Stop saying 66% voted for PAP when the actually figure is 33%.

[scroobal]

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

 

[kansas]

Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

That's a real shame. Only 33% and they are government

GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested.

This is unfair to the citizens who were denied the right to vote, all because of the GRC. Perhaps the GRC should be abolished to allow fair elections.

 

[jimmyfallon]

Rep!




The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[Equalisation]

By and large, I think that the 66% is a fair representation of PAP votes although only 33% of eligible voters really voted. If there were sufficient opposition candidates across all wards, there would be at most a variance of +/- 5% of 66%.

 

[mee_siam_hum]

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

Walk Over = No Count

PAP = BANDIT

 

[DOM the Clown]

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

Bro,
Wow! Thanks for the jolt!
Cheers!
DOM

 

[Ramseth]

Your argument has a few holes that may I humbly direct your attention to.

1. In GE 2006, with the abandonment of the so-called by-election strategy, 47 seats were contested. That's 57%.

2. The opposition chose their grounds, the most favorable according to their resources, and achieved 33% of popular votes.

3. Logic follows that, had the opposition stretched their resources and contested all 84 seats, the popular votes would be even lower. For example, if there're contests in Tanjung Pagar and Marine Parade, the opposition overall average would be adversely affected. You might ask, if not contested, how I know? My reply would be, if those are better grounds to contest, why were other grounds chosen over them?

Based on the above observation, I'd adjudge the nationwide popular support for opposition to be about 25%, not even 33%.

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

 

[pia]

Finally... I feel vindicated!

 

[pia]

Finally... I feel vindicated!

But honestly, when the time comes for me to vote (if can), and it's between the Papees and the opposition with a slipperman, a fraudulent lawyer and such kind, who do I vote for?

OR do I have to resort to spoiling my vote and be hauled to court? It's an offence isn't it?

 

[Ramseth]

But honestly, when the time comes for me to vote (if can), and it's between the Papees and the opposition with a slipperman, a fraudulent lawyer and such kind, who do I vote for?

OR do I have to resort to spoiling my vote and be hauled to court? It's an offence isn't it?

Vote where you heart goes. Spoiling your vote is not an offence when your heart's going nowhere. Not going to vote is an offence, unless with valid reason (e.g. abroad or hospitalised). But going there to spoil your vote is not an offence. However, I don't encourage spoiling votes. Be a man, make a choice.

 

[Equalisation]

For the coming election, I predict the 66% of PAP votes will drop to 56% if we only use the perception of, or actual economic standing of 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]

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

And yet life goes on happily for them.
Sonmething is wrong, isn't it?

 

[scroobal]

For benefit of all, name me a country in the 1st world that has a walkover during general elections (not by elections). Name me a country anywhere in the world including present Afghanistan which has a higher walkover of wards compared to Singapore.

If you can't size the issue, you won't know what to do.

What you will realise is that walkovers are rare in a GE around the world except in Totalitarians states such as Iraq and North Korea. Singaporeans have been numbed to such an extent that they don't realise that their candy has been stolen right under the noses.

You obviously have been speed reading again.

Your argument has a few holes that may I humbly direct your attention to.

1. In GE 2006, with the abandonment of the so-called by-election strategy, 47 seats were contested. That's 57%.

2. The opposition chose their grounds, the most favorable according to their resources, and achieved 33% of popular votes.

3. Logic follows that, had the opposition stretched their resources and contested all 84 seats, the popular votes would be even lower. For example, if there're contests in Tanjung Pagar and Marine Parade, the opposition overall average would be adversely affected. You might ask, if not contested, how I know? My reply would be, if those are better grounds to contest, why were other grounds chosen over them?

Based on the above observation, I'd adjudge the nationwide popular support for opposition to be about 25%, not even 33%.

 

[Ramseth]

For benefit of all, name me a country in the 1st world that has a walkover during general elections (not by elections). Name me a country anywhere in the world including present Afghanistan which has a higher walkover of wards compared to Singapore.

If you can't size the issue, you won't know what to do.

The issue is not enough citizens joining opposition parties and therefore not enough candidates. How to "size the issue"? Compel citizens to stand for elections? Implement NS for politics, all must joint political parties and cannot refuse candidacy when selected? Even with that, what if all or most unwilling but compelled join PAP? Back to square one.

The problem is not with the electorate. It's not with PAP. It's with the opposition parties. Just like in the army everybody wants to be brigadier-general, in opposition everybody everybody wants to be secretary-general. The only function of so many small opposition parties around is to have many seats for CECs, secretary-generals, chairmen and some even call themselves presidents. Left a few foot soldiers also nevermind, the rank and the ego matters most.

The PAP structure is completely opposite. There're enough places in the hierarchy for all to rise high enough, but there's only one general on top.

 

[TeeKee]

i can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for pap when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 ge. Only 713,025 actually voted for the pap. thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the pap.

Omg!! Spore gabramen dun have a mandate at all..

Anybody can have the justification to execute a revolt anytime!

even Malaysia can use this as a pretext to invade SGP!

 

[scroobal]

Just answer the questions.

The issue is not enough citizens joining opposition parties and therefore not enough candidates. How to "size the issue"? Compel citizens to stand for elections? Implement NS for politics, all must joint political parties and cannot refuse candidacy when selected? Even with that, what if all or most unwilling but compelled join PAP? Back to square one.

The problem is not with the electorate. It's not with PAP. It's with the opposition parties. Just like in the army everybody wants to be brigadier-general, in opposition everybody everybody wants to be secretary-general. Left a few foot soldiers also nevermind, the rank matters.

The PAP structure is completely opposite. There's enough place in the hierarchy for you to rise high enough, but there's only one general on top.

 

[TeeKee]

a con man many still think he's god..

 

[Ramseth]

Just answer the questions.

Answer: Not enough candidates, how to avoid walkovers?

Question: Why like that? Who's fault?

Your turn to answer.

 

[roaringlion]

That case, even less voted for the opposition. PAP did have 66% of the eligible vote casted.

Don't get me wrong, I pray and hope that PAP lost more seats. I think that they do not deserve to win by such margin in the parliament. The oppositions really need to get better at playing the election game and start winning more seats.

Cry all you can about percentage. At the end of the day, it is the number of seats in the parliament that counts. This is the game and you have to play it right. Most countries (even in the USA) % of votes means nothing at the end of the day.

 

[postnew]

ho..ho..ho.. a win is still a win...