Talk:Constructive vote of no confidence

Now that Israel cancelled the direct prime-ministerial elections and returned to it's old system (in 2001), the vote of no confidence was changed to be constructive. The Knesset, in order to dissolve the government, must now offer an alternative government. I believe this change should be added to this article, as well as Constructive Votes of No Confidence in other countries besides Germany (if such exist). If there are no objections or alternative suggstions, I'll add this info myself in a few days.


 * Government of Wales Act 2006 s 47(2)(b)&(3) also stipulated a similar requirement. I think this should also be added to the article.

No Constructive vote of no confidence in 2005
It is not right that there was a constructive vote of no confidence in 2005. It was a vote of confidence (Vertrauensfrage) because there was no other contestant the deputies could vote. Furthermore, after a constructive vote of no confidence, the president must not dissolve the Bundestag. A dissolving can just happen if the chancellor asks the president to do so after a lost Vertrauensfrage.

Articles 67 and 68 in the German Grundgesetz

It is written that in 2005 Chancellor Schroeder did not use Article 67 ("constructive motion of no confidence"), instead in order to cause dissolution of the Bundestag, he used motion of confidence (Article 68) having "instructed" majority members of the Bundestag (SPD - party that had majority and that Schroeder was president) to vote against the motion (of confidence!). Thus the Federal President could dissolve the Bundestag what he did and new elections were held. Tommy130275 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion of confidence versus motion of no confidence
It seems that this article mixes up two things: "Vertrauensfrage" and "konstuktives Misstrauensvotum". Although there are similarities, it is not the same! E.g. a motion of confidence ("Vertrauensfrage") can also be used by the chancellor to force a legislation which is somehow unpopular among his supporters. In this case the motion of confidence is tied to e.g. a certain law the chancellor wants to be enacted. Then his supporters only have the choice to either enact the law or dismiss the chancellor - something they usually do not want. This was also used by Gerhard Schröder a few years before his intentionally lost motion of confidence.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constructive vote of no confidence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117063355/http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx to http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Where invented?
This article claims it was a post-war development in West Germany but Preußenschlag claims the provision existed in the Prussian constitution by 1932. Which is right? Timrollpickering 23:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Germany section
Besides removing the un-encyclopedic language that can lead to misunderstanding, I added sources and corrected the following errors of fact:

There was an election threshold in Weimar. The Oberste Heeresleitung (army) wasn't involved in governing the Empire, except extra-constitutionally in the last years of WWI. The Weimar coalition was in 4 governments, not just the one that was before the enactment of the Weimar constitution. The center-right coalitions didn't become prominent until after 1925 (this and the previous point can be verified in the List of chancellors of Germany article). Chancellors were only once (at the end) "voted out of office without a successor in sight" and never "over trivial policy differences or personal grudges" -- see the articles on the various chancellors' cabinets, which tell why they fell. Weimar presidents were more limited in whom they could "hire and fire" as chancellor than the emperor was, precisely because the chancellor was responsible to the Reichstag, not the president (who wasn't really an "ersatz emperor"). The use of Article 48 for the "basic business of government" lacks a source (I couldn't find much detail on their use). There were only 3 (not "frequent") presidential cabinets, all at the end (see Presidential cabinets of the Weimar Republic).

Overall, the point of this article about the lack of a constructive vote of no confidence and its effect on Weimar is valid. The factual support for it was the issue. GHStPaulMN (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)