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

[eatshitndie]

Yes. When citizens are not given the chance to vote, its legitimacy is in question even if it wins 66%, especially if it directly or indirectly causes the walkovers. If it gets 66% with an islandwide voting then a different story.

However, that is different from the argument that 66% is 33%, unless someone is very sure that the opposition would win 100% of the votes in the uncontested wards.

The assumption that with GRCs you cannot have more than one party is false. The prospect of having 9 GRCs go to PAP and 5 GRCs going to another party is not impossible.

The GRC would create a dominant party culture, but possibly a purebred 2-party culture. However, I would argue that it would create difficulty for a multi-party culture or an impure 2-coalition to emerge as it favours biggest parties around, as it is grouped results and winner takes all. For those who advocate multi-party culture, GRC would be the biggest obstacle. For those who can live with 2 parties as they think what they see in US or UK is enough, then the GRC is a lesser enemy although opposition can still be against it for other reasons.

End of the day, the entire system is only advantageous to PAP only because PAP tailored it to filter the people's voting patterns. If the people's voting patterns change, PAP's intention would backfire. Hence I would tackle flaws of the election results with the people rather than PAP. That of course does not mean PAP can't change the system again to fit with the new voting patterns, but heck, it is as if raising the "unfairness" to them has brought about any change in the first place.

if there are no walkovers, the pap will most likely have a larger percentage of votes due to a larger islandwide turnout. large turnouts favor the pap. and since oppo's (no more "the" oppo in sg because they are so frigging fragmented) don't traditionally contest in walkover wards due to smaller number of candidates and less chance of winning, their new contests there would amount to more votes gathered overall for the pap.

no matter how one looks at it from a number's perspective, oppo's in sg are screwed.

 

[eatshitndie]

Another way of looking at 33% voting for PAP is 67% not opposing PAP and even much less than 33% voting for opposition. Get more opposition candidates and give PAP more contests instead of arguing over silly things like little kids arguing over marbles and kites. Wah, I didn't fight him only ah, he can't say he wins, wait till I fight him then you see. Fight first lah! Can't even fight, talk what?

agree that the true majority of sg do not really like or support pap but do not vote oppo. however, i'm afraid that if more oppo candidates were to contest the "walkover" wards, the pap would win more legit or eligible votes from the total vote-eligible population. if there are no walkovers and the total turnout rate is more than 90%, the pap will end up with more than 66%. back to square one. this thread is hopeless.

 

[Perspective]

if there are no walkovers, the pap will most likely have a larger percentage of votes due to a larger islandwide turnout. large turnouts favor the pap. and since oppo's (no more "the" oppo in sg because they are so frigging fragmented) don't traditionally contest in walkover wards due to smaller number of candidates and less chance of winning, their new contests there would amount to more votes gathered overall for the pap.

It would make a more marginal difference than you think. While it is true that PAP votes in walkover wards would be higher since they would include LKY's and GCT's wards, thereby bringing the opposition average down to 30% or below, having all wards contested would bring more confidence people have of the opposition by a similar small margin.

It is not true that larger turnouts favour PAP, but opposite. In 2001, the least opposition ever since 1968 also gave PAP the best results ever (75%). In 1968 where only 7 opposition contested 60 seats, nearly all 7 lost their deposits despite full straight fights. It is because people are not confident with the opposition when with its pathetic numbers.

 

[eatshitndie]

It would make a more marginal difference than you think. While it is true that PAP votes in walkover wards would be higher since they would include LKY's and GCT's wards, thereby bringing the opposition average down to 30% or below, having all wards contested would bring more confidence people have of the opposition by a similar small margin.

