Demystifying the confidence vote

[@rewboss]

Error alert! I said Willy Brandt "won easily" -- he didn't. It's true that nearly half the members of the Bundestag either didn't turn up for the vote or spoiled their ballots, and for a vote of no confidence those count as "No" votes. Even so, Barzel was only two votes short of victory.

[@baritonfelix]

BTW, Barzel is pronounced 'barts⁠əl - stress on the first syllable.

[@xaverlustig3581]

There is television footage showing Willy Brandt surprised and shaken that he won.

[@casperbetz1949]

Barzel didn't do this without a reasonable chance of getting a majority. He actually believed he could win this for good reason, because since the last elecetion in 1969 a few defectors from the governing SPD and FDP had joined the CDU/CSU, mainly in protest against the Ostpolitik , leaving the coalition with a razor-thin majority. In addition to those, I believe he had two additional (FDP?) members who had declared their intent to vote for him, should it be brought to the table. The real reason Barzel fell short of the votes needed that fateful day is basically a mystery until this day, with the exception of Julius Steiner (CDU). (google Steiner-Affäre or Steiner-Wienand-Affäre, short version: He took money from the GDR's Stasi, and tried to blame the SPD for it.) The lack of a working majority, which became apparent despite Brandt avoiding the constructive vote of no confidence, was the reason Brandt asked for a vote of confidence a few weeks later, and having lost that vote, he asked the President to dissolve the Bundestag early for the first time in its history. Brandt and the SPD narrowly won that election, and the coalition re-elected Brandt as chancellor with a "fresh" majority.

[@lamunia2]

The spoiled ballots came from the SPD, so only the FDP and CDU took part in this no confidence vote. This was to check if some people from the CDU/FDP did not vote as intended.

[@Misophist]

Let it be said, that both the mechanisms the law specifies for that purpose are part of the hard learned lessons of the Weimar Republic. They are specifically geared at not allowing to have a commissary government lacking legitimacy during some sort of power vacuum. The elected government stays in place, until it is replaced by a newly elected one. No more, no less.

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed, exactly.

[@embreis2257]

that very important detail was missing from the clip. it would explain to many viewers without a background of German history why the constitution opted for this system. Germany made some very nasty experiences with votes of no confidence. making it too easy to dismiss a chancellor without replacing him/her with enough democratic support to form a stable new government didn't work out so well in the past. 😉

[@NicolaW72]

@@embreis2257 That´s the point. It gave anti-democratic forces in the Weimar Republic like the Nazis, the Nationalists and the Communists the power to prevent a democratic elected government while they were themselves politically diveded.

[@threwyn4459]

1:30 Small correction: The new Chancellor HAS to appoint a new cabinett because the tenure of office of the previous Ministers ended according to article 69 section 2 of the German Constitution due to the old Chancellor no longer holding office

[@jrgptr935]

Klar. Das neue Kabinett kann natürlich auch das alte sein. Of course. The new cabinet can of course also be the old one.

[@threwyn4459]

@ Das kann das alte sein, es muss aber erneut vom Bundespräsidenten ernannt werden Ihr bisheriges Amt endet mit dem des Bundeskanzlers

[@Kagillia-cloudcat]

Thank you for explaining german politics without all the fearmongering we get from news reports

[@mr.netflix9149]

Is it as bad as in the US?

[@holger_p]

@@mr.netflix9149 No, it's as neutral as by rewboss. Of course sometimes they add "in this case, this will happen, in the other case that will happen" which I consider factual, but others as raising fear.

[@Kamel-d7o]

​@@mr.netflix9149 It is uncomparable, but I guess neutral News Station will Always be hard for extremists, or far right or far left opinions. Not to namecall here, but the hartes towards the öffenlich, rechtliche is entirely unjustified.

[@JacktheRah]

@@mr.netflix9149 Depends. But we have our own equivalent of "Fox News" and it's the most popular newspaper in the country. And the other newspapers aren't exactly a beacon of good journalism most of the time either. I'd say the bad ones are on US level, the good ones are probably less bad than US ones.

[@xaverlustig3581]

@@Kamel-d7o It's easy to show that the German public stations have a bias and unashamedly push it. They used not to, 25+ years ago, but they've changed massively. Pointing this out is not a bias in itself.

