'Democracy is more than polls'

[meltingpot2015]

Its not all about elections. Everything that is done between elections is equally important.

Depends if you want to your country a democracy or not. If you want to call it a democracy then elections are necessary at regular intervals.

If you don't want to call your country a democracy then elections are not important at all.

Castro 1959 to 2008. Kim Jong Il 1994 - 2011. Mao 1949 - 1976.

You've hit the nail on the head in one aspect, but also haven't in another.

If you want to call it a democracy then elections are necessary at regular intervals.

This is not about "calling" a country a democracy. For a democracy to be an actual democracy it needs certain features. The four principles the General has listed are justice, equality,freedom and representation. All these have sub-facets also. e.g freedom of expression is one of the freedoms. Also I realize the Equality spoken here by the General is to do with Equality between all social groups (different age groups, sexual orientation etc.), before the law.

There are some countries in the world that have (or have had) "democratic" in their name, but are they actual democracies? NO!. So holding an election does not qualify a country as a democracy.

If you read my post carefully, note that I am not saying Elections are NOT necessary. I am saying they are EQUALLY important to what is done between elections (by governments and the voters). So we cannot claim elections are more important or less important. They are all EQUALLY important.

Free and Fair elections are important, but what is done before and after. That's also important.

Also, if we don't read and comprehend, what is written, will be equally lost on us not just today but tomorrow. (okay, I realize your handle is Lostoday, as in LandOfSmilesToday not LostToday, but you get the picture).

[boomerangutang]

Great article and the best publication I have seen since the coup and he is 100% exactly right.......well said Pryuth Chan (O) Cha and you have nailed it, this is exactly why democracy has not worked here, the people using the word have no clue what it actually means - as I have said many times it is much more than an election, education is key to getting this message across.

The simplistic view in the past has been - we won the election so we can do what we want, the people that voted for them have a similar belief. When a Thai uses the word democracy I gaze with amusement and have a brief thought about the last 30 odd years of Thailands democracy and what a success it has been.

Democracy by definition is government elected by the people. Good or bad; right or wrong; democracy means government elected by the people. Sorry you nor anyone else can not change the definition. You sound foolish trying and are making yourself the laughing stock of Thai Visa.

Democracy is more than government elected by the people. Saddam Hussein and N.Korea's Kims (plus China, Haiti, and many others places) were elected by the people, but none are democracies. It must be a free and fair election with at least two candidates/parties. People must be able to vote in private and not be forced or compelled to vote certain ways. Thailand has often had payment-for-votes and village headmen who get paid for delivering blocks of votes, so Thailand has never had a true democracy.

[meltingpot2015]

If citizens from democratic counties are arguing on here about what a democracy actually is, what hope for the Thais?

It shows us Thai how democracy is functioning by arguing and making sure that the argument will win and not the party that uses violence to enhance their argumentative points.

Yes, the strongest argument wins, not the strongest gang.

Normally the party with the largest amount of popular support wins. Not speaking of Thailand here but in the normal course of events in most countries.

Popular Support = Voting

Also, your claim is wrong, in the UK "the party with the largest amount of popular support" does not always "Win". E.g 2010 UK election, conservatives had 36% of the popular vote, but did not "win" because they did not have a majority of seats. This meant they had to form a coalition with the Lib-dems. The Lib-dems Could have formed a coalition with Labour, but chose Conservatives instead. So please check your facts.

Strongest Argument, Consensus (agreement by all), or Compromise = Deliberative Democracy

Edited May 18, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[lostoday]

Great article and the best publication I have seen since the coup and he is 100% exactly right.......well said Pryuth Chan (O) Cha and you have nailed it, this is exactly why democracy has not worked here, the people using the word have no clue what it actually means - as I have said many times it is much more than an election, education is key to getting this message across.

The simplistic view in the past has been - we won the election so we can do what we want, the people that voted for them have a similar belief. When a Thai uses the word democracy I gaze with amusement and have a brief thought about the last 30 odd years of Thailands democracy and what a success it has been.

