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

[Bob12345]

38 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think its a good idea to have long term strategic goals.. I am not sure in what Thailand you have been living. But I have been living in a Thailand where it changes to be the hub of (name the flavor of the day) on a monthly basis. A bit more long term vision would not be such a bad idea. 

You are not answering his question: would you be happy if it were Thaksin, Charlem, Jutaporn running the strategic committee?

 

Keep in mind that the military will have veto power over about everything that is important (policies, missions, budgets) for 20 (!!!) years.

[farcanell]

10 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

 

Name me a country that prospered under military rule.

And please do not mention China without understanding why China is showing such growth in the past decades.

England

france

germany

rome

greeks

turkey

russia

china

japan

Mongolia

egypt

 

the list is endless, really, especially if you don't specify duration or era.... all of which come to an end, sooner or later. ( sorry... I mentioned china... but I was thinking more about pre communist china)

 

but that's all irrelevant when talking about a voting system. 

 

Keep it simple... one person, one vote..... easy ( then perhaps educate and reform)

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, candide said:

I agree that it is not clear. My guess is that they will add a mechanism in the organic law so that an unelected PM can govern even if he has no parliament majority.

Now let's describe the Junta's style democracy.

In a normal democracy, people vote for a party according to its political platform. If he has the most votes, this party will usually be the government party. The new system first reduces the odds that a party will have enough seats to be in a dominant position, it also provides an incentive for other parties to refuse a coalition as they can ally later with the senate to appoint a good unelected person instead. 

 

Now let's imagine a party gets enough votes to form a government. A government's job is to implement the policies citizens voted for. But it will be the unlected strategy committee (= the Junta), not the government, which will define policies.

So in this system, what do people vote for? A party that likely cannot form a government if it is not of the right political orientation, and anyway cannot apply the political platform he was elected for.

 

On top of it: what happens if the strategy committee is wrong or corrupt and defines bad policies? Can it be voted out? Can it be impeached?

First of as a party has a majority it can form a elect a pm and form a government. If it has not it cannot.. clear or not ?

 

Your guess... is... sounds like you don't know either.. how about we wait and see. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Bob12345 said:

You are not answering his question: would you be happy if it were Thaksin, Charlem, Jutaporn running the strategic committee?

 

Keep in mind that the military will have veto power over about everything that is important (policies, missions, budgets) for 20 (!!!) years.

I am playing the game you played all the time not answering questions.. avoiding.. see how annoying it is.. guess when your on the receiving end its not so much fun. You did this for a long time.. lets see how long I can return the favor. 

[candide]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

First of as a party has a majority it can form a elect a pm and form a government. If it has not it cannot.. clear or not ?

 

Your guess... is... sounds like you don't know either.. how about we wait and see. 

Ok but

First, in the new system, the party with the highest number of votes is less likely to get a majority of votes. That's what the system is designed for. To pave the way for an unelected PM.

 

Second, in case it gets a majority, he will not be able to apply the political platform if the Junta (the strategic committee ) does not agree to it. The strategy committee can impose its policies. 

You are quite mute on the second point. How democratic is a system in which policies are not determined by the political platform people voted for, but imposed by an unlected committee? And what happens if this committee does not choose good policies? What say can the people have?

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

England

france

germany

rome

greeks

turkey

russia

china

japan

Mongolia

egypt

 

the list is endless, really, especially if you don't specify duration or era.... all of which come to an end, sooner or later. ( sorry... I mentioned china... but I was thinking more about pre communist china)

 

but that's all irrelevant when talking about a voting system. 

 

Keep it simple... one person, one vote..... easy ( then perhaps educate and reform)

 

 

Given some of the countries you mention, it calls into to question what the meaning of "prospered" is.

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I am playing the game you played all the time not answering questions.. avoiding.. see how annoying it is.. guess when your on the receiving end its not so much fun. You did this for a long time.. lets see how long I can return the favor. 

The elections are meaningless.  It's a pathetic attempt to appease the UN.  Any "government" that is elected will have NO power.  All executive power will remain in the hands of the Junta in a different guise.  Why keep bashing a point when there really isn't anything to discuss.  The military is in charge for the foreseeable, regardless if there are elections or not. That's it. End of list.  How can you not see that?  It's as plain as day.

[bandito]

No wonder as the majority of Thais asked only education was 4 years basic school.

