Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

[unclepercy]

Just for "Uncle Percy's" knowledge you are allowed to switch parties in the States. A couple of years ago a Senator from Vermont or New Hamphire left the GOP to sit as an independent, there was talk of him crossing the floor to the Democrats but, I don't know if he did or not. Anyway I remember pundits commenting on the possible move so it is definetly "legal" to cross the floor.

As to the financing question: In Canada a candidate usually receives campaign funds from 2 sources. One, the political party he/she belongs to. Two, donations to the individual candidate through his official agent, however, these funds are also sometimes given to the riding association which represents the party in his district.

Finally, in Canada and most other Westminster democracies you can cross the floor as many time as you like so long as the party will have you back. THe Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, K.G. was a Tory then a Liberal then a Tory.

Please tell me - who was it? And when?

Uncle

 

[Lotuslander]

Uncle Percy,

The Senator is former Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont who was re-elected in 2000 but, shortly there after became a independent. Though I would say he is a nomianl democrat. below is an article from Wikipedia which, I must warn you is often incorrect on its assumptions:

On June 5, 2001, Jeffords left the Republican Party, with which he had always been affiliated, and announced his new status as an Independent. This occurred despite, for example, Jefford's voting for President Bush's tax cut package along with all other Republicans in May 26, 2001. Jeffords's Independent status changed the Senate composition from 50-50 (with a Republican Vice President, Dick Cheney, who would break all ties in favor of the Republicans) to 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and one Independent. Jeffords promised to vote for Democratic control after being promised a committee chairmanship by Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, thus handing control of the Senate to the Democrats. He then handed his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which he had held since 1997, to Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and was given the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which would have been occupied by ranking minority member Harry Reid. Jeffords held this committee chair until the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2003 following Congressional elections in 2002.

Jeffords made a deal with the Democrats according to which he votes with them on all procedural matters except with permission of the Whip, which would be rarely asked and rarely granted, in exchange for the committee seats that would have been available to Jeffords had he been a Democrat during his entire Senate tenure. Jeffords is free to vote as he pleases on substantive matters but more often than not votes with the Democrats. Even before his party switch, his voting record was very liberal, which is typical for Republicans from Vermont. While a Republican he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Brady Bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, an end to the ban on gays serving in the military, and against permanent normal trade relations with China. Jeffords was also vocal in his opposition to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush. He was the only prominent Republican to support President Clinton's failed attempt to establish a national healthcare plan. His position put him to the political left of many Democrats who had serious doubts about Clinton's plan.

On October 11, 2002, Jeffords was one of only 23 senators to vote against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. On this issue of foreign policy and other issues, Jeffords has strongly disagreed with the positions of the Bush administration.

 

[Ted]

OK, well here's the thing. A lot of conservatives in Vancouver Kingsway are angry. A lot of Liberals are really mad after spending so much time and donations to elect him as a Liberal. The difference between Stronach and Emerson is that she sat in the house and left over a difference of opinion (at least that is what we are told :wink: ), while Emerson changed flags when they waved a bone at the dog. Opportunism! A lot of people that wanted to vote NDP and Green voted Liberal instead, not because they like Emerson, but to keep the Conservatives OUT. People are hopping mad in Vancouver Kingsway, and I think a bi election needs to be held ASAP. It just goes reinforce my contention that they are all the same, no matter what party they pledge temporary allegience to. They all make me sick. To be fair, Harper only made the offer. Emerson showed us what kind of ethics he ascribes to by accepting. I heard him ranting against Harper just days before the election, and now he acts like he and Harpie are best buds. After all is said and done, none of these politicians care about the sheeple. Excuse me while I go and puke!

 

[Ballyhootenanny]

Does anyone know if Harper could have appointed Emerson to the cabinet without him crossing the floor?

 

[TenPenny]

Yes, I'm certain he could have.

 

[FiveParadox]

Yes, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean has the authority to appoint a Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to serve as a Minister of the Crown — provided that doing so would be recommended by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper.

 

[Lotuslander]

While in theory anybody can be appointed a minister the reality is that Emerson would not have been invited into the government if he had remained a Liberal (if he left the Lib. Party and became an Indpendent that is different). This is because of the principle or convention of cabinet solidarity whereby all minister must vote for Government bills. Emerson would be fine so long as the Gov't had the support of the Lib opposition on bills however, as soon as the Grits withdraw their support or don't give their support towards a specific piece of legislation Emerson woudl be stuck with a stark choice: Vote with his party and get kicked out of cabinet or vote with Cabinet and get kicked out of the Liberal party. If ever a cabinet member breaks ranks on a whipped government bill his vote is seen as a precurser that he or she will resign from cabinet.

 

[Donuts]

RE: Emerson Crosses the F

i voted for him....

I would definitely want a byelection.

 

[Lotuslander]

Ted wrote:

A lot of people that wanted to vote NDP and Green voted Liberal instead, not because they like Emerson, but to keep the Conservatives OUT.

