• They had an election this spring, and the PM didn't like the results, which had his party tied with a rival party, so he called for a second election. The results just came in with the rival party winning, but they are saying that they will call for a third election now. The ruling party can sort of get away with it because of coalitions with other parties that can make up a majority of parliament. Still, it's an underhanded practice to repeat the election over and over hoping to get a better outcome for your party. What do you think?
  • The occupying state of Israel is barely a democracy. This just highlights the fact that the ruling party can "decide" on if it likes the result or not - the people who voted don't matter.
  • In the parliamentary system, voting is for a slate of party representatives and the President (or monarch) selects a Prime Minister who has been chosen by the representatives to be most likely to attract enough representatives from among all the various parties to form a majority coalition. Since there are multiple parties, the Prime Minister is not necessarily selected from the party receiving the highest number of votes. For example, suppose the Democrat, Republican and "People's" parties each received one-third of the total votes. A leader would be chosen who is most likely to attract support from two of the three parties to form a majority. A quick reading of parliamentary elections shows that there are seemingly as many variations on that theme as there are parliaments.
    • bostjan64
      All of that is understood. Check out what is happening in Israel right now, though. There are nine parties who won seats. None of them hold a majority alone. The two smallest have pledged unity with the biggest, and two of the other smaller parties have pledged unity with the second-biggest. It leaves a four-way split with no majority. Netanyahu made the comment yesterday that he'd look into holding the election again, rather than give the third-largest party the chance to broker a compromise or potentially (and most likely what they would do in a pinch) side with the party that is *not* his party, in order to oust him, which they have said they would likely do. So, two things: the party in direct opposition to the PM's party took the lead in parliamentary seats, and the party most angry with the PM took several seats to become the third-largest. The PM hasn't taken action yet, but has expressed interest in nullifying the election results. It's pretty obvious this is because there is no positive outcome for him with the results as they stand.
    • mushroom
      I'm a proponent of taking the selfish variable out of such decisions: flip a coin. I wonder how that would have worked in Bush-Gore?
  • Well, obviously the answer is yes, as they already did!

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy