Party Lines vs Constituents

[cybercoma]

Do voters choose by party because the MPs are whipped or are the MPs whipped because the voters choose by party? Hmmmm....

[CPCFTW]

That's the incredible irony of the Conservatives having a majority. In any given riding the Liberal and NDP candidates may have a majority of the vote, but the Conservative candidate won. On issues like corporate taxes, military expansion and the environment, the majority of constituents will likely be in favour of left-leaning politics, that is to say the opposite of the Conservative candidate. As a representative of their constituents, if the majority of them want them to vote the complete opposite of their party line, you would think they should be able to. This why our system is broken. A Conservative MP with less than the majority of votes in any given riding will not vote the way the majority of constituents want him or her to vote, the MP will vote along party lines. They're required to by the party whip or face being kicked out of caucus. People are against PR because they won't get a local representative. Well, this is a prime example of how you don't have a local representative as it is and how the majority of voters don't have any say in Ottawa whatsoever. Yet, we wonder why 40% or more voters don't turn out to the polls.

Are you Brigette Depape? In most conservative won districts the majority voted for the conservative platform. The NDP supporters really think they are entitled to all liberal votes and the votes of non-voters, it's sad. MPs don't have to vote in the interests of the majority of constituents. I have no idea why you would think that since that would require the MP polling the constituents on every decision. The MP was mostly elected through Stephen Harper's platform and campaign and so will represent the interests of the constituents by supporting that platform. It's a simple concept.

[Evening Star]

Yeah, sorry, cybercoma: I actually largely agree with CPCFTW. MPs are elected to be responsible, not directly representative of a majority of their constituents' views on every issue. (Despite this - or because of it? - I still strongly believe that MPs should have greater autonomy to provide genuinely responsible leadership and not to simply be pylons for their party leader.)

If the Opposition parties are really as similar as you claim, they could have easily co-operated during the election. They know how the system works. The fact that they didn't shows that either the parties are not actually that similar or that at least one of them put power ahead of principle (and also misread the public). Either way, that's not the system's fault, despite its many faults.

Maybe in 1988, where the election was largely fought over the one issue of free trade, this sort of argument would have made sense - more people voted for the anti-FTA parties than for the FTA party. With this election, though, it's much harder to assume that e.g. the people who voted for Joe Volpe would have been just as happy with his NDP opponent - any more than they would have been with his Conservative opponent.

Hardly anyone in the Liberal Party seems to describe themselves as a left-wing party, by the way. After the election, Alfred Apps and Rob Silver were very quick to state otherwise, for example, distinguishing themselves from the NDP as much as from the CPC.

Incidentally, I know it's not exactly what you're saying, cybercoma, but I always hated it when Liberals accused the NDP of taking votes away from them/'splitting the vote'. I don't like it any better now that the NDP is stronger.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[Molly]

Do voters choose by party because the MPs are whipped or are the MPs whipped because the voters choose by party? Hmmmm....

I'm awfully tempted to say that voters choose by party because they are too d***ed lazy and ignorant to find out what they are actually voting for-- but that would be curmudgeonly and largely false. Many DO vote straight party lines out of laziness and ignorance- tribalism, 'genetics', naivete- but many do not.

Cybercoma, those circumstances co-exist, but do not necessarily have a cause/effect relationship. Parties whip MP's because they can. MP's go along with it, because it saves them acknowledging responsibility.

[Evening Star]

Do you really think that Congressmen aren't whipped simply because the American people are more knowledgeable and politically engaged? Or is there more to it? Why are British MPs given more independence?

Edited June 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[Keepitsimple]

Well, this is a prime example of how you don't have a local representative as it is and how the majority of voters don't have any say in Ottawa whatsoever. Yet, we wonder why 40% or more voters don't turn out to the polls.

