EC announces official referendum result

[webfact]

EC announces official referendum result

 

 

BANGKOK: -- 59.4 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote on August 7 constitution referendum and, of these, 61.35 percent voted in favour of the draft charter against 38.65 who disagreed, according to the official result of the referendum announced Wednesday by the Election Commission.

 

Present at the announcement of the official referendum result were EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen and election commissioners Boonsong Noisophon, Prawit Rattanapien and Somchai Srisutthiyakorn.

 

According to the official result which was already submitted to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha, 29,740,677 out of a total of 50,071,589 eligible voters actually voted, representing a turnout of 59.4 percent. There were 936,209 invalid votes accounting for 3.15 percent.

 

16,820,402 voted in favour of the draft charter, accounting for 61.35 percent against 10,598,037 who disagreed or 38.65 percent.

 

58.07 percent or 15,132,050 votes were in favour of senators having the right to vote in the selection of prime minister against 10,926,648 or 41.93 percent who disagreed. There were no protests against the referendum.

 

Election commissioner for election affairs Supachai said he was satisfied with the voter’s turnout. As for the invalid votes, he said most of the case happened in the three southernmost provinces with 7.43 percent in Pattani, 7.11 percent in Narathiwat and 6.54 percent in Yala respectively.

 

He said that the EC would need to find out why there was high incidence of invalid votes in the three southern provinces.

 

The top five provinces with the highest turnout rate were Lamphun’s 76.47 percent, Mae Hong Son’s 74.36 percent, Chiang Mai’s 73.17 percent, Tak’s 70.06 percent and Chiang Rai’s 67.64 percent.

 

Meanwhile, Prawit Rattanapien said there was not a single province with less than 50 percent turnout rate.

 

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ec-announces-official-referendum-result/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-08-11

[Alive]

In a nation of 60-70 million people, 16 million decide the future. I guess those who didn't vote are apathetic to their future or think its a meaningless vote.

[Plutojames88]

Then again it makes sense if the plan is to get the 5 or more gathering law removed after an election ...and on one steamy Sunday pour out the masses and the soldiers don't shoot.

 

That would have the military brass scrambling to fly out or find a drain pipe big even to hide in.

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

In a nation of 60-70 million people, 16 million decide the future. I guess those who didn't vote are apathetic to their future or think its a meaningless vote.

 

my Thai friends I know didn't vote, which surprised me (they were 'no'), they said they just felt it was useless as they knew who would win as no one was allowed to discuss it

[Eric Loh]

A real referendum is when pros and cons of the subject matter are freely debated and discussed and in a climate devoid of intimidation and harassment. The EC commissioner would have said this in his opening statement. Of course I am not referring to Thailand.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

59.4 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote on August 7 constitution referendum and, of these, 61.35 percent voted in favour of the draft charter

Or expressed in another way, about 36% of the Thai electorate voted in favor of the draft. Versus about 33% in the 2007 constitution referendum.

As Prayut once said, a consitution is not a special medicine nor a formula to fix Thailand's problems. Looks like the majority of the Thai electorate agree - again.

[LannaGuy]

33 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Or expressed in another way, about 36% of the Thai electorate voted in favor of the draft. Versus about 33% in the 2007 constitution referendum.

As Prayut once said, a consitution is not a special medicine nor a formula to fix Thailand's problems. Looks like the majority of the Thai electorate agree - again.

 

not a majority of the Thai electorate but a majority of those who voted?  after a period of free and open debate?

[Srikcir]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

 

not a majority of the Thai electorate but a majority of those who voted?  after a period of free and open debate?

 

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

 

not a majority of the Thai electorate but a majority of those who voted?  after a period of free and open debate?

Unclear as to what your question(s) is. It is a majority of the electorate (those registered to vote) agree that the 2016 draft constitution is not the solution.

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

 

Unclear as to what your question(s) is. It is a majority of the electorate (those registered to vote) agree that the 2016 draft constitution is not the solution.

 

the Thai electorate is 50.5m and 16.5m voted 'yes'  which is not a majority of the Thai electorate

[waldroj]

If this is the OFFICIAL results then they need an urgent recount!

 

We are told above that 50,071,589 people were eligible to vote, and from this total:

• 29,740,677 did vote.
• 16,820,402 voted Yes.
• 10,598,037 voted No.
•      936,209 votes were invalid.

