Nida Poll says over 60 percent still undecided whether to vote in referendum

[webfact]

Nida Poll says over 60 percent still undecided whether to vote in referendum



BANGKOK: -- Nida Poll claims that over 60 percent of the people are still undecided whether to vote in the national referendum on August 7 whereas 30.4 percent say they agree with the draft constitution.

According to the 8th opinion poll conducted by the National Institute of Development Administration during July 12-13 from 1,503 respondents of a wide range of occupations and educational backgrounds, 62.48 percent of the respondents say they have not decided yet whether to vote or not followed by 30.4 percent who say they will vote in support of the draft and 6.79 percent say they will vote against the draft. 0.32 percent say they will abstain.

When asked whether they support the proposal of senators having the right in the selection of the prime minister during the transition period, 51.43 percent say they are still undecided on how to vote but 29.01 percent say they agree with the proposal and will vote for it while 19.16 percent say they will vote against it. 0.40 percent they will abstain from voting on this issue.


-- Thai PBS 2016-07-18

[Srikcir]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

[aussieinthailand]

Reckon we need a poll on the accuracy of these poll's, and just what good they do.

[halloween]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Why? 30% of registered voters (as opposed to eligible voters, the percentage of those is more like 20%) is enough to elect a US president. Does he/she have no clear mandate?

[waldroj]

1. http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/bangkok-poll-over-80-percent-intend-to-vote-in-referendum/148807/

2. http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/nida-poll-says-over-60-percent-still-undecided-whether-to-vote-in-referendum/148811/

Edited July 18, 2016 by waldroj

[Srikcir]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Why? 30% of registered voters (as opposed to eligible voters, the percentage of those is more like 20%) is enough to elect a US president. Does he/she have no clear mandate?

Correct.

In a democratic system of elected government such lack of clear mandate means the new POTUS has a significant challenge to follow their campaigne promises without moderating it to garner legislative support.

But with the 5-year junta-appointed Senate proposed by the draft constitution, there can be no reconcialtion of an elected political agenda except for complete capitulation. That's why a clear manadate is much more critical for approval of the Thai draft constitution than it would be in a democratic country such as the USA.

[tuanku]

Polls.png

1. http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/bangkok-poll-over-80-percent-intend-to-vote-in-referendum/148807/

2. http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/nida-poll-says-over-60-percent-still-undecided-whether-to-vote-in-referendum/148811/

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

[kiwikeith]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Surprisingly, a large amount of Thais do not know of the second world war, If I were a betting man I would place my bet on most Thais not understanding the referendum or even knowing about it.

Then there is the fear factor as well, being afraid to go against the glorified ones.

[halloween]

"Well then you will happy to accept the results of the Thai referendum if it is similar. That is the topic, not Shin governments."

A yes vote would be highly suspect given the severe limitations on freedom of speach. It would in fact be laughable.

" I would be much happier seeing a military take over their own country than invading and bombing their neighbours, whether they have a supposedly clear mandate or not. Their neighbours probably feel the same way."

Now you're just talking nonsense - again.

"Anyone who gets the majority of the votes has a clear mandate." Unless it doesn't go your way, then it's laughable. But acceptable if it does.

Nonsense? You really think those countries bombed and invaded by yours wouldn't rather your military stayed at home. Oh that's right, you were bringing them democracy - they were just dying to get it.

[MZurf]

"Well then you will happy to accept the results of the Thai referendum if it is similar. That is the topic, not Shin governments."

A yes vote would be highly suspect given the severe limitations on freedom of speach. It would in fact be laughable.

" I would be much happier seeing a military take over their own country than invading and bombing their neighbours, whether they have a supposedly clear mandate or not. Their neighbours probably feel the same way."

Now you're just talking nonsense - again.

"Anyone who gets the majority of the votes has a clear mandate." Unless it doesn't go your way, then it's laughable. But acceptable if it does.

Nonsense? You really think those countries bombed and invaded by yours wouldn't rather your military stayed at home. Oh that's right, you were bringing them democracy - they were just dying to get it.

""Anyone who gets the majority of the votes has a clear mandate." Unless it doesn't go your way, then it's laughable. But acceptable if it does."

What does that even mean???

"Nonsense? You really think those countries bombed and invaded by yours wouldn't rather your military stayed at home."

Some of them, yes. But in cases like the coup (and remember, this is a forum about Thailand) I'm sure most would have wanted the "Pm" and his minions to have stayed in the barracks. after all, if a majority supported the coup there was no reason to block the election, right?

Oh, and BTW. My country hasn't invaded another country for about a 1000 years.

