Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'

[Mackie]

I really am amused with consistent talk about Thai elites as if the USA or the UK have no their own elites which totally abuse supposedly democratic systems for their own gains. It's a juvenile argument. Our elites are as bad as Thais, if not worse. US oligarchy for sure. They only take and give nothing in return. A fact.

The western world should simply start meddling into internal affairs of sovereign countries. Whenever we get involved, there is a civil war and carnage. Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syrian, Ukraine etc...etc...I would hate to see Thailand taking the same route. Transition from one system to another takes same. If you rush into it, the civil war is inevitable. See above examples.

This may be partially true, but conflict of interest and commercial relationships are declared by procedure and are in the public domain.

In Thailand, the government serves it's paymasters first and then the people second. Rules are written to suit very narrow interests with little public scrutiny or declaration.

There is one renowned giver in Thailand and there are few others. The restrictions to business are now a brake on progress but no govt will be allowed to break down these barriers whilst the humble Thai consumer continues to overpay for goods and services and companies are discouraged from investing in Thailand bringing more jobs.

Corruption is ingrained into the system to a degree that it is common place and the system is actively set up to prohibit investigation and prevention. Everything is in the favour of the manipulative and corrupt.

In agreement. But my point was the life for average Joe back in the UK or the USA is as bad as life of ordinary Thais. Our elites do exactly the same as Thai elites. The only difference is they are hiding it better. Plus they use media to manipulate masses more efficiently than Thais.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mackie

[Thai at Heart]

I really am amused with consistent talk about Thai elites as if the USA or the UK have no their own elites which totally abuse supposedly democratic systems for their own gains. It's a juvenile argument. Our elites are as bad as Thais, if not worse. US oligarchy for sure. They only take and give nothing in return. A fact.

The western world should simply start meddling into internal affairs of sovereign countries. Whenever we get involved, there is a civil war and carnage. Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syrian, Ukraine etc...etc...I would hate to see Thailand taking the same route. Transition from one system to another takes same. If you rush into it, the civil war is inevitable. See above examples.

This may be partially true, but conflict of interest and commercial relationships are declared by procedure and are in the public domain.

In Thailand, the government serves it's paymasters first and then the people second. Rules are written to suit very narrow interests with little public scrutiny or declaration.

There is one renowned giver in Thailand and there are few others. The restrictions to business are now a brake on progress but no govt will be allowed to break down these barriers whilst the humble Thai consumer continues to overpay for goods and services and companies are discouraged from investing in Thailand bringing more jobs.

Corruption is ingrained into the system to a degree that it is common place and the system is actively set up to prohibit investigation and prevention. Everything is in the favour of the manipulative and corrupt.

In agreement. But my point was the life for average Joe back in the UK or the USA is as bad as life of ordinary Thais. Our elites do exactly the same as Thai elites. The only difference is they are hiding it better. Plus they use media to manipulate masses more efficiently than Thais.

U can have a low opinion of life back in the West. I returned here after 15 years in Thailand. Opportunity here is much much greater than Thailand and life is never perfect anywhere.

But change and progress happens here. Thailand refuses to budge to the detriment of its people. Life in Thailand is pretty bleak for those at the bottom. Don't be fooled by the ubiquitous smile.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[lostoday]

I really am amused with consistent talk about Thai elites as if the USA or the UK have no their own elites which totally abuse supposedly democratic systems for their own gains. It's a juvenile argument. Our elites are as bad as Thais, if not worse. US oligarchy for sure. They only take and give nothing in return. A fact.

The western world should simply stop meddling into internal affairs of sovereign countries. Whenever we get involved, there is a civil war and carnage. Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syrian, Ukraine etc...etc...I would hate to see Thailand taking the same route. Transition from one system to another takes same. If you rush into it, the civil war is inevitable. See above examples.

Korean war, Malaysian war, Israel wars, Panama, Dominican Republic, Philippine conflict, The Troubles and many more. Because you don't remember does not mean there was not a civil war every time a Western power aided another country.

[manarak]

So what Western democracy loses citizens to what other country?

