Should MPs be banned from crossing the floor while in office?

[damngrumpy]

We live in a democratic system and that is true for the public and those who run for office.
I believe that a person who crosses the floor does so with great reservation and a lot of
soul searching. I know scoff if you like, but the real test comes at election time. By and
large those who cross the floor, lose the next election. There are times when a person
comes to the understanding that the things their party is doing is beyond their moral
principals and they cannot and will not support that view any longer.
Crossing the floor is as old as democracy itself and it is one of the tools that is recognized
by all groups in society. Resigning is not really an option. The expense of an election and
the void that is left for months, in the representation of a specific riding may seriously
impact a specific region. It sounds so simple but reality ii is not. Of course that is why
crossing the floor is acceptable in a democratic system it allows for the business of government
to continue to represent all riding's in the country uninterrupted.

Think about the impact such a move has had on Provinces or the entire country at specific
times in this country. WAC Bennett crossed the floor to sit as an independent and the Socreds
in BC were born out of that move.
I believe the cross the floor issue will remain with us for generations and that it can be a useful
tool. On the other hand those who use it for personal political gain rarely benefit from their
selfish actions or ambitions. Those who do it for the right reasons have an uphill climb and
those who are tempted often back away because the price is traditionally high.

 

[JLM]

The question should have ended after the fourth word. :lol:

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.

Sounds good,:smile: but who can you vote for who doesn't have his snout in the trough?

 

[Cannuck]

No. It means they should poll issues within their constituency and vote what their constituents want on major/contentious issues

Then we are in agreement. Why then would it matter what side of the floor an MP sat on. The reality is that MPs are free to vote as they choose and all the party can do is kick them out. That's why I find this whole nonsense by the NDP just that...nonsense. Are they really so stupid that they would actually want one of their own MPs sitting amongst them and continually voting against the party? I guess they are.

 

[WLDB]

No. It means they should poll issues within their constituency and vote what their constituents want on major/contentious issues...

Well if they are going to do this then we might as well just have direct democracy rather than representative democracy.

 

[Bar Sinister]

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.

Perhaps, but I see a problem here. Several posters have advocated all MPs running as independents, but at the same time don't want party members changing parties. This seems like wanting to have it both ways. The party system evolved over hundreds of years and has manifested itself in different ways in different countries. In the US for example it is not unusual for members of one party to support the legislation of another party. No one sees anything wrong with this unless it happens repeatedly, in which case it is sometimes suggested that the person in question change parties. Although it is more of a rarity in Canada due to the tradition of party solidarity I see nothing wrong with allowing an MP to change parties. The voters can judge whether or not he or she has acted appropriately at the next election.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps, but I see a problem here. Several posters have advocated all MPs running as independents, but at the same time don't want party members changing parties.

I agree. If you support less partisanship, then certainly you could not support even more legislation regulating parties.

Inversely though, it would be perfectly logical for one who believes in pro-rep to support such legislation. However, to support such legislation without first changing to pro-rep is kind of like putting the cart before the horse. So if that's the goal, they should be talking about pro-rep before they worry about floor crossing.