NDP MP Lise St-Denis jumps to Liberals


Retired_Can_Soldier
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't mind the desire to switch parties, but shouldn't there by a byelection in place so she can be democratically voted into office as a Liberal?

I agree, this is a betrayal to the voters who put you there. Floor crossing should not be allowed while government sits. If you want to defect to the other side it should be done at election time.
 
mentalfloss
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I agree, this is a betrayal to the voters who put you there. Floor crossing should not be allowed while government sits. If you want to defect to the other side it should be done at election time.

Well, it's not necessarily a betrayal either.

If she's confident in her move and she believes her constituents would support it, then she should have no fear in running again as a Liberal (at her own expense).
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Well, it's not necessarily a betrayal either.

If she's confident in her move and she believes her constituents would support it, then she should have no fear in running again as a Liberal (at her own expense).


Something these self centered egotistical nitwits seem to forget that the reason they have the job is because voters put them there and the platform they ran on. You can't have it both ways. Just because one member might have greater personal appeal than another should not mean they get a pass.

Floor crossing is a betrayal of the voting public.
 
WLDB
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Something these self centered egotistical nitwits seem to forget that the reason they have the job is because voters put them there and the platform they ran on. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to take it that way virtually every government in our history has betrayed its people by not following through with what they ran on. We'd be in constant election cycle all over the place if we made politicians resign and re-run every time they go against what they were elected on.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

NDP MP Lise St-Denis jumps to Liberals - Politics - CBC News

As far as I'm concenred, it is entirely her right to change parties as she sees fit. Those of her constituents who understand how our parliamentary system works and voted for her as their candidate won't mind one bit as long as she keeps her promises to her constituens; only those who don't know how the parliamentary system works and who'd voted for her blindly owing to her party affiliation will regret it. And for them, lesson learnt.

That's wy you always vote candidate and not party.

Yup. A representative should be about principles, not party affiliation.
Personally, I'd be quite happy if parties were non-existent.
 
WLDB
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Personally, I'd be quite happy if parties were non-existent.

Agreed. Unfortunately that will probably never happen.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

If you want to take it that way virtually every government in our history has betrayed its people by not following through with what they ran on. We'd be in constant election cycle all over the place if we made politicians resign and re-run every time they go against what they were elected on.

I'm not putting it anyway. If a politician wants to cross the floor they should:

  • Do so before an election
  • Wait until the next election
  • Resign and give up the seat
  • Sit as an independent
Its utter garbage how politicians and their supporters from all political stripes. try to justify floor crossing.

It doesn't matter if your a Con, a Lib, an NDPer, a Bloc, a Green or whatever..

You are betraying the voters who put you there.



Period.
 
WLDB
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I'm not putting it anyway. If a politician wants to cross the floor they should:

  • Do so before an election
  • Wait until the next election
  • Resign and give up the seat
  • Sit as an independent
Its utter garbage how politicians and their supporters from all political stripes. try to justify floor crossing.

It doesn't matter if your a Con, a Lib, an NDPer, a Bloc, a Green or whatever..

You are betraying the voters who put you there.



Period.

Sure, it is. But my point was that this is just one way politicians can and do betray their voters.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Sure, it is. But my point was that this is just one way politicians can and do betray their voters.

We tend to forget that when the crosser is coming over to our side. The NDP's push to get rid of floor crossing was one issue I wholeheartedly supported and I'm a heartless conservative.
 
Machjo
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I don't think any elected person should be allowed to switch parties till they
finish theyterm which they were elected.

The vote was for the NDP, not the liberals, so now all of those people who voted
for her, have been cheated, and their candidate is now a liberal, how dirty is that,
they have no control over their vote, which is suppose to be a persons personal power,
in a democracy, what a joke.

A candidate could, if they chose, become elected for one party, then jump to another
party, on purpose, with that plan in mind to begin with.

Technicaly the vote was for the candidate, not her party.

[QUOTE=talloola;1532220]
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

In a parliamentary democracy crossing the floor is part of the tradition of government.

so I hear, doesn't make it right, but I suppose many areas of government aren't right.

Well, if we're going to vote party only, then let's save money and have one MP from each party (It would also mean a much smaller House of Commons, so might save space on heating in winter).

Each MP's vote would be worth equal to the percentage of voters who'd vote his party. Because if all MPs are just there to lend a yeah or a nay in the House anyway, that's alot of salary and wasted space that one big yeah or nay could do far more efficiently.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

We tend to forget that when the crosser is coming over to our side. The NDP's push to get rid of floor crossing was one issue I wholeheartedly supported and I'm a heartless conservative.

Good point.

And by the way, if it were a conservative switching Liberal or NDP or Green, I'd be saying the same thing. We voted for that candidate to represent his constituents, not any particular party.
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Technicaly the vote was for the candidate, not her party.


Technicaly, do most voters vote technicaly? Maybe they're voting for that
candidate and that candidate only..and maybe they're voting for the
representative of a specific political party that is closest to their own
philosophy fiscally & socially.
 
Machjo
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't mind the desire to switch parties, but shouldn't there by a byelection in place so she can be democratically voted into office as a Liberal?