When a constituent calls their MP to help them navigate the government bureaucracy, that MP has no idea how the constituent voted. Because of that, all constituents are treated equally and fairly by their MP. And truly, the vast, vast majority of constituents use their MP to help them - or friends - or relatives - in understanding the various government services. The MP's will/should work hard to service their "customers" and for those citizens who are at odds with the MP's Party policies - they are free to organize and mobilize their fellow citizens to encourage them to vote differently. And if another party's MP ultimately gets elected, they too will then serve all constituents, without the knowledge of how they voted. A lot of people forget these facts.

[Evening Star]

Well, yeah, an MP's job extends beyond his votes in the Commons, which is important to remember.

[ToadBrother]

Do you really think that Congressmen aren't whipped simply because the American people are more knowledgeable and politically engaged? Or is there more to it? Why are British MPs given more independence?

The issue, to some extent, is that Canada's Westminster system has gone somewhat off the rails as compared to other similar Parliaments. Britain has never lost the tradition of the caucus revolt, or at least of the threatened caucus revolt. The leaders, particularly the PMs, in Britain, have never gained the kind of authoritarian powers that party leaders in Canada have gained. Here, MPs are expected to be sheep. Party whips in Westminster, particularly during critical votes, are far more than the hall monitors they are in Ottawa.

[cybercoma]

When a constituent calls their MP to help them navigate the government bureaucracy, that MP has no idea how the constituent voted. Because of that, all constituents are treated equally and fairly by their MP. And truly, the vast, vast majority of constituents use their MP to help them - or friends - or relatives - in understanding the various government services. The MP's will/should work hard to service their "customers" and for those citizens who are at odds with the MP's Party policies - they are free to organize and mobilize their fellow citizens to encourage them to vote differently. And if another party's MP ultimately gets elected, they too will then serve all constituents, without the knowledge of how they voted. A lot of people forget these facts.

That's all very nice, but when 60% of your constituents don't want military expansion, corporate tax cuts or dragging heels when it comes to the environment, but you have a Conservative MP.... how should that MP vote in Parliament?

[RNG]

That's all very nice, but when 60% of your constituents don't want military expansion, corporate tax cuts or dragging heels when it comes to the environment, but you have a Conservative MP.... how should that MP vote in Parliament?

If the voters in that constituency were so lazy that they didn't know what the platform of the party of the person they voted was, they deserve what they get.

[cybercoma]

If the voters in that constituency were so lazy that they didn't know what the platform of the party of the person they voted was, they deserve what they get.

The majority of constituents don't necessarily elect their representative. That's my point. Once elected, they're theoretically supposed to represent the interest of the majority of their constituents, however. So if the majority of your constituents voted for left-leaning parties and you won with a plurality of votes as a right-leaning candidate, how do you vote in the House?

[RNG]

The majority of constituents don't necessarily elect their representative. That's my point. Once elected, they're theoretically supposed to represent the interest of the majority of their constituents, however. So if the majority of your constituents voted for left-leaning parties and you won with a plurality of votes as a right-leaning candidate, how do you vote in the House?

I would suggest, about staring with Trudeau, it depends if you want to remain in caucus or not.

[CPCFTW]

Try looking at the ridings. I don't think your 40% figure holds for most conservative ridings. If that were the case, then the cons would have won 308 seats. The cons won very close to a majority, if not a majority, in many of their ridings. They were blown out in other ridings. The net effect was 40% of the electorate voted for them. You're blowing smoke like most of the left right now.

[cybercoma]

Try looking at the ridings. I don't think your 40% figure holds for most conservative ridings. If that were the case, then the cons would have won 308 seats. The cons won very close to a majority, if not a majority, in many of their ridings. They were blown out in other ridings. The net effect was 40% of the electorate voted for them. You're blowing smoke like most of the left right now.

The fact of the matter is that a party, supported by a minority of voters (39.6%) of voters, has a majority government when the majority of voters (61.4%) are opposed to them. The system does not represent the way Canadians voted. The Conservatives should form government, but a minority government.

It doesn't matter whether a majority of their ridings were won by a majority or not. They did win some ridings by a plurality of votes, in which case the point remains... how does an MP represent his or her constituents when the majority of them object to the policies of his or her party?

