Statement–Argument (Allowing Post-Poll Alliances): Statement: Should post-poll alliances be allowed? Arguments: I) Yes, in a hung parliament, alliances may be the only practical way to form a stable government. II) No, post-poll alliances defy voters’ expectations when parties campaigned as opponents, amounting to a perceived fraud. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Coalition politics is common in parliamentary systems. Post-poll alliances can enable governance but also raise questions about democratic transparency and voter intent.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Hung legislatures lack any single-party majority.
• Parties often campaign against one another pre-poll.
• Constitutional rules typically permit coalition formation.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument can be made on either principle: stability and governability (I) versus fidelity to electoral signals and manifestos (II). The evaluation hinges on which value one prioritises—effective government or strict pre-poll transparency.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Emphasises forming a government to avoid paralysis and repeated elections—governability is a legitimate democratic aim—strong.II: Highlights perceived betrayal if parties reverse pre-poll positions—voter trust/mandate clarity is central to legitimacy—strong.Because both lines of reasoning are weighty yet incompatible, the correct meta-answer recognises that either argument can be judged strong depending on normative priority.

Verification / Alternative check:
Some systems formalise permissible alliances via pre-poll pacts or transparency requirements, acknowledging both concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one ignores the competing but legitimate principle; “both” implies simultaneous acceptance without resolving the conflict; “neither” undervalues central democratic considerations.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming legality equals legitimacy; ignoring promises and voter perception.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.