Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Seeing that forming a majority government may be more difficult than we first thought, it might be a good idea, as our first act of parliament, to pass an amendment that makes forming a minority government possible.
Here's my proposal:

Amendment I. Minority Governments

1. If 5 days have gone by since the elected MPs have been seated and no government has been formed, a special period of parliament begins that serves to create a minority government. During this period, Party Leaders or MPs may introduce government forming legislations. This introductory period lasts for 48 hours. After the introductory period ends, all proposed governments are put up to vote. The voting period lasts for 72 hours. After the voting period ends, the proposed government that gets the most votes becomes the acting government.
2. If any other legislation forming a government is passed during either the introductory or voting periods, a minority government may not be formed.

How does parliament like it?

I know there's the possibility of a tie, but I don't really have a good solution than that, other than flipping a coin.

Also, I was thinking about adding another line that prohibited MPs from voting yes for more than one proposed government, but I didn't know if everyone would be happy with that.

I like the idea.

I support this amendment. Minority governments can also be fun.

I support this amendment. Minority governments can also be fun.

Indeed.

Minority government = unstable governance = more drama

Passing bills will be a bitch.

But yes I support.

I oppose. The last thing we need is to make it easier for unscrupulous individuals making backroom deals to seize power. What about transparency and accountability? If there is to be a leader, let him (or her, of course) have a clear mandate from the people - not simply the support of a few power brokers.

canadiancapitalist wrote:I oppose. The last thing we need is to make it easier for unscrupulous individuals making backroom deals to seize power. What about transparency and accountability? If there is to be a leader, let him (or her, of course) have a clear mandate from the people - not simply the support of a few power brokers.

Isn't that a reason to oppose the majority government only rule? There are eight parties, and almost all of them have mainstream support within the forum. It is a mathematical impossibility for any one party to gain a majority, therefore making a grand coalition an absolute necessity for a majority government.

We need a poll for this.

Where is Dan?

I oppose the rule.

Why should we sacrifice government stability, not to mention the will of the people (since minority governments are by definition elected by a minority of the population) just because we wanna get a decision as important as who sits in the government over with? It makes no sense.

I think we urgently need a poll to decide whether minority government is acceptable.

There will be too much bias involved once the election is over and the results are final.

I think this would be passable as an amendment through parliament once the election is over.

I dont agree this should have been decided before voting began.

So are you against amending it?

I disagree. Having minority governments is not only a recipe for political disaster, as nothing would get accomplished but we'd end up with constant votes of no confidence, replacing governments every two weeks.

I don't see anything good to come of this.

Nay.

It'd be Weimar Republic all over again.

We can not add this while the vote is ongoing. If you desire we can add to the constitution after the votes have been cast and parties designed by a majority (or supermajority) vote, but we can not change the election rules in the middle of an election.

All government, not two party, has provision for minority mandates if we want to keep this real.

ps. Why not? you have been throughout this election, extending, calling fresh ballots etc.

Why should we sacrifice government stability, not to mention the will of the people (since minority governments are by definition elected by a minority of the population) just because we wanna get a decision as important as who sits in the government over with? It makes no sense.

It does make sense if it becomes politically impossible to form a majority government, which could easily happen because of the sharp ideological divisions within Parliament. Also, this isn't just to get the decision over with more quickly, as five days (presumably when Majority governments would be proposed and voted on) without a government need to go by before this process would even be able to start. Minority governments should only be formed if a Majority Government cannot be formed.

Dan wrote:We can not add this while the vote is ongoing.

Clausewitz wrote:I think this would be passable as an amendment through parliament once the election is over.

Oxymoron wrote:I dont agree this should have been decided before voting began.

Of course. This amendment should be voted on as soon as the election is over and the seats have been allocated. Holding a vote before then would be unconstitutional.

Having minority governments is not only a recipe for political disaster, as nothing would get accomplished but we'd end up with constant votes of no confidence, replacing governments every two weeks.

The only government that could topple a minority government would be a Majority government.

I lend my firm support to this motion.

Dr House wrote:Why should we sacrifice government stability, not to mention the will of the people (since minority governments are by definition elected by a minority of the population) just because we wanna get a decision as important as who sits in the government over with? It makes no sense.

Fasces wrote:Having minority governments is not only a recipe for political disaster, as nothing would get accomplished but we'd end up with constant votes of no confidence, replacing governments every two weeks.

Korimyr the Rat wrote:I don't see anything good to come of this.

Okonkwo wrote:It'd be Weimar Republic all over again.

So you guys would prefer to see possibly no government at all instead of just an unstable one, amirite?