An Election STRATEGY that could TOPPLE this government.

[scroobal]

The opposition candidates are taking almost life threatening risks to themselves and their family by standing against the PAP. Yet they are treated with skeptism, and often with contempt.
.

Funny why this is so. The other thing that I cannot comprehend is the call for unity among opposition parties. Why is this so? If they have similiar philosophies, they would have been in the same party in the first place. Varity has always been good with views coming from all angles. I remember SDP under Chiam use to focus on HDB matters while WP more welfare and approach on politics.

Despite carving out their respective with no bickering, there is still a call for unity.

I suspect they have little idea about politics even as a voter.

 

[scroobal]

However, you must remember one thing. The PAP is battle hardened and is not stupid. They do an analysis of the previous election results and then they realign the electoral boundaries for the next elections to dilute the opposition's gain and pull in the guaranteed PAP voter areas.
.

They break it down to precints numbering over 50. So grassroots actually can target a precint with just couple of blocks that had a high ratio of opposition votes.

Old man revealed the analysis many elections ago. The government gazette that was recently copied in this forum also showed the breakdown of precints after redrawing.

The issue is analogus to testing the capabilities of 2 kids, one from a rich family who has travelled around and has the resources and the other from the slum with little or no resources.

Does one truly expect both kids to be suave, wordly, presentable and polished.

 

[kakowi]

...
However, you must remember one thing. The PAP is battle hardened and is not stupid. They do an analysis of the previous election results and then they realign the electoral boundaries for the next elections to dilute the opposition's gain and pull in the guaranteed PAP voter areas.

...

Why do you think that the PAP put the elections committee under the PM's office? I am sure you have seen many elections where boundaries are changed at every election and they will only let the opposition know about the new boundaries very near election day. The PAP does all the prep work in the background with the opposition none the wiser. In the words of socceroos, the PAP always make the opposition contest in PAP's "home ground". This is another instance of tweaking the rules of the game so that it is never a level playing field.

The electoral boundaries changes which means that the grassroots efforts of the oppositions may be brought to nought. Also their severe lack of manpower and shortage of advance notice will make it impossible for them to respond effectively.

But you cannot respond by wringing your hands and say that the current way is the best (multiple parties believing in their multiple ideologies, all concentrating on the electorate in different ways with different messages).

Finetuning a way that does not bring you results may not bring you better results. Because fundamentally that way is flawed in response to the PAP's method of containment.

It may be the way for established political economies but the practice of this has not shown any results for the oppositions.

Therefore there is a need to find more effective ways.

..

You must never lose faith in the electorate, especially if you are the oppositions.

They are the ones who will get you in.

..

The way i have shared is one of a common platform, with each of the parties retaining their respective ideologies, but all communicating to the electorate with a common voice.

For the moment, let's assume that this is done.

Two things happen: status quo remains or a more sympathetic electorate emerge.

If it is still status quo, then obviously you would have wasted your time.

If a more sympathetic electorate emerge, then your common voice would have soften the ground.

Even when the electoral boundaries are redrawn, the ground is still soften for you.

..

To summarize, these are options that surfaced:

(1) go for a proportional representation - PAP unlikely to agree to that

(2) continue with multiple parties, multiple platforms - no success to date; you can continue trying but please supporters of these parties, stop quarrelling. But you must set a date where you collectively decide if you want to try something new to increase your chances

(3) give a clear, concise and simple message to the electorate - for that, you need a common platform. Once you gain the understanding of the electorate, no amount of gerrymandering can change that understanding.

 

[Sideswipe]

gerrymandering work perfectly for PAP since they had 66.6% of nationwide votes ( a big majority ) to redraw the electoral boundaries to their advantage.