My 60 years old Thai wife had the same education, 4 years school and then in the workforce, 10 years old.

What do you expect to get for an answer when asking this people about politics?

When voting she goes with a throng of other people and everyone votes for the same one.

When I ask her why did you vote for him or her she answers that everybody did, so she did the same.

I make a wild guess that only poor and uneducated people were asked.

[eeyang wah]

Majority of Thais don’t understand primary numbers, poll finds

[Bob12345]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

I am playing the game you played all the time not answering questions.. avoiding.. see how annoying it is.. guess when your on the receiving end its not so much fun. You did this for a long time.. lets see how long I can return the favor. 

So you want to discuss the content of the primary voting system and as soon as the discussions start (after 80 posts of nonsense) you decide it is time to get back at me by ignoring the question someone else asked?

And that is your great plan?

Next you gonna ignore the red traffic light to annoy me? Makes perfect sense.

 

Unfortunately for you it does not annoy me the slighest because the question was a rhetorical question.

We all know you would never support a strategic committee when led by the "red side", just as most people here do not support a strategic committee led by any side (red, yellow, or green).

Thats because YOU don't show principles, you just want the "red side" punished will all means necessary.

You do not want Thailand to prosper, evolve, become democratic, improve, adopt the rule of law, etc.

You give lip service to these things but whenever possible everything goes out the window to punish Taksin for killing kids in Trat and wasting 800 zillion on the rice "scam".

[robblok]

23 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

So you want to discuss the content of the primary voting system and as soon as the discussions start (after 80 posts of nonsense) you decide it is time to get back at me by ignoring the question someone else asked?

And that is your great plan?

Next you gonna ignore the red traffic light to annoy me? Makes perfect sense.

 

Unfortunately for you it does not annoy me the slighest because the question was a rhetorical question.

We all know you would never support a strategic committee when led by the "red side", just as most people here do not support a strategic committee led by any side (red, yellow, or green).

Thats because YOU don't show principles, you just want the "red side" punished will all means necessary.

You do not want Thailand to prosper, evolve, become democratic, improve, adopt the rule of law, etc.

You give lip service to these things but whenever possible everything goes out the window to punish Taksin for killing kids in Trat and wasting 800 zillion on the rice "scam".

Not really just picking the topic that was mainly the primary voting system and we were drifting off. I found it a good time to show you how it felt to be ignored. 

 

Your simply not as bright as you think if you think that I would not want Thailand to prosper, we just have different ideas about what will lead to prosperity. I live in Thailand have so for the last 10 years and I like it to prosper. It has prospered in my area actually. (bit above BKK) 

 

As for the strategic committee, i think in principle its a good idea, but a lot depends on how much power they have who is in the committee and how rigid they are and what they decide. Just like you had no idea about what will happen with the primary voting system I have no idea how rigid this will be. If they say something like Thailand should strive for green Energy or should be the hub of medical tourism ect then I can live with it because long term goals take a long time to accomplish and you have seen too how Thailand seems to change all the time.. wants to be the hub off.. ect

 

Now f they are restricting governments too bad its a bad idea, if they use their power to infringe on day to day work of a government it would be bad. Now to be honest I dislike the people you mentioned but it depends more on the idea's that are fielded, and how this whole things is going to work. Thaksin is out of course as he belongs in jail, Charlem is an option though I rather not see a drunk and someone who helped his son beat a murder charge in power, Jatuporn is out on terrorism charges if they stick.. then I doubt he is a good candidate too. Now I am sure there are other candidates the reds could field but I would have objections to those. That is akin to asking Suthep in this committee (would not agree with him either). In this comittee there should be people with a good education and economic sense (would not want Prayut in there either). 

 

So are you happy we detoured again from the topic.. primary voting..something proven in other countries..something you can't complain the junta about.. Your like a child only wanting it your way and no other way.l

Edited June 26, 2017 by robblok

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about Egypt have been removed. 

[LannaGuy]

16 hours ago, JAG said:

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).

true but i worry they know this and will rig it out to look like democracy but will set up such a tight system that it's near impossible to alter it and anyone who tried is, obviously, not a democrat!  I'm sure this is their plan

[LannaGuy]

8 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

The elections are meaningless.  It's a pathetic attempt to appease the UN.  Any "government" that is elected will have NO power.  All executive power will remain in the hands of the Junta in a different guise.  Why keep bashing a point when there really isn't anything to discuss.  The military is in charge for the foreseeable, regardless if there are elections or not. That's it. End of list.  How can you not see that?  It's as plain as day.

this

[Bob12345]

As for the strategic committee, i think in principle its a good idea, but a lot depends on how much power they have who is in the committee and how rigid they are and what they decide.