So, what happened to the votes of 1,386,029 people?  (16,820,402 + 10,598,037 + 936,209 = 28,354,648)!!!!!

 

As for the votes for Senators selecting a PM, well I'll let you do the maths on that one (but, I get 26,994,907)!

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

the Thai electorate is 50.5m and 16.5m voted 'yes'  which is not a majority of the Thai electorate

That is what I am saying - we agree. 

The 34m is a majority of the Thai electorate (64%) that refrained from voting Yes. Thus, paradoxically supporting Prayut's belief that the constitution referendum will not fix Thailand's problems.

[jacko45k]

6 hours ago, Alive said:

In a nation of 60-70 million people, 16 million decide the future. I guess those who didn't vote are apathetic to their future or think its a meaningless vote.

Or were too busy doing their homework.

[Alive]

I bet the paperwork and ballots for this vote will disappear by the time a new government takes over. Meanwhile the total number of voters rose slightly. Well, the regime audits itself. That says enough. 

[robblok]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

That is what I am saying - we agree. 

The 34m is a majority of the Thai electorate (64%) that refrained from voting Yes. Thus, paradoxically supporting Prayut's belief that the constitution referendum will not fix Thailand's problems.

 

If you count like that then YL and her minions also never got a majority.  Guess it counts different then. 

[Gweiloman]

If 4 of the top provinces recorded turnouts of over 70% and no province recorded less than 50%, I would have thought that overall turnout would have been above the 59.4% announced. Of course, it all depends on the number of eligible voters in each province in order to have accurate figures.

 

I wonder why turnout was so high in the North (CM, CR, MHS, Tak) and seems rather low in the NE and Bangkok?

[than]

6 hours ago, Alive said:

In a nation of 60-70 million people, 16 million decide the future. I guess those who didn't vote are apathetic to their future or think its a meaningless vote.

 

Read more carefully :  29,740,677 voter decide to go forward against corruption and criminal politician clans

[baboon]

8 minutes ago, than said:

 

Read more carefully :  29,740,677 voter decide to go forward against corruption and criminal politician clans

We can all read from a script. Why don't you give us your insights?

[robblok]

Lets look at this different because all those people moaning and bitching about the amount of votes

 

59,4% * 61,35 = 36,44% This draft so 36,4% of all Thais that could vote voted YES

75 % * 45,2 % = 33,90% of all Thais that could vote voted for Ying Luck   (found the data on the internet and can be verified)

 

So for all the moaners more people voted for the draft YES as ever voted for Yingluck and you guys seemed to have no problems with her leading the country and accepting the vote. Double standards anyone. 

[baboon]

I don't know why there is all this quibbling over the numbers (by both sides). The way I see it, the real numbers we will discover in the weeks and months ahead as events unfold. The numbers and what they mean argument at this point is just quarrelsome chickens pecking at one another over nothing in particular...

[than]

47 minutes ago, baboon said:

We can all read from a script. Why don't you give us your insights?

Always in provocation,

I answer to a user who mentioned that there were only "16 million of voters who supported the yes".

 

Now if Thai were against the draft constitution, they would come en masse to vote no. But to your dismay, they preferred to contradict you.

 

In fact, the mains political parties recognized the result of the voice of the People. And all want to go in general election next year.

 

It's seem that some people are allergic to vote when the results are not in their favor

[robblok]

18 minutes ago, baboon said:

I don't know why there is all this quibbling over the numbers (by both sides). The way I see it, the real numbers we will discover in the weeks and months ahead as events unfold. The numbers and what they mean argument at this point is just quarrelsome chickens pecking at one another over nothing in particular...

What do you mean ? This is the official count do you expect any more. 

 

I only mentioned that YL got even less support than this YES vote because everyone was making fun of the numbers. Now they are all silent. 

 

Though its an other fine mess of Thai reporting when the numbers dont add up  They least people could do is calculate if things add up or not. I am known for shooting to fast at times (i admit it) but even I double check numbers before i send them to clients. Now if I had to make a news report I would triple check my numbers 

[baboon]

 

1 minute ago, than said:

Always in provocation,

I answer to a user who mentioned that there were only "16 million of voters who supported the yes".

 

Now if Thai were against the draft constitution, they would come en masse to vote no. But to your dismay, they preferred to contradict you.