[halloween]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

[tuanku]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

The Junta has worked hard to install fear of dissent in the general population. If their Facebook messaging is not private, how can they be sure their votes will be secret? Fears do not have to be rational or justified to have the desired affect, and it is not just a fear of retribution from the military. By identifying themselves strongly with the Palace (an arrangement of mutual benefit) they invoke the fear of "doing the wrong thing" which is a very strong one in this respect with many Thais. So my point is that Thais who worry that a No vote is not "appropriate" due to their life long conditioning to respect King and Country may well not vote to avoid having to make the choice between what their hearts tell them and what their conditioning tells them. This is not imagined. I know several Thais who have admitted they do not intend to vote for this reason. They cannot reconcile pro-monarchy with anti-military because of the continuous effort by (for one) the armed forces to make the two institutions intertwined.

I don't need to "disparage" a yes vote and my opinion is entirely unimportant to the Thai Nation. The entire referendum process is recognised nationally and internationally as deeply unfair and undemocratic and very obviously so. A yes vote would not change that and I doubt, if the charter passes, it will survive the time of influence of this Junta. It will clearly have no legitimacy because of the way the referendum is handled and the lack of viable alternatives. A Yes vote has meaning and outcome - a no vote has no meaning and the eventual outcome is probably the same as that of a Yes vote.

My hypothesis (low turnout and yes vote) is easily tested ( at least part of it is) we just have to wait and see. Of course the voting figures may not be made public as the referees are also players from one of the teams in the match.

[metisdead]

Off-topic inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[candide]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

A referendum for which only one side is allowed to campaign cannot be considered as fair (just one reason, one can add no international observer etc...). It is not a matter of "I like the results or not" as you try to argue. If the results can be criticised it's because the way the Junta has chosen to organise it.

[halloween]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

The Junta has worked hard to install fear of dissent in the general population. If their Facebook messaging is not private, how can they be sure their votes will be secret? Fears do not have to be rational or justified to have the desired affect, and it is not just a fear of retribution from the military. By identifying themselves strongly with the Palace (an arrangement of mutual benefit) they invoke the fear of "doing the wrong thing" which is a very strong one in this respect with many Thais. So my point is that Thais who worry that a No vote is not "appropriate" due to their life long conditioning to respect King and Country may well not vote to avoid having to make the choice between what their hearts tell them and what their conditioning tells them. This is not imagined. I know several Thais who have admitted they do not intend to vote for this reason. They cannot reconcile pro-monarchy with anti-military because of the continuous effort by (for one) the armed forces to make the two institutions intertwined.

I don't need to "disparage" a yes vote and my opinion is entirely unimportant to the Thai Nation. The entire referendum process is recognised nationally and internationally as deeply unfair and undemocratic and very obviously so. A yes vote would not change that and I doubt, if the charter passes, it will survive the time of influence of this Junta. It will clearly have no legitimacy because of the way the referendum is handled and the lack of viable alternatives. A Yes vote has meaning and outcome - a no vote has no meaning and the eventual outcome is probably the same as that of a Yes vote.

My hypothesis (low turnout and yes vote) is easily tested ( at least part of it is) we just have to wait and see. Of course the voting figures may not be made public as the referees are also players from one of the teams in the match.

Huge reams of text to say very little. A secret ballot is exactly that, your imaginary fears are just that.

[halloween]

A referendum for which only one side is allowed to campaign cannot be considered as fair (just one reason, one can add no international observer etc...). It is not a matter of "I like the results or not" as you try to argue. If the results can be criticised it's because the way the Junta has chosen to organise it.

Yes the Shinawatra propaganda machine was stopped from spreading their usual false information. MR-D applies. OTOH people were encouraged to make up their own mind. Criticise away, I will continue to point out the illogical statements and outright lies.

[tuanku]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

The Junta has worked hard to install fear of dissent in the general population. If their Facebook messaging is not private, how can they be sure their votes will be secret? Fears do not have to be rational or justified to have the desired affect, and it is not just a fear of retribution from the military. By identifying themselves strongly with the Palace (an arrangement of mutual benefit) they invoke the fear of "doing the wrong thing" which is a very strong one in this respect with many Thais. So my point is that Thais who worry that a No vote is not "appropriate" due to their life long conditioning to respect King and Country may well not vote to avoid having to make the choice between what their hearts tell them and what their conditioning tells them. This is not imagined. I know several Thais who have admitted they do not intend to vote for this reason. They cannot reconcile pro-monarchy with anti-military because of the continuous effort by (for one) the armed forces to make the two institutions intertwined.

I don't need to "disparage" a yes vote and my opinion is entirely unimportant to the Thai Nation. The entire referendum process is recognised nationally and internationally as deeply unfair and undemocratic and very obviously so. A yes vote would not change that and I doubt, if the charter passes, it will survive the time of influence of this Junta. It will clearly have no legitimacy because of the way the referendum is handled and the lack of viable alternatives. A Yes vote has meaning and outcome - a no vote has no meaning and the eventual outcome is probably the same as that of a Yes vote.

My hypothesis (low turnout and yes vote) is easily tested ( at least part of it is) we just have to wait and see. Of course the voting figures may not be made public as the referees are also players from one of the teams in the match.

Huge reams of text to say very little. A secret ballot is exactly that, your imaginary fears are just that.

Or too much truth for you to counter. I have no vote and no fears. I do have some understanding of the Thai people I meet and work with every day though

[MZurf]

A referendum for which only one side is allowed to campaign cannot be considered as fair (just one reason, one can add no international observer etc...). It is not a matter of "I like the results or not" as you try to argue. If the results can be criticised it's because the way the Junta has chosen to organise it.

Yes the Shinawatra propaganda machine was stopped from spreading their usual false information. MR-D applies. OTOH people were encouraged to make up their own mind. Criticise away, I will continue to point out the illogical statements and outright lies.

5555555! Yes, people are encouraged to shut up and vote yes. No public debate allowed and that's fine by a small band of <deleted>. Sometime I wonder if you junta huggers have been thrown out of your respective countries due to totalitarian attitudes.

OTOH nothing you write surprises me since you have said that you don't care who runs Thailand as long as it's not Thaksin, and that makes you by definition a fanatic.

Edited July 18, 2016 by MZurf

[MZurf]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

You're absolutely right. There is, of course, an overwhelming sense of apathy because, yes or no, the good old boys will cling on to power anyway. And of course there is ignorance since the junta treats their proposed charter as a state secret they never finally complete. In addition public debate is not allowed!

And you blame the people for this???

There are adjectives that describes your attitude but I shall refrain from using them.

Edited July 18, 2016 by MZurf

[candide]

A referendum for which only one side is allowed to campaign cannot be considered as fair (just one reason, one can add no international observer etc...). It is not a matter of "I like the results or not" as you try to argue. If the results can be criticised it's because the way the Junta has chosen to organise it.

Yes the Shinawatra propaganda machine was stopped from spreading their usual false information. MR-D applies. OTOH people were encouraged to make up their own mind. Criticise away, I will continue to point out the illogical statements and outright lies.

Ok, I note that for you a referendum for which only one side is allowed to campaign is fair. Hmmm... who's talking about illogical statements?

[rubl]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Surprisingly, a large amount of Thais do not know of the second world war, If I were a betting man I would place my bet on most Thais not understanding the referendum or even knowing about it.

Then there is the fear factor as well, being afraid to go against the glorified ones.

I know some don't like when I write this, but 'education, education, education'

Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that.

Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward.

[baboon]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Surprisingly, a large amount of Thais do not know of the second world war, If I were a betting man I would place my bet on most Thais not understanding the referendum or even knowing about it.

Then there is the fear factor as well, being afraid to go against the glorified ones.

I know some don't like when I write this, but 'education, education, education'

Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that.

Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward.

"Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that."

An excellent description of Thailand's military junta you support with such enthusiasm.

"Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward."

You will go after them regardless of anything they do, as ordered.

[halloween]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

You're absolutely right. There is, of course, an overwhelming sense of apathy because, yes or no, the good old boys will cling on to power anyway. And of course there is ignorance since the junta treats their proposed charter as a state secret they never finally complete. In addition public debate is not allowed!

And you blame the people for this???

There are adjectives that describes your attitude but I shall refrain from using them.

I don't attribute blame, nor do I claim to be an omniscient oracle regarding the cause of the apparent apathy. There is nothing secret about the new charter, it is easy to get hold of IF you want to. Doesn't occur to you that apathetic people remain ignorant because they are apathetic?

Refrain away (sob, I'm so hurt)

[MZurf]

Clearly shows the polls are unreliable.

My opinion is that many people who are inclined against the charter will not say so to a person with a clipboard, either because they are afraid to or because they feel to vote against the charter is in someway disloyal to king and country.

How many of those will actually turn up at the polls remains to be seen, but they may not bother to vote for the same reason.

The hardcore Yes vote has nothing to fear so will vote anyway.

If I am right, then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely

I would also expect a big difference between the votes in Bangkok and the votes elsewhere so a good turnout in the North and North-East may see the charter defeated especially if coupled with a low turnout in the capital.

