'Democracy is more than polls'

[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.

No what?

Just assume that no-vote is voting for an imaginary party. When they gather over 33% in a three or more horse race, they win.

[Fat Haggis]

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

You know that they say? A Myth is as good as a smile

[lostoday]

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?

Just assume that no-vote is voting for an imaginary party. When they gather over 33% in a three or more horse race, they win.

Why would anyone vote for an imaginary party? Do you mean you are ready to admit that polls are necessary for a country to be called a democracy and that you are completely out of reasonable replies to the contrary?

[trogers]

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?

Just assume that no-vote is voting for an imaginary party. When they gather over 33% in a three or more horse race, they win.

Why would anyone vote for an imaginary party? Do you mean you are ready to admit that polls are necessary for a country to be called a democracy and that you are completely out of reasonable replies to the contrary?

If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections.

[lostoday]

If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections.

I can post 20 more and have posted a scholarly video above that comes to the same conclusion. Google vote early vote often how to combat election voter fraud.

Or Electoral fraud in the UK

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf

Edited May 19, 2015 by lostoday

[meltingpot2015]

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.

We are looking at this from two different angles. Most people on this Forum are discussing what makes a Democracy. When you seem crazy about the idea of what makes a dictatorship. You mentioned, Castro's rule in a previous post.

So you seem to aim to avoid 'dictatorship', in the hope it will achieve democracy. I do not agree, because avoiding a dictatorship, dosen't guarantee democracy. There are countries that are part dictatorship part democracy. So that's how come the General has announced that we should secure the four principles to ensure Thailand is on the path towards democracy.

From your posts, I sense that there is a part of you that kinda likes a dictatorship. Probably from living in the US. Yes, even Full democracies can sometimes act like dictatorships. The US did so under the Bush era when it comes to International relations. (Bush also responsible for starting Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre) Even internally now, in the US, there have been occasions it has displayed dictatorship tendencies (e.g. the police shootings).

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

This depends on the country.

we should let you pick and choose who runs the country

where have I said that?. Again, this is something you have suspected due to your preference for a dictatorship. Its similar to those who are racist, who do not know how to react when a topic on race is discussed. See the posts here and here. They do not want to show their "real" opinions and views, so they go in to this pretend mode, where they think to themselves "I cannot say I don't like non-whites, mexicans etc, so I need to take the opposite view". In so doing you misjudge the whole situation, start chest-beating saying how racist you think the discussion is. What you've actually shown is that you have deep-seated racist feelings that you prefer not to discuss, keep locked-away, in that closet. In effect, a closet-racist.

So using this example, I actually think you are a closet "dictatorship-preferrer".

[trogers]

If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections.

I can post 20 more and have posted a scholarly video above that comes to the same conclusion. Google vote early vote often how to combat election voter fraud.

Or Electoral fraud in the UK

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf

And this video teaches us that polling fraud is moral and an ideal to be achieved?

[lostoday]

If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections.

I can post 20 more and have posted a scholarly video above that comes to the same conclusion. Google vote early vote often how to combat election voter fraud.

Or Electoral fraud in the UK

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf

And this video teaches us that polling fraud is moral and an ideal to be achieved?

No it teaches us that you are all for elections.

You wrote, "If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections."

[trogers]

If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections.

I can post 20 more and have posted a scholarly video above that comes to the same conclusion. Google vote early vote often how to combat election voter fraud.

Or Electoral fraud in the UK

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf

And this video teaches us that polling fraud is moral and an ideal to be achieved?

No it teaches us that you are all for elections.

You wrote, "If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections."

I didn't see money changing hands...

[lostoday]

And this video teaches us that polling fraud is moral and an ideal to be achieved?

No it teaches us that you are all for elections.

You wrote, "If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections."

I didn't see money changing hands...

Obama spent 985 million. Romney spent 992 million.

They spent the money buying votes by advertising.

You want to see money changing hands? OK

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c05_1414876960&comments=1

[trogers]

And this video teaches us that polling fraud is moral and an ideal to be achieved?

No it teaches us that you are all for elections.

You wrote, "If vote buying and selling are accepted practice in the US and UK, I am all for elections."

I didn't see money changing hands...

Obama spent 985 million. Romney spent 992 million.

They spent the money buying votes by advertising.

You want to see money changing hands? OK

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c05_1414876960&comments=1

May be in hot water for vote buying is the opposite of being an accepted practice.

[meltingpot2015]

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.

The Vote = Passed down from generation to generation. Something worked hard for by our ancestors. Turned in to a commodity.

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.

