Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well, that's how it's supposed to work already. But don't make the mistake of confusing 'should' with 'must' will you? If the 'collective of also rans' has no interest in shoring up the largest party, that party will have to govern as best it can. Which means it'll have to accommodate the interests and concerns of the other parties, and the people they represent. Hence my thought about this being more democratic.If no majority, the largest party should form a govt with another (as per Cameron / Clegg), rather than a collective of also rans.
And if the largest party fails to govern effectively, ought not the 'collective of also rans' be offered the chance to form a government, given that, collectively, they would have a majority?