Party vs Constituents

[Topaz]

We all probably have heard about the Tory MP who told his constituents his view on the Budget Bill and was told by the PMO what his vews really were but is it time for those two parties, the constituents and the MP to clarify exactly how the MP will vote and who they represent. All this should be done before the election starts so the voters understand fully where the candidates stands. Agree or disagree? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/mps-choosing-between-constituents-and-party-154975735.html?device=mobile

Edited May 30, 2012 by Topaz

[Signals.Cpl]

We all probably have heard about the Tory MP who told his constituents his view on the Budget Bill and was told by the PMO what his vews really were but is it time for those two parties, the constituents and the MP to clarify exactly how the MP will vote and who they represent. All this should be done before the election starts so the voters understand fully where the candidates stands. Agree or disagree? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/mps-choosing-between-constituents-and-party-154975735.html?device=mobile

We should have each MP vote according to his constituents views. The MP is elected to represent us and our views or at least the majority view and we should count on the MP voting how we want him/her to rather then how the party wants him to. This way even in a majority we would know that we as agnation have an input in our government and the government has to convince us to support them.

[g_bambino]

We should have each MP vote according to his constituents views.

Well, an MP should manage a fine balance between the views of the majority of his/her constituents and the policies of the party to which the MP belongs (though, given that the majority of constituents who voted in the MP should know what party the MP belongs to, there shouldn't often be much conflict between the two). MPs shouldn't be forced to vote one way or another, however; the whip in Canada should be like his/her British counterparts: charged only with ensuring their respective party MPs are present to vote when called to do so (rather like party truancy officers). This, I think, is one of the key changes needed to shift power from the PMO back to the Commons again, strengthening our core constitutional principle of responsible government.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited May 30, 2012 by g_bambino

[Canuckistani]

If MP's vote what the majority of their constituents want, what's the point of having an MP? With computers it would be easy to just let the constituents vote on every issue.

How exactly do the MP's know what the majority of their constituents want?

I thought we elected people who would have the time and intelligence to make those decisions for us, based on what they tell us at election time to give us a sense of where they might stand overall.

Maybe we should move to a direct democracy model, but the swings in direction of the results would be dizzying.

[g_bambino]

If MP's vote what the majority of their constituents want, what's the point of having an MP? With computers it would be easy to just let the constituents vote on every issue.

We're talking about legislation-making for a country of 35 million people, not Canadian Idol.

[Tilter]

Well, an MP should manage a fine balance between the views of the majority of his/her constituents and the policies of the party to which the MP belongs (though, given that the majority of constituents who voted in the MP should know what party the MP belongs to, there shouldn't often be much conflict between the two). MPs shouldn't be forced to vote one way or another, however; the whip in Canada should be like his/her British counterparts: charged only with ensuring their respective party MPs are present to vote when called to do so (rather like party truancy officers). This, I think, is one of the key changes needed to shift power from the PMO back to the Commons again, strengthening our core constitutional principle of responsible government.

[ed.: c/e]

an MP owes representation in Parliament to his constituents but also owes loyalty to his party. An MP won't be in too much trouble with the party when voting his mind on votes with small consequence but if H/S doesn't toe the party on larger matters he/she will not remain in the party & won't receive monetary support from the party in the next election.

Is that called Hobbson's choice???

Edited May 30, 2012 by Tilter

[Canuckistani]

We're talking about legislation-making for a country of 35 million people, not Canadian Idol.

If MP's are required to vote based on what the majority of their constituents want, not much diff than Canadian idol, and the MP really serves no function.

[eyeball]

We're talking about legislation-making for a country of 35 million people, not Canadian Idol.

Yes but we're also talking about governing ourselves in a day and age when information travels faster than the horse and buggy era our system of governance was designed for.

Curiously enough the election campaigns we're subjected to are about as cerebral as Canadian Idol.

Edited May 30, 2012 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

If MP's are required to vote based on what the majority of their constituents want, not much diff than Canadian idol, and the MP really serves no function.

Requiring MPs to vote based on what the majority of their constituents want is not what I said should be adopted.

