Majority of Thais don’t understand primary voting system, poll finds

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Bob12345 said:

Great reponse from someone who just deflected a valid question asked by SmarterThanYou with a "is that what happens in the US?".

 

LOL

That system is commonly used there. Does it result in the claimed effects?

[Smarter Than You]

Just now, halloween said:

That system is commonly used there. Does it result in the claimed effects?

How many small parties have members in Congress?

 

Bet you don't know because all you care about is toeing the Junta line.

 

Next thing you know one of you guys will be praising Hitlers Germany as an economic wonder to be emulated.

[Bob12345]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

That system is commonly used there. Does it result in the claimed effects?

Is the US equal to Thailand?

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

How many small parties have members in Congress?

 

Bet you don't know because all you care about is toeing the Junta line.

 

Next thing you know one of you guys will be praising Hitlers Germany as an economic wonder to be emulated.

Why don't you state your real objection? Thaksin wouldn't like it.

[connda]

Most voting systems globally aren't meant to be understood.  

[Smarter Than You]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Why don't you state your real objection? Thaksin wouldn't like it.

The primary aim of any voting system should be that the outcome of an election accurately reflects the will of the voters.

 

Could you, hand on heart, say that this is the principle that is guiding the Junta as it sets up its gerrymander?

 

They are doing all they can to ensure that the the results of elections do not reflect the will of the people - including unnecessarily over complicating the process.

 

Why do you think the democracy plaque has gone missing?

Are the Junta going to replace it with a more perfect plaque or do they just not want democracy?

[CharlieK]

Once they get paid for their vote they will understand! 

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

The primary aim of any voting system should be that the outcome of an election accurately reflects the will of the voters.

 

Could you, hand on heart, say that this is the principle that is guiding the Junta as it sets up its gerrymander?

 

They are doing all they can to ensure that the the results of elections do not reflect the will of the people - including unnecessarily over complicating the process.

 

Why do you think the democracy plaque has gone missing?

Are the Junta going to replace it with a more perfect plaque or do they just not want democracy?

"They are doing all they can to ensure that the the results of elections do not reflect the will of the people - including unnecessarily over complicating the process."

 

That's the key point. They don't do it for altruistic purpose. It is part of a whole set of mechanisms to weaken political parties and the role of democratic vote, in order to be able to pick themselves the next PM.

[JAG]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

and appointing senators and giving yourself amnesty knowing, one day, the tables will turn  

Hmm yes, although I do wonder about the amnesty. If this all ends some way down the road with a precipitous ousting of the current regime by some form of popular uprising, resulting in a government installed, either by election (I hope) or by a protest movement then I suspect that this amnesty will mean little. The same can be said for being an appointed senator. Both rely upon the government of the day being "on side". Since this bunch most obviously have no intention of going voluntarily, and the customary "arbitration  channel" which has previously arranged smooth(ish) transitions no longer exists I rather suspect that their replacements won't heed the amnesty, or the roars from the dinosaur enclosure (appointed senate).

Edited June 25, 2017 by JAG

[Retiredandhappyhere]

So, 75% did not understand the Primary Voting System but close to 50% voted for it anyway.  

 

That explains quite a lot about Thailand's future plans for democracy and the Junta is doing its best to ensure that the 75% remains in relative ignorance, by means of constant changes to a system voted on in the referendum followed by obscure and often ambiguous Government statements supposedly meant to explain the meaning of them.  Usually followed up by further statements to clear up the public's misunderstandings claimed to be caused by persons of ill-intent and irresponsible media.

 

Does anybody really know what is going on with the Road Map, the Constitution, the Election etc etc.

 

However, we are well informed about the actual purchase of the tanks, personnel carriers and the submarines, even if contract details and their effect on what most people believe is a somewhat precarious economy is less lucid, if even known. 

[stephen tracy]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes it prospered for quite some time years before it started that war. You know how bad the economy was there. Its not a ringing endorsement. China is but Bob was telling me what i could and could not answer kinda like a little dictator. 

Well, as you seem so enamoured with little dictators, you'd probably get along like a house on fire!

[stephen tracy]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Ill mirror it back to you.. how much did YL do.. did she not appoint all her family members in positions of power ? Thaksin did the same thing but on an even larger scale.

 

Now do you get it, democracy does not work when there is a patronage system. 

 

And yes dear leader did the same bad things.. 

 

But we were talking about democracy and the patronage system.. in the patronage system you do what those higher up tell you too.. so you don't think you vote how they tell you to vote.. in a democracy you need to think for yourself. Yes or No ?

So what your saying is - in addition to being pro-democracy - is that democracy doesn't work in a patronage system and as Thailand has patronage system, it therefore can not have democracy,  meaning it must stick to the patronage system?  And the patronage system must only be managed by traditional patronage system? ie. the military and the elites? It's all very confusing now.

[stephen tracy]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

You put a question and then removed the most successful non democratic country from the answers. Not really fair. I could go on about Germany but that only suits your purpose because you dread debating the real topic at hand. There are also hundreds of failed democracies.. mainly in Africa and South America.. only places where Democracies seem to work good (with exceptions) is in Europe and North America.