She was elected as a candidate, her name was on the ballot. Where's the issue? If her consituents wanted to vote party, then they should have voted for the candidate who would most support electoral reform towards a partisan voting system.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Technicaly, do most voters vote technicaly? Maybe they're voting for that
candidate and that candidate only..and maybe they're voting for the
representative of a specific political party that is closest to their own
philosophy fiscally & socially.

I actually do my research before voting and do vote strictly candidate. When you dig deeper, you'll find candidates do not always agree 100%with their party on all issues and will sometimes vote against their party on some points.

Just look at New Democrats who supported weakening the long-gun registry, or the Conservatives who'd spoken out in favour of abortion in spite of Conservative Party policy or the one who'd spoken against asbestos exports.
 
Liberalman
#43
She made the right choice and joined the right party to bring Canada back from the abyss and she is right that Jack Layton is gone and the rest of the NDP just has too many abstract ideas.
 
Ron in Regina
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I actually do my research before voting and do vote strictly candidate. When you dig deeper, you'll find candidates do not always agree 100%with their party on all issues and will sometimes vote against their party on some points.

Just look at New Democrats who supported weakening the long-gun registry, or the Conservatives who'd spoken out in favour of abortion in spite of Conservative Party policy or the one who'd spoken against asbestos exports.


You, Sir, may very well be an exception to the lazy rule of thumb!
I'm just happy that someone gets off their **** and votes at all, and
any thought beyond that is a bonus.
 
Machjo
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Then it should be that the candidate who wants to switch, needs to fund not only the campaign, but any other election-related expenses that would typically be passed on to the taxpayer. It should be the price of changing your rank.

Then let's take an example. Let's say you ran as a Dipper wanting to weaken the long-gun registry. Once elected, the NDP refuses that so you leave the party to vote as you promised.

Are you proposing that that candidate be punished for keeping to his promise. Most important is policy promises, not associational promises which they never make anyway.
 
Ron in Regina
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Then let's take an example. Let's say you ran as a Dipper wanting to weaken the long-gun registry. Once elected, the NDP refuses that so you leave the party to vote as you promised.

Are you proposing that that candidate be punished for keeping to his promise. Most important is policy promises, not associational promises which they never make anyway.


Lets say you vote for a candidate who is aligned with a specific party...
based on their (the candidate's) platform & the parties philosophy...
and that candidate gets elected, and then bats for the team that is
opposed to the reasoning that you and many others placed that
candidate in office for. Isn't that misrepresentation in some form?

Let's take an example. Let's say you ran as a Dipper wanting to weaken
the long-gun registry. Once elected, you switch teams to the Liberals to
support the registry as the Liberals also have some other platform that
you support that fits your personal pet agenda and not the bulk of those
who voted for you. That would seem unfair at best.
 
Machjo
+1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Lets say you vote for a candidate who is aligned with a specific party...
based on their (the candidate's) platform & the parties philosophy...
and that candidate gets elected, and then bats for the team that is
opposed to the reasoning that you and many others placed that
candidate in office for. Isn't that misrepresentation in some form?

Let's take an example. Let's say you ran as a Dipper wanting to weaken
the long-gun registry. Once elected, you switch teams to the Liberals to
support the registry as the Liberals also have some other platform that
you support that fits your personal pet agenda and not the bulk of those
who voted for you. That would seem unfair at best.

We can actually argue it both ways. For those of us who made the effort to know our local candidates and then voted for the best candidate based on that candidate's platform including some areas where they may differ from the party platform, and then we have to have a re-election because the lazy voters just voted for the party affiliation, then we're actually encouraging voters to no longer bother trying to get to know their candidate better because at that point the candidate would be an official bobblehead.

But I do agree that those who nust lazily voted for the party, it could seem like treason.
 
pgs
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

We can actually argue it both ways. For those of us who made the effort to know our local candidates and then voted for the best candidate based on that candidate's platform including some areas where they may differ from the party platform, and then we have to have a re-election because the lazy voters just voted for the party affiliation, then we're actually encouraging voters to no longer bother trying to get to know their candidate better because at that point the candidate would be an official bobblehead.

But I do agree that those who nust lazily voted for the party, it could seem like treason.

As long as the party is registered along side of the candidate on the ballot people will vote along party lines.
 
Machjo
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Personally, I'd be quite happy if parties were non-existent.

Or at least not officially recognized. Even that would be a start.

Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

As long as the party is registered along side of the candidate on the ballot people will vote along party lines.

And I've often proposed removing party names from the ballot precisely to eliminate any ambiguity on this. Or alternatively to remove the candidate's name. Either way, make it clear what we are voting for. Needless to say my personal preference would be to remove the party name from the ballot.
 
JLM
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Personally, I'd be quite happy if parties were non-existent.

Personally I'd be quite happy if Politicians were non-existant!
 

Similar Threads

0
Man jumps through window to avoid dog
by china | Mar 15th, 2009
10
Man jumps from plane with no parachute
by sanctus | Jun 9th, 2008
2
Inflation rate jumps to 2%
by CBC News | Mar 20th, 2007
no new posts