Any voter who voted Liberal in Vancouver Kingsway instead of voting for their preferred party is voting for Emerson the man-not the Liberal party! It is absolutely ridiculous to say that people, voters, voted Liberal in Kingsway to keep the Tories out. The Tories never had a chance in the riding. So to say "voted Liberal instead, not because they like Emerson, but to keep the Tories out." is being misleading I think or at least spinning the situation. No, NDP voters voted for Emerson because they thought Emerson could do a better job or because they knew the election was going to be close and they would have preferred an Liberal Gov't to a Liberal opposition albeit with a NDP representative from Kingsway.

When will the good voters take responsibility for who they elected? Emerson worked for Bill van der Zalm for God's sake! He is and never has been an advocate of the poor and downtrodden!
He's a businessman who didn't join politics to sit on the opposition benches, he could never be happy on the left side of the Speaker away from the cabinet room.

In my opinion everyone who is now raising a stink is just angry because they didn't do their homework and actually look into the candidate they voted for. For shame all those who only vote for a party and discount the candidate, you do so at your own peril.

 

[Donuts]

In my opinion everyone who is now raising a stink is just angry because they didn't do their homework and actually look into the candidate they voted for. For shame all those who only vote for a party and discount the candidate, you do so at your own peril.

bunch of bs.

It is easy for you to say AFTER it happens. and of couse you can find millions of evidences to back it up because it is already a fact with or without your 'analysis'.

Which one has more impact on your life, your local MP? or the government? I voted for a liberal government, and I dont give a sh!t about what kind of a wacko my local MP is, cuz quitely frankly, I dont believe any one of them truely care about the voice of the poeple.

When those MPs vote for one particular legislation, they follow their party's code, not the opinions of the people in their district. So when we vote for MPs, we choose a PARTY that best represent our values. Not the other way around.

Before you unleash your arrogance, you better do some homework of your own to actually understand how the system really works.

 

[Machjo]

Before you unleash your arrogance, you better do some homework of your own to actually understand how the system really works.

Sorry to inform you that it is in fact a candidate-based system. If it was in fact a party-based one, then when Emerson left the liberal party, he would have lost his seat since the seat itself would have belonged to the liberals to appoint anyone they wanted in his place. When he changed party, his seat followed him along because the seat is his, not the party's. You are the one who ought to do your homework and read up on Canadian electoral laws.

Now if you ever want a PR system (which I don't personally want, but that's anotehr matter), then feel free to promote change to the system. But until that happens, whether you are aware of it or not (it's your respnsibility as a citizen to be aware of the laws of the country), you are in fact voting for a candidate.

 

[Donuts]

Sorry to inform you that it is in fact a candidate-based system. If it was in fact a party-based one, then when Emerson left the liberal party, he would have lost his seat since the seat itself would have belonged to the liberals to appoint anyone they wanted in his place. When he changed party, his seat followed him along because the seat is his, not the party's. You are the one who ought to do your homework and read up on Canadian electoral laws.

Now if you ever want a PR system (which I don't personally want, but that's anotehr matter), then feel free to promote change to the system. But until that happens, whether you are aware of it or not (it's your respnsibility as a citizen to be aware of the laws of the country), you are in fact voting for a candidate.

Thanks for your information, but I understand how candidate-based system works just fine. however what it says in the books doesnt necessarily reflect how poeple vote in reality. A candidate is simply a token/representitive of his/her party in a district. His/her choice of party is the most essential identity/quality as a candidate.

How would you feel if you go on a date with someone, and at the end of the day, right before you are going to enjoy it, you find out in shock that s/he is the opposite sex of what you are expecting...

Well, I dont know about you, but I would be darn pissed!

 

[Lotuslander]

Donuts wrote:

Thanks for your information, but I understand how candidate-based system works just fine. however what it says in the books doesnt necessarily reflect how poeple vote in reality. A candidate is simply a token/representitive of his/her party in a district. His/her choice of party is the most essential identity/quality as a candidate.

How would you feel if you go on a date with someone, and at the end of the day, right before you are going to enjoy it, you find out in shock that s/he is the opposite sex of what you are expecting...

Well, I dont know about you, but I would be darn pissed!

The problem is too many people think that their local candidate is only a token representative! They are real people with their own free will, one of the most disappointing aspect of our system is that MPs don't exercise their own good judgement more often. In my opinion the party whip (all of them) have far too much influence on how MPs vote. I think it would be better if we moved back to the British system where MPs are directly responsible for picking the leader and in that way have some control over the party executive however, that is beside the point.