[CPCFTW]

The fact of the matter is that a party, supported by a minority of voters (39.6%) of voters, has a majority government when the majority of voters (61.4%) are opposed to them. The system does not represent the way Canadians voted. The Conservatives should form government, but a minority government.

This is irrelevant to the discussion and has been addressed. We get it, you think the system is unfair now that it didn't go your way. This lefty whining point has been addressed in other threads.

It doesn't matter whether a majority of their ridings were won by a majority or not. They did win some ridings by a plurality of votes, in which case the point remains... how does an MP represent his or her constituents when the majority of them object to the policies of his or her party?

How many ridings does this affect? ie. How many ridings have more liberal + NDP votes than CPC? Please feel free to provide a detailed analysis of the numbers since you are the one complaining about this.

Even for those ridings that were merely won with a plurality, I still stand by my point that it is impossible to represent the interests of the majority of constituents without polling them on every issue. A conservative MP can't just reason that all liberal and NDP voters would have the same stance on all issues and so he should vote in line with the NDP or liberal party. A conservative MP was elected on Harper's platform and yet he should vote in the interests of the liberal and NDP constituents in his riding. Sorry but that is some messed up logic.

This all sounds like more boohooing from the left. "Boohoo the system is unfair now that we lost. Change the rules so that we win!! No? Ok then at least ignore the people and the platform that got you elected and vote our way on issues based on fuzzy logic that all non-CPC votes are united against the CPC policies!!"

Edited June 15, 2011 by CPCFTW

[ToadBrother]

That's all very nice, but when 60% of your constituents don't want military expansion, corporate tax cuts or dragging heels when it comes to the environment, but you have a Conservative MP.... how should that MP vote in Parliament?

And have you and your fellow voters in the riding wrote your MP letters and told him this?

My solution is to have, as part of the vote, the question "Does the incumbent MP deserve his or her pension?"

Edited June 15, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

It doesn't matter whether a majority of their ridings were won by a majority or not. They did win some ridings by a plurality of votes, in which case the point remains... how does an MP represent his or her constituents when the majority of them object to the policies of his or her party?

We've covered things in a different thread but in general, it's been agreed that just because someone votes for the NDP doesn't mean they object to each and every Conservative policy. The Liberals are in fact very closely alligned with many Conservative policies. So - putting aside that many conservative ridings carried more than 50% of the vote - your flippant use of 60% being opposed to the MP's position is, shall we say, somewhat misplaced. Even so, if an MP judges that the majority of their constituents are opposed to a particular policy, you can bet that they will channel that dislike to the party. That's what the Conservatives are especially good at - staying in touch with the electorate. Having said that, there will be the odd occasion for a whipped vote - but Conservatives tend to use that facility much less than their predecessors.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

And have you and your fellow voters in the riding wrote your MP letters and told him this?

My solution is to have, as part of the vote, the question "Does the incumbent MP deserve his or her pension?"

When some of my fellow constituents tried to set up a meeting with our MP, they were given a day and time only to show up and find out that he wasn't there that day. Honestly, our MP is terrible and he was re-elected.

[cybercoma]

Who cares, KIS? I'm sure there are Conservative voters that support some of the policies of the Liberals and NDP likewise. Instead of making assumptions about every little policy issue, it's perfectly fair to say 60% of voters do not support Conservative policies, since they would have otherwise voted for them. Yet, here we are with a Conservative majority.

[RNG]

Who cares, KIS? I'm sure there are Conservative voters that support some of the policies of the Liberals and NDP likewise. Instead of making assumptions about every little policy issue, it's perfectly fair to say 60% of voters do not support Conservative policies, since they would have otherwise voted for them. Yet, here we are with a Conservative majority.

And I will pull out my soap-box and yet again say "and 70% of the voters don't support the NDP". So what's your point?

[August1991]

But I can choose to eat at McDonald's or not...I would be disappointed if each McDonald's did not meet such standards.

So? You can vote for whichever candidate you want also. My point is that people choose an individual McDonald's restaurant the way voters choose individual candidates. If McDonald's didn't "whip" its franchisees and guarantee minimum standards, people wouldn't eat there. Similarly, political parties must whip their MPs.

