% of Singaporeans who voted for PAP for the last 9 Elections

[scroobal]

These are % of Singaporeans who voted for the PAP since 1972 over 9 General Elections based on the number of eligible voters for the whole of Singapore.

Many Singaporeans as you know have never voted due to walkovers but the cause of the walkovers are seen by some as people not keen to take part in politics and others who believe that PAP has put unreasonable obstacles for free and fair eledctions.

1972 - 57% voted for PAP out of total electorate voters including those in walkover seats who were not given an opportunity to vote.
1976 - 53%
1980 - 38%
1984 - 38%
1988 - 50%
1991 - 28%
1997 - 24%
2001 - 23%
2006 - 33%

Guess what happened in 1988, when the "popularity" of PAP shot up sky high.

 

[Ramseth]

In 1988, PAP won all seats except Potong Paisr, and Francis Seow ran road.

 

[Gallego99]

The PAP scums made the uneven playing field not playable by modifying the electoral boundaries in 88.

 

[scroobal]

On track, more specifically.......

The PAP scums made the uneven playing field not playable by modifying the electoral boundaries in 88.

 

[BlueCat]

most parties in the world who are in power will do it.
not only here,but also in US.
that is the advantage of being in power.
PAP does it every election.

but we can see some changes,especially those born in 80's onwards,they are willing to accept changes as they being much more well-informed and internet sarvy.

 

[wendypoh]

These are % of Singaporeans who voted for the PAP since 1972 over 9 General Elections based on the number of eligible voters for the whole of Singapore.

Many Singaporeans as you know have never voted due to walkovers but the cause of the walkovers are seen by some as people not keen to take part in politics and others who believe that PAP has put unreasonable obstacles for free and fair eledctions.

1972 - 57% voted for PAP out of total electorate voters including those in walkover seats who were not given an opportunity to vote.
1976 - 53%
1980 - 38%
1984 - 38%
1988 - 50%
1991 - 28%
1997 - 24%
2001 - 23%
2006 - 33%

Guess what happened in 1988, when the "popularity" of PAP shot up sky high.

It did look like the PAP is losing popularity and they were able to hold on to the government largely because of the GRCs.

If they do not sweeten the ground, they will surely lose more seats next election.

 

[scroobal]

Incumbency has its privileges. These privileges left unchecked leads to abdication of power by the electorate to a cartel few. Thats the reason I asked in previous thread on the same subject, name those countries that have
1) higher walkover ( % of pop eligible to vote but not given the opportunity)
2) higher desposit than singapore
3) features such as GRC

So far non has been named. One forumer however thought he was comparing apples with apples and does not seem to be mathematically inclined. Another mistook GRC with proportional representation and he is with the opposition.

I have not touched on gerrymandering where Hougang has a Marine Parade Area Office.

Can you name a 1st world country or even a 3rd world democratic country in a similar position. These are creepijng changes that tend to be missed over time.

The key is to identify these unfair advantges and shame the MPs. I can tell you for a fact that not all MPs of the ruling party has access to deep dive analysis by precint, ward and demographics.

most parties in the world who are in power will do it.
not only here,but also in US.
that is the advantage of being in power.
PAP does it every election.

but we can see some changes,especially those born in 80's onwards,they are willing to accept changes as they being much more well-informed and internet sarvy.

 

[scroobal]

Spot on - GRC was introduced for the 1st time for the 1988 elections and some person thought it was proportional representation at work while the PAP claimed that minorities might not be electable. This is despite that singaporeans voting minority candidates standing in wards where the majority were in substantial numbers.

It did look like the PAP is losing popularity and they were able to hold on to the government largely because of the GRCs.

.

 

[SamuelStalin]

These are % of Singaporeans who voted for the PAP since 1972 over 9 General Elections based on the number of eligible voters for the whole of Singapore.

Many Singaporeans as you know have never voted due to walkovers but the cause of the walkovers are seen by some as people not keen to take part in politics and others who believe that PAP has put unreasonable obstacles for free and fair eledctions.

1972 - 57% voted for PAP out of total electorate voters including those in walkover seats who were not given an opportunity to vote.
1976 - 53%
1980 - 38%
1984 - 38%
1988 - 50%
1991 - 28%
1997 - 24%
2001 - 23%
2006 - 33%

Guess what happened in 1988, when the "popularity" of PAP shot up sky high.

In 1988 people were heavily into fashion, 8-bit Nintendo and Game & watch games, having fun (after all the 1985 stock market crash had rebounded), and their thoughts were largely on those stupid useless dumb nerds called the Centrepoint Kids, glue sniffers, Adrian Lim (the case was still ongoing), the AIDS scare (first reported case in '87), playing guitars at the Sentosa beaches, paging each other like crazy and the schoolboys who were kidnapped and were lost but never found.

But for you during that year you are probably fucking yourself over and over. You are that special.

 

[jw5]

Can anyone remember which year was it when they considered giving 3 votes to some people and 1 vote to others?

 

[scroobal]

Very insightful of you. Thats a singificant chestnut.

Old man raised this around the time of the new presidential elections in 1993. This was also after the 1991 elections when only 28% of Singaporeans voted for the PAP in the then last GE of 1991. The lowest score ever.

He suggested that mature people with mimimum standard of education be given 3 votes and new voters 1 vote.

What was not said was that, precint analysis and focus group research indicated that the young ones were voting opposition.

Its was replaced by increasing the GRC seat numbers.