Democracy by definition is government elected by the people. Good or bad; right or wrong; democracy means government elected by the people. Sorry you nor anyone else can not change the definition. You sound foolish trying and are making yourself the laughing stock of Thai Visa.

Democracy is more than government elected by the people. Saddam Hussein and N.Korea's Kims (plus China, Haiti, and many others places) were elected by the people, but none are democracies. It must be a free and fair election with at least two candidates/parties. People must be able to vote in private and not be forced or compelled to vote certain ways. Thailand has often had payment-for-votes and village headmen who get paid for delivering blocks of votes, so Thailand has never had a true democracy.

All of the studies on voter payoffs which are mentioned above in detail said the Thai voters got paid and then voted for whomever they wanted to vote for.

Also I would submit to you that both parties were free to try and buy votes. Much the same as both parties in other countries have BBQ's and parties to rally support for candidates.

In Chicago Mayor Daily delivered the vote for JFK and that is why he won. Delivering votes is not new in a democracy. (getting people out to vote is not illegal)

I was here for the past three elections and there was no vote buying in the large population areas and there were no goons forcing people to vote.

Thailand was not for the last three elections like China, North Korea or Iraq and to say so is a lie.

I was here. My wife and family vote. I know you are not correct as her family stretches from up North to Bangkok and regions to the South.

[lostoday]

It shows us Thai how democracy is functioning by arguing and making sure that the argument will win and not the party that uses violence to enhance their argumentative points.

Yes, the strongest argument wins, not the strongest gang.

Normally the party with the largest amount of popular support wins. Not speaking of Thailand here but in the normal course of events in most countries.

Popular Support = Voting

Also, your claim is wrong, in the UK "the party with the largest amount of popular support" does not always "Win". E.g 2010 UK election, conservatives had 36% of the popular vote, but did not "win" because they did not have a majority of seats. This meant they had to form a coalition with the Lib-dems. The Lib-dems Could have formed a coalition with Labour, but chose Conservatives instead. So please check your facts.

Strongest Argument, Consensus (agreement by all), or Compromise = Deliberative Democracy

The people that formed the ruling coalition had a majority of the voters backing them. The 36% was the largest group of voters for any single party.

Of course the largest amount of popular support won. The conservatives had 36%, what party had what percent next? The largest amount of support went to what party? The Conservatives with 36%.

[lostoday]

Its not all about elections. Everything that is done between elections is equally important.

Depends if you want to your country a democracy or not. If you want to call it a democracy then elections are necessary at regular intervals.

If you don't want to call your country a democracy then elections are not important at all.

Castro 1959 to 2008. Kim Jong Il 1994 - 2011. Mao 1949 - 1976.

You've hit the nail on the head in one aspect, but also haven't in another.

If you want to call it a democracy then elections are necessary at regular intervals.

This is not about "calling" a country a democracy. For a democracy to be an actual democracy it needs certain features. The four principles the General has listed are justice, equality,freedom and representation. All these have sub-facets also. e.g freedom of expression is one of the freedoms. Also I realize the Equality spoken here by the General is to do with Equality between all social groups (different age groups, sexual orientation etc.), before the law.

There are some countries in the world that have (or have had) "democratic" in their name, but are they actual democracies? NO!. So holding an election does not qualify a country as a democracy.

If you read my post carefully, note that I am not saying Elections are NOT necessary. I am saying they are EQUALLY important to what is done between elections (by governments and the voters). So we cannot claim elections are more important or less important. They are all EQUALLY important.

Free and Fair elections are important, but what is done before and after. That's also important.

Also, if we don't read and comprehend, what is written, will be equally lost on us not just today but tomorrow. (okay, I realize your handle is Lostoday, as in LandOfSmilesToday not LostToday, but you get the picture).

Justice, equality,freedom and representation are all lacking in America. Is America a democracy? Yes it most certainly is. 1. Justice in America favors the rich. 2. Equality in America favors white men. 3. Freedom favors single men. 4. Representation is all messed up as a result of gerrymandering. Is America a democracy? Yes because it has elections.

