[Jabrwock]

Even the "voting for the party" can mean that floor-crossing is "betraying the voters" because presumably if you are voting for the party, you voted for their platform, or at least part of it, right?

So what if your candidate switches sides to a party that doesn't share the ideals/platform of the party you voted for?

I agree the issue is problematic. If you sit as an independant, you'll still likely vote with whatever party you're going to join. You'll still be "with" them in spirit, even if it's not official...

Turner brought up a good point on the CBC this weekend. He claimed he was all ready to run in a by-election, but Harper has to call the election, and he suggested the PM would just stall, leaving the seat vacant until the next general election.

Does the PM have the power to do this? Perhaps we need legislation that puts limits on how long a seat can remain vacant before a by-election is required. That way when you get booted, or leave your party, you automatically force a by-election, and so your constituents then get to hear your reasonings, as well as know which party you are going to represent this time.

I think that would put a bit of a clamp on the "jumps ship 2 days after the election" types, or "jumps ship to sway a vote" types as well...

[ColKernel]

Psudo wrote:

You know what else would reduce floor crossing? The abolishment of any official recognition of political parties. Then people would have to vote for individuals. It perfectly removes floor-crossing and third party depreciation because no one cared what party you were with from the beginning. It's still not a perfect system because there is no force keeping a MP (or congressman) from changing ideology between elections, but accountability comes soon enough with the next election.

I'm not sure if this is a systemic problem; barring arguments about media control, the party doesn't tell people how to vote, people vote for the party, mostly (IMHO) due to Brand^H^H^H^H^HParty Loyalty. I would advocate lessening the amount of control a party has over it's membership, so a party member doesn't have to end their career for not toeing the party line, making crossing the floor their only option if their party swings away from their ideology. Which, I suspect, your idea would accomplish. I think we agree.

[Jabrwock]

ColKernel wrote:

I would advocate lessening the amount of control a party has over it's membership, so a party member doesn't have to end their career for not toeing the party line, making crossing the floor their only option if their party swings away from their ideology. Which, I suspect, your idea would accomplish. I think we agree.

The problem with that though, is then you have people simply attaching themselves to a party, just to get elected. They don't agree with the party values, they just see that the party is "more attractive" than the other parties at that time (for whatever reason)...

There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that your party members share at least some of your party's stated values. I agree a little more flexibility would be nice, but it becomes problematic quickly.

[ColKernel]

Jabrwock wrote:

The problem with that though, is then you have people simply attaching themselves to a party, just to get elected. They don't agree with the party values, they just see that the party is "more attractive" than the other parties at that time (for whatever reason)...

There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that your party members share at least some of your party's stated values. I agree a little more flexibility would be nice, but it becomes problematic quickly.

The onus would definitely have to be on the party to weed out the opportunistic. I firmly believe the parties are capable of doing that now, they just don't; they use that power to keep their members in line.

[Psudo]

This whole topic demonstrates a dramatic difference between the US and Canadian systems (and between Westminster parliament and constitutional republics in general).

As long as the national executive (PM) is defined in terms of the dominant political party in the legislature (MPs), people must choose either to vote for the PM or party platform, or to vote for the individual and get a PM nearly at random. With the former, an MP is tempted to ignore his conscience and vote on the party line for fear of betraying his constituents. With the latter, the head of government isn't really chosen by popular vote at all.

In contrast, the separation of powers and reduced formal recognition of political parties inherent in the US system allows voters to choose candidates on an individual basis, even to the extent that their vote for President need not be the same party as their votes for legislators. A majority of one party in the legislature neither chooses the party of the head of government nor, if they haven't a party in common, prevents the legislative and executive from working together. The system of Presidential veto and legislative overriding of veto gives them a specific system for functioning even if they cannot agree.

In the Westminster system, changing parties is a betrayal of the electorate to serve the new party. In the US system, changing parties is an act of loyalty to the electorate's wishes over the disposed party's platform. To put it another way, personal conscience is a public betrayal in Westminster and a public duty in the US system.

