Those who argued for a majority argued that this would finally enable the nation to 'move forward' with a stable government with a mandate to get things done. I just want to paint a slightly different perspective through reference to an institution and idea that often times seems to get lost around election time. This 'idea' is democracy - the notion that decisions regarding our society and our future should be made with input and participation from the citizenry. If all we want to do is get things done and move forward, and, above all, achieve 'stability', well, there are way more efficient political paradigms out there to achieve this. Most notable of these is a dictatorship. There's nothing more efficient than one person making the call.
During the lead up to the election I heard reference made to the money that gets wasted in a minority government. Yes it's true - democracies are expensive. But some time ago some societies agreed it was worth the cost, and ostensibly we in the West still share this belief. Granted - having a minority government that has to spend time consulting, collaborating, and debating issues in the House with other parties before making a decision going forward is more expensive than the alternative. But isn't this what, at a fundamental level, we all believe in? Electing representatives to get together in a parliament, voice the concerns of constituents, and ensure that no one interest or person can make decisions without some sort of accountability to, or consultation with, the citizenry? I'll admit this is a bit of an idealistic perspective, but I would argue that, in the context of our current electoral system, minority governments at least get us some level of discussion, collaboration, and consensus building at parliament.