It is not true that larger turnouts favour PAP, but opposite. In 2001, the least opposition ever since 1968 also gave PAP the best results ever (75%). In 1968 where only 7 opposition contested 60 seats, nearly all 7 lost their deposits despite full straight fights. It is because people are not confident with the opposition when with its pathetic numbers.

a reason why oppo's need to do more scientific studies of voting patterns and behavior to understand the "swing" vote. anyway, me thinks the swing vote in sg is negligible and usually swings more to the pap. those seating on the fence are not really seating on the fence. they are the clueless hopeless fearful lot of losers in sg, always looking to the gov for answers and a handout. pap are able to "buy" this segment easily with cheap inducements time and time again. of the 66% who voted for the pap, perhaps more than 33% of these don't really care about politics except their meaningless routines and daily meals. hopeless is the word for sg.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

In the US with voter turnout in 2008 at 56 %, they claim to have a mandate :_)). I believe the PAP can legitimately lay claim to a mandate in view of the high turn out and small geographical size of SG. So in effect OBAMA won with abt 29 % 30% of the total vote can we say that he did not have a mandate ?




Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

In the US with voter turnout in 2008 at 56 %, they claim to have a mandate :_)). I believe the PAP can legitimately lay claim to a mandate in view of the high turn out and small geographical size of SG. So in effect OBAMA won with abt 29 % 30% of the total vote can we say that he did not have a mandate ?




Locke

Dear Locke,

That is not a good comparison. In Singapore, it is compulsory voting but almost half of them do not have the choice on whether to vote or not.

But in America, the Americans have been given a choice to vote but some chose NOT to vote. It would mean that they basically abstained or just neutrals. This is definitely not the same for someone in Singapore who want to show their support or opposition to PAP but deprived of the means to do so, isn't it?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Why are we even arguing about the "choice not to vote". A protest vote is traditionally a spoilt vote, non voting is normally seen as a decision not to participate for whatever reason and if you chose not to vote for whatever reason than you have decided not to participate in a political process and which ultimately does not affect the final result and or mandate

In Singapore, I have not voted because of the nature of opposition politics and choices made by opposition politicians you included. However the mandate of the PAP is not in doubt because of high turn out, and the small size of Singapore.




Locke

 

[eatshitndie]

Dear GMS

In the US with voter turnout in 2008 at 56 %, they claim to have a mandate :_)). I believe the PAP can legitimately lay claim to a mandate in view of the high turn out and small geographical size of SG. So in effect OBAMA won with abt 29 % 30% of the total vote can we say that he did not have a mandate ?




Locke

it's 62.3%. don't know where you get the 56%. from your shoot from the hip fat ass? anytime a moron were to get their facts wrong, he would be called out on it on an online forum such as this. such is life on the internet.

 

[scroobal]

One can bring people to the water trough but no one can make them drink. The issue is not being given access to the water trough.

I am more along the lines of legitimacy, mandate from heaven etc.

If you claim to be a great government, visionary, travelling the world and teaching others etc, don't you want to seek a legitimate mandate.

They previously had the mandate until the 80s. They have conveniently introduced measures to limit a decent contest by any standards and I am surprised that you guys are blaming the singaporeans.

If people are given the opportunity to vote and they fail to, that one thing. But having lived in a country for yonks but unable to cast a vote is a whole different thing.

I am sure you do not want to be the chair of the local PTA, if they came out with rules that excludes a significant number on a range of factors. Nothing to do with geography or people not turning up to vote.

Dear Scroobal

I would say the fact that a large percentage of Singaporeans do not or have not voted including me in the last 15 years does not not negate in any sense the size of the PAP's majority. I believe this is so for two primary reasons.

1. Firstly the small geographical and high density of Singapore means really that national politics are local politics and vice versa, there is no UNITED Republic of Hougang though with the MND's and HDB declaration I would argue there is a strong case for that. There are no large political economic or social stratification that can be seen in geographically larger political areas like the UK and the US


2. Secondly higher voting turn outs which exceeds those of the US and the UK and changes the electoral dynamics substantially.





Locke

 

[Equalisation]

honestly .... if all voters with all wards with opposition votes, result > 66%, < 66% or 66% realistically ?? this is mandate ... no ???

 

[scroobal]

You are a member of a Club. You have voting rights but for the last 15 years and over 3 elections since you attained the age of 21, you have not been given the opportunity to vote. You however know that some members of the club have voted.

You do a bit of research and you find that rules and regulations over period of time introduced by Charlie, the President of the club has provided advantage to his incumbency - reduced the size of particpating voters.

When Charlie first took over 57% of all club members voted for him. Its now 33%.

