[cybercoma]

This question is not specific to Belinda Stronach, the same could go for a Liberal crossing to the Conservatives. Personally, I strongly believe there should be a byelection considering most people voted for that MP based on their platform which should be tied to the party. Crossing the floor and sitting for the opposite party in the middle of your tenureis an affront to democracy and should not be tolerated. Anyone who wishes to change the fundamentals of their platform by switching parties should be forced to have a byelection in their riding and run for the other party.

Just a thought...

[Riverwind]

I don't understand why people get so exercised about MPs switching sides - particularilty ex-Reformers who used to say that MPs should represent the will of his/her constituants over the views of the party.

A few points to consider:

1) Any MP that switches sides usually comes from a riding where the voters were split and the election was close. In the case of Stronach she only won her riding by 600 votes. The combined NDP and Liberal votes in 2004 in her riding were 51%. So Stonach could correctly argue that supporting the Liberal budget reflects the will of her constiuants.

2) There is little practical difference between voting against the party on a single important issue and crossing the floor (i.e. voting against your party on all issues). The logical extension of a 'by-election before crossing rule' would require a by-election whenever a MP votes against the party. I think that such a rule undermines our representative democratic system.

3) There is no reason why an opposition MP could not be appointed to the gov't. So in theory, Stronach could have accepted a cabinet position as a Conservative MP. She would have been likely kicked out of the Conservative caucus, however, I believe that requiring a by-election when an MP is kicked out of caucus would be quite unfair.

[Canuck E Stan]

Sparhawk, you keep saying " that most people would agree" support these statement with some facts or numbers please.

[Riverwind]

Canuck E Stan, on May 29 2005, 10:37 AM, said:

Sparhawk, you keep saying " that most people would agree" support these statement with some facts or numbers please.

When I say 'I think that ...' or 'I am sure that ...' I am expressing an opinion which is not the same as a fact. If you disagree please respond.

[Canuck E Stan]

Then make your statement "I think" without adding the "most people will agree".

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think that most people would agree with me, if they thought at all.

[Canuck E Stan]

And since most do, then what you are saying is that you don"t.

[August1991]

cybercoma, on May 29 2005, 01:09 PM, said:

This question is not specific to Belinda Stronach, the same could go for a Liberal crossing to the Conservatives.  Personally, I strongly believe there should be a byelection considering most people voted for that MP based on their platform which should be tied to the party.  Crossing the floor and sitting for the opposite party in the middle of your tenureis an affront to democracy and should not be tolerated.  Anyone who wishes to change the fundamentals of their platform by switching parties should be forced to have a byelection in their riding and run for the other party.

Just a thought...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Until the 1930s, MPs who crossed the floor (and MPs named to cabinet during a parliamentary session) had to present themselves in a by-election. I believe the last politician to do so was Thomas Crerar, one-time leader of the Progressives who crossed to sit as a Liberal in 1930. (BTW, he lost his by-election bid.)

I have not found any good links on the Internet about this question.

[cybercoma]

August1991, on May 29 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

Until the 1930s, MPs who crossed the floor (and MPs named to cabinet during a parliamentary session) had to present themselves in a by-election.  I believe the last politician to do so was Thomas Crerar, one-time leader of the Progressives who crossed to sit as a Liberal in 1930. (BTW, he lost his by-election bid.)

I have not found any good links on the Internet about this question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate you looking.

Spar...
If an MP chooses to sit as an independant, I don't believe a byelection is necessary. If an MP votes against his/her party because it's the will of his/her constituents, fine.

If any MP, be it Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Bloc decide to entirely switch parties after using the name of a party to get elected, there should absolutely be a byelection.

Say you're a strong supporter of the Liberal Party and their policies. The Liberal candidate in your riding gets your vote and is elected to parliament. Now that person less than a quarter of the way through their term decides he/she doesn't support the Liberal Party anymore and that really they're a Conservative at heart. That person then joins the Conservative Party and the Liberal vote you casted in the election now belongs to the party whose principles you are completely opposed to without you being able to do anything about it for a number of years.

To me this is bullshit for anyone who votes in Canada, not just to the Conservatives for the Stronach thing, but potentially for anyone who does this to any other party.

Should a politician have a change of heart, they should be forced to run in a byelection and if the majority of constituents support that move, they'll re-elect that person.

[Riverwind]

cybercoma, on May 29 2005, 08:37 PM, said:

If an MP chooses to sit as an independant, I don't believe a byelection is necessary.  If an MP votes against his/her party because it's the will of his/her constituents, fine.

If any MP, be it Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Bloc decide to entirely switch parties after using the name of a party to get elected, there should absolutely be a byelection.

I really don't see the difference between leaving your party to be an independent or joining another party. If there was that firm rule in place, Stronach just would have sat as an 'independent' with a cabinet seat to avoid a by-election. There is nothing in the parlimentary rules that prevent that.

For example, Kilgore sat as an 'independent' which, for all intents and purposes, meant he joined the conservatives (FYI - I was pissed off a Kilgore but I have never called him a 'traitor' or a 'turncoat').

That said, it would not bother me to bring in rules requiring a byelection instead of official party switch provided MPs are always allowed to become independent with having to face a byelection. My reasons for allowing MPs to become independent is to give individual MPs some protection from the party whips.

[cybercoma]

eureka, on May 30 2005, 01:42 AM, said:

I see no purpose in a by-election in either case. Why suffer the cost of one, particularly when it might be close to a general election. The suggestion that a "switcher" might be representing the majority of constitutuents by switvhing is an interestin one. However, in a multi-party system, it could mean that allthe opposition should change sides.

One more argument for representing a philosophy and not constituents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As if a Liberal supporter has ever been concerned about the cost of anything. You'll just take that money by force from the upper echelon of society with your buddies the NDP in tow.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Canuck E Stan, on May 29 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

And since most do, then what you are saying is that  you don"t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me be specific, since you don't , I expect you won't.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If we're talking about Paliament, then remember, you vote for a person, not a party.

[PocketRocket]

I vote for the person who I think will best represent the interests of my community.
If that person feels he/she has to cross the floor to best represent my area, then that decision belongs to him/her alone.
Whether or not it was a wise choice politically will be decided in the next election in which said politician runs.