Hopefully the greens and the conservatives refuse to so we have a minority government.
Pretty sure we need a speaker, regardless.
I believe the point is that the speaker typically doesn’t vote unless needed to break a tie. So if the NDP select one of their own as the speaker, they would have 46 votes, to the 44 Con and 2 Green votes, an exact tie. Of course, they would still have the speaker as tiebreaker, so it doesn’t really make a huge difference, but it’s seen as a bit more tenuous than actually having the 47 votes in the typical fashion, which they could accomplish if a conservative or green MLA takes the role of speaker.
To be honest, I’m not 100% sure on why the tiebreaker is seen as worse exactly. I understand there’s an expectation for the speaker to act neutrally, so maybe it’s just an unpleasant look if the speaker is regularly voting in favour of the NDP to break ties.
Regardless, it wouldn’t technically be a minority government as I understand it. It’s not as though the NDP couldn’t rely on their own speaker in matters of confidence. It just would give Rustad something else to rant about.
That isn’t how it works.
Please explain.
I think you are the one who needs to explain their point of view regarding an NDP speaker creating a minority Government.
The government did not win the majority of the vote so they should not have a majority.
The government did not win the majority of the vote so they should not have a majority.
What does this
Hopefully the greens and the conservatives refuse to so we have a minority government.
have to do with that?
Would you mind getting off your soap box for a moment to sort this out?
It has everything to do with it as the NDP have no right to ram through legislation with only 47.69% of the vote. They should be forced to compromise with the other parties.
So you just want to scream your non sense at the internet?
Got it. Take care.
