The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.
That’s not remotely true and not how any parliamentary system works lmao.
Say two parties get 30% of the vote and a third gets 40%. The two parties don’t like the third one so they form a coalition with each other instead. That coalition is who 60% of the vote went to. They pick a chancellor who is amenable to both parties in the coalition. How on earth is that “undemocratic?”
The “standard practice” of the party with a plurality getting the position of chancellor was simply because the party with a plurality had always been part of the governing coalition.
That’s not remotely true and not how any parliamentary system works lmao.
Say two parties get 30% of the vote and a third gets 40%. The two parties don’t like the third one so they form a coalition with each other instead. That coalition is who 60% of the vote went to. They pick a chancellor who is amenable to both parties in the coalition. How on earth is that “undemocratic?”
The “standard practice” of the party with a plurality getting the position of chancellor was simply because the party with a plurality had always been part of the governing coalition.