10-18-2019, 08:44 AM
ijmorlan Wrote:Quote:That general sense is wrong, and specifically in a way which is why PR gets so much discussion. If we had PR then the first part of the statement would be true. The second part would still be wrong, because usually the other parties have (and would still have under PR) more votes than the supposed winners. It’s weird to say that 55% of the MPs representing parties that took 65% of the vote should knuckle under and do whatever 45% of the MPs representing a party that took 35% of the vote want.
It's true that the party that won the most support is not necessarily the party that won the most seats. But usually it is. You can't really say that the general sense is wrong- we're talking about "should" statements. We can all agree that the Governor General gives first crack at gaining the confidence of the House to the PM (and that what Scheer is talking about when he talks about "conventions" is misleading or worse). That is what happens, legally.
Politically, I think in 2019, the Liberals won't try to form government if they do not win the most seats. Let's say that they are at 130 to the Tories' 134. I think that the Tories will be allowed to (try to) govern. I did say the opposition parties should "try" to work with the leading party (or maybe just be seen to be trying?), not "knuckle under." Obviously the party with the plurality should not be able to "govern as though they had a majority," as Joe Clark tried and failed to do.