Poll reveals 63.36% say Thai PM must be elected

[bangrak]

If nothing else, the PM should be elected by an electorate, and NOT be a party list MP. This will stop the Shinawatra' (and others) practice of buying power

Dream on... The, really, BIG MONEY will go for the first prize!

[bangrak]

The relevance of this poll would be HUGE, when the Thai population would enjoy a decent education, be able to analyse, to develop critical thinking, to form a personal opinion, to make its own choices, meaning, presently, as it is, it has no value at all, not even being critical about it, just alas based on the true facts of life...

[Thai at Heart]

There should be 200 Senators whose origins are to be derived from unelected specialists, academics and bureaucrats from various fields of expertise.

5 questions in one.

A. There should be 200 senators?

B. Should they be unelected?

C. Should they be taken from a. Academics, b. Bureaucrats or C. Specialist fields

I mean honestly, they call this a poll?

Question

A. The PM should be an army man aged 63, who has been PM recently, dislikes Thaksin, dislikes freedom of the press

B. You get to have no elections ever again?

So, reading you, 63% chose the answer you describe under A., then try not to forget that the next time you want to use: 'the majority' in a reaction...

Well, that's the point isn't it about these stupid polls. Trying to elicit the response you like while appearing to ask a range of questions.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And a big enough percentage will take to the street doing what they can to economically destroy the country unless the person elected is the person they want. Until Thais can learn to accept vote results then holding elections only seems to cause the country grief.

In the last 80 years how many Prime Minsters have actually completed a term in office? Probably about 5 and most of them went on to be forced out in a second term like Thaksin.

In theory, elections sound great but in practice they don't always represent the people's wishes, especially when a leader is elected by simply having the most votes like in the US. Example; 3 Candidates with Candidate A being very Liberal, Candidate B being a moderate Liberal and Candidate C being a full blown conservative. A receives 30% of vote, B receives another 30% and C receives 40%. The result is a Conservative leader in a majority liberal country.

I don't fully understand the parliamentary system but seems fairer than the US but when it comes to Thailand no matter who wins a significant portion of the people feel screwed and without a voice too. Unlike the US too they are realistically able to undue election results ... which can be a pro or con depending on how you look at it and where you are standing.

Elections in many places now are about two or more very different factions who represent only a percentage of the people's view and trying to get others to agree to their view -- it is them against us --- right from the elections it is about dividing a nation and making clear some people will be winners and others losers. There are few candidates trying to run on compromise because people voting don't want compromise and harmony, they want their side to win as if it were a football match and not about having a unified country where people have to give and take.

In the last 100 years Thailand has been under military control called the Junta ,in the past 8 years there have been 2 Coups, there has only been Khun Chuan , Khun Thaksin, Khun Abhisit and Yingluck Shinawatra Democratically elected P.M. 3 ,1 installed by General Preem, you figure out which one.