No matter how hard we try to justify this we cannot do it. Even spoiling the ballot cannot excuse it, because when the money changed hands it was done with a promise. To vote for that person.

Not voting for the corrupt person isn't stopping corruption. Accepting the money is fueling corruption.

Edited May 19, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[lostoday]

I didn't see money changing hands...

Obama spent 985 million. Romney spent 992 million.

They spent the money buying votes by advertising.

You want to see money changing hands? OK

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c05_1414876960&comments=1

May be in hot water for vote buying is the opposite of being an accepted practice.

If the lady did not think it was accepted do you think she would have advertised it on facebook? Chicago big city in America. Vote buying accepted practice by everyone who buys and sells votes which is a whole bunch of people. Is it right? Does it make America not a democracy? No. What makes America a democracy? They have free elections the number one and most important reason - the same as any other country.

Obama spent 985 million USD to get elected. You can call it lots of things but the fact remains he spent 965 million to get elected. What is the difference paying for advertising to convince people to elect you and paying them directly to elect you?

[meltingpot2015]

advertising is not corruption.

[lostoday]

advertising is not corruption.

The best candidate does not win elections. The candidate with the best advertising wins the election. Call it whatever you want to call it but that's why candidates struggle so hard to raise money to advertise. They have figured out a legal way to influence voting. Add that to allowing illegals to vote and you have the results of American elections.

But that is not the debate. No one cares if votes are bought and sold it has nothing to do with the definition of a democracy. You can add and subtract many things from the definition of democracy except voting that has to be the constant.

You are debating a lost cause. You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy.

You can have a human being without crying but you can't have a woman without crying. No woman no cry. No election no democracy. It's catchy, think I should write a song.

Edited May 19, 2015 by lostoday

[tbthailand]

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.

http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html

[halloween]

advertising is not corruption.

The best candidate does not win elections. The candidate with the best advertising wins the election. Call it whatever you want to call it but that's why candidates struggle so hard to raise money to advertise. They have figured out a legal way to influence voting. Add that to allowing illegals to vote and you have the results of American elections.

But that is not the debate. No one cares if votes are bought and sold it has nothing to do with the definition of a democracy. You can add and subtract many things from the definition of democracy except voting that has to be the constant.

You are debating a lost cause. You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy.

You can have a human being without crying but you can't have a woman without crying. No woman no cry. No election no democracy. It's catchy, think I should write a song.

"You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy."

So when elections keep returning you a bad government, do you opt for good government or democracy?

[lostoday]

advertising is not corruption.

The best candidate does not win elections. The candidate with the best advertising wins the election. Call it whatever you want to call it but that's why candidates struggle so hard to raise money to advertise. They have figured out a legal way to influence voting. Add that to allowing illegals to vote and you have the results of American elections.

But that is not the debate. No one cares if votes are bought and sold it has nothing to do with the definition of a democracy. You can add and subtract many things from the definition of democracy except voting that has to be the constant.

You are debating a lost cause. You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy.

You can have a human being without crying but you can't have a woman without crying. No woman no cry. No election no democracy. It's catchy, think I should write a song.

"You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy."

So when elections keep returning you a bad government, do you opt for good government or democracy?

Lee Kuan Yew's are hard to come by but if it was me I would job out the governance of Thailand to Singapore. I don't see democracy as being the end all or the be all for Thailand.

Singapore has done well without a democracy and that may be what Thailand needs but lets call it by the right name and a government without free elections is not a democracy.

[trogers]

advertising is not corruption.

The best candidate does not win elections. The candidate with the best advertising wins the election. Call it whatever you want to call it but that's why candidates struggle so hard to raise money to advertise. They have figured out a legal way to influence voting. Add that to allowing illegals to vote and you have the results of American elections.

But that is not the debate. No one cares if votes are bought and sold it has nothing to do with the definition of a democracy. You can add and subtract many things from the definition of democracy except voting that has to be the constant.

You are debating a lost cause. You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy.

You can have a human being without crying but you can't have a woman without crying. No woman no cry. No election no democracy. It's catchy, think I should write a song.

"You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy."

So when elections keep returning you a bad government, do you opt for good government or democracy?

Lee Kuan Yew's are hard to come by but if it was me I would job out the governance of Thailand to Singapore. I don't see democracy as being the end all or the be all for Thailand.

Singapore has done well without a democracy and that may be what Thailand needs but lets call it by the right name and a government without free elections is not a democracy.

Lee Kuan Yew did the first thing right - Heavy handedly crack down on corruption. This ensured the first two ideals, Justice and Equality.

The 3rd and 4th were and still are strictly controlled, but the people prospered from the first two ideals and are willing to accept the limitations.

