I don't want to start a fight, but

This doesn't make sense:
Last week, we didn't want a vote. We were in favour of the Coalition being named as the government without a general election, because the rules of Parliament said that this could be done.
This week, some do want a vote. Some now seem to be opposed to Michael Ignatieff being named as interim leader without an election by the whole membership, even though the rules of the Party apparently do not even allow for such a vote to be held.
Basically, I think it comes down to this -- if the rules have been followed, then the result is legitimate.
Or am I describing this wrong?