Also the consequences of a No vote are just another similar charter (in all likelihood without a second referendum) so many may feel there is little point in the exercise.

My own personal poll amongst my Thai acquaintances is overwhelmingly in favour of not bothering to vote and an almost total lack of knowledge about the content and substance of the Charter. ( For many of them Friday evening is the only time the TV is switched off, or at least has the sound turned down)

What has the hardcore No vote to fear in a secret ballot? If the answer is nothing, what is the logic to support your claim "....then a low turnout makes a Yes vote more likely and a high turnout makes a No vote more likely"

Your false premise is just an excuse to disparage a Yes result in an expected low turnout, not because of fear but due to apathy and ignorance.

You're absolutely right. There is, of course, an overwhelming sense of apathy because, yes or no, the good old boys will cling on to power anyway. And of course there is ignorance since the junta treats their proposed charter as a state secret they never finally complete. In addition public debate is not allowed!

And you blame the people for this???

There are adjectives that describes your attitude but I shall refrain from using them.

I don't attribute blame, nor do I claim to be an omniscient oracle regarding the cause of the apparent apathy. There is nothing secret about the new charter, it is easy to get hold of IF you want to. Doesn't occur to you that apathetic people remain ignorant because they are apathetic?

Refrain away (sob, I'm so hurt)

" Doesn't occur to you that apathetic people remain ignorant because they are apathetic?"

[halloween]

I don't attribute blame, nor do I claim to be an omniscient oracle regarding the cause of the apparent apathy. There is nothing secret about the new charter, it is easy to get hold of IF you want to. Doesn't occur to you that apathetic people remain ignorant because they are apathetic?

Refrain away (sob, I'm so hurt)

" Doesn't occur to you that apathetic people remain ignorant because they are apathetic?"

Apparently not.

[Alive]

Actually few will read the charter. It's too complex for most people and a lot of older rural Thais can't read at all. This ia all a sham. But no matter what happens, the future of Thailand will see unrest. You can't keep the people down especially as they get more and more educated compared to the past and get more and more information. The people will eventually demand their rights. My hope is that Prayuth and Prawit are punished by the courts or other means for this period. They can create their papers but amnesty will never be given by the people.

[rubl]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Surprisingly, a large amount of Thais do not know of the second world war, If I were a betting man I would place my bet on most Thais not understanding the referendum or even knowing about it.

Then there is the fear factor as well, being afraid to go against the glorified ones.

I know some don't like when I write this, but 'education, education, education'

Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that.

Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward.

"Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that."

An excellent description of Thailand's military junta you support with such enthusiasm.

"Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward."

You will go after them regardless of anything they do, as ordered.

An excellent argument why a certain criminal fugitive thought buying small parties was a profitally business venture back around the year 2000.

As for your "You will go after them regardless of anything they do, as ordered." you clearly write I'm ordered rather than post my opinion. With you being a native English speaker I assume you know the significance of the nicely positioned comma in that sentence. Very naughty, my dear baboon, bordering an insult while leaving the possibility to say you made a typo.

[baboon]

Depending on actual voter turnout, 30.4% who say they will vote in support of the draft may be enough to approve the draft charter.

The 2007 draft Constitution was approved by about 32% of total registered voters wherein only 57% of registered voters went to the polls. Of course should the 2016 draft be approved by a minority of registered voters, there will be no clear mandate for the 2016 draft constitution, political conflict will continue and perhaps even intensify. The EC had the right idea to base approval on a majority of registered voters but the Junta mandated otherwise.

Surprisingly, a large amount of Thais do not know of the second world war, If I were a betting man I would place my bet on most Thais not understanding the referendum or even knowing about it.

Then there is the fear factor as well, being afraid to go against the glorified ones.

I know some don't like when I write this, but 'education, education, education'

Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that.

Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward.

"Lots of Thai are still somehow stuck in the patronage system of a century or more ago. 'your betters will tell you the right thing to do', things like that."

An excellent description of Thailand's military junta you support with such enthusiasm.

"Having the original (red shirt) grassroots distance themselves from those 'betters' and their henchmen and start to be self-reliant, self-entitled would be a good step forward."

You will go after them regardless of anything they do, as ordered.

An excellent argument why a certain criminal fugitive thought buying small parties was a profitally business venture back around the year 2000.

As for your "You will go after them regardless of anything they do, as ordered." you clearly write I'm ordered rather than post my opinion. With you being a native English speaker I assume you know the significance of the nicely positioned comma in that sentence. Very naughty, my dear baboon, bordering an insult while leaving the possibility to say you made a typo.

I have no idea which fugitive you are on about. (As instructed?)