Talk:Minority government

Potentially biased statement?

The article describes the SNP’s 2021 victory as a “landslide” but it evidentially was not if they went on to form a minority coalition. Indeed, they won less seats than at the 2011 election and only 1 seats more than in 2016; neither being described as a “landslide”.

Is this potentially weasel wording or bias?

Long Discussion

I removed the following paragraphs. Most of it will surely be made fit, but the totality gave (in my impression) a too incorrect impression, why I propose the wordings are discussed on this talk page first:

When in a minority situation the head of the largest party is still asked to form a government.

This is surely true for some countries, but not generally.

They must then either form a coalition with one or more existing parties, or they must win enough support from the other parties to avoid a non-confidence motion.

This is quite simply not generally or absolutely true.

Minority goverments are extremely common in proportional representation systems.

"Extremely common" - it would be interesting to see some statistics proving this.

Countries such as Israel and Germany are always ruled by coalitions.

"always" --> "usually" or "as a rule"

Under the first past the post system minorities are much rarer

Seems plausible, but are there really no better term than "the first past the post system" for what I'd called for instance "one-person's constituencies". ..."less proportional systems" for instance?

Minority governments are inherently unstable and often fall before their term is expired.

"are" --> "are sometimes" or "are often", but note for instance the Social Democrats in Sweden, who have headed the Cabinet with three brief exceptions since 1932, but as a rule have headed minority cabinets.

Many criticize minority governments arguing they create deadlock within the government and prevent and slow changes. Others, however, view minority governments as beneficial for creating a more diverse government that reflects more than one viewpoint.

It would be nice to see who these critics are. Names, please!

-- Ruhrjung 13:44, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wrote most of the above text. It is written from a Canadian/Westminster system perspective, and most of the mistakes stem from that. In Canada minority governments virtually never last for there full term, usally falling within two years. Criticism of minority governments is almost universal within Canada's major parties see [[1]], [[2]]. Also "first past the post" is the ubiquitous term for Canada's system. Sorry for the mistakes, I'll try to rework it. - SimonP 14:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

That's OK, but please do it here!
-- Ruhrjung 15:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy against writing incomplete articles, please stop deleting my additions. I would be much obliged if you would edit the article yourself rather than just reverting it to a stub. - SimonP 16:18, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

If you stop put rubbish in the article, that would be no problem. I've above detailed why I reverted your change, and proposed that you discuss the article on the talk-page, which actually is the meaning of the talk page.

As English is not my mother tongue, I'm not the right person to make quick and good edits, and in this case I showed how each of (or close to each of) your sentences were objectionable. I do, and have done, plenty of edits in English, but that doesn't change the fact that it demands comparably more than edits in a mother tongue.

I must say that I had expected you to comment on the objections instead of putting new rubbish in the article, as for instance the claim on Swedish coalition cabinets which beside being false is in direct contradiction of what I had written above - only a few minutes before.

There is no reason to react aggressively, unless your ambition is m:Wikipedia vandalism, which I however do not believe.

-- Ruhrjung 17:21, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused any offense, I thought I had made significant changes to the article based on your critiques. I am not an expert but I was under the impression that in Israel Likud or Labour never win more than fifty percent of the seats and thus form coalitions. At least recently, the same has been true in Germany, and will be for the foreseeable future as long as there are four large parties. Perhaps I was wrong on these but please present some evidence.

No, I don't think you were wrong. But I question on these points the relevance for an article on minority cabinets ...in addition to the pure nonsence on Swedish coalition cabinets, ...although Swedish minority cabinets in reality might be relevant here - and that as example of stable minority cabinets that don't seem to suffer much from proposed drawbacks. Additionally, it might be questioned if Germany, my country, is such a good example. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More importantly I do not see what is so wrong about my section on the westminster system (which by the way is not a synonym for the first past the post system). For Canada, at least, it is quite accurate, there are probably differences in other westminster countries (Australia's system has been much reformed), but please list these rather than deleting the entire text.

If you know the situation specifically in Canada, but not neccessarily otherwhere, then state that you write about Canada, and not about minority cabinets around the world. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In my almost two years here I have never been in an edit war, but I am strongly considering reinserting my section on westminster unless you tell me what is wrong with it.

You have done that once already. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also I did present two links to articles outlining the common criticism of minority governments. (a criticism which I do not believe is valid, but it is still very widespread and should be addressed) Please explain why those sources are invalid or will also reinsert that section.