Just how hard is our oppositions task?
In ROC 2008 Legislative Election, KMT won 80% of constituencies parliamentary seats with 50% nationwide votes. DPP got 20% of seats with 40% nationwide votes.
In Britain.
Labour party won the UK elections in 2005 with 35.3% of votes and 55.2% of seats. Conservative finish second with 32.3% of votes and 30.7% of seats. Liberal Democrat finish third with 22.1% of votes and 9.6% of seats.
I have no ideas on UK political landscape but this is just a example. The Labour and Conservative votes difference is just 3% but it result in Labour 356 to Conservative 198 - a difference of 158 votes.

Our oppositions face a tough and impossible battle to win any constituencies when faced to fight with PAP 66.6% nationwide mandate in first past the post system of election.

PAP in 1963 have won the election with 44% of votes and 75% of seats.

By laws of averages, PAP will not lose control of Parliament ( less than 50% ) unless their 66.6% got reduced by a massive 26.6% to less than 40%. Don't expect the combined opposition to have any significant seats increase unless they can poll 45% of votes ( that's assuming no three way fight in constituencies )

The simple theory apply - reduce the PAP votes majority, they will find it harder to gerrymandering the districts until eventually they will find out this constituency might be lost to the opposition no matter how hard they tried to redraw the boundaries but that constituency might need to be lost to save more constituencies.

 

[kakowi]

...

The simple theory apply - reduce the PAP votes majority, ...

And the question remains: "How to convince the electorate?"


No amount of insults, superior posturing, condemnation can change the minds of the electorate.

Examples had been given of anger in the electorate and yet they vote PAP.

Oppositions supporters view that as cowardice.

Which means nothing the oppositions can do will change the status quo because the electorate is a bunch of cowards.

Is that how you want to play the election game?

 

[Sideswipe]

And the question remains: "How to convince the electorate?"

Is that how you want to play the election game?

well, many opposition supporters are losing hope because PAP gerrymandering the districts looked so effective that the opposition might never win another ward again.

But gerrymandering possibilities is not sure win. When PAP nationwide votes drop, their gerrymandering options get smaller until a time when they realize they will lose another district.

The opposition have tried and failed to convince the electorate that a strong opposition voices is needed in parliament. Have they really failed?
The opposition combined have 33% of the country mandate - 1 in 3 voters wanted a opposition.
In a complete PR system like Israel. We would have 67 PAP MPs and 33 Oppositions MPs fighting it out in Parliament. But in our single winner district election system, it become 82 PAP MPs to 2 Opps MPs.

The election system is unfair, we need to change the voting system. Our opposition need more electoral support but clearly their combined mandate ( 33% ) deserve more seats in parliament and more respect other than the continuous ridicule by their opponents that they are rejected by the peoples.

 

[snrcitizen]

The other thing that I cannot comprehend is the call for unity among opposition parties. Why is this so? If they have similiar philosophies, they would have been in the same party in the first place.

I believe there is a lot of suspicions between the different opposition parties. This is quite understandable given there is very little the PAP will not do to destroy them or at least destroy their credibility with the electorate.

You know, beware of trojan horses.:(

 

[snrcitizen]

The issue is analogus to testing the capabilities of 2 kids, one from a rich family who has travelled around and has the resources and the other from the slum with little or no resources.

Does one truly expect both kids to be suave, wordly, presentable and polished.

Precisely.

 

[snrcitizen]

The electoral boundaries changes which means that the grassroots efforts of the oppositions may be brought to nought. Also their severe lack of manpower and shortage of advance notice will make it impossible for them to respond effectively.

This is but one of the strategies used by the PAP.

But you cannot respond by wringing your hands and say that the current way is the best (multiple parties believing in their multiple ideologies, all concentrating on the electorate in different ways with different messages).

Finetuning a way that does not bring you results may not bring you better results. Because fundamentally that way is flawed in response to the PAP's method of containment.

It may be the way for established political economies but the practice of this has not shown any results for the oppositions.

Therefore there is a need to find more effective ways.

No, I do not believe the opposition parties are wringing their hands otherwise there will be no more opposition parties. On your point about multiple ideologies, refer to my reply #147 to Scroobal.