I'm awfully tempted to say that voters choose by party because they are too d***ed lazy and ignorant to find out what they are actually voting for-- but that would be curmudgeonly and largely false. Many DO vote straight party lines out of laziness and ignorance- tribalism, 'genetics', naivete- but many do not.

Among all the various choices that one has to make in life, the choice of who to vote for surely rates at a very low level. Your individual vote will not change the outcome. Similarly, if you were in a strange city, would you spend hours checking local restaurants to see which one is best for a quick lunch? Or would you simply go to McDo?

Cybercoma, those circumstances co-exist, but do not necessarily have a cause/effect relationship. Parties whip MP's because they can. MP's go along with it, because it saves them acknowledging responsibility.

Parties whip because they have to - otherwise they would lose the value of the brand.

----

Curiously, we have an example of Harper's attitude to this. The Conservatives never presented a candidate in Portneuf against André Arthur (first elected in 2006) who sat as an independent MP. (Arthur was never whipped but he usually voted with the Conservatives and certainly on confidence motions.) Arthur lost to a no-name NDP candidate in 2011.

[August1991]

When a constituent calls their MP to help them navigate the government bureaucracy, that MP has no idea how the constituent voted. Because of that, all constituents are treated equally and fairly by their MP.

You are describing the role of an ombudsman or possibly the role of a Communist Party deputy in the Soviet Union.

IMV, MPs do have a crucial role in a democracy. All party leaders fear a "caucus revolt". In times of trouble or when a leader takes a strange path, the weekly caucus meeting (held behind closed doors) is perhaps the most important place in any parliament building.

The Conservative caucus chair is Guy Lauzon. He speaks French.

If you want to know whether Jack Layton is a viable politician, watch for an NDP "caucus revolt". (If I understand properly, the federal NDP have "several" caucus chairs.)

Edited June 16, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

And I will pull out my soap-box and yet again say "and 70% of the voters don't support the NDP". So what's your point?

You're being intentionally dense. The NDP and Liberals were so close in policies this election that Peter Mansbridge was practically mocking Jack Layton during an interview. It's plain to see that the Liberals and NDP are much closer in policies to each other than they are to the Conservatives, regardless of your assumptions about Liberal voters turning to the Conservatives first.

In any case, I have never claimed that the NDP should form government. The Conservatives, however, should not have a majority when more than 60% of the voters picked other parties. The same goes for Chretien's successive majorities.

None of that matters to the conversation at hand. The scenario is something that's a reality in many ridings. The Conservative MP wins by a small margin, while the NDP and Liberals have the vast majority of the votes. If the majority of voters in a riding supported the nearly identical platforms of the Liberals and NDP, should the MP vote for what the majority of constituents want or do they follow party lines?

Forget the numbers and the facts even.

The entire point of this thread is just that: what does an MP do when his or her party's policies force them to vote against the wishes of their constituents?

Edited June 16, 2011 by cybercoma

[RNG]

The entire point of this thread is just that: what does an MP do when his or her party's policies force them to vote against the wishes of their constituents?

And I answered that above.

[August1991]

The fact of the matter is that a party, supported by a minority of voters (39.6%) of voters, has a majority government when the majority of voters (61.4%) are opposed to them.

This is the cost of having a stable political system. In effect, we arbitrarily choose a leader for four years. If we had PR, then we would have perpetual "power" negotiations between politicians. (Belgium had its election in June 2010 and it still doesn't have a government.)

IMV, it is arguably better to choose a leader quickly and easily (rather than suffer "power" negotiations) and then constrain that leader. In Canada, we do this through a federal system, a Constitution with a Charter of Rights - and a caucus. Harper will never be a dictator because he faces 10 provincial governments. Our federal system is our best defence against a despot.

But Cybercoma, others are right to argue that you are wrong to assume that the Conservatives only have 40% support. Under a PR system, or if the Liberals & NDP formed a Liberal Democratic Party, it's not obvious that the Conservatives would receive only 40%.

Edited June 16, 2011 by August1991