Post by Louisistan on Jun 14, 2019 7:58:01 GMT -5
First of all, the constitution is set up in a way that discourages minority governments. Parliament has to go through two weeks of voting before electing a chancellor by simple majority even becomes possible.
Secondly, while in the current political situation the possibility of minority governments is gaining more acceptance in debates, they used to be seen as undesirable and weak. With many politicians being old farts, that view is very much alive in politics.
Thirdly, it's obviously a lot more work to maintain a minority government, seeing as those who supply confidence aren't contracually bound to vote with the government, unlike a coalition where some sort of coalition contract is drawn up prior to taking office.
Fourthly, both the consitution and political practice place an emphasis on having parliament stay in office for the full duration of the electoral period (i.e. four years). Continuous defeat of the government's bills in parliament (as we've seen in the U.K. during Brexit votes) allows the chancellor to ask the president to dissolve parliament because he is no longer able to govern (provided of course that he or she fails a motion of confidence). That's something most people wish to avoid, as snap elections are seen as a sign of weak politicians being unable to deal with reality.