[@tonyharpur8383]

Well done for such a clear explanation of the way a parliamentary system works. People elect a parliament, and parliament elects a chancellor or prime minister. This procedure is written directly into the Irish Constitution. The President is only required to appoint parliament's choice. This is also why I was astonished by popular British comments during the prime ministerial merry-go-round from Cameron to Sunak that 'we didn't vote for him/her!' After all the BRITISH invented the very system they didn't seem to understand!

[@keyem4504]

Well explained. Thank you for the effort.

[@teekaa2520]

Feel you 😕 Referring to the situation in general. Or in german: "Ich bin mit der Gesamtsituation unzufrieden. 😵‍💫"

[@jurgens.3964]

There is plenty of Germans who could not explain that precisely how all that stuff works - and they should have learned at school.

[@marge2548]

I am not sure whether I have understood it and I am pretty sure I never heard it in school either. Will try to read it in German just to make sure that I got it correctly.

[@eisikater1584]

I definitely learned that in school but it's so many years ago, I didn't remember how it *exactly* works. Well, these days we got the internet, so you don't have to visit a library to refresh your knowledge.

[@Slaaan]

I don't think thats being taught often at school. I'd be happy if most of my fellow citizens would get the purpose of 1st/2nd vote correct ._.

[@notenoughmice]

@@Slaaan yeah, it's not necessary to know every detail of parliamentary life (google exists) but you should know enough to be able to meaningfully participate in the elections.

[@Felixkeeg]

I mean, this is a fringe case of the democaratic process. He likely had to read up on that himself and couldn't give an explanation right away.

[@dontworry1302]

Feels like a video made for me. You answered my question perfectly in your short response, but the added context in this video was great to learn. Thanks.

[@BestOfSound99]

I was not a fan of the Ampel, but I was really hoping for the "Kindergrundsicherung" to start in 2025 because it would make my studies at university much more affordable. I guess now there is no hope left. This really hurts.

[@BestOfSound99]

@@AltIng9154 I love it that recently the Federal Constitutional Court "Bundesverfassungsgericht" ruled that students are not in the right to demand more BAföG after the administrative court ruled it unconstitutional to be lower than the "Bürgergeld". Because "nobody is forced to go to university", simply lovely. It's like a big middle finger for everyone from a lower or middle class family trying to improve their life by attending higher education.

[@BestOfSound99]

​@@AltIng9154 I guess you are right about that. For me it was Realschule, Abi, Bundesfreiwilligendienst while Corona and now business administration and economics BS.c (Wiwi). I worked for a bank for a year as a working student, which in hindsight might have been a mistake because because I miscalculated how much energy and time it would consume and I'm now over the standard time for my degree and don't get any more BAföG since march. Well at least I got some work experience and I think that's quite important for my field of work after I get my BSc and Master. I also did try to apply for uni apartment at my uni, but because I was a little bit older than most I didn't get one (in official practices that I was told on the phone) and the school colleague of a friend I meet in my first semester got a uni apartment because the uni is 2km farther away from him, but he has public transport access and I do not. Despite my friend told me his old classmate goes on international vacation with his parents 4x a year and got a brand new car as a Abi-gift. 🙃👍 I guess it's not traditions to screw new generations of poor people over in Germany.

[@xaverlustig3581]

@@BestOfSound99 They were very keen on implementing all the bad things they agreed upon, but somehow they forgot the few good bits in welfare. I'm not surprised.

[@HerrKommandant1161]

Cope

[@BestOfSound99]

@@HerrKommandant1161 👍

[@NicolaW72]

Thank you very much for sorting this out in such a precise, clear and informative way!👍👍👍

[@StreetSurfersAlex]

Thanks again for covering this so well!

[@Theoneandonlytster]

Fair point it you don’t want to talk about current affairs then so be it it’s your channel and it is great either way. But you could ABSOLUTELY do it .

[@MATT-2043]

1:48 in the German Republic there has only been 2 votes of non-confidence meanwhile in Canada there is a vote of non-confidence every 2 days.

[@embreis2257]

what about 'votes of confidence'? does the PM propose this to parliament once in a while?

[@xaverlustig3581]

@@embreis2257 He was elected, once is enough.

[@rosaecrux]

It might be my impression due to my age, but was the opposition a bit more constructive in the past? Right now it seems to me, they have a contest going on who can stifle the government the most.

[@Lolwutfordawin]

Yep. Conservative parties lost and rather than do what's best for the country they've spent the past few years throwing a temper tantrum. Including the FDP despite being in the governing coalition. I don't recall the green party or even linke blocking everything out of principle when CDU was governing.

