Thai Parliament dissolved, new elections underway

[minionofmidas]

Elsewhere people are protesting for free elections. In Thailand they're protesting against them.

Of course, the point - the point Italians are grappling with too - is that free elections aren't enough. You need safeguards against corrupt businessmen opening up a politics sideline. (That his administration's behavior  has helped Thaksin's corporations' value is the main beef for the protesters, really.)

Thaksin has said he'd resign if his party polls under 50% or if turnout is under 50% - that of course in order to salvage some political capital from the spectacle.
But if NOTA is only just ahead in (most parts of)Bangkok, and turnout is down only slightly, expect him to win big. As he would have without the boycott.

[minionofmidas]

What the hell else was he supposed to do?

[minionofmidas]

And suddenly it all made sense...including the resignation itself. Thanks, ag.

[minionofmidas]

The Constitutional Court just nullified the election results and has called for new ones: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/asia/web.0508thai.php

Looks like we'll finally get relatively fair elections now hopefully, and best of all, without Thaksin.

I don't think that an election without the man who would likely have won months ago even if the opposition had run can be described, with a straight face, as "fair".

[minionofmidas]

The Constitutional Court just nullified the election results and has called for new ones: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/asia/web.0508thai.php

Looks like we'll finally get relatively fair elections now hopefully, and best of all, without Thaksin.

I don't think that an election without the man who would likely have won months ago even if the opposition had run can be described, with a straight face, as "fair".

What is your definition of a "fair election"?

Hmm... (note that the above post contains some hyperbole, and was mostly to dissuade others from gloating) the full bill not really attained anywhere in the world would be
unbiased media
roughly equal campaign money for all the wellpolling parties (obviously neither of these applied to Thaksin's wins either), donations well-regulated and extremely well-documented
if it's a parliamentary election: some sort of pr, and preferably an actual requirement for any resulting governing coalition to have received over 50% of valid votes
all the obvious stuff about nonpartisan election supervision, no ballot stuffing etc
no serious candidates disbarred from running (no matter whether that's due to a high deposit, a term limit, an age threshold, a birthplace requirement, or just a blatant piece of election rigging)
and certainly no thinly veiled coup threats to keep anyone from being a candidate.
Oh, and frequent elections. I tend to prefer a three year term myself - four or five years is actually awfully long, yet the US House's two years seem a wee bit short at least under the current campaign arrangements (they're basically campaigning nonstop).

[minionofmidas]

You clearly have a challenging definition . Unfortunately, full compliance would, in most cases, result in prolonged periods of no government whatsoever (frequent elections + PR + 50% vote requirement to establish a government - unless the country is as homogenous as a single rural Norwegian province, this is a recipe for a disaster). In fact, I would conjecture, that a fairly democratic country in your definition wouldn't have a government most of the time . Furthermore, who forms the government - when this actually happens - would, most of the time, be determined not by by the voter preferences but either by chance or by some unelected authority, such as an electoral commission (there are, in fact, very solid theoretical grounds why that's would be the case). 

The electoral commission? How so? (Oh and btw - inability to form a stable government is nothing a stable country can't handle. Hessen didn't have one for about two years in the early 80s. )