I wish you luck trying to convince a majority of Canadians to force their representatives in the federal and provincial parliaments to amend the constitution to abolish the House of Commons in Ottawa and the legislatures in their entirety in the provinces (assuming you want to be consistent with your mode of lawmaking) and take on, in addition to their every day responsibilities, the tasks of drafting, researching, possibly sitting in on committees to review, and voting in referenda on the thousands of bills and motions dealing with both federal and provincial matters that would be put forward by any of the, what?, 15,000,000 "members" of the new "commonses", selecting from amongst themselves all the ministers of the Crown for two governments and continually holding them to account, and performing the near-impossible task of preventing direct democracy from sliding into ochlocracy.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited May 30, 2012 by g_bambino

[Moonlight Graham]

We should have each MP vote according to his constituents views. The MP is elected to represent us and our views or at least the majority view and we should count on the MP voting how we want him/her to rather then how the party wants him to. This way even in a majority we would know that we as agnation have an input in our government and the government has to convince us to support them.

This would be fantastic, but due to confidence votes & the power of the PM, among other things, it tends not to work like this. The annual budget is a confidence vote. All members need to vote as a bloc to keep their jobs and prevent an election. But the trend is that things stay that way and even non-confidence votes there is great pressure on MP's to vote as a bloc.

The PM position in our system has far too much power, and the parties themselves have far too much of an internal power hierarchy, which in itself is undemocratic. Backbenchers vs cabinet ministers vs the PM, where your MP sits really matters. The PM ultimately determines who is/isn't in cabinet, who is/isn't in the party, who can speak during Question Period, who will get swanky traveling posts, ambassadorships, who will sit in Senate, sit in committees, in Supreme Court etc. It's bullcrap IMO, a flawed system where power is too easily concentrated.

[Canuckistani]

This would be fantastic, but due to confidence votes & the power of the PM, among other things, it tends not to work like this. The annual budget is a confidence vote. All members need to vote as a bloc to keep their jobs and prevent an election. But the trend is that things stay that way and even non-confidence votes there is great pressure on MP's to vote as a bloc.

The PM position in our system has far too much power, and the parties themselves have far too much of an internal power hierarchy, which in itself is undemocratic. Backbenchers vs cabinet ministers vs the PM, where your MP sits really matters. The PM ultimately determines who is/isn't in cabinet, who is/isn't in the party, who can speak during Question Period, who will get swanky traveling posts, ambassadorships, who will sit in Senate, sit in committees, in Supreme Court etc. It's bullcrap IMO, a flawed system where power is too easily concentrated.

See bambino's reply above. He's arguing with me when I was actually replying to Signal Corp - Requiring MP's to vote how the majority of their constituents want makes the MP irrelevant. You might as well just institute direct democracy and have everybody vote on everything.

[g_bambino]

See bambino's reply above. He's arguing with me when I was actually replying to Signal Corp - Requiring MP's to vote how the majority of their constituents want makes the MP irrelevant. You might as well just institute direct democracy and have everybody vote on everything.

You replied to me. I pointed out the two ways in which your reply was wrong.

[PIK]

What we have is the best system in the world. And why change it just because the lunatic fringe wants it changed. We could end up like Italy with 20 goverments in 20 years.

[Fletch 27]

A very loud minority of sore loosers does not democracy make..

What we have is the best system in the world. And why change it just because the lunatic fringe wants it changed. We could end up like Italy with 20 goverments in 20 years.

[Signals.Cpl]

If MP's vote what the majority of their constituents want, what's the point of having an MP? With computers it would be easy to just let the constituents vote on every issue.

Not necessary on every issue, but as an MP when most of your constituents disagree with your vote maybe thats your hint to change your stance. And yes we vote for an MP that represents a party and thus we should expect most votes to end up along the party line but when your constituents say they don't like it, you don't like it. I support the conservatives, but there are issues where I would support the NDP/Liberal/Green and I am sure most people are not Conservative or NDP or Liberal on 100% of the issues so sometimes you won't vote based on your party but based on your constituents wishes.