Either Charlie is smarter than you or you have worked on the premise that reduced no of eligible voters have no link to the final results. I suspect both.

honestly .... if all voters with all wards with opposition votes, result > 66%, < 66% or 66% realistically ?? this is mandate ... no ???

 

[wizard]

I stay in Yewtee and I am in Hong Kah GRC ( where the fuck is hong kah ). I worked in Alexandra last time and it is in Jalan Besar GRC.

If you take taxi and tell the driver that I am going to jalan besar then refuse to pay when he is heading the other direction. What will happen?

GRC = A tool use to protect themselve against opposition majority win and let the MPs who cannot stand the heat for election to stroll into parliment under the disgused of giving a chance for non-chinese in PAP to stand a chance for election.

What can we do = vote for opposition irregarless of the party and candidate givn any chance untill oppsotion has min 45%. Then you can start doing selection next election.

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

What utter rubbish about if more S'poreans get to vote, there will be more votes for the Pappies.

THE WHOLE OF SINGAPORE MUST GET TO VOTE IN THE NEXT ERECTIONS.

OPPOSITION, THIS IS YOUR DUTY TO YOUR COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN PROSTITUTED TO FTs BY THE OKTs IN POWER.
​

 

[scroobal]

Sadly some people actually think that PAP has value in the way that they have come up with these changes.

I stay in Yewtee and I am in Hong Kah GRC ( where the fuck is hong kah ). I worked in Alexandra last time and it is in Jalan Besar GRC.

If you take taxi and tell the driver that I am going to jalan besar then refuse to pay when he is heading the other direction. What will happen?

GRC = A tool use to protect themselve against opposition majority win and let the MPs who cannot stand the heat for election to stroll into parliment under the disgused of giving a chance for non-chinese in PAP to stand a chance for election.

What can we do = vote for opposition irregarless of the party and candidate givn any chance untill oppsotion has min 45%. Then you can start doing selection next election.

 

[kingrant]

The title of this thread will make for a very effective campaign platform for the elections. It is time for Singaporeans to demand that the govt restores their voting rights by changing back to single wards. Just hammer away at it like the German peasants did to the Berlin Wall, and bring it down. Singaporeans have been hoodwinked for years into allowing a government by a few, for the few and of the few, to persist. Responsible citizens should stand up and ask to be counted!

 

[Equalisation]

The title of this thread will make for a very effective campaign platform for the elections. It is time for Singaporeans to demand that the govt restores their voting rights by changing back to single wards. Just hammer away at it like the German peasants did to the Berlin Wall, and bring it down. Singaporeans have been hoodwinked for years into allowing a government by a few, for the few and of the few, to persist. Responsible citizens should stand up and ask to be counted!

.
.. crazy ... there are more flaws than a gunny sack full of water ....:o

 

[Perspective]

.
.. crazy ... there are more flaws than a gunny sack full of water ....:o

Agree. I wonder how that helps people who had wanted to vote for PAP change their minds to vote opposition instead.

"Hey, it's 33 not 66, so vote opposition." ??

 

[kingrant]

Agree. I wonder how that helps people who had wanted to vote for PAP change their minds to vote opposition instead.

"Hey, it's 33 not 66, so vote opposition." ??

If we have been reading this forum and gauging from the sentiments here long enough, havent we yet acknowledged that there may well be many Opp sympathisers out there in the GRCs than PAP voters? If so, why is there any more reservation that single wards could be more risky for PAP? You have no faith and confidence in yrself. Even PAP thinks they will probably lose more seats if they had stuck to single wards. Now you are afraid?

 

[kingrant]

Remember the Opp election strategy they came up with last time of conceding a narrow majority and agreeing to contesting only the rest, to allay fears from the rest of Singapore of a freak election? That strategy was not to form the govt but to pile the seats on in Parliament. Only in the single ward system can the strategy be effective.

 

[kingrant]

.
.. crazy ... there are more flaws than a gunny sack full of water ....:o

Flaws exactly! The single ward system is a double edged sword. Of course, the people can still vote PAP in those wards but at least the system has flaws which the Opposition parties can exploit!