[HoniSoit]

The idea of a minority government has been opposed by many people when it was raised; but how long do we have to wait for a majority government to form? We cannot wait indefinitely.

I request a deadline to be set after which a minority government can be formed.

[NYYS]

I don't see why we need a set government. We should just start proposing legislation and allowing coalitions to spring up around each individual bill. Eventually a majority government will be hammered out, and they will take the reigns with whatever moderate position they likely end up with. There's no reason we can't have short-term alliances on each bill.

[HoniSoit]

I don't see why we need a set government.

Are you proposing we have no government at present and thus no ministerial positions to be filled?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I say we hammer out the constitution and then worry about the governing coalition.

[Gnote]

I would think it would work best if it were to go something like:

The largest party has the first chance to form a government. They seek support of parliament for their government, and if they can get their first budget through by a majority, they have the confidence of the house and can continue to govern. If they fail to garner that 50% support, the chance falls to the next largest party, and so on down the list.

Support for the minority parliament can be derived from formal coalitions, or informal support on a bill-by-bill basis.

[NYYS]

Are you proposing we have no government at present and thus no ministerial positions to be filled?

I'm not sure we ever hammered out exactly what the ministerial positions would do. Or I just didn't pay attention when we defined their roles.

But yes, no set government is absolutely necessary. We can start passing legislation either way, as obviously some things will easily get 50% of the vote (I imagine if we put a bill up for net neutrality, for example, it will win in a landslide).

[Donna]

I would like to see a majority government formed for this election cycle, but I support amending the constitution to allow the formation of minority governments in future elections.

[Dr House]

I would think it would work best if it were to go something like:

The largest party has the first chance to form a government.

Of course you'd think that. You're in the largest party.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I would think it would work best if it were to go something like:

The largest party has the first chance to form a government.

Oh I wonder who the largest party is...

[Gnote]

That is beside the point.

Do you have another logical starting position? This is the way the Canadian parliament works currently.

[Tailz]

I think you will find that Majority groups will just block a minority government knowing that doing so will have a good chance of ejecting the minority group from “power” which would more than likely lead to said majority group getting into power.

[HoniSoit]

I agree with Gnote's proposal except how would be budget work that doesn't make overtly too complicated?

[Dave]

I don't see why a formal rule on that is required. Any coalition is as good as the next. If we want to allow minority coalitions, then the government should be formed by whomever can cobble together the largest minority coalition.

[Gnote]

Dave is correct,

Honi - the 'budget' could simply be a collection of policies of some sort, or even the party platform, to start. Until things are further developed, anyway.

[HoniSoit]

Honi - the 'budget' could simply be a collection of policies of some sort, or even the party platform, to start. Until things are further developed, anyw

Sounds reasonable. I would support it.

[Gnote]

All that would need to be agreed upon is who gets the first chance to form to seek the confidence of parliament.

In the Canadian system, it would be the current Prime Minister. Typically, if the Prime Minister just lost to another party who has enough seats for a majority, that PM would not try to seek the confidence of Parliament.

I propose that the party with the most seats be given the first chance, since they have the most inherent chance to form majority.

[Demosthenes]

Sounds reasonable. I would support it.

As do I.

[HoniSoit]

I propose that the party with the most seats be given the first chance, since they have the most inherent chance to form majority.

Well, in that case if would be SN-RF I suppose?

[Gnote]

Not unless the SN-RF is a single party.

[Gnote]

If this were Canada, just for instance, it would probably work something like this:

Paradigm, as the leader of the SLD, would be the leader of the party that garnered the most support. He would have first chance to form government, but he might decide that he has no realistic likelihood of doing so, because he doesn't think he can get enough support. So then the chance would fall to the next largest party.