Kincora Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 There have obviously been a couple of very notable cases in the past 10 months. So, my question is, should this even be allowed? In my opinion, these people are being elected to parliament not only to represent themselves, but the partty whose flag thay displayed during the election campaign. The people of Vancouver did not elect a Conservative, nor did the people elect Stronach as a Liberal. ( originally ) I'll leave others to post arguments for, since I am obviously against. Quote
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 There have obviously been a couple of very notable cases in the past 10 months. So, my question is, should this even be allowed? In my opinion, these people are being elected to parliament not only to represent themselves, but the partty whose flag thay displayed during the election campaign. The people of Vancouver did not elect a Conservative, nor did the people elect Stronach as a Liberal. ( originally ) I'll leave others to post arguments for, since I am obviously against. It should not be allowed in principle. If someone is uncomfortable with their party, they should sit as an independent. If, after the end of the current term of Parliament, they want to join another party, they should do so then. Otherwise this just becomes open for silly Parliamentary pandering. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Netherlands Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 It should be that if you cross the floor, you have an immediate by-election. Quote
I miss Reagan Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The MP should be required to sit as an independent or be required to call a by-election. Quote "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." -Karl Rove
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The MP should be required to sit as an independent or be required to call a by-election. Agreed...they can vote for the other party as an independent. Belinda could have saved the former Liberal government as an independent. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
shoop Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 They can't really ban it but they can make it far less common as part of a complete overhaul of the system. Including an elected Senate. Direct election of the PM. A cabinet separate from the House of Commons. Quote
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 They can't really ban it but they can make it far less common as part of a complete overhaul of the system.Including an elected Senate. Direct election of the PM. A cabinet separate from the House of Commons. That would be an incredible reform if it would ever happen. I would support it. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Kincora Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Posted February 7, 2006 They can't really ban it but they can make it far less common as part of a complete overhaul of the system.Including an elected Senate. Direct election of the PM. A cabinet separate from the House of Commons. Why could'nt they just ban it though? Not that those reforms are bad ideas, but I don't see why it could'nt be banned if it were just agreed upon and passed as a law. Would this be contrary to a protected right? Freedom of association? Quote
Wilber Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 If a person decides to leave their party and sit as an independent what is the difference? The voters didn't elect an independent either. One cannot cross the floor to the government side and then claim to be an independent. The way Canadian party discipline operates, voting against the party line on confidence issues will just get you thrown out of caucus and you will wind up an independent by default. While we may chose to vote for a party, the reality is we elect individuals to Parliament and must judge them on what they do when they get there. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 If a person decides to leave their party and sit as an independent what is the difference? The voters didn't elect an independent either. One cannot cross the floor to the government side and then claim to be an independent. The way Canadian party discipline operates, voting against the party line on confidence issues will just get you thrown out of caucus and you will wind up an independent by default.While we may chose to vote for a party, the reality is we elect individuals to Parliament and must judge them on what they do when they get there. But if they sat as an independent, Wilber, they would not necessarily be endorsing the governing party... Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Kincora Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Posted February 7, 2006 If a person decides to leave their party and sit as an independent what is the difference? The voters didn't elect an independent either. One cannot cross the floor to the government side and then claim to be an independent. The way Canadian party discipline operates, voting against the party line on confidence issues will just get you thrown out of caucus and you will wind up an independent by default.While we may chose to vote for a party, the reality is we elect individuals to Parliament and must judge them on what they do when they get there. That's true, that is a reality, but is it not a balance? When we vote for a candidate, in fact, we are voting for three entities. The local candidate, the prime minister himself, and the political party the candidate is associated with. When I vote, I take all three into consideration, since I cannot vote for each seperately. If my local candidate, whom I voted for, decided to cross the floor, I would feel betrayed by him and it would seem to me that my vote is worth even less than I originally thought... Quote
Slavik44 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 People should be allowed to cross the floor, in many multi-party states around the world cabinets are made up of people from a number of different parties. In canada we now have the neccesity for co-operation amongst parties but the idea of co-operation is foriegn to the majority pollitics Canadians are used to, we like opposition parties to oppose not support. Given that fact it is tough to see a cabinet of Liberals, Conservatives, and New democrats operating under present circumstances, defection becomes the closest thing we can have to an outright coalition of parties within a cabinet. It bothers me that defectors and the party being left can get very nasty, and I think that is a shame, seeing as how many defectors can go on to accomplish much in their new party. Quote The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand --------- http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Economic Left/Right: 4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54 Last taken: May 23, 2007