I will be very quick to agree with you on this kind of issues, I must however confess that I probably did this without any specifical thoughts on the links in question. I've no recollection of having done this. They surely followed en suite as I made a revertion of all your changes, the reason to which I'd stated above, don't you think? -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not want to seem agressive or confrontational but I do feel that most of what was there was at least somewhat valid. - SimonP 17:47, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's you whou should provide examples and references.

If you make a "sweeping" change, where plenty of inaccuracies can be detected also by the untrained eye, you will have to accept that your credibility is damaged, and that it is you who have to carry the burden of provements. I do not oppose your statement that your assertations were "at least somewhat valid" - my problem is that they were only partially valid, as I've detailed above. And your initial disinterest to discuss the issue (above) didn't give the best impression of your intentions.

I'm sure this discussion will make both this specific article, and tinily the wikipedia project as a whole, improved.

regards!
-- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding. You seem to not view coalition governments as a form of minority government, which is reasonable since in most of Europe majority government are so rare that politics are through the lens of a coaltion/minority dualism. In the Commonwealth majorities are the norm and we view things as a majority/minority dualism and generally lump coaltions in as a form of minority government. That is why I could carelessly toss Sweden in to the list of coaltion governed states, and why you think the talk of coaltion governments does not belong in an article on minority goverments. This is just a theory, however, maybe I've got it all wrong again. Tell me what you think of my latest effort, I do value your commentary and do think it will lead to a better article. - SimonP 19:48, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how a coalition that commands a majority in the parliament can be called a minority government. Majority/minority and one-party/coalition are two different dualisms, and all four combinations are possible. --Wik 19:59, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

True, they are not called minority govenrments, but in Canada you will never here of a coalition being elected, you will here of a minority govenrnment being elected which then might or might not transform into a coaltion.

Another example is in the long simmering debate about proportional representation. The disadvantage is always said to be minority governments, when it would, in fact, be coalition governments that result. Minority government is used as a shorthand for anything that is not a majority government.

A minority government, with an unofficial arrangement between the parties, and a coaltion, with a more solid arrangement, but one that could still fall apart at any time, are viewed as quite similar when compared with our standard majority goverments with near dictatorial powers.

This is all still just a theory and it might be totally wrong, or have nothing to with the debate at hand, however. - SimonP 20:29, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

A coalition cabinet is either a minority cabinet or a majority cabinet. That can't be a "cultural thing" - it's inherently following the definitions. I propose you move your, as far as I can judge, correct statements on coalition cabinets to coalition cabinet.

Regarding your assertion about the rareness of majority cabinets in Europe, I agree that you might have right, although I doubt it very much. Once again I think you make claims without presenting any statistical support. My impression is the opposite, i.e. that majority cabinets have been the rule in the democratic (i.e. with exception for Soviet satelites and dictatures in Portugal, Spain and Greece) part of Europe, at least during my lifetime (I'm born in 1973).

-- Ruhrjung 20:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I never said majority cabinets are rare in Europe, I said majority cabinets containing only one party are rare in Europe. To Canadians there is a great difference between a majority cabinet with multiple parties and one with one party, enough of a difference that we often treat cabinets with multiple parties as being very similar to or the same as minority governments. To us coaltion governments and minority governments seem very closely related. Also in Canada a coaltion is very rarely, if ever, refered to as a majority government. For instance the is currently a coalition government ruling Saskatchewan, but it is never refered to as a majority government, even though that is technically the case. - SimonP 21:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I quote from above: ...since in most of Europe majority government are so rare... -- Ruhrjung 21:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But in Canada majority government refers to a government where one party has a majority of the seats. We don't call coalitions majority governments, they are often even considered a form of minority government.

You should understand terms like "majority cabinet" are foreign to us. If you search for "majority cabinet" canada on google all the 47 hits are references to other countries. - SimonP 22:10, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Nothing hinders that you mention this peculiar Canadadisms :-> in a sentence in this article, but as most (if not all) of what you've contributed with actually is about multi-party majority-cabinets, you better remove it from here and inser relevant parts into the article on coalition cabinets - but also there it's highly advicable that you avoid a confusing usage of terms peculiar to Canadians. It's sufficiently confusing with Anglo-Saxon lack of stringence and logic.;->>
-- Ruhrjung 22:26, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the non-westminster stuff. I'm fine with a sentence or two directing people to the article on coalition governments. I mostly just included all the non-Westminster stuff because there was some fellow who wanted heaps of evidence for everything I was saying.