 

In fact, the mains political parties recognized the result of the voice of the People. And all want to go in general election next year.

 

It's seem that some people are allergic to vote when the results are not in their favor

That's a bit more like it. But tell me, where have I shown any dismay at the vote results? What did they contradict me on?

How am I the one being provocative here - It isn't me simply making things up and posting them on here as fact.

 

"It's seem that some people are allergic to vote when the results are not in their favor"

 

And? What about it?

[sjaak327]

58 minutes ago, robblok said:

Lets look at this different because all those people moaning and bitching about the amount of votes

 

59,4% * 61,35 = 36,44% This draft so 36,4% of all Thais that could vote voted YES

75 % * 45,2 % = 33,90% of all Thais that could vote voted for Ying Luck   (found the data on the internet and can be verified)

 

So for all the moaners more people voted for the draft YES as ever voted for Yingluck and you guys seemed to have no problems with her leading the country and accepting the vote. Double standards anyone. 

 

There are a few problems with your post dear Rob, first of all PT received 48.41% of the popular votes, not 45.2, second of all, instead of two choices (Yes or No), that election had 40 parties on the list. 40 choices against just 2. Furthermore, the actual government (yes there was a coalition government) had over 50% of the votes, and 300 out of 500 seats (including the constituency).

 

Of course those elections where free, debate was allowed, campaigning was allowed, fingerprints weren't attached to the ballots either.

Oh ! I forgot, international observers where allowed to follow the complete process at those elections, not at the past referendum, a very important point. It boggles the mind how the south voted in favor of the draft, whilst the democratic party rejected it. Considering the south has been a stronghold of the democrats for decades, I find that hard to believe.

Edited August 11, 2016 by sjaak327

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

There are a few problems with your post dear Rob, first of all PT received 48.41% of the popular votes, not 45.2, second of all, instead of two choices (Yes or No), that election had 40 parties on the list. 40 choices against just 2. Furthermore, the actual government (yes there was a coalition government) had over 50% of the votes, and 300 out of 500 seats (including the constituency).

 

Of course those elections where free, debate was allowed, campaigning was allowed, fingerprints weren't attached to the ballots either.

Sjaak, got it from the internet but even then it is less then the amount of votes the YES vote got. (but thanks for the correction)

 

I am just comparing things because people seem to belittle the amount of votes while they always talk about YL her majority  and she got about the same votes (the PTP) as this yes or no.

 

I believe the redshirts did not seem to think that a coalition government was valid when Abisith formed one. Were you one of those people ?

 

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by robblok

[sjaak327]

Just now, robblok said:

Sjaak, got it from the internet but even then it is less then the amount of votes the YES vote got. (but thanks for the correction)

 

I am just comparing things because people seem to belittle the amount of votes while they always talk about YL her majority  and she got about the same votes (the PTP) as this yes or no.

 

 

You don't get it do you ? Those elections where free, debate was allowed and observers could follow the complete process. There were no laws that could land you in jail for up to ten years if you campaigned for or against, neither were fingerprints attached to the ballots.

 

The point of the low turnover is valid, personally I believe a referendum should have a minimum voter turnout to be considered valid, 59% seems to be on the low side for such a profound choice to be accepted.

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

What do you mean ? This is the official count do you expect any more. 

 

I only mentioned that YL got even less support than this YES vote because everyone was making fun of the numbers. Now they are all silent. 

 

Though its an other fine mess of Thai reporting when the numbers dont add up  They least people could do is calculate if things add up or not. I am known for shooting to fast at times (i admit it) but even I double check numbers before i send them to clients. Now if I had to make a news report I would triple check my numbers 

Rob, I said both sides quibbling about numbers. My post just happened to follow yours and was not solely directed at you.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Rob, I said both sides quibbling about numbers. My post just happened to follow yours and was not solely directed at you.

 

Good enough for me you made no remarks about the numbers you stated that before. 

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

You don't get it do you ? Those elections where free, debate was allowed and observers could follow the complete process. There were no laws that could land you in jail for up to ten years if you campaigned for or against, neither were fingerprints attached to the ballots.

 

The point of the low turnover is valid, personally I believe a referendum should have a minimum voter turnout to be considered valid, 59% seems to be on the low side for such a profound choice to be accepted.

