3 ms·

>collude to prevent those who won the election from putting in place what they promised their voters they'd do. A prime feature of the multi-party system is th

>collude to prevent those who won the election from putting in place what they promised their voters they'd do. A prime feature of the multi-party system is that this is well within their rights, and even the spirit of democracy (if there is such a thing), to do. That the holders of 113 seats can collude against the holders of 37 seats is quite logical. All this coalition building and alliance forming, and even the political parties themselves to an extent, ultimately rest on 150 individual elected persons holding a seat who can in theory do and vote whatever they want.

TacticalCoder 3y ago
> That the holders of 113 seats can collude against the holders of 37 seats is quite logical Well... Yes and no. Because it's precisely that kind of behavior that make it that more and more people keep voting for the far-right (or far-left FWIW): their voices are never taken into account. With three quarters of the seats left, they can form unholy alliances (involving rightwing parties, leftwing parties, ecological parties, etc.: allianes which are looking more and more unlikely) to make sure the status quo persists... But is this what people want? I mean: they didn't just have one person out of every four vote for them: there's also no single party who got more vote than that. If it was a "winner takes all", they'd have won already. What are mainstream parties going to do? Ignore the issue until more than one in every two voter votes for Geert Wilders? Is this what it'd take for mainstream politicians to wake up and realize that maybe, just maybe, they did act in a way that pushed one people out of every four to vote for a far-right party? Or put it this way: if all the parties are going to collude anyway to govern (because so few of them are getting seats), what's even the point of going to vote?
- aebtebeten 3y ago
  > more and more people keep voting for the far-right (or far-left FWIW) There are obvious problems with that tactic. (Do they not have civics classes in any of these countries anymore?) The mechanism described above is exactly what happened in the 1932 German Federal elections: "The Nazis and KPD [communists] held over half of the seats in the Reichstag. This made it impossible to form a government composed of moderates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_elect... It didn't end well for the Germans.
082349872349872 3y ago
I understand Wilders is exploring forming a minority government (which, to me as a non-Dutchie, seems ripe for a no confidence vote). In the alternative, is there anything that seriously prevents forming a majority coalition consisting of the VVD (+CDA/BBB?) through the PvdA? Also, as I understand it, the current Rutte IV cabinet is in caretaker mode, which in theory would prevent them from addressing worker and farmer compensation as well as the housing crisis, but in practice I'd bet the VVD would rather see market solutions to all of these things, so they aren't that motivated to form a new government. Is this correct?
- bondarchuk 3y ago
  >In the alternative, is there anything that seriously prevents forming a majority coalition consisting of the VVD (+CDA/BBB?) through the PvdA? A bit of historical context is that PvdA formed a coalition with VVD in 2012-2017, were then perceived to have not done so well (being overpowered by the VVD despite similar number of seats), and scored a historic loss going from 38 to only 9 seats in the following elections. So PvdA might be a bit hesitant to form a coalition with VVD again. >Also, as I understand it, the current Rutte IV cabinet is in caretaker mode, which in theory would prevent them from addressing worker and farmer compensation as well as the housing crisis, but in practice I'd bet the VVD would rather see market solutions to all of these things, so they aren't that motivated to form a new government. Is this correct? The dynamics and edge cases surrounding the cabinet formation and the demissionary cabinet are always a bit unclear to me, can't really answer this one except to say that the rule is that the demissionary cabinet can't decide on controversial issues. I don't know who gets to decide what issues are controversial, or how this rule would be enforced, I get the impression a lot of this is just parliamentary procedure formed through tradition, and maybe laid down in the meeting regulations but not in any laws..
  - aebtebeten 3y ago
    Looks like they found a solution: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68557036 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68557036 (to my eye it looks like "since you didn't give us any guarantees that you wouldn't pursue the anti-constitutional bits of your platform, we'll support a right-wing government in general but reserve the right to vote down anything stupid your ministers may try in particular"; is that generally what happened?)

TacticalCoder 3y ago

> That the holders of 113 seats can collude against the holders of 37 seats is quite logical Well... Yes and no. Because it's precisely that kind of behavior that make it that more and more people keep voting for the far-right (or far-left FWIW): their voices are never taken into account. With three quarters of the seats left, they can form unholy alliances (involving rightwing parties, leftwing parties, ecological parties, etc.: allianes which are looking more and more unlikely) to make sure the status quo persists... But is this what people want? I mean: they didn't just have one person out of every four vote for them: there's also no single party who got more vote than that. If it was a "winner takes all", they'd have won already. What are mainstream parties going to do? Ignore the issue until more than one in every two voter votes for Geert Wilders? Is this what it'd take for mainstream politicians to wake up and realize that maybe, just maybe, they did act in a way that pushed one people out of every four to vote for a far-right party? Or put it this way: if all the parties are going to collude anyway to govern (because so few of them are getting seats), what's even the point of going to vote?

aebtebeten 3y ago
> more and more people keep voting for the far-right (or far-left FWIW) There are obvious problems with that tactic. (Do they not have civics classes in any of these countries anymore?) The mechanism described above is exactly what happened in the 1932 German Federal elections: "The Nazis and KPD [communists] held over half of the seats in the Reichstag. This made it impossible to form a government composed of moderates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_elect... It didn't end well for the Germans.

082349872349872 3y ago

I understand Wilders is exploring forming a minority government (which, to me as a non-Dutchie, seems ripe for a no confidence vote). In the alternative, is there anything that seriously prevents forming a majority coalition consisting of the VVD (+CDA/BBB?) through the PvdA? Also, as I understand it, the current Rutte IV cabinet is in caretaker mode, which in theory would prevent them from addressing worker and farmer compensation as well as the housing crisis, but in practice I'd bet the VVD would rather see market solutions to all of these things, so they aren't that motivated to form a new government. Is this correct?

bondarchuk 3y ago
>In the alternative, is there anything that seriously prevents forming a majority coalition consisting of the VVD (+CDA/BBB?) through the PvdA? A bit of historical context is that PvdA formed a coalition with VVD in 2012-2017, were then perceived to have not done so well (being overpowered by the VVD despite similar number of seats), and scored a historic loss going from 38 to only 9 seats in the following elections. So PvdA might be a bit hesitant to form a coalition with VVD again. >Also, as I understand it, the current Rutte IV cabinet is in caretaker mode, which in theory would prevent them from addressing worker and farmer compensation as well as the housing crisis, but in practice I'd bet the VVD would rather see market solutions to all of these things, so they aren't that motivated to form a new government. Is this correct? The dynamics and edge cases surrounding the cabinet formation and the demissionary cabinet are always a bit unclear to me, can't really answer this one except to say that the rule is that the demissionary cabinet can't decide on controversial issues. I don't know who gets to decide what issues are controversial, or how this rule would be enforced, I get the impression a lot of this is just parliamentary procedure formed through tradition, and maybe laid down in the meeting regulations but not in any laws..
- aebtebeten 3y ago
  Looks like they found a solution: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68557036 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68557036 (to my eye it looks like "since you didn't give us any guarantees that you wouldn't pursue the anti-constitutional bits of your platform, we'll support a right-wing government in general but reserve the right to vote down anything stupid your ministers may try in particular"; is that generally what happened?)