Many things in a democracy are nice additions and make a lot of sense but the one thing you absolutely need, the only thing you have to have is elections.

Not elections where candidates are appointed. Not elections where you are forced to vote one way or the other. Not elections where the state chooses the outcome. All parties can hand out candy or money or tee shirts but the people must be free to vote their choice in the booth.

[meltingpot2015]

@lostoday

Of course the largest amount of popular support won. The conservatives had 36%, what party had what percent next? The largest amount of support went to what party? The Conservatives with 36%.

From 2010 to 2015 the UK was governed by a coalition. The Lib-dems and Conservatives. No-one "won". It was a hung-parliament. The US uses a electoral college to elect congressman and the president. In the UK the popular support vote does not mean anything, it only gives an indication of the major parties. It's the number of seats "won" that is crucial.

It all depends on who can form a majority in Parliament. Although the labour party had the next highest popular vote (29%), they were not in Government. The lib-dems were, with only 23% of the popular vote. The conservatives only had 306 seats (47.1%), but with the Lib-dems having 57 (8.8%) seats, they both formed a majority in Parliament. i.e. both parties combined held over 325 seats (50%). You need over 50% of parliamentary seats to form a majority. Total number of seats is 650.

So your argument about who "won" is groundless. It would hold some ground if the conservatives governed on their own.

Edited May 18, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[smedly]

Great article and the best publication I have seen since the coup and he is 100% exactly right.......well said Pryuth Chan (O) Cha and you have nailed it, this is exactly why democracy has not worked here, the people using the word have no clue what it actually means - as I have said many times it is much more than an election, education is key to getting this message across.

The simplistic view in the past has been - we won the election so we can do what we want, the people that voted for them have a similar belief. When a Thai uses the word democracy I gaze with amusement and have a brief thought about the last 30 odd years of Thailands democracy and what a success it has been.

Democracy by definition is government elected by the people. Good or bad; right or wrong; democracy means government elected by the people. Sorry you nor anyone else can not change the definition. You sound foolish trying and are making yourself the laughing stock of Thai Visa.

Democracy is more than government elected by the people. Saddam Hussein and N.Korea's Kims (plus China, Haiti, and many others places) were elected by the people, but none are democracies. It must be a free and fair election with at least two candidates/parties. People must be able to vote in private and not be forced or compelled to vote certain ways. Thailand has often had payment-for-votes and village headmen who get paid for delivering blocks of votes, so Thailand has never had a true democracy.

you are exactly right, and your post will not get a reply because there is no rational argument when someone speaks the truth.

People here are mostly trolls or supporters of Thaksin for reasons that are beyond me unless they have some personal gain like the rest of his supporters.

The current government and PM were not elected so there is no democracy here right now, reforms are taking place to try and pave the way for elections and a stable government free from corruption and power abuse and answerable to the people and the law, the mouths of all disruptive sides have been silenced to allow the process to progress

There are many people have much to lose from these reforms mostly to their pocket, they will no longer be allowed to abuse their position and will have similar institutions and laws that will hold them accountable for their actions - anyone that thinks this is a bad just doesn't get it and never will, ultimately the biggest loser is Thaksin, his only path back to Thailand will be from the airport to a jail cell, maybe he will be man enough to take the blame away from his sister and keep her out of jail - we all know she was only reading a script and had no place to labelled PM

[smedly]

It shows us Thai how democracy is functioning by arguing and making sure that the argument will win and not the party that uses violence to enhance their argumentative points.

Yes, the strongest argument wins, not the strongest gang.

Normally the party with the largest amount of popular support wins. Not speaking of Thailand here but in the normal course of events in most countries.

Popular Support = Voting

Also, your claim is wrong, in the UK "the party with the largest amount of popular support" does not always "Win". E.g 2010 UK election, conservatives had 36% of the popular vote, but did not "win" because they did not have a majority of seats. This meant they had to form a coalition with the Lib-dems. The Lib-dems Could have formed a coalition with Labour, but chose Conservatives instead. So please check your facts.

Strongest Argument, Consensus (agreement by all), or Compromise = Deliberative Democracy

PTP did exactly that bringing fringe parties on board to make up the numbers - they did not have a majority either and when in office represented a minority of Thai people, this amongst all the other underhand stuff they did that will hopefully see most of them in jail

[tonbridgebrit]

smedly, here we go again, another ThaiVisa person who wants to bring up "they did not have a majority either and when in office represented a minority of Thai people".

For God's sake, when are people going to understand and grasp it ?? Okay, let me say it again. There was a general election back home in Britain recently. Right, 67% of the electorate actually voted, and 37% of those who voted were votes for the Conservatives. Right, this means almost 25% of the electorate voted Conservative. This means three quarters of the electorate in Britain DID NOT tick the box for the Conservatives. Labour came second, they got 30.4% of the votes.

I might or might not love the Conservatives, but I accept the outcome of the general election, yes, the Conservatives won it. And yes, I reckon Britain IS a democratic nation, even though three quarters of the British electorate did NOT vote for the ruling party !!!

[brewsterbudgen]

Great article and the best publication I have seen since the coup and he is 100% exactly right.......well said Pryuth Chan (O) Cha and you have nailed it, this is exactly why democracy has not worked here, the people using the word have no clue what it actually means - as I have said many times it is much more than an election, education is key to getting this message across.

The simplistic view in the past has been - we won the election so we can do what we want, the people that voted for them have a similar belief. When a Thai uses the word democracy I gaze with amusement and have a brief thought about the last 30 odd years of Thailands democracy and what a success it has been.

Democracy by definition is government elected by the people. Good or bad; right or wrong; democracy means government elected by the people. Sorry you nor anyone else can not change the definition. You sound foolish trying and are making yourself the laughing stock of Thai Visa.

Democracy is more than government elected by the people. Saddam Hussein and N.Korea's Kims (plus China, Haiti, and many others places) were elected by the people, but none are democracies. It must be a free and fair election with at least two candidates/parties. People must be able to vote in private and not be forced or compelled to vote certain ways. Thailand has often had payment-for-votes and village headmen who get paid for delivering blocks of votes, so Thailand has never had a true democracy.

you are exactly right, and your post will not get a reply because there is no rational argument when someone speaks the truth.

People here are mostly trolls or supporters of Thaksin for reasons that are beyond me unless they have some personal gain like the rest of his supporters.

The current government and PM were not elected so there is no democracy here right now, reforms are taking place to try and pave the way for elections and a stable government free from corruption and power abuse and answerable to the people and the law, the mouths of all disruptive sides have been silenced to allow the process to progress

There are many people have much to lose from these reforms mostly to their pocket, they will no longer be allowed to abuse their position and will have similar institutions and laws that will hold them accountable for their actions - anyone that thinks this is a bad just doesn't get it and never will, ultimately the biggest loser is Thaksin, his only path back to Thailand will be from the airport to a jail cell, maybe he will be man enough to take the blame away from his sister and keep her out of jail - we all know she was only reading a script and had no place to labelled PM

Your optimism is nice but your faith in the good intentions of the current regime is misplaced and naive. You need to see the much bigger picture.

[lostoday]

Great article and the best publication I have seen since the coup and he is 100% exactly right.......well said Pryuth Chan (O) Cha and you have nailed it, this is exactly why democracy has not worked here, the people using the word have no clue what it actually means - as I have said many times it is much more than an election, education is key to getting this message across.

The simplistic view in the past has been - we won the election so we can do what we want, the people that voted for them have a similar belief. When a Thai uses the word democracy I gaze with amusement and have a brief thought about the last 30 odd years of Thailands democracy and what a success it has been.

Democracy by definition is government elected by the people. Good or bad; right or wrong; democracy means government elected by the people. Sorry you nor anyone else can not change the definition. You sound foolish trying and are making yourself the laughing stock of Thai Visa.

Democracy is more than government elected by the people. Saddam Hussein and N.Korea's Kims (plus China, Haiti, and many others places) were elected by the people, but none are democracies. It must be a free and fair election with at least two candidates/parties. People must be able to vote in private and not be forced or compelled to vote certain ways. Thailand has often had payment-for-votes and village headmen who get paid for delivering blocks of votes, so Thailand has never had a true democracy.

you are exactly right, and your post will not get a reply because there is no rational argument when someone speaks the truth.

People here are mostly trolls or supporters of Thaksin for reasons that are beyond me unless they have some personal gain like the rest of his supporters.

The current government and PM were not elected so there is no democracy here right now, reforms are taking place to try and pave the way for elections and a stable government free from corruption and power abuse and answerable to the people and the law, the mouths of all disruptive sides have been silenced to allow the process to progress

There are many people have much to lose from these reforms mostly to their pocket, they will no longer be allowed to abuse their position and will have similar institutions and laws that will hold them accountable for their actions - anyone that thinks this is a bad just doesn't get it and never will, ultimately the biggest loser is Thaksin, his only path back to Thailand will be from the airport to a jail cell, maybe he will be man enough to take the blame away from his sister and keep her out of jail - we all know she was only reading a script and had no place to labelled PM

You wrote, "

you are exactly right, and your post will not get a reply because there is no rational argument when someone speaks the truth.

You are exactly wrong. I replied to the post before you even wrote your post in post #124.

If you want to correct your mistake read my post and post your apology.

[LannaGuy]

@lostoday

Of course the largest amount of popular support won. The conservatives had 36%, what party had what percent next? The largest amount of support went to what party? The Conservatives with 36%.

From 2010 to 2015 the UK was governed by a coalition. The Lib-dems and Conservatives. No-one "won". It was a hung-parliament. The US uses a electoral college to elect congressman and the president. In the UK the popular support vote does not mean anything, it only gives an indication of the major parties. It's the number of seats "won" that is crucial.

It all depends on who can form a majority in Parliament. Although the labour party had the next highest popular vote (29%), they were not in Government. The lib-dems were, with only 23% of the popular vote. The conservatives only had 306 seats (47.1%), but with the Lib-dems having 57 (8.8%) seats, they both formed a majority in Parliament. i.e. both parties combined held over 325 seats (50%). You need over 50% of parliamentary seats to form a majority. Total number of seats is 650.

So your argument about who "won" is groundless. It would hold some ground if the conservatives governed on their own.

they do now... anyway the system is fair as the representative of a constituency 'wins' because in the UK MP's represent their constituency so your argument is flawed

the point IS that the electorate in USA, UK or any other country which is considered 'developed' is allowed to vote, right or wrong, and that is the foundation of it all - here guns win

Edited May 19, 2015 by LannaGuy

[trogers]

Superb studies on vote selling, the mind of the people.

I don't have a problem with vote selling.

A persons vote, should be his to do with as he wants. (or she)

Do you have a problem with vote buying? It's the other side of the same coin...

[lostoday]

Do you have a problem with vote buying? It's the other side of the same coin...

Vote early vote often, How to combat election voter fraud, The key is a free press.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsVYtstVcKs

Edited May 19, 2015 by lostoday

[boomerangutang]

I have hill tribe friends. Individually they told me they were paid to vote. I said, "why not take the money and vote how you want?"

They say, "the village headman knows how each person voted, and will punish those who were bad." How many hundreds of thousands or millions of votes were paid for, and rec'd by the Reds? We'll never know.

On another perspective: Chiang Rai is considered 'Red country'. During the Red take-over of Bkk in 2010, there was a large screen TV set up alongside a wide road downtown. In front were hundreds of metal chairs. I drove by there many times during the weeks of the problems in Bkk. Guess now many people were there? Nearly none - just a few techies running wire for the massive P.A. system. Red support in C.Rai is a paid-for myth.

[glenmohr]

The broader picture is that 19 coups have not solved anything. If they did, it would have been solved years ago. If the coup was the solution there would be no need for future coups..