You must be aware of that in my opinion THAT is what I've done. - Thrice! With the only effect that you put new, similar versions with outlandish assertions into the article. The "heaps of evidence" are yet not presented. Chiefly, you are mixing apples with pears. I don't care about edit wars. My investment on this article has actually been much more than I would have liked, and now I really think it's your responsibility - IF you really care about the credibility of the wikipedia project. -- Ruhrjung 23:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Westminster bits, even if some of it is on what you call majority cabinets, should stay as it would still be relevant to most Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc. views on minority governments. - SimonP 22:48, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if you at all have read the first sentence of the article, stating:

A minority government, or a minority cabinet, is a cabinet of a parliamentary system which does not represent a majority in the parliament - or in bicameral parliaments, in that chamber whose confidence is considered most crucial.

-- Ruhrjung 23:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Key issues

I can see that there are arguments raging back and forth over a number of points on this article. Here are some of the points I would like to add a comment on:

Largest Party

I have changed the sentence on the largest party to "In a minority situation the head of the largest party is usually asked to form a government" since a smaller party could be asked to form a government if it was better equipped to do so ( an example of how that nearly happened in the UK can be seen after the 1974 General Election (February)

First Past the Post

First Past the Post is ridiculous and inaccurate name for the system described. However it is also the commonly accepted name - sometimes English doesn't make sense.

Continental Europe

I am unconfortable with the line "Countries in Continental Europe mainly have proportional representation, and rarely have a single party that controls a majority of the parliament." since it is not entirely accurate. Many of the countries in Europe have their own issues: for example the French government usually has a majority in Parliament, but different Presidents and Prime Ministers can lead to a system of "co-habitation" which is very different from coalition / minority government (and has nothing to do with PR). Belgium also has coalition government, but this is largely due to the Flemish and Wallonian parts having completely different political parties. Other countries that I know less about all have their own issues, but blaming it all on PR seems a little bit unfair (as it is often not the culprit).

Coalitions also mean different things in different countries. In Italy for example coalitions are often formed before elections, unlike the UK where they are formed after. (So an Italian coalition is more like a political party)

I've moved the line " Countries in Continental Europe mainly have proportional representation, and rarely have a single party that controls a majority of the parliament." per the arguments above Captainj 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I have moved these lines to the talk page as they clearly violate Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Please find someone who has said these criticisms and had them published.

Many criticize minority governments arguing they create deadlock within the government, which prevents and slows changes. Others, however, view minority governments as beneficial for creating a more diverse government that reflects more than one viewpoint.

Captainj 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wales

The details about the Labour minority government in the Welsh Assembly is rather out of date now. I've updated the information about the current state of the Assembly and the new Labour-Plaid coalition, for someone with more experience to decide whether it's still worthy of note on this page or not. AlbertSimon 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Value statements

However, a minority government tends to be less arrogant because it often requires compromise between the different parties to ensure the passage of legislation.

Arrogance is a value judgement; perhaps another more factual term should be used here. Also, "tends", "often" = weasel words. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 13:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Poorly worded sentence

The following run-on sentence could be improved:

There the long governing Social-Democrats have governed with more or, mostly, less formal support from other parties; in the mid-20th century from Agrarians, after 1968 from Communists, and more recently from Greens and ex-Communists, and have thus been able to retain executive power and (in practice) legislative initiative.

Particularly the phrase: ... governed with more or, mostly, less formal support ... 216.16.228.6 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

less arrogant

"less arrogant"? What crappy English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.3.207 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge hung parliament into minority government

