They're still Prime Minister after the election, but I'm suggesting that the claim that it is NOW convention that they should resign, giving the leaded of the party that wins the most seats the first shot at attempting to form a government that can receive the House's confidence, isn't crazy (you even quoted me as saying "arguably"). So it's not entirely clear to me that your post, however substantive, actually addresses the thesis of my post (which, to be clear, I wasn't entirely endorsing).

I think you'll be able to agree that, at least, the statements I cited do seem to say that a PM failing to gain a plurality should resign after advising the Governor General to first consult with the leader of the plurality party leader. That's exactly what Mr. Ignatieff's statement said:

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.

If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament. If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge. That is our Constitution. It is the law of the land.

I am NOT certain that this changes the convention, such that a PM who failed to win a plurality couldn't cling to power anyway, but I think it's possible; if the intention of the two major actors involved is to act in that manner, then there's a case.

I snuck in just above you and argued that the convention may now be that the PM resigns, then the GG goes to the person with the most seats.

I suppose one could argue, based on the precedent Mr. Coyne cited, that it's "the person with the most seats, unless the seat totals are very close, in which case the sitting PM gets first crack". However, I don't think it's clear we have a consensus from the actors involved on that point; Mr. Ignatieff didn't deal with that question in his statement, and I personally suspect Mr. Harper would support it if he fell just behind the Liberals, but that, were the positions reversed and the CPC started out well behind but then snuck past the seat total of a party led by a Liberal PM, he would argue that the GG had to recognize "the clear will of the Canadian people" expressed in his party's momentum.

Arguably, Martin's action, Ignatieff's statement, and Harper's stream of attacks on the coalition are evidence that the convention is now that the leader of the party with the most seats gets the first shot at finding enough votes to pass a confidence vote. On that point, all three of those leaders agree.

Beyond that, we then have Ignatieff stating that if that leader fails, the leader of the second place party is entitled to attempt to corral a majority; it's unclear what Harper thinks, since he hasn't squared his actions in 2004 with his words today. Beyond that point, we really have no idea; maybe the third then fourth place party leaders, maybe we have an immediate election, maybe the Governor General steps in and identifies a different MP who appears to be at an ideological pivot point to become PM (I prefer the latter).

My point being, you may not be as wrong as you thought; conventions can change. If this is how you, I, and the leaders of the major parties all believe the convention to stand, then that's what it is.

A solid suggestion. I'm being serious, here; wouldn't it be great if Harper had to sit right next to Ignatieff?

You're aware that there's a spending limit during electoral campaigns, and that the Liberals and NDP have both said they have enough to spend the max, right?

I don't see how one can not find the "building a fort" joke funny.

It's an interesting point, but, first, I'm not sure that I agree that (as Mike wrote below) the platforms are the most similar. I think on economic issues that may be true, except that two parties are opposed to the corporate tax cut at this time. But on social issues, I think the Liberal position is closer to the NDP. Second, I think we do have to do a little bit of reading beyond just what's in the platforms; the same way the Cons make stuff up about things Iggy's "going to do" that he's said he never would, Liberals don't trust Harper as far as they can throw him to stick to his platform.

CanadianSense-y,

No, YOU list an example of Canadian history of a PM perpetuating the myth that it's illegitimate for the House to give its confidence to whomever it wants to sit as PM.

I disagree. An honourable politician would step aside before that vote happened. A rogue would prorogue. But either way, the vote needn't necessarily happen.

There's literally no chance that Ignatieff will lose "to Harper for PM" because no on runs for PM; it's not like POTUS.

So, the reason it would be "okay with me" is that if the House is unwilling to give Member of Parliament Harper its confidence to form a government, but is willing to give that confidence to MP Iggy, then he gets to form a government, beause that's how our system works.

Finally, if you mean you FEEL the party winning the most seats should form the government, fine; that's a political position you can hold if you'd like, but it's NOT a constitutionally correct one. I would urge, however, that you consider a different, if less likely result: if it was Cons 101, Libs 100, NDP 65, BQ 42, then I think you'd find your principle breaks down.