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