I suggest that Hung parliament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Minority government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because "hung parliament" article is UK biased, and this article covers the same territory; Minority parliament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) already redirects here.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose: A "hung parliament" can lead to a minority government or a coalition government, so it definitely shouldn't be merged into the former to the exclusion of the latter. I suspect the reason the "hung parliament" article is UK biased is that the term "hung parliament" is only used in the UK. Whether the same issues are considered elsewhere under a comparable label is a pertinent question; but any such defects are for discussion on Talk:Hung parliament; this proposed merger is clearly the wrong way to try to fix them. Obviously the two articles need prominent wikilinks to each other, and duplication of material should be minimised. jnestorius^(talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:Different topics--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: a hung parliament is not the same as a minority government. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Hung parliaments and minority parliaments are not the same thing, but they are part of the same process. I think anyone interested in learning about minority parliaments would want to also read about hung parliaments and vice versa, so it would be better to discuss the two in a coordinated way under one article, so I support a merge of these two articles into a unified explanation of the process while maybe also splitting away all of the examples from specific countries into a separate list article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as they are not the same thing, a minority government is just one of the outcomes of a HP. Another outcome is a coalition government and another is a new election. However we have a problem in that the content of these two articles is very similar: both should be edited heavily so that each contains only a summary of the material more properly covered in detail by the other. The claim that an MG is "also known as a hung parliament" is blatant POV which I belive should be removed and I will now do so. --Red King (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge: A hung parliament is the event which results in these outcomes: a minority government, a coalition government or another general election. Hypothetical point. A flat tyre is an event: do we therefore have a separate articles for all the outcomes: change the wheel, call a break down service, leave the car, take the wheel to a garage etc? No because the event is the flat tyre. Is this therefore any different from having one article regarding a hung parliament which then also explains the outcomes of this event? Seems simple to me!

Question: the original prosopal is that "hung parliament" should be merged into "minority government". Your proposal seems to be that (a) "minority government" should be merged into "hung parliament", and (b) "coalition government" should also be merged into "hung parliament". Is that accurate? BTW, we have separate articles flat tyre, spare tyre, and canned tire inflator. jnestorius^(talk) 13:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Hung Parliment is the result of an election which has ended up with nether major party winning a majority of seats. It has nothing to do with minority government which only occurs after a deal has been reached with the minority parties or independants and a government is sworn in. They are not the same, but one does usually result in the other occuring. "Hung Parliment" refers specifically to an election result, where as "minority government" refers to a sworn in government that does not have a majority of seats--colliric (User talk:collirictalk) 17:25pm, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Minority government simply doesn't mean the same thing as hung parliament. If only BrE has developed a term for it, then we're stuck with that one. BillMasen (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: A hung parliament can be a mere tie result or a complete deadlock when the elections process is working correctly.

(Therefore, no party has a superior claim to be the government.) A minority government though means a group within parliament has found a way to resolve that impasse and obtain a legally acceptable way to form the next government. They are two completely different things. Hung Parliaments can turn into minority governments but if two parties before-hand iron-out a protocol then a Parliament may result in a minority government without first becoming a hung parliament. For example, if an election has three parties A, B and C. If A and B go into the election saying they plan to form a coalition then C could be out of luck once the results of the election were called avoiding the hung parliament situation completely. This situation played out in Trinidad and Tobago's 2010 general election. (The People's Partnership), CaribDigita (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: A minority government is only one outcome of a hung parliament, and by no means similar. Ratibgreat (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Hung Parliament describes the situation of a parliament in which no single party has majority control. It is about the balance of party strength in the legislature. Minority government is a description of a government that seeks to rule without commanding majority support in parliament. A minority government could be the outcome of a hung parliament but not necessarily. A hung parliament may result in various forms of government arises from a hung parliament. Marlarkey (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss other details related to the proposal here

• Merge. There is no real reason to have separate articles on what is essentially the same thing. If anything, hung parliament can be covered in both the minority government and coalition government articles.Agent 86 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No, Sorry, but it ist not the same thing, it is a special thing. And what about a reelection as a third solution? When I try to get informationa about the british governmental system and about the british parliament I look for articles like 'hung paliament'. To merge it would be a loss of information and a worse access to knowledge.--13Peewit (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose They're not the same thing at all. Various outcomes can arise from a hung parliament... one of which is a minority government. Other outcomes could be a coalition, a confidence and supply agreement, a pact, a general election. Marlarkey (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• A hung parliament (no one party has more than half of the seats) is not the same as a minority government (the group forming the government has less than half the seats parliament) in any sense. Indeed, a hung parliament does not always lead to minority government - a coalition could form to create a majority government while the parliament would remain hung. Compare the SNP minority government in Scotland with the Lib/Lab coalition majority government that proceeded it, bot were the result of a hung parliament. So I oppose the merge. Andreww (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Hung Parliament should be as much merged to Coalition Government as it should to this topic. I don't see why this is even being considered for discussion. Hung Parliament is a predecessor condition for both types of government and therefore worthy of a topic in its own right. If this came up as a subheading in either topic then I'd rightly expect to see it split so that a detailed article bridging the two would be formed. It's also more useful as a basis for listing historical hung parliaments that may have ended up with either form of government. The whole point of splitting a topic covered in more than one article is to maintain consistency.--Topperfalkon (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Quite clearly, to merge "hung parliament" into "minority government" would be an error since the latter is merely one of several possible outcomes of the former and (furthermore)"hung parliament" is a term that is only relevant in "first past the post" electoral systems whereas "minority government" is a universal possibility.