The problem is blatant in France, but also in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and is starting to threaten the economy - it's a vicious cycle: the more people go, the more money is missing in government tax revenue, and the more money is missing, the more they raise taxes and the more people go...

But other countries too are bleeding, even if the official migration statistics do not suggest a problem.

Germany, for example, has a net influx, but the problem is that Germany has very low birthrate and at the same time is losing productive population, while that population is replaced in demographic statistics by immigrants, many uneducated from poor countries who tend to have many children, which is maybe good in the long run, but short term these people cost money instead of being net tax payers. And in the long run, their children, after being educated in Germany, will probably also recognize the situation and decide to leave for another country, leaving the people on welfare behind.

The challenge for Western democracies, especially socialist ones, is to keep their productive citizens happy at home and keep a balanced budget.

Socialists are confusing what they call "equality" and egalitarianism with social justice.

This is what drives the southern European Democracies (plus France) into the wall.

Edited August 28, 2015 by manarak

[lostoday]

So what Western democracy loses citizens to what other country?

The problem is blatant in France, but also in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and is starting to threaten the economy - it's a vicious cycle: the more people go, the more money is missing in government tax revenue, and the more money is missing, the more they raise taxes and the more people go...

But other countries too are bleeding, even if the official migration statistics do not suggest a problem.

Germany, for example, has a net influx, but the problem is that Germany has very low birthrate and at the same time is losing productive population, while that population is replaced in demographic statistics by immigrants, many uneducated from poor countries who tend to have many children, which is maybe good in the long run, but short term these people cost money instead of being net tax payers. And in the long run, their children, after being educated in Germany, will probably also recognize the situation and decide to leave for another country, leaving the people on welfare behind.

The challenge for Western democracies, especially socialist ones, is to keep their productive citizens happy at home and keep a balanced budget.

Socialists are confusing what they call "equality" and egalitarianism with social justice.

This is what drives the southern European Democracies (plus France) into the wall.

I might suggest the problem is taxes as opposed to democracy.

[smutcakes]

I really am amused with consistent talk about Thai elites as if the USA or the UK have no their own elites which totally abuse supposedly democratic systems for their own gains. It's a juvenile argument. Our elites are as bad as Thais, if not worse. US oligarchy for sure. They only take and give nothing in return. A fact.

The western world should simply start meddling into internal affairs of sovereign countries. Whenever we get involved, there is a civil war and carnage. Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syrian, Ukraine etc...etc...I would hate to see Thailand taking the same route. Transition from one system to another takes same. If you rush into it, the civil war is inevitable. See above examples.

This may be partially true, but conflict of interest and commercial relationships are declared by procedure and are in the public domain.

In Thailand, the government serves it's paymasters first and then the people second. Rules are written to suit very narrow interests with little public scrutiny or declaration.

There is one renowned giver in Thailand and there are few others. The restrictions to business are now a brake on progress but no govt will be allowed to break down these barriers whilst the humble Thai consumer continues to overpay for goods and services and companies are discouraged from investing in Thailand bringing more jobs.

Corruption is ingrained into the system to a degree that it is common place and the system is actively set up to prohibit investigation and prevention. Everything is in the favour of the manipulative and corrupt.

In agreement. But my point was the life for average Joe back in the UK or the USA is as bad as life of ordinary Thais. Our elites do exactly the same as Thai elites. The only difference is they are hiding it better. Plus they use media to manipulate masses more efficiently than Thais.

I am sorry but the life for the average Joe in the UK and USA is a long way from that of ordinary Thai's, not great by any means, but certainly far better IMO. I suppose it does boil down to what is an average Joe.

I know an average office worker in the UK, would certainly have more free time, more opportunities, more disposable cash, more family time, more holiday to the average Thai.

[cumgranosalum]

I really am amused with consistent talk about Thai elites as if the USA or the UK have no their own elites which totally abuse supposedly democratic systems for their own gains. It's a juvenile argument. Our elites are as bad as Thais, if not worse. US oligarchy for sure. They only take and give nothing in return. A fact.