Donuts made a value judgement when he voted. He decided that he valued party label above candidate even though he understands that in Canada one votes for a candidate not a party. The problem is that he totally disregarded the flip side of the coin which of course is the person. Regardless of what party Emerson was from if one looked at his record it would be easily discenable that David Emerson is a very right leaning Liberal, a Red Tory or perhaps just a Tory. I think it is important to also note that while some may view candidates as representatives of their party at the local level MPs are representatives of their constituents at the federal level, so one shoild always ask themselves before voting can this person represent me? Does he understand the riding, can he adequately represent the riding? I think if the NDPers Greens and others who voted Liberal to "keep the Tories out" had thought about these questions harder then on review would have realised that Emerson does not possess the same value system as most of his constituents.

As for people not knowing how the system works as Donut wrote: "however what it says in the books doesnt necessarily reflect how poeple vote in reality." Guess what tough bananas! Ignorance is no excuse! The system works by electing candidates not parties and because some people perhaps a majority of people don't understand that it is their fault, not Emerson's. All it proves by saying that many people don't understand how the system works is that they don't care enough about their communities and Canada to educate themselves as to how the political system really does work and by being ignorant they make foolhardy decisions like voting for Emerson to "keep the Conservatives out!" when there was never any danger of the Tories being elected in Vancouver-Kingsway. For shame!

 

[FiveParadox]

Lotuslander, I agree entirely. Notwithstanding whether or not I would agree or disagree with this situation in particular, the fact remains that a Member of Parliament is elected as an individual, rather than as a member of any particular party. In fact, the House Journal did not record party affiliation of members whatsoever since Confederation; such practice began later on.

 

[Donuts]

one of the most disappointing aspect of our system is that MPs don't exercise their own good judgement more often. In my opinion the party whip (all of them) have far too much influence on how MPs vote.

I completely agree with you here. Im glad that you brought it up.

This is exactly why people vote for parties instead of persons. Since the system itself does not operate the way it is designed, conscious voters make adjustments accordingly.

I for one firmly believe that the system should be constructed in a way that is best for people to exercise their rights. The system should adapt people, not the other way around.

 

[FiveParadox]

I would agree in principle with that assertion, Donuts. In my opinion, the only votes on which Members should be "strongly encouraged," let's say, to abide by the wishes of the Whip would be the Speech From the Throne, the budget, the estimates, and explicit motions of confidence (or non-confidence).

 

[Machjo]

Thanks for your information, but I understand how candidate-based system works just fine. however what it says in the books doesnt necessarily reflect how poeple vote in reality.

Well then reality is different for us; I vote candidate, not party.

A candidate is simply a token/representitive of his/her party in a district. His/her choice of party is the most essential identity/quality as a candidate.

For you perhaps; for me, not. So I'm not in the mood to have to go to the polls every three months because a candidate chose to exercise his legitimate right to freedom of association. So if you don't like the system, then feel free to push for a party-based one.

How would you feel if you go on a date with someone, and at the end of the day, right before you are going to enjoy it, you find out in shock that s/he is the opposite sex of what you are expecting...Well, I dont know about you, but I would be darn pissed!

Wow. I don't know what kind of medical procedure your political party requires it's members, but please let me know what party that is so that I can ensure not to join it. But no worries, I like being a member of no political party.

But if I was looking for a significant other, I probably wouldn't worry too much about her political or religious affiliation. That's just over the top, sorry.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

Lotuslander, I agree entirely. Notwithstanding whether or not I would agree or disagree with this situation in particular, the fact remains that a Member of Parliament is elected as an individual, rather than as a member of any particular party. In fact, the House Journal did not record party affiliation of members whatsoever since Confederation; such practice began later on.

Interesting; we should go back to that. While I'm for the existance of political parties, I beleive they ought not be recognised in law, there should just not be any laws relating to them at all (i.e, they exist de facto, not de jure, and thus every single candidate is legally recognised as an independant). This would mean that no party receives any government funding (the party can fund itself), the caucus is not officially recognised by government, and the PM is voted in by the house (sure people might vote by party, but symolically it would reinforce the idea that in the house, the party does not officially exist.

That's just my stance.

 

[FiveParadox]

Machjo, with the exception of certain regulations in the Canada Elections Act, our system ignores parties. There is no regulation that says that the Prime Minister must be the leader of the largest party in the House; but rather, the Governor General knows that the leader of the largest group of like-minded people in the House would have the best chance of keeping the support of the Commons.

The only reason that the Hansard and Journal began keeping records of parties was for ease of reference; there are certain conventions that dictate how parties are recognized in the House but, in the Constitution Acts and in the legislation governing the House, parties are not recognized.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Emerson Crosses the Floor!!!

Machjo, with the exception of certain regulations in the Canada Elections Act, our system ignores parties. There is no regulation that says that the Prime Minister must be the leader of the largest party in the House; but rather, the Governor General knows that the leader of the largest group of like-minded people in the House would have the best chance of keeping the support of the Commons.

The only reason that the Hansard and Journal began keeping records of parties was for ease of reference; there are certain conventions that dictate how parties are recognized in the House but, in the Constitution Acts and in the legislation governing the House, parties are not recognized.

thanks. You obviously did your homework. So why do people so gullibly choose to give parties so much power?