Independent candidates in the Westminster system must still choose a party loyalty when choosing the PM and such. Independents in the US system may caucus with some party or other, but need not do so.

I'd like to compare how it affects small, obscure political parties as well, but I have no idea about the civics and formality of forming a political party in either the USA or Canada. I know a little of the history of the forming of the Conservative Party of New York State, but I cannot fathom how much of it was New York city law, how much was NY state, and how much was US federal.

In general, I think the US voter has more precise and willful control over his government because of the conflicts of interest in the Westminster system. I think the stronger systematic recognition of political parties is a major cause of those conflicts. It is an impediment to the power of the democratic vote.

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

No, but I enjoy that fact. =]

Well it makes sense in some ways most Canadians talk more like Americans anyway it is only natural for people to start spelling like them. I remember in the states I had people think I was everything from English to Scottish or from Australia.

Here is a good article about the differences of our systems and the flaws they have.

In my opinion Australia probably has the better one of the bunch but it is not perfect and some things could use some tweaking. Id say Canada's edges the states slightly and with a reformed senate it would be the better model.

[align=left]A Comparison of the Australian, British, and American Political Systems

John Kilcullen
Macquarie University
Copyright (c) 1995, 2000, R.J. Kilcullen.

The Australian political system is in some ways like the British, in others like the American.

1. Like the American system ours is federal: i.e., there are two levels of government, neither of which can change the powers of the other or make laws within certain fields assigned to the other. The British system is 'unitary': the British parliament can make laws on any matter, local government has whatever powers the national government delegates to it.
2. Like the British, ours is a system of responsible government. The Government (the Prime Minister and cabinet) is 'responsible' to parliament. This means that at any time, simply by vote of no confidence, carried on whatever grounds, the parliament can remove the Government from office or force it to call an election. In the American system the head of the executive Government, the President, cannot be removed by the Congress (except by impeachment, which requires a kind of trial).
3. As in the British system, a general election can be called at any time (by the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister). There is a maximum term by which an election must be called, but an election can be held short of term. This makes the parliament responsible to the electorate -- for example, if Government policy that has general community support is blocked by the opposition or minor parties, the Government can appeal to the electorate. In the American system the terms of office of the House of Representatives, Senate, and President are all 'fixed', so that an early election cannot be held. If a President dies or resigns, the Vice-President serves out the remaining part of his term. There are no circumstances in which the American President can dissolve Congress and call an early election.
4. The U.S. constitution has separation of powers, i.e., the members of the Executive (in our terms, the Government) do not have seats in Congress or participate in its sessions, and they are not removable by Congress and cannot dissolve Congress. The Judiciary is also separate from both Executive and Congress (though judges are appointed by the Senate on the nomination of the President, and can in exceptional cases be removed). Our system (like the British) has an independent judiciary, but government and parliament are not separated. Ministers are members of parliament, the Government can be removed by parliament, and the Prime Minister can dissolve parliament.
5. Like the Americans, we have a written constitution, whereas the British constitution is unwritten. Actually this is not accurate. Parts of the British constitution are 'written', not only in text books but also in the statute book, e.g., the Parliament Act of 1911, and parts of our constitution (and also of the U.S. constitution) consist in conventions (some of which are written down, though not in the statute book). The statutory parts of the constitution are enforced by the law courts, but conventions are not. Conventions are enforced by conscience and public opinion. The provisions of the Australian and U.S. constitutional statutes are entrenched, i.e. they cannot be changed by the ordinary law-making process (in Australia amendment to the constitution requires a referendum), whereas the British constitution can be amended by simple act of parliament.

The most important of these differences is the third. A Prime Minister can make any matter a 'question of confidence', forcing his opponents either to support him on that point or face an election in which that question will be the most prominent issue. A fixed parliamentary term would be a large step toward the American system, in which Congress (and especially the Senate) can block policies supported by many electors (e.g. on medicare, gun control, campaign funding) without risk of having to fight an election on those issues.