The great defender of Bangkok was around at the time of the previous coup. What went wrong then?

In countries which practice " democracy" there is an ability to work out that the other guy got more votes than I did. There have been some very memorable concession speeches, " W S Churchill in 1946, for example.

The difference in Thailand may lie in the fact that team sports are not encouraged as much as they are in some other countries. Fewer people in Thailand have experienced losing and in fact just don't know how to lose.

[lostoday]

How do you have a free election? A free press. Could the press be construed as manipulating public opinion? Sure that's why countries with dictators don't have a free press. In this day and age there is more access to a free press via the internet and it is almost impossible to stop information from getting out so the next best thing is stop elections.

How long can you keep it up? How many posters have written elections are worthless because of vote selling. Vote selling is a problem in every country and yet those countries still have elections. Why is that? Does the Majority always win no and that is how coalitions are forged to govern.

[lostoday]

The broader picture is that 19 coups have not solved anything. If they did, it would have been solved years ago. If the coup was the solution there would be no need for future coups..

The great defender of Bangkok was around at the time of the previous coup. What went wrong then?

In countries which practice " democracy" there is an ability to work out that the other guy got more votes than I did. There have been some very memorable concession speeches, " W S Churchill in 1946, for example.

The difference in Thailand may lie in the fact that team sports are not encouraged as much as they are in some other countries. Fewer people in Thailand have experienced losing and in fact just don't know how to lose.

Thailand is not the land of the lone ranger. Thais can't do anything alone. I don't know where you got the idea that Thais don't work as teams. Thais can't work alone. They quit.

[canuckamuck]

I have hill tribe friends. Individually they told me they were paid to vote. I said, "why not take the money and vote how you want?"

They say, "the village headman knows how each person voted, and will punish those who were bad." How many hundreds of thousands or millions of votes were paid for, and rec'd by the Reds? We'll never know.

On another perspective: Chiang Rai is considered 'Red country'. During the Red take-over of Bkk in 2010, there was a large screen TV set up alongside a wide road downtown. In front were hundreds of metal chairs. I drove by there many times during the weeks of the problems in Bkk. Guess now many people were there? Nearly none - just a few techies running wire for the massive P.A. system. Red support in C.Rai is a paid-for myth.

My wife takes the money and then votes for people she hasn't heard of. This way she can tell herself she didn't vote for people who are known to be corrupt and possibly she voted for someone good. Although she admits that it is a remote possibility.

[glenmohr]

I have hill tribe friends. Individually they told me they were paid to vote. I said, "why not take the money and vote how you want?"

They say, "the village headman knows how each person voted, and will punish those who were bad." How many hundreds of thousands or millions of votes were paid for, and rec'd by the Reds? We'll never know.

On another perspective: Chiang Rai is considered 'Red country'. During the Red take-over of Bkk in 2010, there was a large screen TV set up alongside a wide road downtown. In front were hundreds of metal chairs. I drove by there many times during the weeks of the problems in Bkk. Guess now many people were there? Nearly none - just a few techies running wire for the massive P.A. system. Red support in C.Rai is a paid-for myth.

Yes Boomerangotang, every one posting here has some anecdotes of what happened/ happens in their town, village or tribe.

But when sophisticated analysis is done by people trained to look at the broader picture it has been found that the vote buying done largely cancels out when considered that it has been practiced by all candidates.

One of the interesting findings has been that where Puea Thai candidates paid voters, those voters voted Puea Thai. But in some places where the Democrats paid voters, the voters tended to vote Puea Thai. What that means is that the Puea Thai were more informed about where their supporters were and maybe had a more sophisticated operation. Another feature is that Puea Thai and their allies often do not try to pay voters in Democrat strongholds. Political wisdom. If Thailand was to ever practice democracy, Thailand would have to accept that the best political machine tends to win in an election in the democratic process.

[LannaGuy]

I have hill tribe friends. Individually they told me they were paid to vote. I said, "why not take the money and vote how you want?"