The western world should simply stop meddling into internal affairs of sovereign countries. Whenever we get involved, there is a civil war and carnage. Former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syrian, Ukraine etc...etc...I would hate to see Thailand taking the same route. Transition from one system to another takes same. If you rush into it, the civil war is inevitable. See above examples.

Well I might suggest that you look at distribution on of wealth in Thailand fora start.

seciondly having an elite in another country is no justification of an elite in Thailand.

However you seem to be completely unaware of the differences between the elites of countries like US and UK when compared to Thailand but seem to think that your post somehow negates the argument - may I suggest that you get up to speed on this first?

[manarak]

So what Western democracy loses citizens to what other country?

The problem is blatant in France, but also in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and is starting to threaten the economy - it's a vicious cycle: the more people go, the more money is missing in government tax revenue, and the more money is missing, the more they raise taxes and the more people go...

But other countries too are bleeding, even if the official migration statistics do not suggest a problem.

Germany, for example, has a net influx, but the problem is that Germany has very low birthrate and at the same time is losing productive population, while that population is replaced in demographic statistics by immigrants, many uneducated from poor countries who tend to have many children, which is maybe good in the long run, but short term these people cost money instead of being net tax payers. And in the long run, their children, after being educated in Germany, will probably also recognize the situation and decide to leave for another country, leaving the people on welfare behind.

The challenge for Western democracies, especially socialist ones, is to keep their productive citizens happy at home and keep a balanced budget.

Socialists are confusing what they call "equality" and egalitarianism with social justice.

This is what drives the southern European Democracies (plus France) into the wall.

I might suggest the problem is taxes as opposed to democracy.

it is not only taxes - over-regulation and bureaucracy too.

don't you see the relationship between:

western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money" --> lots of voters vote for who will give them more money (=socialists) --> people work less and get more welfare --> higher costs for the government --> tax raise, more unemployment, more bureaucracy to manage the welfare, companies leave the country

[lostoday]

So what Western democracy loses citizens to what other country?

The problem is blatant in France, but also in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and is starting to threaten the economy - it's a vicious cycle: the more people go, the more money is missing in government tax revenue, and the more money is missing, the more they raise taxes and the more people go...

But other countries too are bleeding, even if the official migration statistics do not suggest a problem.

Germany, for example, has a net influx, but the problem is that Germany has very low birthrate and at the same time is losing productive population, while that population is replaced in demographic statistics by immigrants, many uneducated from poor countries who tend to have many children, which is maybe good in the long run, but short term these people cost money instead of being net tax payers. And in the long run, their children, after being educated in Germany, will probably also recognize the situation and decide to leave for another country, leaving the people on welfare behind.

The challenge for Western democracies, especially socialist ones, is to keep their productive citizens happy at home and keep a balanced budget.

Socialists are confusing what they call "equality" and egalitarianism with social justice.

This is what drives the southern European Democracies (plus France) into the wall.

I might suggest the problem is taxes as opposed to democracy.

it is not only taxes - over-regulation and bureaucracy too.

don't you see the relationship between:

western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money" --> lots of voters vote for who will give them more money (=socialists) --> people work less and get more welfare --> higher costs for the government --> tax raise, more unemployment, more bureaucracy to manage the welfare, companies leave the country

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

[manarak]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

[lostoday]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

You wrote, "don't you see the relationship between: western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money"

I wrote, "No." "China and Russia are much worse."

I see no relationship between Western democracy and corruption. Corruption is far more prevalent in non democratic countries.

[manarak]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

You wrote, "don't you see the relationship between: western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money"

I wrote, "No." "China and Russia are much worse."

I see no relationship between Western democracy and corruption. Corruption is far more prevalent in non democratic countries.

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

[lostoday]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

You wrote, "don't you see the relationship between: western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money"

I wrote, "No." "China and Russia are much worse."

I see no relationship between Western democracy and corruption. Corruption is far more prevalent in non democratic countries.

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

I always thought that is how one got elected. Convince someone that you will give them things for free. Welfare, tax free investment incentives, solar tax exemptions, gay marriage ........

Rich people will vote for the person who makes them richer and poor people will vote for the person who will make them less poor. So?

