Party Lines vs Constituents

[Topaz]

Former Lib. MP Michelle Simson, has written a book and in it she tells of her experience in the House of Commons. Simson views is no matter what party you belong to, a MP should be able to speak freely and have more free votes. She also found pressure to vote party line when her constitients wanted her to vote opposite. I'm sure all MP's have found themselves in this position and I think there should be a public debate to clear the air, which is going to be the rule so voters will know how Parliament works. I like to see a debate, perhaps one of the ones on C-PAC, where the public is invited to discuss their views on how they vote and which should have the power the leader or the constituents. If the power was given to the constituents or the MP's , I think it would change things in Ottawa. Thoughts? http://www.canada.com/Former+hopes+book+will+spark+change+Commons/4932198/story.html

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not that up on my US Politics but as I understand it, the house of representatives is always adding "ear marks" to legislation. A representaive (MP) will agree to vote for legislation if their special pet-project is included (an earmark). This method of "representing your constituents" adds millions/billions to US legislation. It's a legal form of bribery.

[Shwa]

Former Lib. MP Michelle Simson, has written a book and in it she tells of her experience in the House of Commons. Simson views is no matter what party you belong to, a MP should be able to speak freely and have more free votes. She also found pressure to vote party line when her constitients wanted her to vote opposite. I'm sure all MP's have found themselves in this position and I think there should be a public debate to clear the air, which is going to be the rule so voters will know how Parliament works. I like to see a debate, perhaps one of the ones on C-PAC, where the public is invited to discuss their views on how they vote and which should have the power the leader or the constituents. If the power was given to the constituents or the MP's , I think it would change things in Ottawa. Thoughts?

So, assuming you have read, or are reading this book, how did Simson determine that "her constituents wanted her to vote opposite?" Did she do some sort of constituency referendum or some sort of on-line poll? Did she canvass the neighbourhood, talk with community groups?

Or did she do nothing?

[scouterjim]

So, assuming you have read, or are reading this book, how did Simson determine that "her constituents wanted her to vote opposite?" Did she do some sort of constituency referendum or some sort of on-line poll? Did she canvass the neighbourhood, talk with community groups?

Or did she do nothing?

She was a Liberal MP. Of course she did nothing!

[Remiel]

I'm not that up on my US Politics but as I understand it, the house of representatives is always adding "ear marks" to legislation. A representaive (MP) will agree to vote for legislation if their special pet-project is included (an earmark). This method of "representing your constituents" adds millions/billions to US legislation. It's a legal form of bribery.

Part of me wants to say that that is the Senate that does ear-marking, not the House of Representatives..

[Moonlight Graham]

So, assuming you have read, or are reading this book, how did Simson determine that "her constituents wanted her to vote opposite?" Did she do some sort of constituency referendum or some sort of on-line poll? Did she canvass the neighbourhood, talk with community groups?

Or did she do nothing?

Reading the book is unnecessary, one only needs to read the linked article to find your answer:

Even on smaller issues, she said she felt immense pressure to vote according to her party line despite the calls and emails she was getting from her constituents to vote in another direction.

And everything she is saying is no secret to anyone really. This is how parties function right now and have for a long time, anyone who pays attention knows it. It's business as usual in Ottawa. It is a problem with our democracy, and our system perpetuates this party discipline and cronyism/patronage . There's no reason why we shouldn't have more free votes on issues that aren't matters of confidence.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

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.

[Shwa]

Reading the book is unnecessary, one only needs to read the linked article to find your answer:

Even on smaller issues, she said she felt immense pressure to vote according to her party line despite the calls and emails she was getting from her constituents to vote in another direction.

And everything she is saying is no secret to anyone really. This is how parties function right now and have for a long time, anyone who pays attention knows it. It's business as usual in Ottawa. It is a problem with our democracy, and our system perpetuates this party discipline and cronyism/patronage . There's no reason why we shouldn't have more free votes on issues that aren't matters of confidence.

So what - the squeeky wheel gets the grease is how we determine how an entire constituency would want to vote. From some calls and emails?

Unless she has 20 people in her riding, I find such reasons for feeling "immense pressure" to be a titch specious. Hey, I am all for free votes, but let's not duck behind bullshit to justify one's personal preference on an issue.

[fellowtraveller]

so voters will know how Parliament works

*I would suggest that voters do know how Parliament works. If you are one of the few who bothers to actually vote, you are also likely to understand that nearly all votes in the House are whipped and MPs vote the Party line. Free votes are not so common, and are usually commented upon in the media, which I think informed voters also follow.

The rest just don't care about any of it, so they won't be involved in any kind of debate anyway.*

*This post deciated to the memory of Bev Desjarlais.

Edited June 14, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[Molly]

Voters, not 'the system', perpetuate party discipline and cronyism/patronage.

All we have to do is vote the bums out if they don't act in the interest of we who elect them. If the buggers place the party ahead of constituents and are re-elected anyway, constituents need look no further than the nearest mirror to see who is to blame.

Seriously... who nominates candidates? Who chooses them? Works to get them elected? Pays the tab for their advertising? Who buys party memberships, and who marks those precious X's? If we aren't getting exactly what we want from our elected representatives, whose fault is it really?

[fellowtraveller]

whose fault is it really?

Stephen Harper

[cybercoma]

Voters, not 'the system', perpetuate party discipline and cronyism/patronage.

All we have to do is vote the bums out if they don't act in the interest of we who elect them. If the buggers place the party ahead of constituents and are re-elected anyway, constituents need look no further than the nearest mirror to see who is to blame.

Seriously... who nominates candidates? Who chooses them? Works to get them elected? Pays the tab for their advertising? Who buys party memberships, and who marks those precious X's? If we aren't getting exactly what we want from our elected representatives, whose fault is it really?

You might have a point if the majority of voters in a constituency voted for their MP, but often times that's not the case. With a split among the left voters, chances are the majority of constituents will support left policies, but have a right-wing MP. After being elected that MP will not represent the interests of the constituents at all.

[Evening Star]

Voters, not 'the system', perpetuate party discipline and cronyism/patronage.

All we have to do is vote the bums out if they don't act in the interest of we who elect them. If the buggers place the party ahead of constituents and are re-elected anyway, constituents need look no further than the nearest mirror to see who is to blame.

Voters and candidates operate within a system though. Every candidate knows they are expected to vote on party lines or get kicked out of caucus. Should voters simply vote for independent candidates each time?

[Topaz]

So, assuming you have read, or are reading this book, how did Simson determine that "her constituents wanted her to vote opposite?" Did she do some sort of constituency referendum or some sort of on-line poll? Did she canvass the neighbourhood, talk with community groups?

Or did she do nothing?

IF you read the article she said that she felt pressure to vote along party lines even though she got e-mails to go the opposite way. I'm sure this happens to all MP's.

[Topaz]

I'm not sure voters really know that its the leader that does have the power, unless the leader tells them its a free vote. Many voters, vote the local person for various reasons like, they are really nice, they really need this job or they need the benefits and as in the last election, they were sick of voting and gave it to the party they would never voted for just to end the elections for four years. Some even vote for the local person even though they don't like the leader.

[August1991]

First, Simson has not written a book. The article makes plain that she plans to write a book.

Second, I suspect that she is frustrated with her loss and is looking for someone to blame. I guess she's chosen the Liberal Party, or the people around Ignatieff.

Third, Simson was elected because she was a Liberal, not because she was Michelle Simson. Voters sometimes bother to find out who the candidates in the riding is but often, they don't. Vegas is the extreme example.

----

We shouldn't blame party whips for this state of affairs. We should blame voters.

[Evening Star]

IF you read the article she said that she felt pressure to vote along party lines even though she got e-mails to go the opposite way. I'm sure this happens to all MP's.

But receiving some emails doesn't necessarily prove that the majority of your constituents agree with the letter-writers.

[cybercoma]

But receiving some emails doesn't necessarily prove that the majority of your constituents agree with the letter-writers.

If constituents are taking the time to write the MP, I believe it's a fair assumption that those who are writing have the largest stake in the bill. If others don't write, chances are they don't know or don't care about the bill. In that case, what they think doesn't much matter because truth be told they don't think anything of it. Contentious bills will often result in letters from both sides writing in. So, if she gets a bunch of emails, letters and phone calls from one side, it's fair to say that this is what the people in her constituency want.

[RNG]

Talk about thread drift! Yes, the US system is terrible about earmarks. Both the House and the Senate. So the Congresscritter from Alabama wants something and his vote is important. The vote is about making boinking cadavers illegal, for illustrative purposes. They need his vote, but he tacks in a clause saying Alabama gets a fed paid for bridge over the Mississippi or whatever. If you want the main clause approved you have to accept the graft. A terrible system, and ongoing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Talk about thread drift! Yes, the US system is terrible about earmarks.... A terrible system, and ongoing.

That's how many of these Canadian Politics threads end up...just as long as it's different or "better" than the Americans system.

Today the Canadian HoC voted to continue bombing Libya, with only one MP having the guts (and party freedom) to vote no.

[Battletoads]

The cons are terrified of their nutty social-con base having a real voice, so you can expect mps to stay on a very short leash.

[bush_cheney2004]

The cons are terrified of their nutty social-con base having a real voice, so you can expect mps to stay on a very short leash.

It's not just the "cons"....the MPs of each party are shackled unless a free vote is declared. At least the American representative gets a new bridge for his/her district.

Edited June 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Evening Star]

Is it not possible to allow a little more freedom for MPs while also restricting earmarks etc? Even the UK system allows MPs more autonomy.

If constituents are taking the time to write the MP, I believe it's a fair assumption that those who are writing have the largest stake in the bill. If others don't write, chances are they don't know or don't care about the bill. In that case, what they think doesn't much matter because truth be told they don't think anything of it. Contentious bills will often result in letters from both sides writing in. So, if she gets a bunch of emails, letters and phone calls from one side, it's fair to say that this is what the people in her constituency want.

Don't necessarily agree. A majority may be - and often is - complacently content with the status quo. Just because they are not deeply impassioned about an issue to the point of writing an MP does not mean their views can or should be disregarded. They may still turn out to vote, for instance.

[August1991]

It's not just the "cons"....the MPs of each party are shackled unless a free vote is declared. At least the American representative gets a new bridge for his/her district.

But most votes have to be whipped because ultimately, it is the party leader who will take responsibility for the decision.

The past federal election is ample evidence that most voters choose the party - and often don't even know who the local candidate is. Until voters choose the local candidate on their own merits, then we will have such a system.

When you choose to eat at a local McDonalds, you are not choosing the individual restaurant itself; you are choosing the McDonalds name. Hence, McDonalds has to inspect and verify local restaurants to ensure that they meet McDonalds' standards.

The cons are terrified of their nutty social-con base having a real voice, so you can expect mps to stay on a very short leash.

And I suppose that you think everyone in the BC interior or in Alberta is a racist redneck. BT, you have a biased view of the Conservative rank and file.

And BTW, you can be sure that Layton will whip/control his inexperienced caucus even more than Harper.

Edited June 15, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

But most votes have to be whipped because ultimately, it is the party leader who will take responsibility for the decision.

But that's what leaders are suppose to do...take responsibility.

The past federal election is ample evidence that most voters choose the party - and often don't even know who the local candidate is. Until voters choose the local candidate on their own merits, then we will have such a system.

That's fine, but I don't know how that squares as "better" than the "terrible" American system with earmarks and individual representative responsibility and accountability to voters. Different is not necessarily better.

When you choose to eat at a local McDonalds, you are not choosing the individual restaurant itself; you are choosing the McDonalds name. Hence, McDonalds has to inspect and verify local restaurants to ensure that they meet McDonalds' standards.

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