[lostoday]

Lee Kuan Yew's are hard to come by but if it was me I would job out the governance of Thailand to Singapore. I don't see democracy as being the end all or the be all for Thailand.

Singapore has done well without a democracy and that may be what Thailand needs but lets call it by the right name and a government without free elections is not a democracy.

Lee Kuan Yew did the first thing right - Heavy handedly crack down on corruption. This ensured the first two ideals, Justice and Equality.

The 3rd and 4th were and still are strictly controlled, but the people prospered from the first two ideals and are willing to accept the limitations.

You will get no debate from me. I agree. But that's not the topic of this thread.

[meltingpot2015]

The best candidate does not win elections. The candidate with the best advertising wins the election. Call it whatever you want to call it but that's why candidates struggle so hard to raise money to advertise. They have figured out a legal way to influence voting. Add that to allowing illegals to vote and you have the results of American elections.

But that is not the debate. No one cares if votes are bought and sold it has nothing to do with the definition of a democracy. You can add and subtract many things from the definition of democracy except voting that has to be the constant.

You are debating a lost cause. You can have good government without elections but you can't have a democracy.

You can have a human being without crying but you can't have a woman without crying. No woman no cry. No election no democracy. It's catchy, think I should write a song.

Keep saying to you having elections doesen't make the country a democracy. There are other elements, and the elections need to be Free AND fair.

In the U.S. your Best candidate will have the support of Fox (the TV channel), so even with their support your supposed best candidate lost. (i.e. Mitt Romney, John McCain). Unless, you are talking about how George Bush Jr came to power. He won that election Because of Fox News.

It dosen't have to be advertising, some democracies just introduce a wedge issue near the elections, then just sit-back, grab a load of support from the other party. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynton_Crosby - for how a political strategist does this. I would call him an election engineer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair - An event where a wedge issue was introduced and resulted in victory for the party introducing it (lying basically).

A previous Australian Government (Prime Minster John Howard) has lied to the public and said Asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard to secure entry into Australia. They were re-elected, because the public saw John Howards Party (Lib-National Coalition) as "strong' on border protection. Later a senate select comittee:

found that no children had been at risk of being thrown overboard and that the government had known this prior to the election

No one cares if votes are bought and sold it has nothing to do with the definition of a democracy.

Democracy does not go hand in hand with corruption. There cannot be corruption for democracy to flourish. Vote buying is corruption, therefore, Vote buying equates to a deficient democracy. Do you see?? You said for a democracy there has to be Free elections. But the definition of democracy has Free and FAIR elections. For an election to be fair there cannot be vote buying.

I think you should stick to the topic, rather than song-writing. The Bob Marley song was lost on me.

It's catchy,

That's part of the problem, if you are are not a thaksin supporter. The non-thaksin supporters claim there is a lack of turn-over of government because they (thaksins) had a populist agenda. Vote buying. You see the connections?

By the way, John Howard was a one-hit wonder. He only governed for one-term.

Edited May 19, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[lostoday]

That's part of the problem, if you are are not a thaksin supporter. The non-thaksin supporters claim there is a lack of turn-over of government because they (thaksins) had a populist agenda. Vote buying. You see the connections?

By the way, the John Howard was a one-hit wonder. He only governed for one-term.

How could I be a Thaksin supporter? I'm not Thai and I can't vote. I'm not a nut case.

I am just observing. I know the definition of democracy - it's all about voting. Nothing about anything else gets any universal support.

I'm not saying you can't have a good country without voting; it's just not going to be a democracy.

You need to get your terms straight and stop bashing your head against a wall. No vote no democracy. That is not me it's the dictionary.

You can say forever that you can have a democracy without voting or a Thai style democracy without voting but the rest of the world who can read English is just laughing at you.

I have no interest in Thailand other from a personal standpoint and how it effects me. I don't care about who is running the country.

I see no difference now or two years ago. Nothing new for me. I like the fact that the soccer hooligans have cleared out a bit and its nice to see the Russians vacationing in the Crimea.

Food and women and rent are the same for me now as 5 years ago. Medicine went up a bit but I'm trying to cut back on what I'm taking anyway.

The only reason I'm posting is as public service to you all who need someone to read you definitions from the dictionary.

I do think the current government and CNN both need to hire me to give them some tips on PR and pronunciation. CNN does not know how to pronounce Cossacks and there are people in Thailand who could use some help with definitions and international faux paws.

I'm going to bed wake me up if you have something new to say but please don't expect a reply to your song and dance that democracies don't have to vote cause they do and everyone above 12 years old with a 6th grade or better Western education knows that.