[@Seth90]

sadly, the CDU/CSU (well, primarily Merz and Söder) took a page out of Trump's handbook and went down the Populism route... Not only weakening the Ampel, but strengthening the AFD in the process as well. Really a bit of a mess...

[@Pyriold]

The center has been a lot bigger in the past. Now we have radical parties left and right and nobody wants a coalition with them.

[@juavi6987]

It depends: In the 90s and early 2000 the opposition would often down-vote every law on-principle that came from the gouvernment in the Bundesrat, once they got a majority there, which was the reason for the "Föderalismus-Reform", that greatly reduced the number if laws that needed approval in 2006 and the snap-election by Schröder in 2005, after they lost the state-elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, to get new legitimacy, that would have tuned down 'fundamental-opposition' by the CDU/CSU in the Bundesrat, had he won.

[@jrgptr935]

​@@Seth90War die CSU jemals anders? Has the CSU ever been any different?

[@minski76]

Of course Merz would have a vote of confidence in a heartbeat, but he could only get the needed majority to get himself into office with the AfD. Which at this point, even he doesn't have the gall to do. Yet.

[@Engy_Wuck]

he'd need 367 votes (the law wants a majority of all members, not only those present), the Union has 196, so even with KfD ("Katastrophe für Deutschland", 77 seats) and FDP (91) he'd need voted from the far left (Line or BSW) or half of those without party affiliation (currently 7). Probably impossible. Without votes from KfD or FDP it becomes impossible (Union+Linke+BSW+FDP = 325, Union+Linke+BSW+KfD = 311) - so he'd need the FDP to vote with the KfD to make him chancellor...

[@xaverlustig3581]

I don't think Merz would get a majority. Why would the AfD out of all parties vote for a chancellor from a different party? Why would anyone else?

[@minski76]

​@@xaverlustig3581 Well, even if they don't form a coalition, a CDU/FDP minority government tolerated by AfD and/or BSW would give the tolerating party/parties a substantial influence. Without actually having to take responsibilities, which those particular parties might like even better.

[@Engy_Wuck]

@@xaverlustig3581 well, theoretically they could vote for a chancellor, which then immediately calls vor a vot of confidence, which he loses making way for early snap elections. So we could have a lost vote of confidence by Friday (each of these votes needs two days between setting it on the agenda and voting for it), plus a maximum of 21 days for the president to call a new election plus a maximum of 60 days after for the election would mean a snap election on or before February 2nd instead of the March date currently proposed. So fully in the pre-carnival season - and the coldest and snowiest days of the year.

[@xaverlustig3581]

@@minski76 Why do you assume that those parties are so terribly keen on changing the government and vote for Merz out of all people? BSW in particular are about their political goals, not swapping out personnel for no good reason.

[@Henning_Rech]

The idea of the vote of confidence is to give the chancellor a tool to act pressure on an existing coalition to pass an important law to which it can be bound (same vote for passing the law and declare confidence); so the coalition can decide if they want to risk new elections or pass the law. - If the controversial topic wouldn't have been the budget but something else, Scholz could have chosen this way to get it passed. But the budget is controlled by the secretary of finance who has a veto there. It was big mistake to give this position (much more influential than vice-chancellor) to the smallest party.

[@fynnkessels2488]

I don’t think that is the intended purpose. It’s merely been abused that way quite often. The original idea was to allow for the dissolution of parliament in situations like the current one: collapse of the government’s support in parliament without a new coalition reaching a parliamentary majority. And technically, bills can be introduced by members of either chamber of parliament (Bundestag or Bundesrat) without the need for government support.

[@stroke_of_luck]

Thank you! I have been wondering about all this. On American TV it usually reported that a change of government or an election happens immediately. (I imagine that was the norm during the Weimar years) As always you have reasonable and clear reporting even though I very often disagree with the conclusions you draw. If people who report on the news the way you do it as opposed to the way it always happens in America the world would be a saner more pleasant place

[@shinyagumon7015]

I feel like the reason it's so complicated now is because it happend so often during the Weimar Years that they never had a stable enough goverment to do anything.

[@NicolaW72]

In the Weimar Republic the President could dissolve the Parliament as often as he wanted to do it. The misuse of this Power by President Hindenburg, which contributed much to the rise of the Nazis, triggered this new regulation which is in-charge in the Federal Republic.