It took you 3 years to notice the army is not after bringing democracy, bringing the country forward, and handing out justice. Almost everybody on TVF pointed it out but you were stubborn and believed this time it would be different because these are the good guys.

And now again. You want to discuss the merits of a voting system and keep thinking this might improve democracy here. But we are all trying to point out to you that the army just tries to give the impression of a democracy while holding on to absolute power.

As far as the strategic committee and its power. Let me be short: they have a veto over about everything. The voting system is, like i mentioned before, like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. No matter the system, the committee rules.

Who will be on the committee? The army of course and its hand selected buddies.

And you support democracy but think the committee is a good idea? That like saying you support a democracy with only 1 candidate with absolute power.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

It took you 3 years to notice the army is not after bringing democracy, bringing the country forward, and handing out justice. Almost everybody on TVF pointed it out but you were stubborn and believed this time it would be different because these are the good guys.

And now again. You want to discuss the merits of a voting system and keep thinking this might improve democracy here. But we are all trying to point out to you that the army just tries to give the impression of a democracy while holding on to absolute power.

As far as the strategic committee and its power. Let me be short: they have a veto over about everything. The voting system is, like i mentioned before, like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. No matter the system, the committee rules.

Who will be on the committee? The army of course and its hand selected buddies.

And you support democracy but think the committee is a good idea? That like saying you support a democracy with only 1 candidate with absolute power.

Love to see the basis of your information, because I am not sure its like you present it to be. Maybe you have some links to back your claims up about the strategic committee. As far as I know not that much is known as of yet. You are painting the worst case scenario. 

[jerojero]

95 percent of the population have no idea what laws have been cancelled, passed, amended, constitution changes. Including anything to do with voting or the so called present gov't activities.

 

 

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Love to see the basis of your information, because I am not sure its like you present it to be. Maybe you have some links to back your claims up about the strategic committee. As far as I know not that much is known as of yet. You are painting the worst case scenario. 

Start from about ten minutes in after all the preamble.

 

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, baboon said:

Start from about ten minutes in after all the preamble.

 

15 minutes after your 10 minute mark still nothing about the committee. Not to mention the guy admits he is no Thailand expert and bases it on a book written by an other foreigner. Given that it takes a time to write a book (say a year) and this vid is from 3 march 2016 how could it have updated information about the strategic committee ?

 

He made some nice points about everyone should be equal under the law.. guess that explains why the reds go after the democrats when they are in power and vice versa.. sounds equal to me. Anyway thank you it was interesting for 15 minutes but did not say much about the topic i wanted to learn more about. 

[baboon]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

15 minutes after your 10 minute mark still nothing about the committee. Not to mention the guy admits he is no Thailand expert and bases it on a book written by an other foreigner. Given that it takes a time to write a book (say a year) and this vid is from 3 march 2016 how could it have updated information about the strategic committee ?

 

He made some nice points about everyone should be equal under the law.. guess that explains why the reds go after the democrats when they are in power and vice versa.. sounds equal to me. Anyway thank you it was interesting for 15 minutes but did not say much about the topic i wanted to learn more about. 

Try watching the whole thing.

[Bill Miller]

Recent experience indicates many Americans do not understand the primary system either, though it has been practised there for quite a while.

It is also a good example of how the primary system does NOT eliminate undue influence of money.

[nasanews]

People don't need to know about the right to vote or human rights in any country as long as the commander in chief is disgusting dictator whether wearing military uniform of wearing best silk.

[robblok]

Try watching the whole thing.

Why if it has no information about the strategic committee i don't see the point. What i see are some foreigners with no real connection to Thailand babbling about the law. Its all pretty abstract especially given how the law is exploited here by all sides. I wanted more info on the strategic committee something that is relatively new and i doubt its being discussed.

[Bob12345]

36 minutes ago, robblok said:

Love to see the basis of your information, because I am not sure its like you present it to be. Maybe you have some links to back your claims up about the strategic committee. As far as I know not that much is known as of yet. You are painting the worst case scenario. 

