Official Rabble Floor Crossing Thread

It is wrong, I think to see this as normal floor crossing.

He was expelled and that already is a floor crossing.

His constituents elected someone backed up by a party. Being a member of another party in many ways is more similar than being member of no party. You see how much harder it is to get elected as an independent. I think that most voters want their members to be in a party and part of that larger block for many reasons.

I think that the rules of loyalty to a party -- for voters and for the party -- are fair and a by-election reasonable if you want to change that as an MP. But if you are kicked out, then I think you should get to choose if you want to remain independent, form a new party or go to another existing party.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Why is anybody still beating this horse?

Because this is the floor crossing thread

Since this is the floor crossing thread then can we have a generic title rather than the partisan and specific tilte it has now?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

why is it such a big deal that Notley didn't either force one of her own MLA's to stand down from her or his seat OR force the former PC to refight her own riding as a Dipper and suffer an overwhelming defeat?

Uh, but why would she suffer an overwhelming defeat?  Because her constituents wouldn't (re)vote for her?

If you assume that her constituents would no longer support her, isn't that a problem?

Quote:

This case was about protecting a fellow woman politician who may have been in outright physical danger.  

OhForGord'sSake.  Yes, this wasn't a free seat, it was the rescue of a fellow human being from certain death. 

The reason I think making her contest her old riding as a Dipper would have meant an overwhelming defeat was that it was a riding that had always been overwhelmingly PC.  A riding like that wouldn't swing to the NDP solely on the personal following of a politician.

And she had left her old party in significant measure because she had recieved numerous credible threats of bodily harm.  Were she forced into an instant byelection campaign, it was not out of the question that somebody on the Alberta right might try to end her.

Maybe she should have stayed an independent who took the NDP whip until the next election.  But now that the next election is only months away, why does this still even matter?  

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The reason I think making her contest her old riding as a Dipper would have meant an overwhelming defeat was that it was a riding that had always been overwhelmingly PC.  A riding like that wouldn't swing to the NDP solely on the personal following of a politician.

My point is that the electorate should get to decide.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be suggesting that her old riding probably wouldn't want her voting with a different party, and also that her old riding should get no say in that matter.  It's a shame they have to be Conservatives and all, but really.  I can't see any reason why the electorate shouldn't be permitted to choose.

Quote:

And she had left her old party in significant measure because she had recieved numerous credible threats of bodily harm.  Were she forced into an instant byelection campaign, it was not out of the question that somebody on the Alberta right might try to end her.

To be honest, I think this is bordering on silly-talk.  But let's go with it:  you're telling me that by defecting to the "Socialist" party, and forcing that choice on her constitutents, is what will guarantee her safety???

Quote:

But now that the next election is only months away, why does this still even matter?  

How many months?  Hallowe'en 2018 is only "months" away, too.  12 of them.

Isn't it 2019? About 18 months...

I do not agree with the position. However, I disagree that the federal NDP has to answer for it.

I think you can have a person cuacus with you as independent. You can even invite an independent to join a government. But I do not agree that they should wear your colours without running under them.

I'd have actually said she should caucus with them as an independent myself, my points were that,

1) At MOST, this attaches solely to the Alberta NDP, and I'm not sure how much this even attaches to them;

2) I believe a legitimate case could be made for this being special circumstances;

3) The electorate will get a chance to decide at the next provincial election.

Ken Burch wrote:

I'd have actually said she should caucus with them as an independent myself, my points were that,

1) At MOST, this attaches solely to the Alberta NDP, and I'm not sure how much this even attaches to them;

2) I believe a legitimate case could be made for this being special circumstances;

3) The electorate will get a chance to decide at the next provincial election.

All true -- I disagree with the decision but it is not the federal issue some want to make it out to be.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's the only solution I can think of that gives control of the outcome to the electors, and not the MP/MPP or a party.

The thing is our system is designed such that we elect a member of parliament. The seat does not belong to a party nor to a prime minister. Once elected the seat belongs to the MP. For me the MP is just who I'm stuck with in order to get the PM of my choice. I'm not voting for the party either. I don't vote ideologically I vote based on who I think will do the best job running Canada for the next four years.

Even so I support the seat belonging to the MP, the person I elected to represent my interests in parliament, not the interests of the party or even the PM. As long as that is the case there is always the potential to pressure my local member to vote the way I want on an issue I feel strongly about.

Quote:

Once elected the seat belongs to the MP.

I guess I don't see the seat as "belonging" to anyone but the constitutents.  I would never suggest that if an MP leaves or is expelled from a party that the party should keep that seat without the MP, but I also don't think the MP should necessarily keep the seat without the party.

You seem to acknowledge that voting for a local MP of a specific party is, in fact, how Canadians attempt to elect a governing party -- that only works when electors have say in not just which individual they elect, but which party they add "+1 seat" to.

Quote:

For me the MP is just who I'm stuck with in order to get the PM of my choice. I'm not voting for the party either.

I'm not sure I follow.  You can't really hope to get the PM of your choice without voting for his/her party.

Quote:

I think they should be independent until the next election if they leave. I do think parties can allow independents to join their meetings and to even be in a government. But I do not think they should wear their identity without a new vote.