See also A Comparison of the Australian and Canadian Political Systems.
Shortcomings

The political systems of Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States all have shortcomings. In the not-too-distant future these societies will need to deal with issues that may require extensive changes to life-style and social organisation, issues such as global warming, terrorism, religious conflict, energy shortages, war. None of these "democratic" systems does well in focussing the attention of a large enough proportion of the population on a problem and giving people suggesting possible solutions an opportunity to mobilise enough public support to carry any solution out.

The US political system is particularly unsatisfactory. This is a worry, since the United States is the chief source of global warming, the most influential model of an unsustainable way of life, the most powerful negotiator in trade deals, the country with the most powerful armaments, and in various ways the main locus of the most serious problems facing the human race. The chief defect of the US political system is that the terms of office of Congress and President are absolutely fixed, so that the executive government cannot call Congressional opponents to account by dissolving the Congress and (except by impeachment) the Congress cannot call the executive government to account--i.e. the United States do not have what we call "responsible government". (See above, points 2 and 3.) As a result, US elections do not give electors the opportunity to choose a party with a coherent policy package that it will have power to implement (as Westminster systems do--see here and here). It is so difficult to change the US Constitution that there seems no possibility of fixing these defects. Perhaps one day the US will join Canada and adopt Canada's political system (joke).

Britain, Canada and the US should adopt compulsory voting and preferential voting (specifically, optional preferential voting). That is, it should be compulsory to attend the polling place, but not compulsory to actually vote, and not compulsory to express any more than one's top prefence (though possible to express lower preferences if one chooses). Voluntary voting and "first past the post" force voters to engage in "strategic" voting based on guesses about what other (potential) voters will do. A voter should be able to cast a vote that straightforwardly expresses their view. Preferential voting gives a better chance for smaller parties to compete with the traditional "major" parties, thereby making possible the political realignments that may be needed to deal with emerging problems. (In a first past the post system, a voter who votes for a "minor" party has no opportunity to express a preference between the two major parties, so when that preference matters many voters cannot express their first preference.)

All these countries have single-member constituencies in at least one of their "houses". Single-member constituencies give a distorted reflection of public opinion, since it is possible for a party to win a majority of seats with less than 50% of the vote. This system also results in a distinction between "safe" and "marginal" seats, which leads parties to concentrate their campaigns on the undecided voters in marginal seats; it also makes the sitting members in safe seats unresponsive to public opinion and intensifies factionalism within parties. One remedy for all of this would be the adoption of multi-member constituencies and proportional representation (see also here). If single-member constituencies are retained, something needs to be done to eliminate the safe/marginal distinction and reduce the concentration on undecided voters: see here and here. [/align]
Source

[ejacksonian]

Psudo wrote:

ejacksonian wrote:

What Canada (and the USA, by extension) need is a runoff system. Almost (but not all of them) would be better than a simple plurality.

This SHOULD reduce less floor-crossing; it also makes sure that third parties that dont get labeled as "spoilers". This would mean the MP would have to worry less about switching sides.

You know what else would reduce floor crossing? The abolishment of any official recognition of political parties. Then people would have to vote for individuals. It perfectly removes floor-crossing and third party depreciation because no one cared what party you were with from the beginning. It's still not a perfect system because there is no force keeping a MP (or congressman) from changing ideology between elections, but accountability comes soon enough with the next election.

ColKernel wrote:

I don't see the big deal with floor crossing; in fact, I think it illuminates a problem with the political process - voters vote for parties first and it's leaders second.

I completely agree. Party loyalty is more of a problem than party disloyalty.

ColKernel wrote:

On another note, has anyone else noticed that the Canada Kicks Ass spell checker flags colour as incorrect, and suggests color?

