JGHali
Active Member
Yet if the largest voting faction votes opposite to this so called majority whom weren't bright enough to know that splitting the vote four ways instead backing one horse allowed for that outcome, should we not respect the wishes of those in that largest voting faction in such a case and allow their pick to govern?
So you think pluralities have some divine right to rule? Does that apply to the popular vote or just seat counts? The key is demonstrating confidence of Parliament, and anyone who can do that gets to govern until resignation. You do realize that even a "defeated" first minister is under no de jure legal obligation to resign following an election? Indeed, the oft-cited King-Byng affair occurred when Mackenzie King "lost" an election with a 15 seat spread between him and Meighen's Conservatives. King lost his own seat, but carried on with support from the Progressives. He only resigned when Byng refused to grand another election some months later, after which Meighen formed a government which was not long after routed in an election.
Our system does not give parties any constitutional standing, regardless of their practical dominance. Just because Team A got more votes/seats than Team B (but fewer than B and C combined!) does not entitle them to govern and NEVER HAS. You are simply parroting the nonsense that Harper treated us to when his government almost collapsed in 2008.
Coalition governments are going swell in Europe, btw... not!
I certainly agree that Theresa May's coalition with the DUP has helped make Brexit almost impossible given their simultaneous opposition to a hard border and the backstop.