Exactly.  One only hopes that the absolute freedom to vote however they wish, and to support or oppose whatever they want doesn't turn them off party politics altogether.  :)

But yes, an independent who would like to join a party is free to vote along with that party (and perhaps, as you say, become even more involved with that party) until such time as the electorate can bless their choice.  From a Parliamentary point of view, I don't see how it would make any difference if an independent votes alongside the NDP, or a "New NDP MP" votes alongside the NDP.  A vote's a vote, even down to votes of non-confidence.

Out of respect for the electors in that riding, who did not choose to support that party?

If Flin Flon elects a Conservative with an overwhelming majority, then that MP crosses the floor, it seems a bit inaccurate and unreasonable to now pretend that they chose the NDP with an overwhelming majority just because that MP had an epiphany.

Quote:

It's not like electoral records are altered. In fact, if the concern is the ignorant random Canadian who might be misled by tuning in to CPAC, it seems unfair to display an MP as an independent, either, since the voters voted for a Tory.

My personal thinking is that a prompt byelection is the solution to the confusion.  Let the member campaign and run under the new party banner, and then we know.

I think sitting as an independent still makes more sense (even if it's primarily symbolic) than just showing up in the HoC one day and saying "whattya all think of my new orange tie? *wink*"  And it's certainly not the end of the world, but most of the stuff we discuss isn't.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I guess I don't see the seat as "belonging" to anyone but the constitutents.  I would never suggest that if an MP leaves or is expelled from a party that the party should keep that seat without the MP, but I also don't think the MP should necessarily keep the seat without the party.

We don't elect a party or a PM. We only elect an MP. Technically the MPs could have chosen anyone as PM. They didn't have to choose Trudeau. From a practical perspective the way the money is arranged in politics makes the MPs more beholden to the party than to the people they represent.

The MP still pretty much owns the seat. No one can remove them short of arresting them. There is no recall mechanism. The party has no power over the seat.  The PM can call another election so I suppose that is another means through which they can be removed but they could also be re-elected.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You seem to acknowledge that voting for a local MP of a specific party is, in fact, how Canadians attempt to elect a governing party -- that only works when electors have say in not just which individual they elect, but which party they add "+1 seat" to.

I don't elect a party. I think they should have zero power. I wish they didn't exist at all. If I had a choice I would vote for a PM knowing who his cabinet would be and I would vote for a local MP separately. The government would then have to win the support of parliament rather than parties whipping votes. That's not going to happen so I have to deal with the system we have.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm not sure I follow.  You can't really hope to get the PM of your choice without voting for his/her party.

We vote for MPs who happen to belong to one party or another. We don't vote for parties. Even though my motivation in voting is to choose a PM technically the MP I vote in can vote for any parliamentarian they choose to because whatever my motivation I don't get to vote for a party or a PM. I only get to vote for an MP.

Even under PR I would not get to vote for the PM and I would be forced to give parties even more power than they already have. The parties would negotiate to decide who should be the PM and under what terms. It could easily take weeks or months to decide which parties will form government and who those parties will choose to place as PM.

Under the current system in practice the PM is decided the night of the election based on the votes of Canadians even though those votes come by way of electing MPs belonging to a particular party whose leader is most popular.

Election campaigns don't talk about parties they focus on the leader and star candidates for cabinet positions. The pundits don't write about the parties they write about the leaders and how well or how poorly the leader is fairing because most Canadians vote based on the leaders not the parties.

In practice the parties divy up based on the left/right/centre spectrum to try to appeal to a particular demographic but I think that is beginning to fall apart. Before Syriza won they appealed to voters to forget about left and right, they ran on anti-austerity. But this is a conversation for another thread.

In terms of this thread MPs are free agents once elected. Parties keep them in line by holding the purse strings for the next election. The MP has to judge if they are strong enough to get elected on their own name too.

I am astounded any independents manage to get themselves elected.

cco wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, it wouldn't be an instant by-election if some member didn't vote by the whip... unless they were expelled.  If so, I suppose it could result in a by-election if some other party opportunistically said "Hey, come join us!!".  If that member elected to sit as an independent then I would need no need for a by-election.

If that's the only rule, then the House basically plays its own version of the Liberal Senate game. "No, of [i]course[/i] they're not a member of our caucus! There's a huge difference between an NDP MP and an Independent NDPer!"

There is a major difference. A floor crosser is not an incumbant and must be accepted by the riding association that members control. The floor crosser has to represent themselves up to the next election as not having run for the party. These may be minor to you and if they are it makes it even less defensible that a floor crosser can wear the colours of the new party without election. There is nothing they cannot do in parliament if accepted except say the are of the new party. They ahve to seek the support of a riding association and that is big. But they can sit in caucus (just as independents can in the US).

Pondering wrote:

 I am astounded any independents manage to get themselves elected. 

No independents were elected out of 338 ridings in the last election! One way to reduce the complete dominance of the political parties would be to elect people through the PR-STV electoral system. Ireland uses PR-STV and they elect many independent candidates. I think PR-STV is the best electoral system but it is not an easy sell to the general public as it is a complicated system that can be easily attacked by politicians who benefit unfairly from the status quo.

[/quote]

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Since this is the floor crossing thread then can we have a generic title rather than the partisan and specific tilte it has now?

Just found out now that the OP can now change/edit thread titles. So it has been changed.

Thank you.

So once we have PR, it won't be OK anymore?

Yes, Magoo.

Don't be disingenuous. Under FPTP we elect an individual who happens to have a party affiliation. In PR we vote for a party and the seats are allocated to individuals on the party's list. It may not matter to you but it is objectively different.