You must never lose faith in the electorate, especially if you are the oppositions.

They are the ones who will get you in.

Having opposition parties contesting at every election is enough evidence that they have not lost faith in the electorate.

The way i have shared is one of a common platform, with each of the parties retaining their respective ideologies, but all communicating to the electorate with a common voice.

For the moment, let's assume that this is done.

Two things happen: status quo remains or a more sympathetic electorate emerge.

If it is still status quo, then obviously you would have wasted your time.

Yes, I agree. But refer to my msg #147. In every election, I have seen obvious signs of PAP's sleight of hands.

If a more sympathetic electorate emerge, then your common voice would have soften the ground.

Even when the electoral boundaries are redrawn, the ground is still soften for you.

Yes, but this is a BIG if. The PAP understands the character of the majority of voters and what are their short term needs to keep them on their side. The opposition, in contrast, does not have the resources to use tax payers' money to serve their causes in an election.

 

[kakowi]

Ok, i guess all the different ways for an election strategy has been covered.

In the end, the only people who can decide on an election strategy are the opposition leaders themselves.

Let's wish them well.

Cheers

 

[Spirit-Centred]

In the end of the day,its the people who hold the powers in their hand during polling day decide. Strategy or no strategy, if a party is able to win the hearts and minds of the people will receive this power from the people. Opposition party must convince the people why voting pap for another term is not going to steer the economy back in one to two years' time because current recession is quote 'a global disease, not Singapore disease' by PM, the only thing papy can do is to sit out this recessions. So no need new mandate as they still have 3 years of mandate enough for them to sit out.Calling snap election is a waste of time and resources and disturbing those unemployed who earnestly need more time to look for jobs.
Opposition party must also convince the people that voting more alternative MPs into parliament will give a helping hands to the government to find new solutions that the papy never thought of to steer us out of this recession.
This and other constructive issues are what that can wins the hearts and minds of the people.
If fear of oppositions are changed to constructive helps from oppositions, the alternative party will win this electoral battle.

 

[Robert Half]

Well I am not so optimitic on opposition doing well in this coming election :(

 

[The_Latest_H]

Any strategy by any party to focus on ideological purity, and not on winning a majority of votes in the long term, is a losing strategy, period.

I mean how did Barack Obama win? Win all the blue states, liberal and democrat and hope to win Florida or Ohion in a whisker at 4am on Nov 5th? Get a purity of liberal-leftists to support him only?

He won the election handily in the Electoral College count because he won formerly Republican states like Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana and Ohio, and won back moderate conservatives from both parties.

In the same way, if we just focus on ideological purity, then I am, for sure, believe its a losing strategy. In any election, our goals is to increase our share of the votes, to the point we are mostly on the verge of going beyond 51%. If we don't do that, everything is pointless.

Now, we can compromise on strategy to win elections, while recognising that we cannot compromise our main, basic principles in order to win. At the same time if our record is nothing but a bunch of "glorious defeats", then we aren't going anywhere in the long run. We cannot have just people in jail and think that is a victory. Its not. We have to look long term and win seats in Parliament. That's where the power is, and if we don't have a certain level of power within Parliament, the PAP isn't gonna bargain with us fairly.

 

[yellow_people]

Any strategy by any party to focus on ideological purity, and not on winning a majority of votes in the long term, is a losing strategy, period.

An ideology is a set of aims, ideas and a comprehensive vision especially in politics. Obama's "Vote for Change" for example is a comprehensive vision. He campaigned 2 years on his vision and articulated his aims and ideas. You do not win hearts and minds let alone majority votes without an ideology. Having George W Bush around certainly helped but that alone is not enough regardless of how inept the incumbent may be. An ideology informs the people and electorate what the candidate or party (democratic or republican) stands for or believe in.


I do not know how the strategy of winning votes without an ideology works... you need to explain this one!!! (what does the party and candidate stand for), other than a short term tactic of just going with the flow (eg: we are opposition so vote for us) or simply hoodwinking the electorate (do nothing in the long term interest of the people or nation and argue on piece meal policies instead and appleasement of the governing party).