They say, "the village headman knows how each person voted, and will punish those who were bad." How many hundreds of thousands or millions of votes were paid for, and rec'd by the Reds? We'll never know.

On another perspective: Chiang Rai is considered 'Red country'. During the Red take-over of Bkk in 2010, there was a large screen TV set up alongside a wide road downtown. In front were hundreds of metal chairs. I drove by there many times during the weeks of the problems in Bkk. Guess now many people were there? Nearly none - just a few techies running wire for the massive P.A. system. Red support in C.Rai is a paid-for myth.

yea I know many too and they vote how they want. Dems did it south too. vote buying to alter result is the myth

Edited May 19, 2015 by LannaGuy

[glenmohr]

The broader picture is that 19 coups have not solved anything. If they did, it would have been solved years ago. If the coup was the solution there would be no need for future coups..

The great defender of Bangkok was around at the time of the previous coup. What went wrong then?

In countries which practice " democracy" there is an ability to work out that the other guy got more votes than I did. There have been some very memorable concession speeches, " W S Churchill in 1946, for example.

The difference in Thailand may lie in the fact that team sports are not encouraged as much as they are in some other countries. Fewer people in Thailand have experienced losing and in fact just don't know how to lose.

Thailand is not the land of the lone ranger. Thais can't do anything alone. I don't know where you got the idea that Thais don't work as teams. Thais can't work alone. They quit.

Talking about team sports Mr Lost today. Otherwise in other matters I bow to your superior knowledge. Just searching for a possible reason why Thais don't know how to lose. Go to any Caucasian nation and you will see continual graciousness in political defeat with only occasional exception.

[lostoday]

The broader picture is that 19 coups have not solved anything. If they did, it would have been solved years ago. If the coup was the solution there would be no need for future coups..

The great defender of Bangkok was around at the time of the previous coup. What went wrong then?

In countries which practice " democracy" there is an ability to work out that the other guy got more votes than I did. There have been some very memorable concession speeches, " W S Churchill in 1946, for example.

The difference in Thailand may lie in the fact that team sports are not encouraged as much as they are in some other countries. Fewer people in Thailand have experienced losing and in fact just don't know how to lose.

Thailand is not the land of the lone ranger. Thais can't do anything alone. I don't know where you got the idea that Thais don't work as teams. Thais can't work alone. They quit.

Talking about team sports Mr Lost today. Otherwise in other matters I bow to your superior knowledge. Just searching for a possible reason why Thais don't know how to lose. Go to any Caucasian nation and you will see continual graciousness in political defeat with only occasional exception.

Caucasian nation? You gotta be kidding.

[KarenBravo]

Because when they lose, it must be someone else's fault, ergo, they cheated.

Just another facet of not being able to take responsibility and to blame others (face, yet again).

[meltingpot2015]

@LannaGuy:

they do now... anyway the system is fair as the representative of a constituency 'wins' because in the UK MP's represent their constituency so your argument is flawed

the point IS that the electorate in USA, UK or any other country which is considered 'developed' is allowed to vote, right or wrong, and that is the foundation of it all - here guns win

We were discussing if the conservatives "won" the 2010 election. The argument by losttoday (he should call him self losteveryday) was that the party with the largest popular support "wins".

I said to him "No way", in 2010 UK General election, the parties with the the 1st and 3rd popular support went in to coalition. No one "won". It was a hung parliament. Actually the parties with the 2nd and 3rd popular support could have formed a coalition but they didn't. But the option was there.

the representative of a constituency 'wins'

That was not what we were discussing. We were discussing if a political party "won" the 2010 General Election. How can an argument that is not on the table be flawed. Introducing a new argument to "muddy the water" certainly does not make it flawed.

anyway the system is fair

No Evidence of it being fair at all. You can have a single member representing a constituency with PR or have multiple-members.

the point IS the electorate in USA, UK or any other country which is considered 'developed' is allowed to vote, right or wrong, and that is the foundation of it all - here guns win

In USA and UK they are a lot of disenfranchised voters. only 66% voted in UK 2015 General election. So although, they are "allowed" to vote, they do not vote. PR systems have higher voter turnout. Not like the dinosaur FPTP system. Just look-up the voter turnout figures for USA (only 58.2% in 2012 presidential election) and UK. Then look-up a country that uses PR. You will be surprised.

