Nur einer von vier sagt, dass kanadische Abgeordnete, die das Wort ergreifen, ihre Amtszeit mit der neuen Partei – dem Angus Reid Institute – beenden dürfen
Nur einer von vier sagt, dass kanadische Abgeordnete, die das Wort ergreifen, ihre Amtszeit mit der neuen Partei – dem Angus Reid Institute – beenden dürfen
24 Kommentare
What’s interesting is that when you break down the various options, even Liberals are against crossing the floor
Liberals on the four options
1. Vacate seat until next election (7%)
2. Finish term as independent (25%)
3. Allowed to switch (48%)
4. Step down and re-contest the seat (21%)
This means that even among Liberals a majority support some limitation on floor crossing.
People should be allowed to leave parties they don’t feel represent them or their moral values. But they should sit as independents.
Are voters electing the MP or are they electing the party. If they are electing the party they are doing it wrong. As long as the MP continues to properly represent their constituents then there is no issue.
Floor crossers should either have to enter a by-election for their seat, or be forced to go independent until next election. It’s not fair that voters who voted against the liberals now have their votes contributing to a potential liberal majority government.
If MPs can change their minds on who they support, then the voters who elected them should get the opportunity to redo their vote.
Whats the difference between them crossing the floor and being kicked out of the party because they voted against the party because they felt like their parties policy wasn’t in the best interest of their ridings constituents? If they are kicked out can they join another party? What party they are in doesnt matter if they vote differently and they should be allowed to vote for what they think is best for their riding.
Edit: autoincorrect
When broken down by party, I think it illustrates how changeable opinion can be on this subject. When it’s your party who’s losing out to it, of course you’re going to be staunchly opposed to the practice. When your party benefits from it, you’re more likely to find it acceptable.
I’d love to see what a question like this polled like with CPC supporters during instances where people crossed over to them. I’d bet money you wouldn’t have 66% of them demanding MPs stand in a by-election.
I have always believed floor crossing to be an acceptable oddity of our political system. Should it end up becoming a major pattern though, I’d begin to question and want reform.
Lori Idlout is an interesting example of how parliamentary democracies work. First of all she is the sole MP for Nunavut and most of her voters feel under-represented in Ottawa to begin with, extending to any party. She was elected with 37.2%, barely beating the Liberal contender with 36.7%, and it should be noted that 26% voted conservative.
So the question is, when she goes to Ottawa, is her responsibility to represent team NDP *or* is it represent her seat including the 63% that did not vote for her? She ran with a party enjoying their support and resources, but ultimately when we elect someone, their platform isn’t a contract. A few points:
1) None of those voting blocks behind her seat actually have consistent views. Some are party loyalists, but many pick the best option that aligns with what they wan. Even if you polled them on election night they don’t actually have the same expectations.
2) The world changes between elections. The MPs have to make the choices to represent us, and the democratic part is that we will hold them responsible to their record in the next election. It real-time in terms of what people want, it would be impossible to govern well. The MP is responsible to make the choices that best represent their seat. In most cases that may well align with the party’s position. But the voters will also hold the MP to account if following the party line doesn’t represent them well. For example, poor leadership, or bills that negatively affect their riding.
Idlout actually abstained in the last budget vote and didn’t vote with the NDP. The reason was obvious – the budget benefitted Nunavut, and it best represented her voters for it to pass, in her view.
Is floor crossing a wise move? Probably very rarely…. the allegation will always be that the MP is being opportunistic. But the question if it was right or not will be determined by the voters behind their seat in the same way as any decision she makes…. including choices that align a party too.
This may be an unpopular view, but if only 3/4 Canadians prioritize party allegiance over the responsibility of the MP to represent their riding…. it worries me we don’t really understand parliament. The ability to cross or simply leave a party may be ill-advised, but it is one of the most democratic mechanisms. It means a party can only go so far before MPs have to consider if they can be re-elected. If you have bad leadership, unexpected decisions, new circumstances, the ruling party has to respect that MPs ultimately represent their seats.
This is why partisan politics is stupid. In Canada we elect candidates. Not parties. They are free to align with whoever best benefits their constituents.
The only way to stop floor crossing is to control an MP’s vote. Anything else is just stopping some from changing the pin on their lapel. I for one feel that one of the few redeeming factors of our system is that at the end it is a human system ultimately dictated by the conscience of a group of representatives. Parties can influence a vote with funding, support, and access to power, but they can not dictate it.
If we give the parties the ability to dictate how a MP votes, then we would no longer have a representative democracy in any sense.
Edit: I also want to point out another important thing. I want parties that are poorly run to struggle and be gutted by defections. If a leader treats their MPs like crap, they should be able to leave the party without the system itself punishing them.
As long as we have these big tent parties, I think floor crossing is fine. In fact, I might actually like my MP more if he crossed the floor. Until we get election reform, I support floor crossers in all directions. It wouldn’t even surprise me if Carney’s liberals lose a seat to floor crossing.