Only North America and Europe... what about Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, Japan, Tunisia (recently), Dominican Republic, Bhutan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Indiaould go on

[robblok]

26 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

So what your saying is - in addition to being pro-democracy - is that democracy doesn't work in a patronage system and as Thailand has patronage system, it therefore can not have democracy,  meaning it must stick to the patronage system?  And the patronage system must only be managed by traditional patronage system? ie. the military and the elites? It's all very confusing now.

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn to read, i said it works less good in a patronage system. I never said there should be no democratic system. I said that it works worse as in a country where people are more educated and think for themselves. I know in history that the Church told people how to vote.. not really a good thing either. People should think for themselves and not be forced to vote how their bosses want them to vote. So the problem is the patronage system making it work worse here. I never said I did not want to have no democracy. I said a few times, more then a few actually I want the junta to be gone. 

[Bob12345]

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn to read, i said it works less good in a patronage system.

Post #68: "now do you get it democracy does not work when there is a patronage system".

Maybe you should start learning how to read and write...

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

Post #68: "now do you get it democracy does not work when there is a patronage system".

Maybe you should start learning how to read and write...

Maybe, but I am not a native English speaker.. care to debate in my language.. i wonder how many languages you speak. 

 

You deflect deflect and deflect.. when will you debate the primary voting system. 

[Bob12345]

 

Maybe, but I am not a native English speaker.. care to debate in my language.. i wonder how many languages you speak. 

 

You deflect deflect and deflect.. when will you debate the primary voting system. 

You want to debate the primary voting system while having trouble with a sentence like "democracy does not work here"?

 

Come on.

 

Sometimes its better to just admit your mistake instead of trying to save face.

[Redline]

Everything is too troublesome and complicated

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

 

 

You want to debate the primary voting system while having trouble with a sentence like "democracy does not work here"?

 

Come on.

 

Sometimes its better to just admit your mistake instead of trying to save face.

What i made it quite clear a number of times I want the junta gone and I want elections. I just feel that the democracy is not working here as good as in the west. Is it that hard to admit that the democracy here is a mere schade of that in the west ? 

 

Now come on have a debate.. seems you are using all you can not to debate the primary voting system. What are you afraid of that you cant find enough arguments to shoot it down and have to admit its a good idea by the junta. 

[halloween]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

What i made it quite clear a number of times I want the junta gone and I want elections. I just feel that the democracy is not working here as good as in the west. Is it that hard to admit that the democracy here is a mere schade of that in the west ? 

 

Now come on have a debate.. seems you are using all you can not to debate the primary voting system. What are you afraid of that you cant find enough arguments to shoot it down and have to admit its a good idea by the junta. 

I think your phrasing was off, should have been democracy HAS not worked well here. it certainly needed radical change over what eventuated. but you are wasting your time waiting for those who will never endorse a junta initiative to admit a reasonable idea has come from them, even if it might stop the likes of Chalerm from being DPM. Not what you would call Thai democracies finest hour.

[candide]

23 minutes ago, robblok said:

What i made it quite clear a number of times I want the junta gone and I want elections. I just feel that the democracy is not working here as good as in the west. Is it that hard to admit that the democracy here is a mere schade of that in the west ? 

 

Now come on have a debate.. seems you are using all you can not to debate the primary voting system. What are you afraid of that you cant find enough arguments to shoot it down and have to admit its a good idea by the junta. 

This system has surely advantages and drawbacks that can be discussed, as well as the different versions of primary elections (from what I understand, they don't impose the same system as in the USA). To me there are two other more important issues.

The first is why must a system be imposed to parties (on top of it by a government without mandate from the people)? Why can't they choose themselves how to nominate their candidates? Up to my knowledge, in other democratic countries, it is usually the parties who decide it. For example, in France, some parties decided to use a primary voting system, while others did not.

 

The second, as already mentioned, is that it is a piece of a broader framework to weaken political parties and reduce the impact of people's voting. That's why I am against it, because I am against the whole framework.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

I think your phrasing was off, should have been democracy HAS not worked well here. it certainly needed radical change over what eventuated. but you are wasting your time waiting for those who will never endorse a junta initiative to admit a reasonable idea has come from them, even if it might stop the likes of Chalerm from being DPM. Not what you would call Thai democracies finest hour.

The thing is democracy here seems to end after voting.. then all accountability, transparency and all other stuff ends and they bully their enemies around. The goverment official that came out with figures over the rice program got sued and bullied, the democrat that came with rotting rice was threatened to be charged with theft. That is not how a democracy works, if there are problems with programs you don't bully the opposition you give them the data and you debate things. Secret votes are also not done in a real democracy. 

 

Not to mention my problem (with all governments here) and corruption, seems the NACC and others make a lot of headlines on corruption cases and then it all dies down. When you don't hold people accountable and when you don't make them pay back money they stole nothing will ever change here. 

[robblok]

Just now, candide said:

This system has surely advantages and drawbacks that can be discussed, as well as the different versions of primary elections (from what I understand, they don't impose the same system as in the USA). To me there are two other more important issues.

The first is why must a system be imposed to parties (on top of it by a government without mandate from the people)? Why can't they choose themselves how to nominate their candidates? Up to my knowledge, in other democratic countries, it is usually the parties who decide it. For example, in France, some parties decided to use a primary voting system, while others did not.

 

The second, as already mentioned, is that it is a piece of a broader framework to weaken political parties and reduce the impact of people's voting. That's why I am against it, because I am against the whole framework.

The thing is that here it would work like a charm breaking the power of people like Thaksin that want to rule their party and decide all the stuff. Also here it would mean that people have more control over their MP's and so they must be popular and will be held accountable by the people. Its a step up from how it goes now. 

 

Why it has to be decided top down is because we seen how wrong things can go here when the politicians have too much power. This will diminish their power and give more to the people. Do you really think that if this was put to a vote the political parties would support something that would diminish their power they would do whatever they could to sway the electorate to vote how they want to. Now is a good time to make changes by a junta especially if the changes are good. A good thing about a junta is that they can do things that are good for the country but unpopular. (that is how i saw them at first.. but they have proved themselves to not only work for the good of the country but for themselves kinda like the politicians)

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Maybe you need to go back to school and learn to read, i said it works less good in a patronage system. I never said there should be no democratic system. I said that it works worse as in a country where people are more educated and think for themselves. I know in history that the Church told people how to vote.. not really a good thing either. People should think for themselves and not be forced to vote how their bosses want them to vote. So the problem is the patronage system making it work worse here. I never said I did not want to have no democracy. I said a few times, more then a few actually I want the junta to be gone. 

But by that reasoning, if you want the junta gone and they go, will they not just be replaced with a politicians who practice the system of patronage?

[metisdead]

An off topic baiting post has been removed. 

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

But by that reasoning, if you want the junta gone and they go, will they not just be replaced with a politicians who practice the system of patronage?

Perhaps what they meant is that they want the Dem Party to win with help from coalition parties strong armed by the military. So long as Thaksin and his parties don't win. 

[Bob12345]

Now come on have a debate.. seems you are using all you can not to debate the primary voting system. What are you afraid of that you cant find enough arguments to shoot it down and have to admit its a good idea by the junta. 

What i am afraid of?

 

This proposal goes further than the basic explanation given in the newspaper. This is not something you summarize in a paragraph and say its good or bad. The devil is in the details. The system might be good but one tweak in implementation and the country will be doomed.

 

I think nobody here is able to discuss this system as none of us has studied this subject in details together with Thai history and how Thai society works.

 

I would like professors of political science at Thai universities debate this together with politicians, historians, foreign professors, political science researchers, constitutional experts, lawyers, etc.

 

But unfortunately that is not happening.

 

Someone up high came up with this as a way to hold on to power and then they instructed all their minions to rubber stamp it.

[Eric Loh]

My bit on the primary voting system.

First I think it is a election delaying tactic. New laws will have to be written as the current law for new poll after house is dissolved is mandated within 45 days. Simple not enough time to hold a primaries for voters. So new laws and more delays. 

 

Second it is a waste of money for party list candidates destined for ministerial roles. MPs will have to resign from their posts to take up

ministerial roles. New primaries and election will have to be re-held and a waste of tax payer money. 

[candide]

37 minutes ago, robblok said:

The thing is that here it would work like a charm breaking the power of people like Thaksin that want to rule their party and decide all the stuff. Also here it would mean that people have more control over their MP's and so they must be popular and will be held accountable by the people. Its a step up from how it goes now. 

 

Why it has to be decided top down is because we seen how wrong things can go here when the politicians have too much power. This will diminish their power and give more to the people. Do you really think that if this was put to a vote the political parties would support something that would diminish their power they would do whatever they could to sway the electorate to vote how they want to. Now is a good time to make changes by a junta especially if the changes are good. A good thing about a junta is that they can do things that are good for the country but unpopular. (that is how i saw them at first.. but they have proved themselves to not only work for the good of the country but for themselves kinda like the politicians)

Refering to the whole framework (this is only a piece of it), the problem is that the aim is not to give more power to the people. It is to give more power to unelected people than to elected people, by different mechanisms, including this one.

The intent of the Junta has never been to give more lower to people.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

My bit on the primary voting system.

First I think it is a election delaying tactic. New laws will have to be written as the current law for new poll after house is dissolved is mandated within 45 days. Simple not enough time to hold a primaries for voters. So new laws and more delays. 

 

Second it is a waste of money for party list candidates destined for ministerial roles. MPs will have to resign from their posts to take up

ministerial roles. New primaries and election will have to be re-held and a waste of tax payer money. 

I could fix most of your problems in 2 easy steps.

1/ Abandon the party list, every MP fronts an electorate which examines his/her history and character. No more unelectable criminal scum appointed to high office.

2/ Cabinet members are selected from MPs and senators who retain their seat - standard Westminster system. No more appointing cronies, family members and yes-men.