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.
NDP MP Lise St-Denis jumps to Liberals
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
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.
She was elected as a candidate, her name was on the ballot. Where's the issue? If her consituents wanted to vote party, then they should have voted for the candidate who would most support electoral reform towards a partisan voting system.
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.
She made the right choice and joined the right party to bring Canada back from the abyss and she is right that Jack Layton is gone and the rest of the NDP just has too many abstract ideas.
You, Sir, may very well be an exception to the lazy rule of thumb!
I'm just happy that someone gets off their arse and votes at all, and
any thought beyond that is a bonus.
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.
As long as the party is registered along side of the candidate on the ballot people will vote along party lines.
Or at least not officially recognized. Even that would be a start.
And I've often proposed removing party names from the ballot precisely to eliminate any ambiguity on this. Or alternatively to remove the candidate's name. Either way, make it clear what we are voting for. Needless to say my personal preference would be to remove the party name from the ballot.