I don’t even know if blocking people from swapping parties helps much. Could an MP who wants to cross the floor not just vote with their party they more align with anyways? It seems like we’d just have weird situations where MPs are voting against the party they’re trapped in unless we bound them all to vote with their party which I’d seriously rather not do
You can have it so they have to sit as an independent. However they could still technically be crossing the floor as they would vote with their new party on everything.
Well a shocking amount of Canadians seem to understand we don’t vote for parties at the end of the day, we vote for representatives. frankly if my representatives chosen party isn’t living up to they signed up for I expect them to cross. Their judgment is why you voted to give them the job. If you don’t like it, the election is the time to express your displeasure.
Only one in four people understand how parliamentary democracy works and that they are supposed to vote for their local representative rather than the party.
This is probably the most inside baseball head-in-the-clouds topic available from politics right now.
Literally nobody cares guys.
What portion of Canadians can describe coherently how our representative democracy works? My guess is around one in four.
I think it points a finger at the flawed way we vote, IMO. If we are more concerned about the colour of the tie of the representative than we are of the ideals they represent, then I think we might be doing the wrong thing. If the cat I voted for represents my values then I’m just happy they have a seat at the table. Cross the floor, work with the opposition, I don’t care. Just get things done. But I don’t think it’s the policies that matter here to most, they weren’t considered in the first place.
I just fear we slip closer into yankified politics where we vote to hurt people instead of help.
I don’t think it should be allowed at all. If people have voted a specific person to represent them for their political views and then that person does a 180 because they’ve had a change of heart and crosses the floor to sit with a different party, that should be a no. Thousands of people voted that one person in for a reason and for that one person to cross over is a slap in the face to everyone who voted for them.
That’s so odd to me. It’s obvious why they’re crossing and it’s allowed, so what’s the problem? If the other parties had any kind of leadership to inspire maybe they wouldn’t cross
And three-in-four fail to understand how elections work under a Westminster System.
We vote for the individual, not the party. Floor crossings are an absolute benefit of the system.
What’s the point on asking people their opinion on this when we already know that half of the electorate is salty that Carney won the last elections? Of course people will complain on floor crossing, a perfectly legal action.
How would you control this? For starters there’s no constitutional way to do this even if you tried using the notwithstanding clause not to mention it being a nightmare to actually try to actually legislate.
Let’s just take a very basic scenario. Let’s say you have a representative elected for Party A what about 6 months and they become disillusioned by the changes in the party because of leadership for this representative has a personal change of worldview for whatever reason. And because of this representative starts to vote only half of the time with their party. This person has not changed their formal party status nor joined the government, but still votes with it a fair amount. What if it’s only 75% of the time? Or 25%? Do this count as “floor-crossing” in the spirit of the term? What is the minimum threshold? In order for this to be legislated, there has to be something.
People are mad that their legislators are having a conscience and abandoning a political organization their legislator deemed to be bad. People effectively want legislators to be forced to stay with a political organization by law. Furthermore, how could people possibly know how many people in their individual riding voted for a candidate purely because of the candidate’s party registration. What happens if you have two people at the same party running against each other?
People being upset about this have a very childish understanding of democracy.
PLUS in a system or early elections happen all the damn time this would easily be rectified by the next election. **That’s what they’re for!**
> Canadians are split as to whether this would be a good thing for governmental stability (43%) or a bad thing because it was not the will of the people expressed during last year’s election (39%).
Neither was the seat apportionment.
Liberals: 43.76% of the vote, 49.27% of HOC seats
If you are not voting for the MP, why is their name on the ballot? Voting is more complex than just picking a party.
Every voter has their reason for voting how they did. I’ve heard it all. Don’t like the liberals, so voted conservative. Don’t like conservatives and thought they were going to win so voted liberal. Hated all major parties so voted green or not at all. Think the leader is a dufus, but like the general historical position of the party so I go with the candidate because they have been on then radio, or in municipal politics for years, so convince myself I am voting for the candidate and party, not just the leader. Don’t like the party, and have never voted for them, but the leader is compelling and offers the direction I want ( that is my current situation). Forget the labels, If the government is doing what you (and your constituents) want it to do, and your leader is a dufus, what options do you have? I have lived and voted in both Poilievres and Jeneroux riding and they are nowhere close to being the same constituency.
In a multiparty system, compromise is essential. So a party that refuses to compromise, even when it delivers long held objectives…..
All floor crossers will face their electorate in due time, but are you not interested to understand why they thought it better to seek a different affiliation? Overly simplistic to believe it is just a self serving mercenary position, not a gut wrenching decision. Jeneroux is a perfect example, as he originally preferred to fade away rather than denounce his party. Back room deals? The CPC leadership convention, and parachuting in Poilievre into conservative stronghold, is the perfect example of how not to represent all your constituents by putting in the fix. CPC will pay for that narrow mindedness in the future.
Ps I am in angus Reid poll registry and they didn’t ask me….
PPS. Never voted Liberal until last election. I understand what it is like to have the Conservative Party abandon me, and my principles. I took action as well. My time, my donations.