The only difference I see is the rich can pay someone to do things that make them richer if an election fails.

Edited August 29, 2015 by lostoday

[manarak]

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

I always thought that is how one got elected. Convince someone that you will give them things for free. Welfare, tax free investment incentives, solar tax exemptions, gay marriage ........

Rich people will vote for the person who makes them richer and poor people will vote for the person who will make them less poor. So?

The only difference I see is the rich can pay someone to do things that make them richer if an election fails.

you don't see where the process leads... higher taxes lead to elimination of the middle class and produces more super-rich, and much more people dependent on welfare, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

also, once money is being given out for free, welfare is very difficult to reverse.

it's a vicious cycle

[lostoday]

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

I always thought that is how one got elected. Convince someone that you will give them things for free. Welfare, tax free investment incentives, solar tax exemptions, gay marriage ........

Rich people will vote for the person who makes them richer and poor people will vote for the person who will make them less poor. So?

The only difference I see is the rich can pay someone to do things that make them richer if an election fails.

you don't see where the process leads... higher taxes lead to elimination of the middle class and produces more super-rich, and much more people dependent on welfare, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

also, once money is being given out for free, welfare is very difficult to reverse.

it's a vicious cycle

Democracy has nothing to do with bureaucracy. I would imagine countries with no democracy have more bureaucracy and higher taxes. Democracy is the only way to stop politicians from stealing that I know of.

[sammygood]

democracy is hard

military coup on the other hand

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[onelasttime]

Ok, I know I am going to get flamed but here goes. I for one do not think that what has become known as a Western democracy is right for Thailand; at least at the moment. However, my reasoning is at odds with the current government's and their cronies. There is no doubt in my mind that the govt. is trying to return Thailand to a mythical ' Golden Age', based upon the idea that the elite possess the the right to govern. The reason Western democracy will not work in Thailand is because Thailand is still a feudal state. Sure it exhibits all the trappings of a developing country but the core beliefs and importantly operational functioning of Thai society is based upon allegiances to someone higher up the 'food chain'. These allegiances are are almost tribal in the way power is organised and distributed throughout Thai society.

So, until such time as these feudal power bases are completely abolished...Thailand is not ready for a Western style democracy. Unfortunately the model currently being proposed will only disenfranchise millions of Thais.

What you're describing is exactly the same as the West BEFORE democracy was bitterly and bloodily fought for and won. The citizens subjects of this country have been forever denied their opportunity to work towards democracy and the overwhelming majority have been kept so ignorant and cowed it's unlikely they will ever have one. Don't be so patronising.

Nothing to do with being patronising. In the west BEFORE democracy we had a largely feudal system and..IT DID NOT CHANGE UNTIL THAT POWER BASE WAS ABOLISHED.. re-read my comment. When the feudal system here is finally abolished then democracy may have a chance. It has taken the West hundreds of years in the making and we still have not perfected it BUT.. it may be the best choice.

Back then (in the West) it was easier in some respects because thinking were more local, there was no globalisation to interfere with things. What we do have now though is better education and communication. I live in hope.

[rubl]

Ok, I know I am going to get flamed but here goes. I for one do not think that what has become known as a Western democracy is right for Thailand; at least at the moment. However, my reasoning is at odds with the current government's and their cronies. There is no doubt in my mind that the govt. is trying to return Thailand to a mythical ' Golden Age', based upon the idea that the elite possess the the right to govern. The reason Western democracy will not work in Thailand is because Thailand is still a feudal state. Sure it exhibits all the trappings of a developing country but the core beliefs and importantly operational functioning of Thai society is based upon allegiances to someone higher up the 'food chain'. These allegiances are are almost tribal in the way power is organised and distributed throughout Thai society.

So, until such time as these feudal power bases are completely abolished...Thailand is not ready for a Western style democracy. Unfortunately the model currently being proposed will only disenfranchise millions of Thais.

What you're describing is exactly the same as the West BEFORE democracy was bitterly and bloodily fought for and won. The citizens subjects of this country have been forever denied their opportunity to work towards democracy and the overwhelming majority have been kept so ignorant and cowed it's unlikely they will ever have one. Don't be so patronising.

