May 2, 2015 4 min read

Because the polls don’t close in Britain until 10 p.m., election-night coverage there on radio, television, and now the web, tends to be an up-until-dawn ritual even in years where one of the two major parties is expected to handily win a sufficient number of seats in the House of Commons to form a government.

This year, though, it will possibly be a little different. The election night coverage will go on as always through the small hours after Britons vote Thursday, but by the time the sun rises over Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament on Friday morning, exactly who will be Britain’s next prime minister will probably not be known, and might not be for another couple of days after that.

That’s because Britain is facing what will likely be its closest election in decades, and one where neither the ruling Conservatives nor the challenging Labor Party are forecast to win enough seats outright to form a government. Unless the polls have been wildly out of whack, the incumbent prime minister, David Cameron, will have to negotiate with like-minded smaller parties to form a government, as will the head of the Labor Party, Ed Miliband, if he wants to displace Cameron from 10 Downing Street. Though some polls give Miliband a slight edge, the leadership of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is very much up for grabs.

No matter who triumphs, it seems probable that neither Cameron nor Miliband is destined to place a lasting stamp on British politics in the style of such predecessors as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair. Despite having been prime minister since 2010, Cameron has never caught fire with a wide cross-section of the British public, being viewed by some as out of touch and “posh” thanks to his tony background. Miliband, on the other hand, is not someone you would pluck out of central casting to portray a prime minister – the son of a respected academic, he sometimes seems more like an earnest graduate student than a world leader, and has been bestowed with his own unflattering label – geek. Many voters in Britain will surely cast ballots more out of fear of one candidate or another rather than affection.

Nevertheless, the likely fractured outcome of Thursday’s vote in the United Kingdom will illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of a parliamentary form of government. On the one hand, it will allow smaller parties to have some actual sway and clout in the formation of a government. Over the last five years, for instance, the Conservatives have held power thanks to a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, which, not to be confused with liberal Democrats in America, is a fairly centrist party. This time around, however, the Liberal Democrats are expected to lose seats, winnowing the options of the Conservatives. And Labor could end up having to join forces with the surging Scottish National Party in order to form a government. Miliband has ruled out a formal deal, though we wonder if his resolve would weaken if the premiership is hanging in the balance.

Here in America, conversely, most smaller parties, whether they are the Greens, Libertarians, the Reform Party or the Socialist Labor Party, are left to mostly languish in obscurity or act as spoilers.

However, the weakness of parliamentary systems of governance is they can be fragile and unstable.

Coalitions can crumble and voters are left with having to return to the polls for another round of voting. Italy, for instance, is notorious for the swift rise and fall of its governments. Here in the United States, our election system ensures a level of continuity and certainty, and, arguably, a little bit less excitement.

So, when Thursday night rolls around, political junkies and Anglophiles should heed the following advice: replace that cozy, soothing British tea with some bracing black coffee. It will probably be needed.