[@embreis2257]

sadly, your imagination is wrong. during the Weimar republic, the constitution allowed for a vote on no confidence without replacing the chancellor. more often than not, the defeated chancellor went to the president and was kept in office leading a minority government. in dire circumstances, the president even evoked emergency powers. this happened way too often. there were general elections to the Reichstag often enough but due to the voting system and the general turmoil of the times the outcome was not making the formation of a stable government any easier. therefore, many chancellors of unstable governments didn't expect much from new elections and opted to go on without a majority. the experiences of this failed system were decisive for the makers of the current constitution to find a better solution. now the Bundestag can dismiss the chancellor only by directly electing another person into office.

[@Einheit091]

Brandt did not win easy. It Was only a two votes difference. Besides you forgot to mention Erhard in 66, "The Request for a confidence vote"

[@rewboss]

You're right, I wasn't thinking.

[@robertjarman3703]

In the German states, the state Parliament, a Landtag in most cases IIRC, can dissolve themselves, sometimes by a majority vote, others by 2/3 of the MPs. They all need a constructive vote of no confidence to oust the incumbent. If a confidence vote is held and the prime minister fails to win majority support, that differs state to state.

[@DB-ouyebut]

I love Demokratie ❤ especially, if it is done in "The German Way". All strings attached and very straight to the roof an complicated. Perfection at work 💁‍♂️

[@notroll1279]

The strings to sacking a chancellor were attached to avoid the instability seen during the Weimar Republic. It's all fun and games to say no to an incumbent chancellor - but it's a lot harder to agree on a successor - and the founding parents of the Federal Republic didn't want Germany to float around without a working government.

[@NicolaW72]

@@notroll1279 Indeed, exactly.

[@louisgray3479]

It's also worth noting that a failed vote of confidence does not remove the Chancellor from office. A failed vote of confidence does make it possible for the the Chancellor to ask the president to dissolve the Bundestag, but the Chancellor doesn't have to ask and the president doesn't have to comply (Until now they always did abs will again this time). If the Bundestag is not dissolved, and the Chancellor remains as head of a minority government, the failed vote of confidence makes it possible for him to request, that the president may declare a legislative emergency (again, the president may deny the request), which would make it possible to pass laws without the Bundestags support, if the federal council approves.

[@QALibrary]

Thank you for explaining everything - i forgot that Germany had a president

[@BlackWater_49]

0:00 They could. The Bundestag can withdraw their confidence from a chancellor by electing a new chancellor. They don't want to do that though, they want early elections.

[@fynnkessels2488]

Important clarification: dissolution of the Bundestag is *discretionary* for the president after a failed vote of confidence (unlike other acts like signing laws). In cases of governmental abuse like the example of Helmut Kohl you mentioned, the president should refuse to do so. But yeah, in the current situation (collapse of the coalition with no new parliamentary majority) the president should dissolve parliament.

[@Shadowguy456234]

It's interesting watching this from Switzerland, and now rather than this convoluted and tense situation, let me propose the Swiss solution: have a federal council of 7 chancellors. What could possibly go wrong 😉

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Why exactly seven? Isn't it basically as if we took all the ministers and just make them chancellors as well? And even if we apply the same Zauberformel, that would give us 2 SPD, 2 CDU/CSU, 2 Green and 1 FDP chancellor, representing 76% of the parliament.

[@oumuamua1673]

I mean technically they could change the chancellor and the new one will do the vote of confidence

[@Henning_Rech]

What do you mean with "change the chancellor"? - A new chancellor can only be elected in a vote of non-confidence by a majority of the parliament, or, if Scholz would step back, again by a majority of the parliament. With six parties in the parliament no coalition of two would have a majority, other than CDU + SPD, and why should the governing SPD want to become the minority partner for the CDU? - And there is no other thinkable coalition of three. - While the situation probably will be same or worse after a reelection of the parliament.

[@UnbelievableEricthegiraffe]

So here we are, eight days after this video, on the 18th of November. Last Friday, the 15th of November, Olaf Scholz had his first phone call with Putin. Twenty-four hours later, Russia launched its biggest attack on Ukraine since the invasion in February 2022. I wonder how the conversation went. "How's the weather in Moscow in November? It's cold in Berlin too. How's your health, Vlad? Good, gut. Well, it's been nice talking to you. Have a nice Christmas. All the best to your family." He then spent the next few hours composing a statement for the press. Germany is an important European country. It really, really is. And the citizens of Donetsk on Sunday morning collected their dead and found somewhere else to live as their apartment buildings had been destroyed. Deutschland says to itself, "We are a really, really important country," over and over. I cannot find an emoji for complete and utter contempt.

