to either complete the mangled election or start a new one.

But you've already made your mind up

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sorry but you are mistaken. By-elections do not need a Royal Decree, only general elections as covered in Sections 107-108 of the constitution,

Now I will ask you a question, you don't need to know any constitutional law to answer but you can apply a little common sense.

If a constituency fails to return a member for what ever reason. Will

a: The whole election needs to be rerun

b: The constituency will remain vacant for the lifetime of the parliament

c: A by-election will take place

What do you reckon?

Edited February 17, 2014 by NCFC

[ggold]

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.

No, the Constitution says its EC's fault, and their own words condemned them.

EC's job is to run elections, the choice of army, police, even moving the location to a secure base, or extending the registration deadline etc. was all offered to them, they refused all such offers.

It is their job, and the path they chose to do that job was "negotiate with protestors", their duty however, was "have the elections". So when the protestors said "no", the EC should not have accepted "no" as an answer because it was illegal to do so!

No, the government simply dissolved parliament when Suthep herded his mob into Bangkok, the elections are EC's responsibility.

The EC doesn't get a say in whether elections go ahead, their job is to deliver them, no block them.

Their job is to make sure free and fair election were held, agreed?

But they recognised that free and fair elections were not possible, agreed?

However is it a free and fair election when you have the army or police guarding polling stations? Wouldn't some voters find that intimidating?

The fact is as you say it is their job to deliver the elections safely, regardless of options having army or police in great numbers doesn't lend to free and fair elections. The EC made that perfectly clear to the caretaker government So it is the government that is to blame not the EC.

for all the claims that the EC are one sided I would say, if the EC had the authority to call the army or the police for that matter, to disperse protesters be they peaceful or otherwise, then the EC could have been accused of being in favour of the government, and the election would have been invalid!

The EC are impartial the only way for elections to proceed would have beens when the political temperature had cooled. It is up to the politicians if they wanted to call out the army or not! Another question would they have answered the call?

IMO PTP miss calculated everything more to the point it might have been Thaksin who miss calculated, by dissolving parliament too soon, not making sure they had the funds for the rice farmers, internal power struggles, now its all turned south. everyone trying to blame anyone other than take the blame themselves.

[BlueNoseCodger]

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

That suggests Pheu Thai won 67% of Bangkok too and 50% of the few South polls.

I have my doubts about those previous Southern Democrat wins. The way it were so easy to cancel elections in the south, makes you wonder how easy it must be to rig them in the south.

Assuming 'Vote no' is really Democrat votes and adjust the results to see what they would have got if they'd been running:

Votes cast for parties: 18,017,892

Nationwide Democrats 3,426,080

Democrats got only 19% of the vote.

Pheu Thai got 60.8% of the vote.

So even if the democrats had run, they would likely have been wiped out of the voting anyway. But I think that Abhisits backing for the Suthep's-dictator-power-grab really did a lot of that damage, so perhaps they wouldn't have been so badly defeated.

How did Bhumjaithai do in this election?

I assume they would have gotten a lot of Democrat vote switchers to them? I assume they will become the new opposition party and ultimately the new party to replace that unelectable shambles we use to call the Democrats.

Wow, the dems got trounced.

[BlueNoseCodger]

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??

No, daddy wanted us to have sweets and nobody else gets to take them away, simply by pretending to speak for daddy.

Edited February 17, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[timewilltell]

What seems clear is the constitution has not been so expertly drafted, leaving a lot of holes everywhere as to what to do when certain things happen - hence no one is really sure and all sides claim their own interpretation is the right one.

Bit of a problem that. Got to get to the spirit of it.

[LarryBird]

Do you clowns ever get tired of being smacked around by Publicus?

[BlueNoseCodger]

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

That suggests Pheu Thai won 67% of Bangkok too and 50% of the few South polls.

I have my doubts about those previous Southern Democrat wins. The way it were so easy to cancel elections in the south, makes you wonder how easy it must be to rig them in the south.

Assuming 'Vote no' is really Democrat votes and adjust the results to see what they would have got if they'd been running:

Votes cast for parties: 18,017,892

Nationwide Democrats 3,426,080

Democrats got only 19% of the vote.

Pheu Thai got 60.8% of the vote.

So even if the democrats had run, they would likely have been wiped out of the voting anyway. But I think that Abhisits backing for the Suthep's-dictator-power-grab really did a lot of that damage, so perhaps they wouldn't have been so badly defeated.

There's more numbers in the details released from the EC that Matichon has.

The bottom 3 percentage votes are:

Thammarat 1,302 people, representing 8.78% of the vote were below the 20% level (Suthep stronghold in south).

Prachuap Khiri Khan 20.05 percent voted, that was a democrat stronghold, and now it has a new leader because the vote is above 20%.

Samut Songkhram 24.42 percent of voters went to the polls, was another Democrat seat, now its someone elses because the vote was above 20%.

Suthep's call to not vote at the polls, failed even in Prachuap Khiri Khan which was one of the Democrats strongholds. He got precisely one seat to reject elections. Because enough people voted in these Democrat strongholds, they've lost all those seats to one of the other parties.

Wow, no wonder the EC isn't keen to release the result.

[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?

A couple of days ago in a UK by-election for the constituency of Sale, the voter turnout was 28%. The winner achieved about 17% of the total electorate. Is this democracy, Thaksin style, too?

Ah! But Yingluck said that voters can make their decision at the polls.

They did.

She lost her mandate

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

Out of electorate of 43m (btw. what happened to the 48/49m mentioned before?) 20m have cast a vote. Pheu Thai got 11m out of 14.6m cast for parties. Votes casts were mainly in the populous North and NorthEast which are 'traditionally' PT. Pheu Thai may therefor get another few million max in renewed elections to come. Still less than their 15m in 2011 seems very likely.