 

As i said more people voted YES than they ever voted for YL. So that is not low at all. Also if you look at previous votes for the constitution its around the same. 

 

You dont get it.. they could have voted NO. They could have voted an masse NO they knew that the PTP was against it that was in the news they did not.  There might not have been a big campaign but the PTP was often enough in the news campaigning against it. They were just not allowed to distort the facts like saying the 30 bath health-scheme would be gone and other lies. Anyone not knowing the PTP was against it and advised a NO must have lived on the moon.

 

They voted YES the total opposite of what the PTP stood for. 

 

I had personally expected a NO vote, probably because i thought the PTP had more power. Lets see november 2017 how they do. After this I am no longer so sure they would win.  

Edited August 11, 2016 by robblok

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

 

As i said more people voted YES than they ever voted for YL. So that is not low at all. Also if you look at previous votes for the constitution its around the same. 

 

You dont get it.. they could have voted NO. They could have voted an masse NO they knew that the PTP was against it that was in the news they did not.  There might not have been a big campaign but the PTP was often enough in the news campaigning against it. They were just not allowed to distort the facts like saying the 30 bath health-scheme would be gone and other lies. Anyone not knowing the PTP was against it and advised a NO must have lived on the moon.

 

They voted YES the total opposite of what the PTP stood for. 

 

I had personally expected a NO vote, probably because i thought the PTP had more power. Lets see november 2017 how they do. After this I am no longer so sure they would win.  

I think I can talk for hours, raising valid points, and you still won't get it.

 

What part of Yes or No against 40 parties don't you get ?

 

What part of debate being disallowed, campaigning being disallowed don't you get ?

 

What part of fingerprints being attached to people's ballot, therefore ensuring the junta knows who voted what don't you get ?

 

You also seem to forget the Democrats have stated they are against it as well, even using terms like "retreat from democracy", yet the South voted Yes, strange very strange. Maybe the lack of observers being allowed to monitor the whole process (including the counting) has something to do with it, another point you didn't get.

 

Finally, the biggest point, and the reason for the low turnover IMHO is there really wasn't anything to choose in this referendum, choose yes and the military retains power, vote no and the military enacts another constitution without referendum, no-one believed that one would be vastly different from the one that was rejected.

 

Oh, and about your point in a previous post that you edited, I have never claimed Abishit's coalition was invalid, alltough it doesn't follow good democratic principles (the big looser should not run the country) and there certainly was a little problem with how that coalition was formed. Something about the army, and a banned politician making it possible in the first place.

 

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

I think I can talk for hours, raising valid points, and you still won't get it.

 

What part of Yes or No against 40 parties don't you get ?

 

What part of debate being disallowed, campaigning being disallowed don't you get ?

 

What part of fingerprints being attached to people's ballot, therefore ensuring the junta knows who voted what don't you get ?

 

You also seem to forget the Democrats have stated they are against it as well, even using terms like "retreat from democracy", yet the South voted Yes, strange very strange. Maybe the lack of observers being allowed to monitor the whole process (including the counting) has something to do with it, another point you didn't get.

 

Finally, the biggest point, and the reason for the low turnover IMHO is there really wasn't anything to choose in this referendum, choose yes and the military retains power, vote no and the military enacts another constitution without referendum, no-one believed that one would be vastly different from the one that was rejected.

 

Oh, and about your point in a previous post that you edited, I have never claimed Abishit's coalition was invalid, alltough it doesn't follow good democratic principles (the big looser should not run the country) and there certainly was a little problem with how that coalition was formed. Something about the army, and a banned politician making it possible in the first place.

 

 

You don't get my valid points either so lets agree not to agree. You see things your way I see things my way.

 

I explained the finger print impossibility already not going to do that again its just not possible to run all those prints (would cost years). then it would certainly come out that the government punishes people and that would even from me and others get condemnation.

 

What part of in Thailand there are only 2/ 3 parties that matter so its almost the same like a yes / now vote your just muddying the water.

 

I know the Democrats (only Abisith) was against it I am not perfectly happy with this constitution either (the senators part) but I have yet to see something everyone is 100% happy with.

 

The low turnover is the same as with previous charter votes and the people could go an mass to say no.

 

So if you agree that Abisith was right to form a government like that then the reds also have removed an elected government.

But we will never agree.. so lets agree not to agree. Better that way.