Jump to content

Why voting “no” has become an issue


webfact

Recommended Posts

Why voting “no” has become an issue

 

Election.jpg

The on-going probe by the Election Commission into a campaign by some of the politicians belonging to the disbanded Thai Raksa Chart Party for voters to “vote no” in the March-24 election has highlighted one important aspect of the poll which until recently was largely overlooked.

 

The ex-TRC members concentrate their campaign in constituencies in which the party had their candidates before it was dissolved at the order of the Constitutional Court on March 7.  Their hope is that there would be enough “no votes” to render elections in these particular constituencies null and void, thus prompting election re-runs.

 

Itthiporn Boonprakong, chairman of the Election Commission, on Tuesday ordered an investigation into the campaign on the grounds that it would be a breach of the law on MP elections.  The ex-TRC members, however, insisted that they are only exercising their democratic rights and have done nothing wrong.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/why-voting-no-has-become-an-issue/

 

 

thaipbs.jpg

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2019-03-15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike in civilized countries , Thai laws are not set in stone.

 

They are written by the elite and are subject to interpretation by them to ensure that they stay on top of the pile.

 

For them , black can be white and visa versa according to the demands of the case.

 

The goal posts are mounted on well greased wheels and can be set on wide or narrow depending on the case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Denim said:

Unlike in civilized countries , Thai laws are not set in stone.

 

They are written by the elite and are subject to interpretation by them to ensure that they stay on top of the pile.

 

For them , black can be white and visa versa according to the demands of the case.

 

The goal posts are mounted on well greased wheels and can be set on wide or narrow depending on the case.

 

 

If US is a civilised country, some of the polls are shown to have been rigged in some states.

Thailand does not worry anymore if some polls are shown to be rigged. It is expected in Thailand. 

No Thai voter expects a corrupt free election, it is what they see every day, it is an accepted part of their lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is an option to vote "no" as indicated at the bottom of the sample ballot paper, then it is as much a democratic right to campaign for that vote as it is to campaign for a particular candidate, in my view.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Better than blocking and intimidating voters at polling stations to force a by-election. No investigation there. 

 

9 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

That were the good guys

Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk
 

 

This certainly is a lot less violent, lot less chances for problems.

 

Bit strange, there is a no box but people can't encourage others to vote no according to the law. Seems they are breaking the law if that law exists, nothing new here politicians and junta at odds about what the law says. 

 

My opinion.. let them try for no votes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Denim said:

Unlike in civilized countries , Thai laws are not set in stone.

 

They are written by the elite and are subject to interpretation by them to ensure that they stay on top of the pile.

 

For them , black can be white and visa versa according to the demands of the case.

 

The goal posts are mounted on well greased wheels and can be set on wide or narrow depending on the case.

 

 

And how is it in your own country then?

You are sure all and everything is completely above board, transparent and definitely not geared to or used by the "elite"?

I am quite certain your vote means nothing to the politicos, big business and their lackeys.

They will just do what they think is needed, for their goals, and will gladly use or neglect your vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hansnl said:

And how is it in your own country then?

You are sure all and everything is completely above board, transparent and definitely not geared to or used by the "elite"?

I am quite certain your vote means nothing to the politicos, big business and their lackeys.

They will just do what they think is needed, for their goals, and will gladly use or neglect your vote.

555, much much better as in Thailand, there are very few countries where it is worse. But I know you are a bloody junta hugger, your postings are suspect and you should be ashamed. People that willingly support a military junta are not to be taken seriously. It is simply indefensible. 

 

I hope the NL does not stand for The Netherlands, if it does, go back to school, we failed miserably at education or so it seems. Disgraceful'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Seems they are breaking the law if that law exists

Such a law may not need exist.

 

If the “vote no” casts are higher than the number of votes won by the winner in a constituency, a new round of voting is required. All votes in that constituency will be nullified and candidates barred from running again in the new election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30364298

 

A "vote no" is provided for in the 2017 Constitution under Section 85 of the 2017 Constitution1:

Each constituency shall elect one member, and each person having a right to vote has the right to cast one vote in an election, where a vote may be cast in favor of any candidate for election, or no candidate all. (my bold emphasis)

 

Representative democracy is about voting for a candidate that in effect is a vote against all other candidates. A general "vote no" is no guarantee that a majority candidate votes will be exceeded nor if the "vote no" does exceed the majority candidate is there any guarantee that a re-run election will give any more favorable substitute candidate according to party ideology. The best and most democratic manner of voting is to vote for a specific candidate.

 

Moreover, in the next election under the Mixed Member Appropriation electoral system all candidate votes are counted towards constituency seats no matter if a particular candidate didn't get a majority. So it would seem that a "vote no" is counterproductive.

 

1Unofficial translation prepared by Legal Opinion and Translation Section, Foreign Law Division under the legal duty of the Office of the Council of State for information purpose only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html

 

NUMBER:2019

AUTHOR:Lewis Carroll (1832–98)

QUOTATION:“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

ATTRIBUTION:LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass,chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

SUBJECTS:Words

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hansnl said:

And how is it in your own country then?

You are sure all and everything is completely above board, transparent and definitely not geared to or used by the "elite"?

I am quite certain your vote means nothing to the politicos, big business and their lackeys.