All in all we would have Pheu Thai getting less than 30% of votes from the electorate. With Pheu Thai's attitude of "we won, we have a mandate" that would mean a disenfrancement of more than 70% of the electorate. With 29% of votes cast illegal (spoiled, no vote, whatever) and lots of voters simply not voting out of protest the only clear thing seems to be "these elections cannot have a workable result".

[rubl]

There's more numbers in the details released from the EC that Matichon has.

The bottom 3 percentage votes are:

Thammarat 1,302 people, representing 8.78% of the vote were below the 20% level (Suthep stronghold in south).

Prachuap Khiri Khan 20.05 percent voted, that was a democrat stronghold, and now it has a new leader because the vote is above 20%.

Samut Songkhram 24.42 percent of voters went to the polls, was another Democrat seat, now its someone elses because the vote was above 20%.

Suthep's call to not vote at the polls, failed even in Prachuap Khiri Khan which was one of the Democrats strongholds. He got precisely one seat to reject elections. Because enough people voted in these Democrat strongholds, they've lost all those seats to one of the other parties.

Wow, no wonder the EC isn't keen to release the result.

Wow, the EC is not allowed to official announce a result untill all of the election has been done. If they announced an official result now, those results and the Feb 2nd election would be anulled!

So, pray tell again, who isn't keen on announcing the results?

[rubl]

How did Bhumjaithai do in this election?

I assume they would have gotten a lot of Democrat vote switchers to them? I assume they will become the new opposition party and ultimately the new party to replace that unelectable shambles we use to call the Democrats.

Wow, the dems got trounced.

Pray tell, how can a political party which decided to boycott the elections by not registering as participating be trounced?

Oh, btw that 'unelectable shambles' as you call the Democrat party did win at least 160 or so seats in every election they participated in. Even my friend NCFC agress from his English background that's perfectly normal in 'democracies'.

[BlueNoseCodger]

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

Out of electorate of 43m (btw. what happened to the 48/49m mentioned before?) 20m have cast a vote. Pheu Thai got 11m out of 14.6m cast for parties. Votes casts were mainly in the populous North and NorthEast which are 'traditionally' PT. Pheu Thai may therefor get another few million max in renewed elections to come. Still less than their 15m in 2011 seems very likely.

All in all we would have Pheu Thai getting less than 30% of votes from the electorate. With Pheu Thai's attitude of "we won, we have a mandate" that would mean a disenfrancement of more than 70% of the electorate. With 29% of votes cast illegal (spoiled, no vote, whatever) and lots of voters simply not voting out of protest the only clear thing seems to be "these elections cannot have a workable result".

The last time the Democrats did not run in elections was 2006, and the turnout was 65%. This time, with the polling station blocks and intimidation, and ballots hijacked and 'do not vote' campaign, it was 48%. So at best your Suthep blocked 17% of the voters, not 70%.

Constitutional Court already ruled the results workable on 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, appealed to the court to declare as void the elections citing Section 68 of the constitution... Section 68 of the Thai constitution penalises the exercise of rights and liberties to acquire ruling power through unconstitutional means....According to Wirat, the elections did not take place across the nation Feb 2 and hence should be declared unconstitutional.

He said the caretaker government's invocation of the emergency decree in Bangkok and nearby areas was an act that enabled Prime Minister Yinluck Shinawatra's Pheu Thai Party to use administrative power to take advantage over its political rivals in the election.

But the court said there was no evidence of the elections violating Section 68 and dismissed the petition.

So only 17% of people voted for dictatorship, or were scared or unable to vote.

[rubl]

47.72% of the voters voted, and Pheu Thai got 74.82% of the vote.....

I don't get your point?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119339/ec-figures-show-turn-out-at-47-72/

Out of electorate of 43m (btw. what happened to the 48/49m mentioned before?) 20m have cast a vote. Pheu Thai got 11m out of 14.6m cast for parties. Votes casts were mainly in the populous North and NorthEast which are 'traditionally' PT. Pheu Thai may therefor get another few million max in renewed elections to come. Still less than their 15m in 2011 seems very likely.

All in all we would have Pheu Thai getting less than 30% of votes from the electorate. With Pheu Thai's attitude of "we won, we have a mandate" that would mean a disenfrancement of more than 70% of the electorate. With 29% of votes cast illegal (spoiled, no vote, whatever) and lots of voters simply not voting out of protest the only clear thing seems to be "these elections cannot have a workable result".

The last time the Democrats did not run in elections was 2006, and the turnout was 65%. This time, with the polling station blocks and intimidation, and ballots hijacked and 'do not vote' campaign, it was 48%. So at best your Suthep blocked 17% of the voters, not 70%.

Constitutional Court already ruled the results workable on 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, appealed to the court to declare as void the elections citing Section 68 of the constitution... Section 68 of the Thai constitution penalises the exercise of rights and liberties to acquire ruling power through unconstitutional means....According to Wirat, the elections did not take place across the nation Feb 2 and hence should be declared unconstitutional.

He said the caretaker government's invocation of the emergency decree in Bangkok and nearby areas was an act that enabled Prime Minister Yinluck Shinawatra's Pheu Thai Party to use administrative power to take advantage over its political rivals in the election.

But the court said there was no evidence of the elections violating Section 68 and dismissed the petition.

So only 17% of people voted for dictatorship, or were scared or unable to vote.

My dear BNC, I only said that if Pheu Thai gets less than 30% of the electorate actively behind them through voting AND their attitude hasn't changed, 70% of the electorate will be disenfrancised.

As for the CC dismissing the Democrats petition, that no problem. That's according to Section 68. What I mentioned was a failed election.