No, but I enjoy that fact. =]

Here's the problem, though; there is no official recognition of parties. The Constitutution of the USA has no mention of parties, federal laws have little to nothing to say about parties (other than campaign finance), and, as far as I know, no state constitutions or laws much mention on poltical parties, except Nebraska.

In fact, parties are unofficially recognized; no law establishes parties.

On Nebraska, they have made their state legislature unicameral AND non-partisan, which is basically means banning any legislator running for the Nebraska legislature to run as a Democrat or Republican. However, from what I remember, the Democratic Party and Republican Party endorses certain Nebraska legislators anyway. Your idea is about the same idea, but as you see, unless the Nebraska bans endorsements, which will be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, there's a way around your idea.

[Dryhad]

ejacksonian wrote:

Here's the problem, though; there is no official recognition of parties. The Constitutution of the USA has no mention of parties, federal laws have little to nothing to say about parties (other than campaign finance), and, as far as I know, no state constitutions or laws much mention on poltical parties, except Nebraska.

In fact, parties are unofficially recognized; no law establishes parties.

On Nebraska, they have made their state legislature unicameral AND non-partisan, which is basically means banning any legislator running for the Nebraska legislature to run as a Democrat or Republican. However, from what I remember, the Democratic Party and Republican Party endorses certain Nebraska legislators anyway. Your idea is about the same idea, but as you see, unless the Nebraska bans endorsements, which will be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, there's a way around your idea.

I think the intention is to remove party names from ballots, so voters will have to do at least minimal research of their candidates (minimal being checking to see which is endorsed by their prefered party, evidently). I agree that it would be naive to think that the majority of voters would ever vote for someone based solely on that person's background. Besides, that would be disingenous because it would create great bias in favour of the incumbent who not only has the resources to flood the electorate with propaganda but is probably also much better known to constituents to begin with.

After studying this for a short while, one begins to wonder what purpose parties actually serve in the first place.

[Voyager]

If my understanding of the US political system is correct, "parties" per say, have little real legal grounding, and are mostly virtual entities. Most of the offices that go to the "party in power" in actuality simply go to whomever has the most votes, and the parties block vote on them.

I'd have to look into this some more, but I'm pretty certain it is possible for the Speaker of the House to not even belong to the majority party. The majority party would lose a huge tactical advantage by allowing that, so it would take a truly extraordinary set of circumstances for that to occur, but I believe it is possible.

[Psudo]

John Kilcullen writes a good comparison, even if I disagree with most of his democratic purist ideals. Pure democracy degrades into the majority subjugating the minority to their own benefit; two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Dryhad exactly described my intention. Though, now that ejacksonian mentions it, I'd like to see party references in campaign finance removed, too. Then again, I'd also like to see campaign finance reform completely removed from the books, so...

[ejacksonian]

Voyager wrote:

If my understanding of the US political system is correct, "parties" per say, have little real legal grounding, and are mostly virtual entities. Most of the offices that go to the "party in power" in actuality simply go to whomever has the most votes, and the parties block vote on them.

I'd have to look into this some more, but I'm pretty certain it is possible for the Speaker of the House to not even belong to the majority party. The majority party would lose a huge tactical advantage by allowing that, so it would take a truly extraordinary set of circumstances for that to occur, but I believe it is possible.

I think what you say is pretty much correct. I also want to point out that I think that something has happened like that in Pennsylvania for the state legislature.

Also, I want to point out that, I believe, the Framers never intended for parties, but parties came into existence anyway. They wanted to prevent "factioning", but the Framers that ended up the in the Federal Government ended up factioning anyway.

If you look at most modern advanced democracies, they are almost bound to have at least two parties, if not more. Perhaps parties are inescapable consequence of having a democracy.

[Psudo]

ejacksonian wrote:

Also, I want to point out that, I believe, the Framers never intended for parties, but parties came into existence anyway. They wanted to prevent "factioning", but the Framers that ended up the in the Federal Government ended up factioning anyway.

If you look at most modern advanced democracies, they are almost bound to have at least two parties, if not more. Perhaps parties are inescapable consequence of having a democracy.