That floated balloon was not taken up after it appeared difficult to couch and justify as a feature of democracy compared to other bullshit such as high deposit, GRC, Racial housing quotas etc.

Can anyone remember which year was it when they considered giving 3 votes to some people and 1 vote to others?

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

The whole of S'pore MUST be contested in the next Erections.
​

 

[Equalisation]

For this coming election, I predict the 66% of PAP votes will drop to 56% if we only use the actual economic standing or his perception of it, as a voter as the single most important factor in the decision of vote.

I gauge that the top 40% will still vote PAP as they are still well to do or perceive themselves as well to do. However, those from the 41st percentile to the 66th percentile, there may actually be a decrease in their economic sranding or the perception of it. Let's say half of this 26% vote opposition. This means there will be a shift of 13%. Hence 66% - 13% = 53%.

Howver, of the 33% poor, there may be a 3% change for those who move abit up the economic ladder.

Hence 53% plus 3% = 56%.

 

[jw5]

Very insightful of you. Thats a singificant chestnut.

Old man raised this around the time of the new presidential elections in 1993. This was also after the 1991 elections when only 28% of Singaporeans voted for the PAP in the then last GE of 1991. The lowest score ever.

He suggested that mature people with mimimum standard of education be given 3 votes and new voters 1 vote.

What was not said was that, precint analysis and focus group research indicated that the young ones were voting opposition.

Its was replaced by increasing the GRC seat numbers.

That floated balloon was not taken up after it appeared difficult to couch and justify as a feature of democracy compared to other bullshit such as high deposit, GRC, Racial housing quotas etc.

Giving some people 3 votes and others 1 vote would have been the biggest travesty of democracy and equality ever.
But despite all our discussion about the % of pap votes, unfortunately, we still have to respect the voting results. It's undeniable that more Singaporeans have decided to vote pap than alternative over the years, despite the winning %. Nobody held a gun to their heads, yet these Singaporeans decided to vote pap. I don't think having a few bigwigs loitering around the voting venue counts, the voters could still have voted the other way. Despite grcs, changing the boundaries, little pre-election baits, threats of unrest and uncorruption, etc etc, the voters could still have voted alternative.
Why haven't they done so? If people are too scared and resistant to change, I guess they have to live with their choices.

 

[scroobal]

Do you know the meaning of Hobson's Choice. It very close to that.

If you can describe the crimes that JBJ, Tang and Seow committed, I can make an assessment if you are politically clued in or have no clue why they removed from the political area.

Its not that voters are scared. They actually are not well informed and genuinely think that these chaps committed a crime. Voters rights to vote are not based on IQ and intelligence. If the incumbents paints a negative picture of potential political threats and with state monopolised press, people actually think that they have little choice but to vote for PAP. Look at Yaw of WP. He is not scared but he voted for the PAP while standing against in another ward. We are dealing with quite some dumb people.

Old man took out 4 medical doctors in 1963. One he banished to Malaysia, 2 were kept incarceration for many years and one ended being the second longest serving detainee. The other was a nephew of Lee Kong Chian.

Guess what? JBJ, Tang and Seow are lawyers. Notice that 4 doctors and 3 lawyers were taken out. Why do think that happenned.

What's left - signboard shop proprietor, a bankrupt, a half baked consultant and with hope an economist/fund manager.

Old man realised early to take out the smart ones and rich ones early. The ones he met at the book launch ceremony recently were not the smartest tools in the shed and they had to draw an income to survive. Why you think Chian Thye Poh was not there. The guy is very well educated. A university lecturer.

In life, you got to connect the dots. Never assume people are scared.

Giving some people 3 votes and others 1 vote would have been the biggest travesty of democracy and equality ever.
But despite all our discussion about the % of pap votes, unfortunately, we still have to respect the voting results. It's undeniable that more Singaporeans have decided to vote pap than alternative over the years, despite the winning %. Nobody held a gun to their heads, yet these Singaporeans decided to vote pap. I don't think having a few bigwigs loitering around the voting venue counts, the voters could still have voted the other way. Despite grcs, changing the boundaries, little pre-election baits, threats of unrest and uncorruption, etc etc, the voters could still have voted alternative.
Why haven't they done so? If people are too scared and resistant to change, I guess they have to live with their choices.

 

[TeeKee]

Guess what happened in 1988, when the "popularity" of PAP shot up sky high.

adjusting for walkovers and uncontested constituencies, do you have the corresponding figures that showed the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast their ballots?

 

[TeeKee]

In 1988, PAP won all seats except Potong Paisr, and Francis Seow ran road.

maybe if he hadn't run road, LKY will be overthrown and him declaring President now.

like Mandela...

 

[scroobal]

Good question. Here are % of those that could vote as their wards were being contested. So in 2006 GE, out of the eligible voters only 57% had the opportunity to cast a vote. Again 1991 stands out.

1972 - 89%
1976 - 78%
1980 - 53%
1984 - 63%
1988 - 87%
1991 - 50%
1997 - 41%
2001 - 33%
2006 - 57%

adjusting for walkovers and uncontested constituencies, do you have the corresponding figures that showed the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast their ballots?

 

[TeeKee]

2006 - 57%

how can this be correct?

someone mentioned less than 30% of the voting population actually had the chance to vote?

 

[scroobal]

Who?......

how can this be correct?

someone mentioned less than 30% of the voting population actually had the chance to vote?