[trogers]

@LannaGuy:

they do now... anyway the system is fair as the representative of a constituency 'wins' because in the UK MP's represent their constituency so your argument is flawed

the point IS that the electorate in USA, UK or any other country which is considered 'developed' is allowed to vote, right or wrong, and that is the foundation of it all - here guns win

We were discussing if the conservatives "won" the 2010 election. The argument by losttoday (he should call him self losteveryday) was that the party with the largest popular support "wins".

I said to him "No way", in 2010 UK General election, the parties with the the 1st and 3rd popular support went in to coalition. No one "won". It was a hung parliament. Actually the parties with the 2nd and 3rd popular support could have formed a coalition but they didn't. But the option was there.

the representative of a constituency 'wins'

That was not what we were discussing. We were discussing if a political party "won" the 2010 General Election. How can an argument that is not on the table be flawed. Introducing a new argument to "muddy the water" certainly does not make it flawed.

anyway the system is fair

No Evidence of it being fair at all. You can have a single member representing a constituency with PR or have multiple-members.

the point IS the electorate in USA, UK or any other country which is considered 'developed' is allowed to vote, right or wrong, and that is the foundation of it all - here guns win

In USA and UK they are a lot of disenfranchised voters. only 66% voted in UK 2015 General election. So although, they are "allowed" to vote, they do not vote. PR systems have higher voter turnout. Not like the dinosaur FPTP system. Just look-up the voter turnout figures for USA (only 58.2% in 2012 presidential election) and UK. Then look-up a country that uses PR. You will be surprised.

And as a result, the party with the winning vote count has less votes than the number of no-vote. Thus, the winning party was elected by the majority.

[lostoday]

In USA and UK they are a lot of disenfranchised voters. only 66% voted in UK 2015 General election. So although, they are "allowed" to vote, they do not vote. PR systems have higher voter turnout. Not like the dinosaur FPTP system. Just look-up the voter turnout figures for USA (only 58.2% in 2012 presidential election) and UK. Then look-up a country that uses PR. You will be surprised.

I think you are saying that voting is necessary for a government to be called a democracy and that the method of casting ballots determines how fair the system is.

To make it clear for me which method of voting do you think is the most fair?

Or maybe you are saying because the voting system if flawed we should let you pick and choose who runs the country.

[trogers]

In USA and UK they are a lot of disenfranchised voters. only 66% voted in UK 2015 General election. So although, they are "allowed" to vote, they do not vote. PR systems have higher voter turnout. Not like the dinosaur FPTP system. Just look-up the voter turnout figures for USA (only 58.2% in 2012 presidential election) and UK. Then look-up a country that uses PR. You will be surprised.

I think you are saying that voting is necessary for a government to be called a democracy and that the method of casting ballots determines how fair the system is.

To make it clear for me which method of voting do you think is the most fair?

Or maybe you are saying because the voting system if flawed we should let you pick and choose who runs the country.

Simple maths. Should the no-vote exceed 33%, the election is null and void.

[lostoday]

In USA and UK they are a lot of disenfranchised voters. only 66% voted in UK 2015 General election. So although, they are "allowed" to vote, they do not vote. PR systems have higher voter turnout. Not like the dinosaur FPTP system. Just look-up the voter turnout figures for USA (only 58.2% in 2012 presidential election) and UK. Then look-up a country that uses PR. You will be surprised.

I think you are saying that voting is necessary for a government to be called a democracy and that the method of casting ballots determines how fair the system is.

To make it clear for me which method of voting do you think is the most fair?

Or maybe you are saying because the voting system if flawed we should let you pick and choose who runs the country.

Simple maths. Should the no-vote exceed 33%, the election is null and void.

No what?