We will be able to take on the PAP in 20 years time is an example of an ideology to be fair but I don't think it will go down too well with the electorate.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Yellow

A more comprehensive definition of a political ideology follows, Obama's vote for change is not an ideology per say but a "campaign slogan" In ideological terms Obama is more liberal and G Bush more conservative and that defines the two individuals and their slogans. " " We will not be able to take on the PAP for power for twenty years" is not an ideology but rather an analysis of one's ability to challenge for political domination and at most part of a parties manifesto. The PAP in ideological terms remains right wing conservative, free market and pragmatic, the opposition parties, idealist, liberalist and left of centre preaching greater involvement by the state

"Many political parties base their political action and programme on an ideology. In social studies, a Political Ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them.




Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Ha ha! Been away for awhile but I note things in this political cowboy town have not changed

Back to the topic at hand, my heart would love to see TP GRC fall not just because of LKY but also all those CBL PAP guys and gals hiding behind LKY's apron strings all these years since the GRC system came about, in particular that arrogant lame LKY mouth piece Khoo Tsai Kee:oIo: But my head says that shall never happen barring some unforeseen unlikely circumstances. Same goes for LHL's GRC. You may bring down the popular vote by afew % points but other then that no cigar. This strategy won't work same goes for the boycott for reasons that have been elaborated on in the old forum umpteen times to the point of ad nauseum.

As for ground sentiment, I maybe mistaken but from what I have read and seen on my return, I think the critical issue is whether Budget 09 and probable ex budget 09 fiscal/monetary measures shall be able to sweeten the ground that coupled by the electorate's fear of this terrible recession which shall probably get much worse by the end of this year and onto next year as well. All other cockups by the PAP government may not register on voters minds with signicant impact come polling time.

Unfortunately barring a huge whopping PAP government cockup (not that what GIC and Temasek did with the big financials and MSK affair are not fiascos in themselves, same goes for the economic model and FTs, but I doubt these shall make the impact required because of the present economic situation) I actually think that the PAP shall win by a bigger margin this time round and I say this with a heavy heart and hope to be proven wrong.:(

Cheers

As one well regarded forummer put it - vote anyone including a bicycle thief to reduce PAP seats and get their attention.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Err I thought Phil started out with Robert Wang & Woo

You got to salute old man - he always new how to keep his enemies close by. No one was surprised when Philip Jeyaretnam began his legal life in a form founded and run by the wife of a PAP cabinet member.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes, I read a fascinating public dialogue session between her (amongst other intellectuals) and the late Rajaratnam organised by a tertiary student's political club in the early 70s where she held her own in a critical and constructive manner. Fast forward 30 plus years later and sad to say she now appears to have sold her soul just like many others before including David Marshall. LKY sure knows the measure of most Singapore intellectuals:( Ironically and sadly her critique of the PAP government 30 years ago still holds true today, nothing much in substance has changed.

Btw who is her ex hubby?

She was and is indeed a very bright person. Such talent wasted on diplomacy as opposed to policy making. Her ex-husband is also another critic but has not yielded.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Interesting, but where to find such bold courageous sound young whipper snappers?

Actually I have a differing recommendation. Send a team of young, earnest , professionals against LKY in T Pagar. Another suicide squad aka AMK , but its not meant to win rather its designed to tempt LKY to over react against a younger team. Something along the lines of that young journalist but on a national political scale, none of that young fire brand name calling activists type , but rather disciplined professionals with a concise disciplined message giving due respect to old man but always disagreeing.


Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps you should look at the possible larger macro strategy instead, that is if this young group of whipper snappers are able to push LKY's buttons and make a mess of things like he did in the James Gomez affair.

I see where you are coming from. I still think they will lose their deposit. Tanjong Pagar residents are a specially treated lot. If you find that category of candidates, might as well put them in AMK.



.