The moment seemed propitious. The principle of an election vivente rege appeared to have the support of most influential senators and it was hoped that d'Enghien would benefit from a wave of gratitude towards France for its role in mediating peace with Sweden. Furthermore, the Commonwealth was still at war with Muscovy: the prospect of a seizure of the throne by Alexis and the need to avoid an interregnum were still powerful arguments in favour of an election; after Oliva, Sapieha dropped his demands for peace with Muscovy and supported the wareffort. The successful liquidation of one of the Lithuanian army confederations, formed in 1659 in anger at the massive arrears in pay which had built up since 1655, and the settlement of Sapieha's financial dispute with the Commonwealth, stimulated hopes that the Lithuanian army might be won over.

Confident of senate backing for the principle of an election, the Court now sought to win wider support. Whatever the Court's long-term aims, it was important in the short term to appear to act constitutionally: it was therefore necessary to secure diet approval for an election. It was this consideration which led the Court to conquer its doubts and risk suggesting the introduction of majority voting.