One of the great advantages of our voting system – despite the possibility of Labour coming third in votes cast but picking up the most seats – is that it usually provides a clear result, thereby allowing the winning party to get on and govern. Yet, occasionally, it fails to produce a definitive outcome, and the cocktail of the MPs' expenses scandal, the economic crisis and the first ever televised leaders' debates looks set to provide an unclear result. And if we are left with only the second hung Parliament since the Second World War, are we to believe the Tory warnings that it may send the financial markets into turmoil, interest rates rocketing and our credit rating tumbling, or Labour and the Liberal Democrat assertions that such remarks are simply scaremongering? The answer may come down to just what state the parties are in by the time the final results are declared tomorrow afternoon. "Financial stability will be dependent on the speed with which they can arrange a deal of some kind," says Mark Stuart, political analyst and biographer from York. "The question is what kind of hung Parliament are we going to get? There's hung Parliaments and there's hung Parliaments." However, there may be disappointment for those who hope that denying Gordon Brown a majority will be enough to oust him from Downing Street. Bizarre as it may seem, it is Mr Brown who will have first chance to form a coalition or minority government if no party is given a majority – even if the Tories gain more seats. In 1974, the last time the UK experienced a hung Parliament, Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath spent four days trying to woo Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe before admitting defeat. His resignation allowed Labour, which won four more seats, to govern as a minority administration under Harold Wilson. Although that government managed to function, Wilson went to the polls again eight months later to seek a proper mandate and squeezed home with a majority of three. The problem for Mr Brown will be what sort of deal he could arrange. If Labour is well short of a majority, his only realistic option would appear to be some form of coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Yet their leader Nick Clegg has already suggested he would find it difficult to do a deal with Mr Brown remaining as Prime Minister. If that proves an insurmountable hurdle, it seems unlikely Labour would, with any credibility, be able to replace Mr Brown – the prospect of having a new Prime Minister immediately after the election who had not taken part in the televised debates would surely be too much for voters to accept at such a crucial time. And, besides, the Queen – advised by courtiers and civil service mandarins who have spent months considering the repercussions of a hung Parliament – would almost certainly turn to Mr Cameron next to form a government. If that happens, Mr Cameron would have various options open. If just short of a majority, he could see if smaller parties would play ball and back him. If such an arrangement did not provide the likelihood of a Commons majority, approaching the Liberal Democrats would be one possibility. But all the indications are that Mr Cameron would seek to rule as a minority government. In 1929, the only other hung Parliament in the 20th century – setting aside national governments at times of crisis – Ramsay MacDonald led a minority Labour government which ran into trouble as it struggled to get legislation through and economic crisis began to grip. However, it might not be such a bad idea for Mr Cameron, and here's why. Operating alone means Mr Cameron could, in theory, lose a vote at any minute, prompting the dissolution of Parliament. Which opposition party wants to take the blame for forcing voters to the polls again just weeks after the election? Would the Liberal Democrats want to vote down the emergency Budget promised by George Osborne 50 days after the election, and face accusations of reinforcing Labour's National Insurance hike which the Tories want to stop? And when Nick Clegg's party share the Tories' desire for a pupil premium to be introduced to boost education, would they really stand in the way of Michael Gove's education reforms which Mr Cameron would want to introduce early on in his premiership? Bear in mind too that with the economy still struggling and tough decisions being promised by the Tories, maybe the other parties would be happy to allow Mr Cameron to struggle on for a short time in the hope he will damage his own prospects for re-election. Given the Tory warnings over the dangers of a hung Parliament, Mr Cameron's chief task will not be worrying about how to get his programme through – which he could do early on with the intention of calling a second election within a year, before the impact of the austerity measures is felt, to secure a majority and a proper mandate – but convincing the markets promptly that he will be able to do so. If he can do that, a hung Parliament may not be the disaster he fears – but another election may not be far away. Jonathan Reed is the Yorkshire Post's political editor.