Nothing to do with being patronising. In the west BEFORE democracy we had a largely feudal system and..IT DID NOT CHANGE UNTIL THAT POWER BASE WAS ABOLISHED.. re-read my comment. When the feudal system here is finally abolished then democracy may have a chance. It has taken the West hundreds of years in the making and we still have not perfected it BUT.. it may be the best choice.

Back then (in the West) it was easier in some respects because thinking were more local, there was no globalisation to interfere with things. What we do have now though is better education and communication. I live in hope.

You seem to confuse 'power base' with 'feudal system'. Of course if you think that political parties power base need to be abolished to promote democracy ... ...

[JimGant]

Back to the title of this thread: "Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'"

Yep. Western democracies have degraded to where everyone has the vote, and where a voter's choice is influenced by unrealisitc promises -- and where so many voters don't have the ability to separate reality from hype. No, you have to stack the deck to insure only the wisest -- and most altruistic -- get elected. Something like the "managed democracy" of Singapore -- where, yes, only the elite have been elected -- but their altruism has never been in doubt. So what if chewing gum -- and sedition and adverse press -- are outlawed. Singapore is the least corrupt nation in Asia -- and not by accident, but by solid leadership. Is the man on the street upset by these non-Western restrictions to democracy? Nope. Those only annoyed by this lack of "pure" democracy are the non-productive professors in their ivory towers.

Anyway, looking at the American example: We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite, no? But it did go toward assuring -- hopefully -- that only well thought out decision making was involved in who got elected. Certainly not full-proof. But certainly better than giving the vote to anyone who could stagger to the voting booth. As now. With Congress full of self-serving idiots.

No, Thailand doesn't need this brand of Western crap. Just hope they can find -- and secure -- their educated and altruistic Lee Kuan Yew. As such, they do need some form of managed democracy.

[lostoday]

Back to the title of this thread: "Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'"

Yep. Western democracies have degraded to where everyone has the vote, and where a voter's choice is influenced by unrealisitc promises -- and where so many voters don't have the ability to separate reality from hype. No, you have to stack the deck to insure only the wisest -- and most altruistic -- get elected. Something like the "managed democracy" of Singapore -- where, yes, only the elite have been elected -- but their altruism has never been in doubt. So what if chewing gum -- and sedition and adverse press -- are outlawed. Singapore is the least corrupt nation in Asia -- and not by accident, but by solid leadership. Is the man on the street upset by these non-Western restrictions to democracy? Nope. Those only annoyed by this lack of "pure" democracy are the non-productive professors in their ivory towers.

Anyway, looking at the American example: We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite, no? But it did go toward assuring -- hopefully -- that only well thought out decision making was involved in who got elected. Certainly not full-proof. But certainly better than giving the vote to anyone who could stagger to the voting booth. As now. With Congress full of self-serving idiots.

No, Thailand doesn't need this brand of Western crap. Just hope they can find -- and secure -- their educated and altruistic Lee Kuan Yew. As such, they do need some form of managed democracy.

You wrote, "We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite."

• Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) ; see: Jacksonian democracy

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

Edited August 30, 2015 by lostoday

[atyclb]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

[lostoday]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

Magna Carta

[ravip]

Which country in the West has a real democracy?

I guess THAT country can start to preach about it.

Doctor, heal thyself

[lostoday]

Which country in the West has a real democracy?

I guess THAT country can start to preach about it.

Doctor, heal thyself

Quite a few. The main thing about a democracy or what separates a democracy from other forms of governments is the way that representatives are appointed. A democracy by free election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Democracies

Edited August 31, 2015 by lostoday

[baboon]

Which country in the West has a real democracy?

I guess THAT country can start to preach about it.

Doctor, heal thyself

Quite. Those who seize power by way of a coup, or in Thailand's case, seized power by a not a coup are far better qualified to pontificate on the nature of democracy, aren't they?

[Thai at Heart]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

You wrote, "don't you see the relationship between: western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money"

I wrote, "No." "China and Russia are much worse."

I see no relationship between Western democracy and corruption. Corruption is far more prevalent in non democratic countries.