[@videomailYT]

And don't forget Schröder or Kohl but at all, we had 5 times an confidence votum like this, or to be more precise, we had 4 until now and this time it would be the 5th one... 🤔🤷

[@MyBroSux24]

Question: What CAN the Minority-Coalition for Red-Greens even do now, i mean they need approval from Oppositional parties for any bills they want to pass through bundestag. but they still form a government and can work on the ministrative things that are passed so far right? i think i haven't found an straight answer on what the Chanslor and misters can do now without any help from opposition

[@barvdw]

In theory, they could get tacit support from one or a few opposition parties in return for some concessions, they could also form new coalitions for each item on the agenda (get the support from Union on some sensible economical reforms, with Die Linke or BSW on changes to the agricultural policy, etc)... The latter is basically the method with which the European Parliament works, even if particracy has increased, too. But I do find it an interesting concept, as for each item, you have to find a new majority, instead of the typical horse-trading where coalition members have to drop key ideas to get in.

[@FlyingAnanas-337]

Basically they still want to pass outstanding bills that they have oppositional agreement with

[@rewboss]

In terms of things like getting budgets approved and laws passed, a minority government is indeed in a very difficult position and relies on the goodwill of at least some opposition parties. In terms of keeping the country running, overseeing government departments, responding to emergencies, and so on, that's unaffected.

[@Henning_Rech]

It is a similar situation to a US president who does not have the majority in the House, like it was the past 2 years. The government is fully functional but cannot pass bills or a budget on its own. While the budget is less critical than in the US, all running expenses would be covered nevertheless, there is no shutdown.

[@xaverlustig3581]

@@MyBroSux24 They can do administrative stuff, anything that doesn't require legislation or money.

[@frankfurtrob866]

Perhaps you can do a video on why minority governments are bad. They're quite common elsewhere

[@Dominik-lc4pl]

Couldn't Scholz just not request that vote and stay in power?

[@user78994]

Yes, but regular elections arent too far away either and holding onto power for power sake is never a good luck. Besides, he relies on the other parties to pass any laws currently anyway.

[@rewboss]

Of course, it's his decision to make. But he'd be leading a minority government and there's a high risk he wouldn't get his budget passed -- meaning the country would revert to an emergency budget and the government would be effectively powerless to do much at all.

[@juavi6987]

​​@@rewbossHe could attach the budget with the declaration of urgency according to Art.81Basic Law: He than would be, depending on Presidential Approval, be able to pass temporary laws with Bundesrat-approval, only. -Although that demands that CDU-gouvernments in the states would act more resposibly than their Bundestag-Group, and as I can only imagine this happening for additional Ukraine-assistance, once the BSW comes into the state-govs., it would be difficult anyways, as the want early elections as well and won't support that...

[@NicolaW72]

Chancellor Konrad Adenauer did this in-fact: When the FDP withdraw from his Government in 1956 he simply stayed in office for another year until the regular elections in 1957. At this election he got for the single time in the history of the Federal Republic an absolute majority and needed no longer the support of an coalition partner.

[@rewboss]

@@NicolaW72 He had a majority of less than 1%, so he still entered into a coalition with another, very small, party, even though he didn't have to. Then the members of that party that had cabinet posts joined the CDU, ending the coalition and giving Adenauer a slightly safer majority.

[@Luchsens]

Regarding your member levels: Since you know the history behind the spelling alphabet's "Dora", it would be nice if you would consider replacing it by "David".

[@HerrKommandant1161]

Alice Weidel would be the best. Not possible unfortunately

[@abiyasad2]

Scholz is literally doing Schroeder's way of triggering election

[@rittersportfan]

But Schröder still had a working coalition with a majority in the Bundestag. That's why his vote of confidence to trigger fresh elections was indeed disputed. Scholz doesn't have a coalition with a majority anymore because the FDP withdraw from it. That's an example out of the textbook for a situation the vote of confidence (as trigger for fresh elections) was designed for.

[@nfzed]

Schröders dissolution was faked and shouldn‘t have been allowed. His coalition proved before and after the votes that they had a majority. Scholz doesn’t. At the moment he doesn’t command a majority in parliament but neither does the leader of the opposition. Fresh elections are the only way to solve it.