They will just do what they think is needed, for their goals, and will gladly use or neglect your vote.

 

My country,  for all its faults , does not have an illegitimate military government that snatched power by a coup from the government elected by the people.

 

It has a press that is freer to expose wrongdoing and a judicial system that is vastly superior at dispensing justice than that of Thailands.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Such a law may not need exist.

 

If the “vote no” casts are higher than the number of votes won by the winner in a constituency, a new round of voting is required. All votes in that constituency will be nullified and candidates barred from running again in the new election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30364298

 

A "vote no" is provided for in the 2017 Constitution under Section 85 of the 2017 Constitution1:

Each constituency shall elect one member, and each person having a right to vote has the right to cast one vote in an election, where a vote may be cast in favor of any candidate for election, or no candidate all. (my bold emphasis)

 

Representative democracy is about voting for a candidate that in effect is a vote against all other candidates. A general "vote no" is no guarantee that a majority candidate votes will be exceeded nor if the "vote no" does exceed the majority candidate is there any guarantee that a re-run election will give any more favorable substitute candidate according to party ideology. The best and most democratic manner of voting is to vote for a specific candidate.

 

Moreover, in the next election under the Mixed Member Appropriation electoral system all candidate votes are counted towards constituency seats no matter if a particular candidate didn't get a majority. So it would seem that a "vote no" is counterproductive.

 

1Unofficial translation prepared by Legal Opinion and Translation Section, Foreign Law Division under the legal duty of the Office of the Council of State for information purpose only.

I think they made this law as a better tactic than when the Dems boycotted the 2014 elections. Had this law existed at that time, the Dems would have called to vote NO. It would not only have nullified elections in a lot of places, but would also have prevented a lot of PT figures to candidate again. And of course, the CC would have judged that the Dems were merely exercising their rights....

 

However, they did not think it could be used against them so now they are trying to prevent its use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hansnl said:

And how is it in your own country then?

You are sure all and everything is completely above board, transparent and definitely not geared to or used by the "elite"?

I am quite certain your vote means nothing to the politicos, big business and their lackeys.

They will just do what they think is needed, for their goals, and will gladly use or neglect your vote.

In my country voting is compulsory and the votes are counted within the voting booth, watched and checked by a representative of every candidate and staff of the EC...even votes that are spoiled or illegible are carefully checked by every observer before they are discarded. While the pollies are not honest at least the method of electing them is! By the way the country is Oz!  ✔️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPI said:

In my country voting is compulsory and the votes are counted within the voting booth, watched and checked by a representative of every candidate and staff of the EC...even votes that are spoiled or illegible are carefully checked by every observer before they are discarded. While the pollies are not honest at least the method of electing them is! By the way the country is Oz!  ✔️

Votes in KL last weekend for Thai election.

Many of the EC were on visits abroad learning how to hold fair elections.

voting kl.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I think many Thais are now totally disillusioned, I asked my missus how she will vote, she shrugged and said there is no point, I won't be voting.

Interesting. My GF is keen to vote and even went to city where she lives with me to get an absentee ballot 3 weeks ago. 

but when I asked her how she would vote she says she is voting NO in all cases. I'm unsure of her logic here but honor her choice. 

 

For the first time in my adult life I did not cast a vote for American president in 2016, believing neither candidate to be qualified. In hind sight I should have held my nose and voted for Hillary. The stench would be considerably less than it is today......... Maybe.  I did vote in local and state races but am inclined to believe more and more that it makes no difference.

I personally believe that my country faces too many insoluble problems and is past repair. Some kind of political and social reset is in the cards I'm afraid. But the outcome of that is also not likely to be pleasant. Color me discouraged and pessimistic. 

 

While Thailand has a lot of negative issues they are third world issues and not likely to drag the whole globe down with them. America? Another story I fear. 

 

When I was young an old man often told me he was glad he was on the way out instead of the way in. Now I understand what he meant. 

 

For me: Onward thru the fog. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2019 at 7:22 AM, graemeaylward said:

If there is an option to vote "no" as indicated at the bottom of the sample ballot paper, then it is as much a democratic right to campaign for that vote as it is to campaign for a particular candidate, in my view.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Or just fill in a form (or not) that cannot be counted.

But surely democracy has an obligation to vote, and as you wish to without recrimination.

If you do not vote you are giving tacit approval to ever becomes the incumbent.

 If you do vote and another candidate wins , then you are not in the majority.

True democracy is quite simple really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2019 at 12:13 PM, Srikcir said:

Such a law may not need exist.

 

If the “vote no” casts are higher than the number of votes won by the winner in a constituency, a new round of voting is required. All votes in that constituency will be nullified and candidates barred from running again in the new election. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30364298

 

A "vote no" is provided for in the 2017 Constitution under Section 85 of the 2017 Constitution1:

Each constituency shall elect one member, and each person having a right to vote has the right to cast one vote in an election, where a vote may be cast in favor of any candidate for election, or no candidate all. (my bold emphasis)

 

What happens with no vote, the vote of those who are egible to vote but alegedly decide to not to vote is it counted with anything?

The same question, as the no-show-vote, with 'blanc' vote and unvalid vote (crossed more candidates).

 

Enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...