NDP MP Looks to ban MP floor crossing
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
It's tough enough to get folks voting. You think they'll work for it? Eenie-meenie-miney-moe is too complicated for some people ;-)
People with common names like Smith, Jones, Brown etc. probably shouldn't be allowed to run for political office, too easy for them to hide behind anonymity or made to take on "professional" names like Shark, Pyrannah, Pariah, Tarantuala etc.
First of all the NDP is not concerned about their members crossing the floor, the party is in
official opposition and will be for some time to come the same way the Tories are likely to
govern for some time.
I do not agree with the idea though, as this practice is as old as parliamentary democracy
itself. Sometimes it is impossible for a person to stay in a party that changes direction in mid
stream. The cost of an election does not make sense.
People who cross the floor can make their case at election time.
official opposition and will be for some time to come the same way the Tories are likely to
govern for some time.
I do not agree with the idea though, as this practice is as old as parliamentary democracy
itself. Sometimes it is impossible for a person to stay in a party that changes direction in mid
stream. The cost of an election does not make sense.
People who cross the floor can make their case at election time.
Zeig heil.
In the US Congress they don't have to cross a floor. They just don't vote the party line if their constituents don't agree.
I've been talking to American colleagues about what's going on up here, and as difficult and messed up the system is they are battling, they still say by their standards it's crossing the line and would not be tolerated.
Americans might bust unions, but they *never* bust pensions.
It's an investment issue.
Yes, you are correct that you vote for a person, but the majority of voters will vote for a person who best meets their political beliefs and therefore would vote for the candidate standing for the party that the voter is most inclined to support.
While I would say that I don't blindly vote for a certain party, for example a candidate that may be mired in controversy or suspected of some sort of dishonesty (before anyone mentions it is an oxymoron to suggest there is such a thing and an 'honest' politician!) would not get my vote. I don't also vote for the individual who has rescued 400 puppies, gives 50% of his income to charity and opens up his basement as a drop in shelter! I vote for the person who has the same political ideals that I believe in.
You are sadly mistaken if you have that much faith in the US congress and Senate.......there is just as much pressure for these individual when it comes to their vote and unfortunately in the States they tend to vote more for who is going to provide them with re-election funds and that's namely the lobbyists.......don't trust that the US politicians will vote what their constituents want, but rather they will vote for what the lobbyists supporting their campaigns want.
I'll be honest, I generally vote for the person who I think will do me the most good, so long as it's not to the detriment of common people. Folks like Lord Black............................I'm not as concerned. :smile:
And if they don't do the proper research to see what the candidate is really like, they shouldn't be surprised when they do something unexpected, like vote against the party or all out floor cross.
Assuming this ban does get through there wouldn't be any way to stop an MP from voting with another party which would in effect be the same as leaving their party.