[@alvaroludolf]

Argh... I miss my country on this. There people vote and whoever have more votes rule for 4 years. It is not perfect, specially when the president don't have the majority of the congress and senate (they rarely have) but at least people understand who is going to rule.

[@rewboss]

If your reference to "congress and senate" means that your country is the US, it's not always true that whoever has more votes wins the election. And of course there are mechanisms for removing a president who has fallen from grace or become unable to perform his duties. There were two attempts made against Trump in his first term.

[@juavi6987]

The situation is basically like a President that just lost his Congressional majority and fired a replaced a few Cabinet members. He basically could stay in power until September, but would struggle to get any laws passed

[@alvaroludolf]

@@rewboss Yeah.... it is not the US, I come from Brazil. Like I said, it is not perfect, but it is easier to understand. To me the US system is just as convoluted as parliamentarism if not worse. We used to have indirect democracy during the dictatorship years.

[@videomailYT]

^^ to drag this out for 1 year...well it feels like merkel drag that out 16 years...but well, that's my opinion... 🤔🤷

[@Commander_Chopper]

Merkel won many elections back to back, it's hardly dragging it out when people were assenting to it?

[@Heresor]

What I don't get is why coalitions are even allowed. Why preemptively decide the decision of every vote? Sacrificing what your party stands for; what you have been elected to enact, just to rig the vote by making backroom deals with the other parties to get a few of your own policies through. Members of the parliament who have been elected with the 2nd vote should be forced to vote what the party advertized it would try to enact. And members who went in with the direct vote should vote according to their own belief, no matter if they are a party member or not.

[@barvdw]

Basically, to make it workable. You want a government that can count on the support of a stable voting block in parliament. A coalition government has negotiated a deal where the members get at least a few of their points through, even if they had to drop other points for it, and had to support points they are rather unexcited about. With a proportional system, you rarely have one party who has a majority on its own, you'll always have to convince others to your side. And that means, they likely want something in return. It's easier to deal with just one or 2 different parties in a stable coalition than having to find a new majority for each next point. Now, the European Parliament works somewhat like you describe it, and it's definitely fascinating, but also very hard, because basically you have nothing to bargain with.

[@FlyingAnanas-337]

Lol, are you American? Just bc you don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's worse than your system!

[@rewboss]

The idea is that parliament should reflect the will of the people as a whole, so a system of proportional representation ensures that as far as reasonably possible. In a parliamentary democracy, the government cannot govern without the support of parliament, so any head of government needs to win an absolute majority in parliament. And that means a coalition; or, if that's not possible, a minority government with the promise of support from at least some opposition MPs. If you don't want coalitions but you still want a government accountable to parliament, you need Britain's first-past-the-post system. But that creates problems: for example, at the last election the electorate actually shifted to the right, with a lot of votes going from the Conservative Party to Reform; but because of the way a FPTP system works, that resulted in a landslide victory for the left-of-centre Labour Party. It's not unusual for a party to win, say, 60% of the seats from 40% of the vote. Even that's not a guarantee. David Cameron was forced into a coalition with the Lib Dems, and Theresa May led a minority government with the support of the DUP. If you don't mind a government that isn't fully accountable to the legislature, you're looking at a US-style presidential system with a two-party system. It has to be a two-party system, otherwise you end up with a situation like this: Candidate A gets 40% of the votes, Candidate B gets 35%, and Candidate C gets 25%. Candidate A wins and takes office, even though 60% of the electorate voted against him. Not exactly representative of the will of the nation, is it?

[@Henning_Rech]

You prefer a dictatorship over a democracy?

[@holger_p]

Democracy needs a majority of minimum 50%, so people form a group to form this majority. It's simple Math, what's not to get on this ? If 20% of people want this, and 30% of people want that, they can say "OK, let's find a compromise, restrain a little of our goals, but keep the most of them, most often, there are common goals anyway, and this way they at least get something, better than nothing. What other procedure do you want, if you have 5 parties on 20% each ? Why you think there are debates and speaches at all, if you just want to enforce stubburn following of "what the party stands for". Talks should move something in peoples minds. Coalition talks is, where this really happens.

[@denisjames8024]

germany needs bjorn hocker!

[@Questionmark142]

is that a new product at ikea?

[@tomlahsberg6896]

Ah yes a fascist that can't even spell names

[@Engy_Wuck]

isn't his given name Bernd? 😛

[@tomlahsberg6896]

@@Engy_Wuck correct

[@rittersportfan]

Nobody needs this Hobby-Goebbels.