• Alternative Suggestion: Indeed minority government and hung Parliament are different. Bug isn't "hung Parliament" a British term not used anywhere else? Having lived in both Canada and UK, I suspect that non-British people are trying to find the equivalent of the term "hung Parliament" in their countries. Probably the closest term used commonly in those countries is this "minority government". Hence this merger being suggested. At least that's what I feel having regularly listened to CBC Radio which through out the election consistently told the listeners that British "hung Parliament" is the equivalent of their "minority government". Shouldn't "hung Parliament" in the UK be considered a special case of legislatures which most likely results in minority government or coalition government? Shouldn't it be called "minority parliament" or something rather than "hung parliament"? What we should have is the article that describes such legislatures in general, under a title that everyone would find adequate. Call it "minority parliament", not "hung Parliament", and let the hung Parliament be its British name. That should settle down those who found the term "hung parliament" uncomfortable to describe their legislature like current Canadian parliament. --Ippei (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The IP's specific suggestion makes no sense since a hung parliament and a minority government are quite distinct entities. Indeed, one does not necessarily imply the other. A hung parliament might result in a minority government or it might result in several other forms of government or even a new election. A minority government might be formed after an general election results in a hung parliament or it might be formed for different reasons, e.g. "In bicameral parliaments, the term relates to the situation in the chamber whose confidence is considered most crucial". Information about the latter situation should be included in this article therefore and the other article should also be expanded to cover non-UK hung parliaments. Frankly, both articles are a mess and I am not surprised the IP is somewhat confused. I am not sure if "minority parliament" is a viable alternative since that term is not widely used --Jubilee♫clipman 01:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to depend on where you live. The .uk term is "minority government", the .ca term is "minority parliament" (I infer from the discussion - am I right??). It certainly seems to be the case that "hung parliament" is a UK term for the period that begins with the election result that no party has a majority, and ends with the formation of a minority government or a coalition government or another election. Did the .au press use this term recently? --Red King (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Would a list such as this make it clearer?

It just needs the rest of the Parliamentary systems added. This was moved from the First Past The Post discussion page.

Country	Lower house	Total Seats	Threshold to form Majority government
Australia	House of Representatives	150	76
Canada	House of Commons	308	155
Barbados	House of Assembly	30	16
New Zealand	House of Representatives	120	61
United Kingdom	House of Commons	650	326

This may convey it in simplest terms.

Essentially. If you know the total # of seats within the lower chamber, divide by two, and that is the "post". Any party which obtains seats greater than the "post" number (i.e. 50%+1) would be a majority government. If a party with the greatest number of seats however has lower than the "post", then it is a minority government. To this day I still hear people in utter confusion with the UK election. This breaks it down in simplest terms. CaribDigita (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this chart would be useful elsewhere, perhaps at a page for Westminster style parliaments. Ratibgreat (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Minorities without plurality

In Canada, there is an example of a party winning fewer votes than another party, in the 1925 election, but staying in power. The incumbent Liberal government of Mackenzie King was reduced to 101 seats in the House of Commons, while the opposition Conservatives actually took the most seats (116). All others won 26 seats, 24 of them won by the Progressives. King chose to carry on in government and face the new Parliament seeking its confidence. From January to July 1926, King’s government sustained such confidence with the support of most of the Progressives (although in many cases only by one or two votes). King was forced to resign when he lost the confidence of the House in 1926. (See Federal minority governments in Canada).

The point is that no party would be able to sustain power without a coalition unless it at least had the most seats of any party. Someone tried to put in an edit that even with less seats a party could retain power, but that is misleading, as it requires a coalition, not just the one party alone. --Skol fir (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

there is still a minority government in canada

hwt— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.56.127 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 June 2011

Table of current (sic!) minority governments? Is this wise?

Wikipedia generally doesn't like the c word because what is current today is history tomorrow. Which of us guarantees forever to keep this list in its entirety up to the minute accurate? WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I suggest strongly that the table be deleted as unmaintable. Meanwhile, I will prefix it with template:as of. --Red King (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ireland

Is ireland not currently a minority government? Himynameisslimshadyspuppy (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)