Do you think there should be a public debate on whether party line of constituents has the power in the House of Commons, when it comes to voting? Some MP's have their constituents wanting to have them vote one way and the leader of their party another. I think a public debate would clear the air so the voters know when voting they either have no power through their MP or MPP or the leader has limited power over the constituents when voting? Thoughts?
Party Line vs Constituents
- Thread starter Topaz72
- Start date
It can go either way. I'd say we need to make it more clear whch way the MP should go. One side would argue that they vote party and not candidate. On that front, they'd support some kind of proportional representation.
Inversely, another camp (the one I'd belong to) would argue we need to make Parliament more partisan by removing party names from ballots for starters, and some like myself would go even further to argue we should also go beyond that to introducing Parliamentary elections for the PM and Cabinet, replacing party Caucuses with Caucuses of the House, etc.
Either option though would be prferable to the ambiguity we have now with first past the post but with party names on ballots and everything else based on parties. Right now, we vote candidate but then we govern by party. We can't have it both ways. A clear decision needs to be made either way. I'd rather the non-partisan option, but should push come to shove, even the partisan option proposed by proponents of PR would be preferable to the ambiguity we have now.
Inversely, another camp (the one I'd belong to) would argue we need to make Parliament more partisan by removing party names from ballots for starters, and some like myself would go even further to argue we should also go beyond that to introducing Parliamentary elections for the PM and Cabinet, replacing party Caucuses with Caucuses of the House, etc.
Either option though would be prferable to the ambiguity we have now with first past the post but with party names on ballots and everything else based on parties. Right now, we vote candidate but then we govern by party. We can't have it both ways. A clear decision needs to be made either way. I'd rather the non-partisan option, but should push come to shove, even the partisan option proposed by proponents of PR would be preferable to the ambiguity we have now.
I suppose that would be a possibility, whereby if you vote for an independent, your vote goes to him; bt if you vote for a party, then your vote goes to a party voting from a party list. That could work actually, as long as the candidate is forced to make a choicce between his name or the party name but not both. That way it makes it clear and unambiguous to the voter whether he's voting for the candidate or the party.
I was thinking of it as a way to make the ballot more acurately reflect how things work in our existing system, but now that you mentioned it, it looks like it could be used to make the system a wee bit better.
It would still be an improvement. What I can say is in such a system I would not be able to put my check mark next to a party name, so unless there'd be an independent on the ballot, I'd have a hard time voting.
But at least, as you said, it would still be an improvement by at least making it clearer what we're really voting for.
Last May I did hand in a blank ballot. And even if there were no personal names on the ballot, I'd still at least show up and hand in a ballot. I did sincerely want to choose a candidate last election, regardless of party names under each candidate name. I'd e-mailed each of them with questions, read their websites, visited their campaign offices, attended public debates, but even with that, I had to hand in a blank ballot since none of the candidates met even the most basic standards of competence. Of course I've tried to lower my standards, but you can lower your standards only so far before having to finally accept you have no choice but to hand in a blank ballot. But yes, my blank ballot truly was a last option after all other options had failed. But at least I did hand in a ballot.
More MP independence would lead to the ruling party buttering up MPs with pork barrel projects for their constituencies. Personally, I'd prefer more independence, but that would be one of the consequences. "US-style" and we all know that kind of description wouldn't fly in Canada.
It's more a matter of political culture than any institutional rule though. You wouldn't be able to change it with something like removing party names from ballots.
It's more a matter of political culture than any institutional rule though. You wouldn't be able to change it with something like removing party names from ballots.
ok, thanks. that was not the answer i was expecting but it does provide you with some consistancy in opinion. hats off to you for that (even though I personally wouldn't hand in a blank ballot)
if you try to hammer 110 feet of fencing onto a 100 foot long boundary.........no matter how far you hammer the pegs down in one section, it would tend to cause the pickets to pop up and out in another section.
not sure if this makes any sense, but I tried.
There is a happy medium.....the British only haul out the Whip on money bills and votes on party platform issues, leaving the rest to individual choice.
A much better system, IMHO.
The Yankee congressmen are all over the place, but I think the problem is deeper than simple lack of party discipline....these guys serve a two year term, so they are always auditioning for the next Congress.....the electioneering never stops.
I agree removing party names from the ballot would achieve nothing.
Removing party ballots would be symbolically significant. With party names on the ballot, it's easy for a party to argue that we voted for the party and not the candidate, and that therefore the candidate ought to tow the party line.
In fact we see it all the time when the NDP cries foul over the Conservatives winning a majority of the vote on only 40% of the national vote. Well, if we'd voted party, the NDP would indeed have a point.
And when the Conservatives say we'd elected a majority Conservative government, again based on the assumption we'd voted party and not candidate, again they do have a point. As long as party names appear on ballots, it makes it that much easier for parties to make such claims on the grounds that it does give the impression on the ballot that we'd elected party.
Remove party names from the ballot, and while parties could still make such a claim, it's weakened at least somewhat. Then when the NDP argues that the Conservatives won a majority on a minority of votes, we can more easily counter that there is no such proof of that and that we may very well have voted in a bunch of candidates independently of their party affiliation. This could potentially embolden some MPs to stand up to their parties on similar grounds.
So symbolically, it is important.
In fact we see it all the time when the NDP cries foul over the Conservatives winning a majority of the vote on only 40% of the national vote. Well, if we'd voted party, the NDP would indeed have a point.
And when the Conservatives say we'd elected a majority Conservative government, again based on the assumption we'd voted party and not candidate, again they do have a point. As long as party names appear on ballots, it makes it that much easier for parties to make such claims on the grounds that it does give the impression on the ballot that we'd elected party.
Remove party names from the ballot, and while parties could still make such a claim, it's weakened at least somewhat. Then when the NDP argues that the Conservatives won a majority on a minority of votes, we can more easily counter that there is no such proof of that and that we may very well have voted in a bunch of candidates independently of their party affiliation. This could potentially embolden some MPs to stand up to their parties on similar grounds.
So symbolically, it is important.
Would that not be a form of proportional representation?
Trouble is how do you control how they vote after being elected? You will always hear someone saying their MP/MLA does not listen to the wishes of their constituents but they must be listening to some of them or they would not get elected.