Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

webfact

Call To 'abort' Constitution Changes Spurs Debate, Warning: Thailand

Recommended Posts

Rather than being encouraged not to vote, they should be encouraged to vote No.

Encouraging the No voters not to vote will only lead to a win for the Yes side.

The above works only if more voters against than for the referendum turn-out to vote.

To vote or not to vote is a two edged sword.

If less than 50% turn out to vote, what ever the count is it is null and void - end of story.

If 51% turn out and the yes vote gets 1 vote more than the no votes - then it is a yes decision, therefore the no voters would have been better staying at home or vice versa depending on your views of the referendum.

The election had a 66% voter turnout. So the Democrats would have to convince more than 16% not to turn up. If they don't, then they've lost. If they run a good vote No campaign, there would be a good chance of winning. I just don't think they can convince enough people not to vote, even if they are voting No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

No. I am not assuming that at all.

What I am saying is that there will still be No voters that vote (ie Vote No). That will be enough to make the referendum valid.

For example, 46 million eligible voters, so 23 million votes required for the referendum to be valid. Lets say 30 million vote, and 15 million each way. So a good No campaign might push that to a No win. If they run a Don't Vote campaign, there would still be 15 million Yes votes, but they have to make sure half the No voters don't actually vote. If they don't get half not to vote, then Yes would win 15 million to 8 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Once again, changing history. The coup didn't unseat any elected government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Thaksin says he feels happy and secure living abroad, making money, running the country by remote control and playing golf........ must be all those bunkers around that make him feel safe..... and so all PTP has to do is to rewrite the constitution so that it doesn't include immunity for anyone convicted for by the due process of law in the courts. That way no one can say it's all for one man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Once again, changing history. The coup didn't unseat any elected government.

What on earth are you talking about? The illegal coup unseated a legally elected government and was anti-democratic. The coup leaders changed the constitution post hoc to legalize their actions and organized a referendum to ratify the constitution. The referendum was widely criticized by international organizations as it was made illegal to campaign against the constitution. The whole thing was a farce. Whatever the merits or not of the the currently proposed changes or whatever the motives behind the proposals, the last constitution is recognized by people that actually know about these things as a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Well yes and no.

It depends, up to a point, on the 'education campaign' about to be mounted by pt / the reds, and they have already said the 'lectures' will not be open / will not be available for open scrutiny.

So you can guess what the content will be - more hate messages and untruths, and they have large prior experience at both.

All this of course running counter to the most important pillars of democracy.

A few Baht tossed in wouldn't be a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about? The illegal coup unseated a legally elected government and was anti-democratic. The coup leaders changed the constitution post hoc to legalize their actions and organized a referendum to ratify the constitution. The referendum was widely criticized by international organizations as it was made illegal to campaign against the constitution. The whole thing was a farce. Whatever the merits or not of the the currently proposed changes or whatever the motives behind the proposals, the last constitution is recognized by people that actually know about these things as a farce.

Err.. wrong... check your facts again matey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about? The illegal coup unseated a legally elected government and was anti-democratic. The coup leaders changed the constitution post hoc to legalize their actions and organized a referendum to ratify the constitution. The referendum was widely criticized by international organizations as it was made illegal to campaign against the constitution. The whole thing was a farce. Whatever the merits or not of the the currently proposed changes or whatever the motives behind the proposals, the last constitution is recognized by people that actually know about these things as a farce.

Check your history. There was no elected government in power at the time of the coup.

I am not talking about the legality of the coup, or anything that the coup junta did. I am just stating the fact that there wasn't an elected government in power at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than being encouraged not to vote, they should be encouraged to vote No.

Encouraging the No voters not to vote will only lead to a win for the Yes side.

The above works only if more voters against than for the referendum turn-out to vote.

To vote or not to vote is a two edged sword.

If less than 50% turn out to vote, what ever the count is it is null and void - end of story.

If 51% turn out and the yes vote gets 1 vote more than the no votes - then it is a yes decision, therefore the no voters would have been better staying at home or vice versa depending on your views of the referendum.

The election had a 66% voter turnout. So the Democrats would have to convince more than 16% not to turn up. If they don't, then they've lost. If they run a good vote No campaign, there would be a good chance of winning. I just don't think they can convince enough people not to vote, even if they are voting No.

The electoral turnout in 2010 was actually 75% of registered eligible voters which is the number that counts. But the comparison with the 2007 is referendum where turnout was 57% is more apt because voting in referendums is not compulsory and voters are a lot more apathetic about them. Hardly any Thais have ever read the Constitution or have much clue what it means. In 2007 both sides had an interest in voting in favour in order to have elections and have a chance to get back into power. Even though the reds didn't like the military inspired constitution, if they had voted it down they would have had to put up with the military installed govt for longer. Today things are completely different as there is side that benefits from a Yes voted being carried and another that doesn't.

Clearly the Dems best strategy is going to be to campaign for a No vote while subliminally suggesting that the best way to go about this is to stay away completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might as well openly campaign for a boycott of the referendum - the Red Government are trying to bury him with a murder charge to force him to accept the amnesty anyway, so he might as well be guilty of something if he has to accept the amnesty ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral turnout in 2010 was actually 75% of registered eligible voters which is the number that counts. But the comparison with the 2007 is referendum where turnout was 57% is more apt because voting in referendums is not compulsory and voters are a lot more apathetic about them. Hardly any Thais have ever read the Constitution or have much clue what it means. In 2007 both sides had an interest in voting in favour in order to have elections and have a chance to get back into power. Even though the reds didn't like the military inspired constitution, if they had voted it down they would have had to put up with the military installed govt for longer. Today things are completely different as there is side that benefits from a Yes voted being carried and another that doesn't.

Clearly the Dems best strategy is going to be to campaign for a No vote while subliminally suggesting that the best way to go about this is to stay away completely.

Yep, sorry, 75%. Which means they need to convince 25% of the eligible voters not to vote.

The Dems best strategy is to campaign for a No vote and make sure they all vote.

If they convince a chunk of No voters to stay away, they're just shooting themselves in the foot. If they can convince No voters to stay away, then they should be able to convince No voters to vote No. Having half the No voters not voting will be a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether to vote to not to vote largely depends on the likely turn-out which is unpredictable. However, if all no voters stay away, then 50% + 1 of the population have to be yes voters, and if this were the case (unlikely) with that many yes votes, it doesn't matter how many of the remaining 50% -1 vote no, the result is a win for yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 26 May 2018 22:33
Sponsors
×