I suspect that the very scale you refer to is an argument in favor of primaries. Without them, the D.C. establishment would exercise an even greater influence on the direction of a party, with bad results for the folks who are physically or culturally on the other side of the country.
I would argue that that's a failing of a two party system more than anything else, in that it requires that a vastly disparate set of ideals and views of where the country should go need to be shoe-horned into two parties who, from this side of the pond, don't look too different because they have to be so many things to so many people. Hence the troubles in the Republicans between the capitalists and the theocrats.
Question: what exactly does it mean when they say so-and-so couldn't form a government?
That no one group of people who agreed to share power could form and there was no majority within Parliament to support the Cabinet and Prime Minister - the PM can only be PM if enough people support him within Parliament to allow him to form a Cabinet.
no subject
I would argue that that's a failing of a two party system more than anything else, in that it requires that a vastly disparate set of ideals and views of where the country should go need to be shoe-horned into two parties who, from this side of the pond, don't look too different because they have to be so many things to so many people. Hence the troubles in the Republicans between the capitalists and the theocrats.
Question: what exactly does it mean when they say so-and-so couldn't form a government?
That no one group of people who agreed to share power could form and there was no majority within Parliament to support the Cabinet and Prime Minister - the PM can only be PM if enough people support him within Parliament to allow him to form a Cabinet.