2006-09-06 01:25:21 · 24 answers · asked by pebs 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Queen would take over and sort the problem out. Like your style, a great idea to get them out of board rooms and back working for the public not their pockets
2006-09-06 01:29:04 · answer #1 · answered by thecharleslloyd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think those standing in the election would vote for themselves - this is perfectly allowable and happens all the time. Also, the candidates have agents, who are frequently paid for their role and would not want their candidate to lose their deposit, so they too would vote. They'd both make sure that all their families voted.
I just don't think this could ever happen. However disillusioned most of the electorate become, there is still a group of people that will never fail to vote - politicians and aspiring politicians.
2006-09-06 04:00:20 · answer #2 · answered by Vic M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically the government is not elected at all. Members of Commons are elected, but the Prime Minister is (technically) selected by the crown. That's why it's called "Her Majesty's" government. Of course, in practice, the leader of the party winning a majority in Commons is "invited" by HM to form a government, but as a matter of law, if no Parliament were successfully elected, she would still have the authority to name a government. Then, presumably, she would call for new elections. (Again, technically, that is her duty, not the PM's.)
2006-09-06 01:39:57 · answer #3 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the exisiting government would probably become the provisional government (pm does not actually move out of number 10 until the result is announced). the election would not have achieved a quorum (i.e. minimum number of votes) so another election would be planned by the provisional government. officially the queen is the head of state so is therefore able to veto any rules brought about by the provisional government and in turn keep them in check. as the queen has never vetoed any new laws it is unlikely that she would start though.
2006-09-06 01:38:10 · answer #4 · answered by Chintot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm sure the politicians would find some way of clinging on to the power they have, and as all major parties have the same ideology it wouldn't be hard for them to form a national government even if only they members voted for them.
i mean more people voted for will young to win on pop idol than for blair at the last election but it didn't stop labour from claiming victory did it?
2006-09-06 01:42:40 · answer #5 · answered by che 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some previous solutions might desire to be precise, yet whilst no one fairly voted, i'm uncertain that a returning officer's casting vote could word. In such situations it would desire to be that the Queen. through fact the staggering Head of State may be the only to decide what happens. even with each and every thing, even even with each and every thing the balloting and counting is carried out, it rather is She who invites the winner to variety a central authority. It won't be able to be stored far off from her say so. thrilling question nevertheless!
2016-11-25 00:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by marnell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Queen would probably have to take charge, but someone will always vote because your allowed to vote for yourself so if no one else voted I would and I would win! world domination is just around the corner
2006-09-06 01:30:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, The Archbishop of Canterbury would have to appoint a government on behalf of The Queen.
2006-09-06 02:00:14 · answer #8 · answered by Dover Soles 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
then the ruling government would stay, all no votes go to the ruling party at the time
2006-09-06 01:32:28 · answer #9 · answered by FLOYD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the current person with the seat that is being voted for will remain until everyone agrees to vote
2006-09-06 01:35:21 · answer #10 · answered by The Love Hormone 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