1. Article 65 of the 2017 constitution requires the state (Nationale Strategy Committee) to come up with national long-term strategy

2. The strategy they come up with becomes the common goal for all government agencies to pursue for at least 20 years

3. The strategy must be in line with the draft bill on national reforms

4. The national strategy binds all government agencies and officials legally. Those not complying will be examined by the NACC

5. Barely anybody in the National Strategy Committee is elected or represents "the people" (possibly the PM, but likely not even he will be directly elected). The NSC consists of army people, the chair of the senate (appointed senate), and some "business people" who represent certain industries.

 

As we all know the NSC will set out a high-level strategy that does not contain much detail. Honestly, it would be impossible and counterproductive to be very specific. Can you imagine 50,000 pages detailing the plans for the coming 20 years? Of course not, it will have high-level statements that are open for interpretation.

 

When a new government comes in they are legally binded to following the strategy (see point 4) while having little to no opportunity to have an influence on the strategy (see point 5). Basically the NSC can shoot down every proposal the new government comes up with claiming is violates point 2. So who really is in power? Well its basically the NSC as they can make the strategy, but actually it is the current government as they have many representatives in the NSC (president of the senate, army chief, navy chief, etc) and the NSC must follow their draft bill on national reforms (see point 3).

 

No matter what you make of it; the current group of people are in charge now and no matter if, when, and how elections take place, they will also be in power after the elections with their veto power over every decision. 

 

As everybody is trying to tell you: they are not going to give up their power by themselves.

The primary voting system is a new way to arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

[LannaGuy]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Love to see the basis of your information, because I am not sure its like you present it to be. Maybe you have some links to back your claims up about the strategic committee. As far as I know not that much is known as of yet. You are painting the worst case scenario. 

 

robblok, bro, they are appointing 200+ unelected to 'oversee' the elected puppets this is common knowledge and part of the constitution  

[robblok]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

robblok, bro, they are appointing 200+ unelected to 'oversee' the elected puppets this is common knowledge and part of the constitution  

I am not saying that this is a good thing, I am looking for some more info on the strategic committee. Its no secret the military will retain some control. How much is to be seen. But I don't see everything with doom and gloom. 

 

I want to know more and i want to see it in the works before I burn it down. 

[Bob12345]

I am not saying that this is a good thing, I am looking for some more info on the strategic committee. Its no secret the military will retain some control. How much is to be seen. But I don't see everything with doom and gloom.   

I want to know more and i want to see it in the works before I burn it down. 

 

Why exactly you give the benefit of the doubt to the junta?

 

Did they in any way do anything that indicates they want to restore democracy or that they are just setting up overseeing committees with veto power only not use them?

As my point 1 showed the already approved constitution DEMANDS the committee to lead the way.

 

Or does the military have such a good track record governing?

 

You wanted reasoning, evidence, etc. Now you have it and you are still not convinced? How much evidence do you need? Its in the freaking constitution!!!

 

All info i used is published by The Nation by the way but i doubt other newspaper are able to give it a different spin.

 

 

 

[Sydebolle]

1200 respondents in a country with 60+ million citizens - hardly a relevant survey. Having said that I honestly start to wonder, what the official education system is doing during the 12 years of mandatory school here in this country. 

Those finished with the official public school programme usually know ........ absolutely nothing.

There is no knowledge of foreign languages nor the ability of handling simple mathematics. Arts and crafts is not on the programme, geography or any other science-related classes properly taught, complete absence of common sense and many have sometimes serious problems with their own language - Thai. There is no skill enhancement either and the only thing they can do is telling you, that a kilogramme (rather than pieces) of plastic bag costs X and a kilogramme (rather than metres) of wire costs Y while you have to turn right after three bus stops (honestly, latter is a not closer specified measurement of distance). 

 

So, is there somebody out there who can enlighten me on what really happens in these classrooms all over Thailand? 

[LannaGuy]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

I am not saying that this is a good thing, I am looking for some more info on the strategic committee. Its no secret the military will retain some control. How much is to be seen. But I don't see everything with doom and gloom. 

 

I want to know more and i want to see it in the works before I burn it down. 

 

ok I'll take you at your word, even though we don't always agree, I think you are sincere but I think you will be gravely disappointed  

 

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

ok I'll take you at your word, even though we don't always agree, I think you are sincere but I think you will be gravely disappointed  

 

 

I have been for a large part compared to how i thought first.. so its not impossible that they disappoint me again.