- Thread starter harold
- Start date
50 + 1 vote
I am strongly in favor of the 50+1 requirement or at least some variation of it. I believe it insures or should insure that the majority receive who they really think they want. The main drawback I can see is the extra cost of holding another election for the government as well as the additional cost to the parties. It would be interesting to hear other ideas.
harold, taking out the 50+1 requirement will not prevent party alliances, but it will make it easier for PRD, the party that presently has the largest membership, to win the election on the first round. Taking it out will force the other parties to form an alliance on the first round, rather than the second as was the case in the past two presidential elections, if they want to keep the PRD candidate from winning the presidency.
It is the PRD, which presently controls the Senate and the Presidency that is pushing the hardest to remove this requirement.
I personally favor the 50+1 requirement.
It is the PRD, which presently controls the Senate and the Presidency that is pushing the hardest to remove this requirement.
I personally favor the 50+1 requirement.
Manouever to get PRD forever!
The 50 + 1 will oblige the two opposition parties to form working alliances(sp?)...
Balaguer showed the PLD what would happen if they didn't. I believe he did this because when there was a PRSC-PLD alliance, the PLD welched on its obligations and became the Come-solo party. Balagues said, okey, let's see what happens when you go by yourselves...and they lost everything, just about.
NOw it is time to grow up..
HB
The 50 + 1 will oblige the two opposition parties to form working alliances(sp?)...
Balaguer showed the PLD what would happen if they didn't. I believe he did this because when there was a PRSC-PLD alliance, the PLD welched on its obligations and became the Come-solo party. Balagues said, okey, let's see what happens when you go by yourselves...and they lost everything, just about.
NOw it is time to grow up..
HB
Either way, we're @!$*%!#$!d
Okay, okay, either way we're @#$%&%$#d. But if the only difference is that the centrist and rightist parties would need to form an alliance sooner rather than later, what's the harm? Believe me, I don't ask the question because I like Ese Maldito Carbo. Not at all. I'm just wondering if a constitutional change might backfire on the PRD.
Seems to me the real determiner will be whether Balaguer lives or dies. If he dies, an alliance can be formed again. Apparently, Leonel really screwed El Jefe Junior in '96, but will the rest of the Reformistas remember it? Or care?
Okay, okay, either way we're @#$%&%$#d. But if the only difference is that the centrist and rightist parties would need to form an alliance sooner rather than later, what's the harm? Believe me, I don't ask the question because I like Ese Maldito Carbo. Not at all. I'm just wondering if a constitutional change might backfire on the PRD.
Seems to me the real determiner will be whether Balaguer lives or dies. If he dies, an alliance can be formed again. Apparently, Leonel really screwed El Jefe Junior in '96, but will the rest of the Reformistas remember it? Or care?
Last edited: