[Brio]

PoP business. We conduct our votes privately.

I bet you do. I would find it highly entertaining to witness such party meetings especially the ones between yourself and Manuel, they must be full of lively back and forth debate.

[Vladimir]

The previous constitution, which was ratified by similar means as the rule allowing minority governments, has the same Article.

If you allow the minority government to form, you also acknowledge that constitution. If you do not recognize the constitution, then there is no reason to recognize the legitimacy of minority governments.

To do otherwise is nothing less than a coup by the reds.

The minority government was formed through a majority vote, not a constitution. There was no ratified constitution before.

[Fasces]

There is no majority vote if the majority does not vote.

[HoniSoit]

The previous constitution, which was ratified by similar means as the rule allowing minority governments, has the same Article.

No, it wasn't ratified.

Only the right to form a minority government was put to a vote.

[Vladimir]

And unless a turnout barrier is specified, inactive voters are non-voters.....

[Fasces]

In that case, votes of no confidence still pass at a simple majority, and this government will last about two days before it is removed, if it is even permitted to form, which is dubious.

[ingliz]

At any time, a piece of legislation may be introduced by a Party Leader or MP which forms a government. This legislation, like any legislation, will succeed if it receives the support of more than 1/2 of the members of Parliament.

Open to interpretation! 75% of those members present in chamber, when the vote was called, had voted in favour of the resolution.

[Fasces]

No one voted on permitting an SN/RF/THP government, Ingliz. No vote was even called.

[Donna]

Only the right to form a minority government was put to a vote.

But you're still attaching it to a document that was produced through similar means. You still have to follow the whole fucking document and not just the inclusion of minority sessions.

[HoniSoit]

Fasces - we tried to be fair so we practically gave you 72 hours to get your acts together and form an alliance.

Donald - I wasn't aware we were putting the entire document to the vote. Perhaps you would clarify?

[ingliz]

Look at the debate:

I hope Dan will be announcing a minority government, if not I will (only if this vote passes, of course).

ps. The RF/SN-THP, controlling 36 votes, will form the first government unless a larger voting bloc emerges by Friday morning.

[Donna]

Donald - I wasn't aware we were putting the entire document to the vote. Perhaps you would clarify?

Allowing the formation of minority governments is a clear constitutional amendment. This pretty much goes without saying.

[albionfagan]

Right so what's the first move, ban all opposition parties?

[HoniSoit]

Allowing the formation of minority governments is a clear constitutional amendment. This pretty much goes without saying.

And?

[ingliz]

The vote was carried by 75% of members present when the vote was called thus easily achieving the 2/3 super-majority required even for changes to a "constitution" we have not recognised.

[Donna]

And?

So SN-RF-THP is consciously ignoring and neglecting the constitution parliament produced for the formation of governments?

[HoniSoit]

neglecting the constitution

It hasn't been ratified yet.

[Gnote]

Proposed Amendment:

Forming Government

[1] The single party that obtains the greatest number of seats after an election will have the first chance to govern.

[2] The first act of this party should be to bring forth a budget / platform / collection of policies in an attempt to legislate them into law.

[3] The entirety of parliament will vote on this attempted legislation.

[4] If the legislation passes, the party is deemed to possess the confidence of the House, and can continue as the government.

[5] If, at any time, a piece of legislation proposed by the government fails to pass the House, it shall be deemed that the governing party has lost the confidence of parliament.

[6] If the governing party loses the confidence of parliament, the right to govern shall fall to the next largest party in the house, which has the option to restart the process of Forming Government.

[7] If it shown that no party is able to obtain the confidence of parliament, an election shall immediately be called to establish a new parliamentary makeup.

[peter_co]

Gnote, I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. What would be the point of letting a single party, regardless of how many mandates it has form the government by itself? And the failure of a single vote would be constituted as a vote of no confidence? A government under such a framework wouldn't last one hour!

[Gnote]

Gnote, I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. What would be the point of letting a single party, regardless of how many mandates it has form the government by itself?

You're not reading the whole thing through.

The single party has to gain the confidence of the House. This means, essentially, that this single party has a defacto majority government.

Remember: in order for any legislation to pass, it needs 50%+1 vote. So if a party with less than 50%+1 of the seats is to govern, it is going to need to draw support from other parties. Whether this is through an official coalition, or through a capacity to draw votes from members outside its party is beside the point.