# Successful election boycotts (other than today's Thai)?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/successful-election-boycotts-other-than-todays-thai/351262>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [April 4, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/successful-election-boycotts-other-than-todays-thai/351262 "2006-04-04T15:21:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/successful-election-boycotts-other-than-todays-thai/351262/1 "2006-04-04T15:21:03Z")

</div>

It seems the Thai Prime Minister\* (Thaksin Shinawatra) [has resigned](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=akIKvQewzyZI&refer=asia) after a Pyrrhic victory in widely boycotted elections. Of course it’s not clear how things will develop from here, but this seems very unusual in that a (fractured) opposition boycott has led to the government conceding that despite “winning” the election it has failed to gain legitimacy.

Can anyone think of another instance of such direct results from election boycotts? I think of them normally as the opposition either giving up or going underground (often violently). Can anyone think of similar instances to this one? Or is this just something about the role of the king in Thailand?

\*[sub]Disclosure, if it’s necessary: I don’t like him much at all. See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=163929)[/sub]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/successful-election-boycotts-other-than-todays-thai/351262/2 "2006-04-04T15:25:12Z")

</div>

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that voting is **mandatory** in Thailand. Elsewhere, so many “none of the above” votes wouldn’t be as serious.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/successful-election-boycotts-other-than-todays-thai/351262/3 "2006-04-04T18:32:44Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=hawthorne]  
[sub]Disclosure, if it’s necessary: I don’t like him much at all.[/sub]  
[/QUOTE]  
I can’t imagine why. “I’m taking my tax-free billion-plus dollars and going home.” Sounds like a real stand-up guy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/successful-election-boycotts-other-than-todays-thai/351262/4 "2006-04-04T19:08:31Z")

</div>

The difference in Thailand is that even unopposed candidates must obtain a certain percentage of the vote (IIRC, 20%). This gives the boycotters a lot of power, making their protest more than just symbolic; if enough of the electorate honour the boycott, no one gets elected for the disputed ridings/districts.

I had no idea that Thailand had such a sensible provision in their constitution. It was a surprise to me, given my knowledge of, and [limited] experience with, other aspects of their policies.