No. If democracy works at all then it most certainly must be allowed to work in the House of Commons. If MPs are not allowed to exercise freedom of choice then just how much democracy do we have?
Should MPs be banned from crossing the floor while in office?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Close, but like wulfie, I think they sit as an independent untill the next election.
MP's should not be banned from crossing the floor. What if your party goes against your own moral judgment and you feel crossing is the right thing to do? I'm fully in favor of MP's who cross to face the voters in a by-election though.
I think we should ban parties, elect only individuals and do everything by consensus. Screw the monarchy and the British parliamentary system. We need a made in Canada constitution ratified by the people. Anything less is just not worth debating.
Then I want a full list of the beliefs and principles of the candidates in my riding. I want to know what God if any they worship, where do they stand on moral issues like abortion, and what type of financial system they support. I want to know their background, where they went to school, who raised them, and if they have a dog or cat. Everything. Put it all on the table, heck, we should know these things now.
Last edited:
Well, not everyone shares your views on all those topics, so it could work against you.
See, that's why a party system is better. An evangelical can join the Conservative party (for example), just stick to the party line and get votes.
Not at all. The MP is there to represent and work for ALL constituents. The fact that this rarely happens in practice is irrelevant. If you cannot talk with your rep because of political reasons all parties have an MP that covers for the party faithful in other ridings.
If you have a problem with a government agency your MP will work to resolve the issue. Not the same as presenting an opposing political view in the house or caucus.
I am of two minds about changing sides. I can see it being necessary at times. OTH when people like that TRAITOR Emmerson crossed the floor to take a cabinet post before all the votes were even counted just to continue screwing B.C. on the softwood lumber deal should not be permitted. There should have been a by election declared in a case like that.
Weren't the Dippers one of the parties that fought against the Reform's idea of recall. If I remember correctly, the argument used was that "accountability" occurs at election time. I wonder what happened to make them change their minds.
Edited to add: Are not MP allowed to vote? Really, what difference does it make whether they cross the floor or not? Technically, they could continue to sit as a member of the party they were elected with and vote against the party at every opportunity. Clearly people haven't thought this one through.
Parties shouldn't even be recognized in the house of commons. They are when you get down to it private organizations. You elect an MP, if you elect and MP that switches sides at some point thats too bad. Vote for a person, not a brand. Also I think whipped votes should be banned. That would make the house far more democratic by having MPs vote their conscience or how their constituents want them to and not whatever the party leader says.
Even if this ban goes through it can't stop an MP who wants to leave from simply voting with another party. I'd prefer that kind of MP to a mindless drone that does whatever the party wants.
Even if this ban goes through it can't stop an MP who wants to leave from simply voting with another party. I'd prefer that kind of MP to a mindless drone that does whatever the party wants.
See post 21. Freedom of association is also a basic freedom. People band together for all sorts of reasons, why should politics be an exception?
There is some merit in what you are saying, but it ignores the fact that MPs are not elected just for themselves but that of their constituency as a whole. As in other types of public service, this means that sometimes you as an individual must place your interests second to those you are serving. When an official is elected, they are essentially saying "here are my values and beliefs, and this is why I deserve your vote". For an MP to change their party, without a mandate from their electorate, is a breach of that agreement.
So by extending your logic, the MP should always vote along party lines? If that is the case, why don't we do away with all the MPs and the leaders can have the equivalent number of votes. Harper gets 166 votes, the Dippers get 103 etc....Having 5 MPs would be a hell of a lot less expensive (or messy) than 308
Well, the Laurier Liberals supported reciprocity and the Torries opposed it. Then The Mulroney tories supported free trade and the Liberals supported it. At the end of the day, it's not the party that matters, but the specific MPs sitting in the House. I bet many of the Reform-era MPs aren't there anymore.
My sentiments exactly. I'm all for non-partisan democracy like they have in Nunavut.
If you go by that sort of standard we'd constantly be having an election every time an MP goes the other way on an issue they campaigned on. Many NDP MP's in 2008 said during their campaign they'd vote to get rid of the gun registry, then the vote was whipped and they went the other way. This type of thing happens fairly often.
Also, an MP may piss some of the people off who voted for them while simultaneously making some who voted against them happy.
I agree with all you say there, but will also add that the legislation proposed would give the party even more power over constituents, so that it would be even harder for an MP to keep his promise when he has to vote against his party.
This bill is just a party power grab.
No. It means they should poll issues within their constituency and vote what their constituents want on major/contentious issues... similar to what Chuck Cadman did a few years back when, as an independent, he voted with the Liberals to stave off the Tory non-confidence motion over Ad-scam. That might not sit well with party brass but so be it (Cadman of course didn't have to worry about them at this point, as he ran as an indie).
You can never please everyone. I like this Thomas Jefferson quote:
The only caution is that if your principles vary too broadly from that of your electorate, you may not be the best representative for it.
Thats what elections are for. If an MP does something the riding doesn't like they have an option of voting them out at the next election.