[meltingpot2015]

@lostoday:

please don't expect a reply to your song and dance that democracies don't have to vote

where have I said that?

... everyone above 12 years old with a 6th grade or better Western education knows that.

Not going to respond to this comment, it's slightly bigoted and boorish.

Re. my post # 171 - actually John Howard has "governed" for four terms. He's actually done well with the lying and deceit.

About your post #172, what you are saying is that, to be called a democracy there needs to be an elected government.

Just answer these four simple questions:

1) For a country to be called a democracy there needs to be an elected government?

2) A democratically elected government is a legitimate government. (no matter if its a good or bad government)

3) If Thailand was to hold elections today. Would Thailand be a Democracy?

4) Do elections need to be free and fair, or just free.

[lostoday]

@lostoday:

please don't expect a reply to your song and dance that democracies don't have to vote

where have I said that?

... everyone above 12 years old with a 6th grade or better Western education knows that.

Not going to respond to this comment, it's slightly bigoted and boorish.

Re. my post # 171 - actually John Howard has "governed" for four terms. He's actually done well with the lying and deceit.

About your post #172, what you are saying is that, to be called a democracy there needs to be an elected government.

Just answer these four simple questions:

1) For a country to be called a democracy there needs to be an elected government?

2) A democratically elected government is a legitimate government. (no matter if its a good or bad government)

3) If Thailand was to hold elections today. Would Thailand be a Democracy?

4) Do elections need to be free and fair, or just free.

Bigoted and boorish? For knowing something about school curriculum? Democracy is studied in the 6th grade in the West and they learn it means government chosen by elections.

1. For a country to be a democracy there must be free elections of the government.

2. A democratically elected government is a democratically elected government. Democracy is neither good or bad it is simply a method of governing. If bad people are elected it is a bad government If good people are elected it is a good government.

3. If Thailand were to hold elections today it would be a democracy. Maybe a good democracy or maybe a bad democracy but a democracy.

4, I don't know what you consider free and fair. So can't answer.

You seem to think there is something good about a democracy in itself. Not true. Are all dictatorships bad?

No (Singapore). Are all democracies good? No (USA).

Go to the dictionaries and read. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Nothing about good or bad or free or enslaved. The USA was a democracy when slavery was legal in the USA. Not good but still a democracy.

You are barking up the wrong tree again. A country is not a democracy if it does not have free elections. It may be a good or great or wonderful country but it is not a democracy.

[ddavidovsky]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

[lostoday]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

General elections were held in Italy on 6 April 1924. They were held under the Acerbo Law, which stated that the party with the largest share of the votes would automatically receive two-thirds of the seats in Parliament as long as they received over 25% of the vote.The National List of Benito Mussolini (an alliance with Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives) used intimidation tactics,resulting in a landslide victory and a subsequent two-thirds majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_1924

Say what about Fascists?

[glenmohr]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

Very well said, there were mechanisms for retiring the Chinawat clan without bloodshed. There are no peaceful mechanisms for removing a dictator.

[lostoday]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

Very well said, there were mechanisms for retiring the Chinawat clan without bloodshed. There are no peaceful mechanisms for removing a dictator.

Unless the dictator holds elections, then you could defeat him at the polls if that was the peoples will.

[glenmohr]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

Very well said, there were mechanisms for retiring the Chinawat clan without bloodshed. There are no peaceful mechanisms for removing a dictator.

Unless the dictator holds elections, then you could defeat him at the polls if that was the peoples will.

But if the dictator holds an election, he will no longer be entitled to use that term and be called "Dictator", he will be called " candidate"

[meltingpot2015]

@lostoday:

General elections were held in Italy on 6 April 1924. They were held under the Acerbo Law, which stated that the party with the largest share of the votes would automatically receive two-thirds of the seats in Parliament as long as they received over 25% of the vote.The National List of Benito Mussolini (an alliance with Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives) used intimidation tactics,resulting in a landslide victory and a subsequent two-thirds majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_1924

Say what about Fascists?

In post #174 you said:

4, I don't know what you consider free and fair. So can't answer.

Free and Fair does not depend on each persons interpretation of "free and Fair".

You've just given an example of an unfree election:

The National List of Benito Mussolini (an alliance with Catholics, Liberals and Conservatives) used intimidation tactics,resulting in a landslide victory...

Also, that election was unfair because:

..the party with the largest share of the votes would automatically receive two-thirds of the seats in Parliament as long as they received over 25% of the vote.

You've just (dis)-proved the point that holding elections do not qualify a country as a democracy.

Edited May 20, 2015 by meltingpot2015