Personally, I find that countries are generally run the best when they're coalition governments that still end up without a majority on the parliament. Whenever that's been the case in Norway, we've pretty much done incredibly well. The reason is that you have to get some of the parties who aren't in your coalition to agree with you, and that means you have to think things through and put them forward in the parliament.

That way, the policies that pass are policies that pretty much everybody has to agree with in some way. Sure, it makes the processes slower, and there will be fewer changes, but very few western countries need radical changes at the moment. One of the main problems we have is that one government makes a change, and then the next one undoes it when they're elected. With coalition minorities, virtually all the changes are good.

I thought the whole point of parliament was that somebody had to have the majority, to run the thing? Coalition or not, you need that 50% + 1 somehow, or else the executive calls for dissolution of parliament and new rounds of elections...

There is the possibility to have a government, that is backed by a minority in parliament. ans we should remember one thing: In modern democracies we use the principle of separation of powers - for good reasons. If the government (executive) is backed by their own party in parliament (legislative) the borders between the powers are becoming blurry. That leads to the excess, that the government creates laws instead of the parliament.

In theory, the groups opposing the sitting government could perform a vote of no confidence. However, that's not very possible (unless the sitting government actually does do bad stuff, in which case a vote of no confidence is fine). Remember that while the sitting government has a minority in the parliament, they're the biggest minority. The following could be the case in Norway (and I think it was roughly this 2 governments ago)

Socialist coalition: 45%
Conservative coalition: 30%
Further right than the conservative coalition: 15%
Communists: 5%
Other: 5%

Now, the conservatives could forward a vote of no confidence, but they'd have to get virtually everybody in on it. Additionally, throwing the sitting government without the sitting government performing poorly would be suicide from a popularity perspective. I'm not exactly sure what would happen, but I'm fairly sure that there would be a re-election. It's unlikely that the conservative coalition would improve at all, and they'd be incredibly unlikely to surpass the socialist coalition. So, there's a re-election, and the socialists are still largest. Thus, the king goes to the socialist coalition again and asks them to create a new coalition government.

That way, nothing is really changed at all. Obviously, the conservatives could do a vote of no confidence once again, but it's very doubtful they'd get the other parties to do it, because it would be political suicide for all of them. You're essentially hampering any governmental choices for a long period, and tearing the country apart. Thus, people decide that it's better to just vote for the socialist coalition, because that does at least lead to having a government.

Essentially, it just means that the minority government can be overthrown if they lose the respect of their people. The currently siting government in Norway, for instance, might have been overthrown now if they were a minority. And really, that would probably have been for the best, as they've lost the people's respect. The national polls suggest they have 35-40% of the people behind them, while the biggest conservative party and the further-to-the right than them together have 50%, and then the others in the conservative coalition have another 10%.

There's another benefit of minority governments, and that is that they have to discuss with the experts. From 1965 to 2004, we always had minority coalition governments with a few exceptions. This meant that any suggestions the government made had to persuade at least some of the people outside of the coalition to agree with them. So when faced with a problem, they got experts to write a report on it, and then followed the report. In other words, the governments had to have a very good idea before presenting it to the parliament.

But for the past 8 years, we've had a majority government. Neither have exceeded 55%, I believe, so it's always been very close. However, they just get an idea and "force" it past the parliament now by making all the people from their coalition in the parliament vote in favour of it. This has made for a load of absolutely horrible decisions that could never have been made with a minority government. They've virtually ruined our entire health sector already.

So they simply need to be large enough to be feasible (e.g. a plurality), and not a majority? I must remember things incorrectly from my freshman Comparative Politics class, or else they were specifically referring to the British system...

In regards to the France thing, i feel disturbed by the ability of bond-market rating agencies to attempt to regulate policy. Hollande may be preaching pie-in-the-sky programs that are untenable, but he is correct in asserting that a new, fundamentally exploitative (that is, primarily non-productive in matters except moving money around on balance sheets, no better than the landed classes of old) class has emerged in the world of modern finance, one that needs to be distinguished from the productive financial classes (that is, consumer banks, stock markets, and venture capital), and in turn needs to be heavily constrained or regulated out of existence (paper-trading commodities markets, hedge funds, derivatives, currency speculation)

People have different values regarding a political system. Many value a stable government high.

I does not, even without a working government (Belgium) nothing really bad happens, if it is a democracy. The parliament works without a government and decides about anything. Also the ministry-burocreacy can work without a head.

In monarchies (and today dictatorships) the stability of the whole country depends on the monarch or dictator. In former times it happened, that if the monarch died a war could start over the succession. Think about the wars of the roses or the bloodshed over the succession to Henry VIII (that eventually lead to another stable monarch, Elisabeth I., but before many bloodshed and possible kings and queens). That leads people to the thinking, that a stable government is needed for a prosperous country.

But in a democracy things change. As the power is not so centralized, the country as a whole is not dependent on the government. Other institutions work well without a government. That's why a minority-government like it sometimes happened in scandinavia and seldom in germany can work well.

So the French results are in, with Hollande in first, followed by Sarkozy, and actually with Le Pen in 3rd. Given Le Pen's strong showing, i think Sarkozy could clinch a runoff (since the Le Pen voters sure as hell aren't going for Hollande). That far-left guy came in 4th, with others further down.

That'll probably be the case, though supporting Sarkozy and his damaged political image wouldn't be within the Front Nationale best interests if they want to settle themselves as the main opposition party Having Hollande to win elections and then fail implementing his economic agenda would probably create a repeat of last year's situation in Spain and, surely the NF hopes, give Le Pen victory the next time around. 

Le Pen voters might not go for ANYBODY though.

From what i've read surveys peg only about 50% of LePen voters going to vote vs 80% For Melenchon.

And the pandering begins (still on France, here)

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/france-election-sarkozy-focus-idINDEE83M03020120423