geoffrey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Yup, crossing the floor should be allowed. You don't elect a party in Canada, you elect a representative. Let the voters decide their merits next time around. They did for Belinda. I do agree its highly unethical for one to run for one party, almost lying to their constituants... doesn't mean it should be banned though. Switching to independance or another party both do the same thing. Thats a moot point. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Wilber Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 If a person decides to leave their party and sit as an independent what is the difference? The voters didn't elect an independent either. One cannot cross the floor to the government side and then claim to be an independent. The way Canadian party discipline operates, voting against the party line on confidence issues will just get you thrown out of caucus and you will wind up an independent by default. While we may chose to vote for a party, the reality is we elect individuals to Parliament and must judge them on what they do when they get there. That's true, that is a reality, but is it not a balance? When we vote for a candidate, in fact, we are voting for three entities. The local candidate, the prime minister himself, and the political party the candidate is associated with. When I vote, I take all three into consideration, since I cannot vote for each seperately. If my local candidate, whom I voted for, decided to cross the floor, I would feel betrayed by him and it would seem to me that my vote is worth even less than I originally thought... I don't dispute that, but which one do you want your candidate to put first. If you voted Liberal when Chretien was Prime Minister, should all Liberals have sat as independents until there was another election after Martin took over? Which comes first, person, party or leader? Different people will have different priorities. While many are upset with Emerson for crossing, there are others who have said they held their noses and voted for him in spite of the fact he was running for the Liberals. It's a fact of life in our system that we elect individuals even if we don't vote for them as individuals. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
FTA Lawyer Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 If a person decides to leave their party and sit as an independent what is the difference? The voters didn't elect an independent either. One cannot cross the floor to the government side and then claim to be an independent. The way Canadian party discipline operates, voting against the party line on confidence issues will just get you thrown out of caucus and you will wind up an independent by default.While we may chose to vote for a party, the reality is we elect individuals to Parliament and must judge them on what they do when they get there. The difference is that you can actually be principled and ethical in leaving a party to sit as an independent as opposed to switching sides and...oh, look, I get a huge PERSONAL BENEFIT from my shenanigans...now how did that happen? My vote is a resounding NO to switching parties. FTA Quote
crazymf Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 A person crossing the floor has just ripped off the voting public. They should be fired and prevented from participating in public office ever again. I wouldn't ever knowingly vote for someone who had crossed. The notable in my memory is Nancy Betkowski. Quote The trouble with the legal profession is that 98% of its members give the rest a bad name. Don't be humble - you're not that great. Golda Meir
Shakeyhands Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The MP should be required to sit as an independent or be required to call a by-election. Word! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The MP should be required to sit as an independent or be required to call a by-election. Word! I think that is the overwhelming verdict on this one. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
mowich Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The reality is that nothing can be done to stop someone from crossing the floor. I would never support any form of legislation that would attempt to stop the practise. I do not like the fact but I will live with it rather than trying to impose any form of restriction. As can be seen from the last election Stronach's supporters were quite happy with her move to the liberal bench, at least they were when they thought she would be in government able to work for them in a place of power. Emmerson will need to seek another venue in which to run as his constituency is not a Conservative strong hold. Quote
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The reality is that nothing can be done to stop someone from crossing the floor. I would never support any form of legislation that would attempt to stop the practise. I do not like the fact but I will live with it rather than trying to impose any form of restriction. As can be seen from the last election Stronach's supporters were quite happy with her move to the liberal bench, at least they were when they thought she would be in government able to work for them in a place of power. Emmerson will need to seek another venue in which to run as his constituency is not a Conservative strong hold. I think you're right...it is not so much (for me) banning crossing the floor as much as it is making you sit as an independent first. I wouldn't call a by-election so soon. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
crazymf Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 HEY! The person is elected and has a mandate to do a job. When they fail to do that, OUTTA THERE!! Then the people can elect a new rep. This just furthers the notion of backroom politics, get yourself elected and then show the people the real you. To me, crossing the floor is dishonest. A person of integrity should resign rather than cross the floor. Where are the persons core beliefs? Quote The trouble with the legal profession is that 98% of its members give the rest a bad name. Don't be humble - you're not that great. Golda Meir
shoop Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 crazy, More of an Albertan's only post ... but here is a quick answer for you. Nancy Betkowski After she lost the leadership to Klein she didn't run in the next election. She came back later and ran as a Liberal. That is totally fine as she never changed parties *while* sitting as an MLA. Whenever she was elected she represented the party she was elected for. A person crossing the floor has just ripped off the voting public. They should be fired and prevented from participating in public office ever again. I wouldn't ever knowingly vote for someone who had crossed.The notable in my memory is Nancy Betkowski. Quote
sage Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The problem is we have an electoral system premised on representation from the individual MP, whereas by operation it has become representation by the party the MP belongs to. So long as we have such brutal party discipline, this should be outlawed without facing the voters. The answer to this dilemna though is not in outlawing crossing the floor, it is in moving away from the this hopelessly inflexible system to one more in line with the US where partisanship plays much less of a role. Quote
Leader Circle Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 I guess his crossing the floor begs the question, how much would he have gotten for his constituents as a member of the liberals? Vancouver, Toronto, & Montreal shut out the Conservatives to try to force another Liberal government. It did not work! Now as a constituent in one of these cities, you need some representation in the government, to avoid being shut out by this government. Even though I disagree with floor crossers, he actually did his constituents a favor. This also shows the faith in the Liberals has waned and that people are rethinking their commitment to a party with no direction and no viable leader or prospect. I suspect a high profile Liberal from Toronto will be the next to defect to the Liberals. A few names come to mind like, Jim Karygiannis, Dan McTeague, or maybe Ken Dryden. Dryden is the long shot here, but who knows? Quote Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you. ~Author Unknown
Kincora Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Posted February 7, 2006 The problem is we have an electoral system premised on representation from the individual MP, whereas by operation it has become representation by the party the MP belongs to.So long as we have such brutal party discipline, this should be outlawed without facing the voters. The answer to this dilemna though is not in outlawing crossing the floor, it is in moving away from the this hopelessly inflexible system to one more in line with the US where partisanship plays much less of a role. In theory, partisanship would play less of a role. But it hardly seems that way in the United States... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.