And as well, direct democracy is possible on a smaller scale like an MP and his or her constituents where you could meet people hold a town hall meeting and get the feel of the people. I want to know that I voted for the MP and have a say in his/her decision making over the next 2,3 or 4 years rather then vote for a Conservative/NDP/Liberals and a month after the election have them cross over to the NDP/Conservatives/Liberals and vote with them over the next 4 years.

Do you want people involved in politics? Right now I voted last year and will vote in 3 years and during this time I have no say, I can go to the MP's office and might even get to meet him but he will hear my issue, smile and forget about it as soon as I leave. I would prefer to have a say in major decisions rather then see an MP vote for a policy while 70% or 80% of his constituents are against that policy, thats not democracy at least not to me, democracy should not be reduced to voting for a government every 4 years knowing that whoever you vote for will just ignore you until the next election.

[waldo]

guess the (Harper) party thumb-screws were too much for one backbencher... apparently, he'll be serving his constituents from a closer... progressive... vantage point!

why... it's just like rats deserting a sinking ship!

[Signals.Cpl]

See bambino's reply above. He's arguing with me when I was actually replying to Signal Corp - Requiring MP's to vote how the majority of their constituents want makes the MP irrelevant. You might as well just institute direct democracy and have everybody vote on everything.

No it does not make the MP's irrelevant, there are lets say in one 4 year term 400 votes, on 380 of them the MP will use his or her best judgement as to what the constituents would want, but then there are those few things the 1%-10% of the issues that would require the MP's to look at the people's opinion rather then their own best judgement.

[Moonlight Graham]

See bambino's reply above. He's arguing with me when I was actually replying to Signal Corp - Requiring MP's to vote how the majority of their constituents want makes the MP irrelevant. You might as well just institute direct democracy and have everybody vote on everything.

An MP shouldn't always have to vote for what their constituents want, but at least vote with their best interests in mind and at heart, as opposed to whatever the party leader and his close advisers want. Don't you think it's absolute nonsense to have a political atmosphere where every MP is FORCED (or face punishment/being kicked out) to comply with what the party leadership/caucus decides and then having to lie to the public by trumpeting that stance as what you believe is right rather than having the freedom to disagree in either speech or deed (vote). As an MP, you are basically denied your freedom of expression, so is Parliament party-politics unconstitutional?

Also, there should be many more referendums (done during regular elections) on questions that the masses can handle and are of moral consequence, as the U.S. does. 100% direct democracy isn't ideal IMO, but if the general public can handle it ie: it's not an complex issue requiring mountains of reading/research, they should be able to vote on it. When was the last time you remember voting in a referendum?

[Topaz]

I've heard that there may be more Tory Mp's thinking seriously of opt out of the party and seating as independant because of some of the things at are going on like EI, OAS GIS and many of them are afraid they won't get voted back in because they are being told by their constituents, sorry never again. So now, these MP's have to decide, think of themselves and their future in politics or the party. Time will only tell if they do it or not.

[g_bambino]

When was the last time you remember voting in a referendum?

When did we need to?

[Fletch 27]

Really? Im hearing the EXACT opposite from the Halton region! My folks are very active in the Town halls and discussion as they are retired and like to keep active but the exact opposite seems to be true from the 416 and west!

Lisa Raiit who hold her office in Milton always gets a warm welcome when she's in town and it seems to be bolstering the community! So much to the extent that when the Airline "Hostesses" went on strike and picketted her office on Main Street in Milton, they got "boood" by about 50 local citizens while taking interviews for the media and when the group (20 or so) tried to grab a beer on the Patio of the "Ivy Arms" (love that place)... The locals kindly asked them to leave..

Its nice to see how the constitueants are in full support locally of thier Party and Representative.

I've heard that there may be more Tory Mp's thinking seriously of opt out of the party and seating as independant because of some of the things at are going on like EI, OAS GIS and many of them are afraid they won't get voted back in because they are being told by their constituents, sorry never again. So now, these MP's have to decide, think of themselves and their future in politics or the party. Time will only tell if they do it or not.