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

I always thought that is how one got elected. Convince someone that you will give them things for free. Welfare, tax free investment incentives, solar tax exemptions, gay marriage ........

Rich people will vote for the person who makes them richer and poor people will vote for the person who will make them less poor. So?

The only difference I see is the rich can pay someone to do things that make them richer if an election fails.

This patently not true. There is responsible group who float in the middle and move depending on the situation. Why would voters move from the left wing to right in support of austerity which is not in the interest of any left leaning person.

[lostoday]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

You wrote, "don't you see the relationship between: western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money"

I wrote, "No." "China and Russia are much worse."

I see no relationship between Western democracy and corruption. Corruption is far more prevalent in non democratic countries.

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

I always thought that is how one got elected. Convince someone that you will give them things for free. Welfare, tax free investment incentives, solar tax exemptions, gay marriage ........

Rich people will vote for the person who makes them richer and poor people will vote for the person who will make them less poor. So?

The only difference I see is the rich can pay someone to do things that make them richer if an election fails.

This patently not true. There is responsible group who float in the middle and move depending on the situation. Why would voters move from the left wing to right in support of austerity which is not in the interest of any left leaning person.

Because of the absence of the quote function I have no idea what you mean.

If I look at the last paragraph "why would any left leaning person vote for austerity" I still have no idea what you mean.

Perhaps if you could relate it to Thailand and democracy it might help.

[manarak]

Back to the title of this thread: "Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'"

Yep. Western democracies have degraded to where everyone has the vote, and where a voter's choice is influenced by unrealisitc promises -- and where so many voters don't have the ability to separate reality from hype. No, you have to stack the deck to insure only the wisest -- and most altruistic -- get elected. Something like the "managed democracy" of Singapore -- where, yes, only the elite have been elected -- but their altruism has never been in doubt. So what if chewing gum -- and sedition and adverse press -- are outlawed. Singapore is the least corrupt nation in Asia -- and not by accident, but by solid leadership. Is the man on the street upset by these non-Western restrictions to democracy? Nope. Those only annoyed by this lack of "pure" democracy are the non-productive professors in their ivory towers.

Anyway, looking at the American example: We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite, no? But it did go toward assuring -- hopefully -- that only well thought out decision making was involved in who got elected. Certainly not full-proof. But certainly better than giving the vote to anyone who could stagger to the voting booth. As now. With Congress full of self-serving idiots.

No, Thailand doesn't need this brand of Western crap. Just hope they can find -- and secure -- their educated and altruistic Lee Kuan Yew. As such, they do need some form of managed democracy.

You wrote, "We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite."

• Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) ; see: Jacksonian democracy

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions).

People living on welfare on paying no taxes should not be entitled to decide the country's policy.

[Thai at Heart]

No. China is much worse as is Russia.

I don't see how China or Russia are relevant, because none are Western style democracies.

You wrote, "don't you see the relationship between: western democracy --> politicians corrupt voters with "social money"

I wrote, "No." "China and Russia are much worse."

I see no relationship between Western democracy and corruption. Corruption is far more prevalent in non democratic countries.

not corruption in general, corruption within the democratic voting process. convincing low-income poeple to vote for a party by promising more welfare

I always thought that is how one got elected. Convince someone that you will give them things for free. Welfare, tax free investment incentives, solar tax exemptions, gay marriage ........

Rich people will vote for the person who makes them richer and poor people will vote for the person who will make them less poor. So?

The only difference I see is the rich can pay someone to do things that make them richer if an election fails.

This patently not true. There is responsible group who float in the middle and move depending on the situation. Why would voters move from the left wing to right in support of austerity which is not in the interest of any left leaning person.

Because of the absence of the quote function I have no idea what you mean.

If I look at the last paragraph "why would any left leaning person vote for austerity" I still have no idea what you mean.

Perhaps if you could relate it to Thailand and democracy it might help.

Convincing someone they will get something for free is the point. The vote in the UK switched from left to right whilst voting for a reduction in social entitlement.

The left voted away its entitlements. Quite an endictment on the labour party.