The Federalist Papers (the philosophical basis for the US Constitution) says that factioning is inevitable but that the government shouldn't elevate or depreciate individual factions any more than it should elevate or depreciate individuals by birthright. George Washington's farewell speech warns the population against trusting parties to do their thinking for them (Washington himself was never a member of a political party). So the Framer's philosophy seems to be that parties were an inevitable weakness of democratic elections, but not one that made freedom impossible.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

Pure democracy degrades into the majority subjugating the minority to their own benefit; two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

What exactly is pure democracy?

[Psudo]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Pure democracy degrades into the majority subjugating the minority to their own benefit; two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

What exactly is pure democracy?

In short, Athens. In more detail, important issues are decided not by elected representatives but by an open political forum in a town hall meeting kind of setting. Everyone talks and debates back and forth until the motion is put to a vote. Majority (50%+1) support turns the motion into law. It's the majority will of the people to the greatest extent possible.

Strictly speaking, I wasn't using the term accurately. I was criticizing a position that was, in my opinion, too close to pure democracy by calling it pure democracy. In reality, the policy I criticized was a representative system that, in my view, did not include enough protections for sizable minorities. I was using the term in a more general sense in my opposition to the idea that a vote of 50%+1 somehow proved the moral value of the motion.

If you want more info, try googling for "tyranny of the majority".

Edit: Here's a pretty good article on the subject in the context of the founding of the USA.

[Coivat]

First of all, there is a severe problem with the Canadian election system. You vote for a representative and a party in one vote. So, if someone liked candidate a because he's a good guy, but hated candidate b because they were loud-mouthed or egotistical, then someone's likely to vote for candidate a. That doesn't mean that candidate a's party is the one that they wanted, it or that they have a problem with candidate b's party.
Conversely, one could vote for candidate b, despite hating the candidate themself, because they prefer candidate b's party. That is the general idea that is being given here, that candidate b was chosen because everyone loved the party, and thusly switching to party a defies the reason that they were elected.
Another problem is that Canada works on a two party system, with the illusion of other parties. At least, this is the general concept in most people's minds, and the reason that there isn't a NDP or Green or (god forbid) Bloc Quebecois Prime Minister. The general mentality is that it's Liberals or Conservatives. While it doesn't necessarily break down that way in all ridings, it is reflected in the winnings.
Thusly comes the final problem of that: If it is viewed as a two party system, then that means it is either candidate a in party a or candidate b in party b. If the general populace finds a problem with party a (which we'll say is in power), then they would vote for party b to take power, with candidate b. This may be despite a general dislike for candidate b, but a want to make party a "pay for it".
And now I get to the Garth Turner relation of this: Halton likes to be a swing vote. If the general populace seems to be angry at the Tories, they vote Liberal. If they're angry at the Liberals, they vote Conservative. That's how some people in the riding felt when they elected Garth.
Then again, Garth is a very public and outspoken individual, and there are many people in Halton who voted for him because they liked Garth.
I am neither of those. Point in fact, I didn't vote for Garth Turner, nor did I have any intention of it at the time. He was a Conservative (a point that I found distaste with), and he had often been touted as an arrogant jerk by just about everyone I knew. I never got a chance to meet him, so it was never disproven.
And then the Conservatives kicked him out of their caucus. No, he did not leave or abandon the party, he was abandoned by his party. So he asked people, and some said they wanted him to try to return to the Conservatives, others told him to join the Liberals, some said go Green, and the majority (at the meeting I attended) said to stay independent for now. I have no idea what the other people suggested at the other meetings, but I know that he stayed an Independent for 4 months (oh, and was physically moved to the opposite/Liberal side of the floor, just to discount literal floor crossing). Turner has now joined the Liberals. Maybe he held more meetings in which it was decided he'd go Liberal. I'm not sure, I wasn't at any of those recent meetings. What I do know is that he did not cross the floor, he made a choice. That choice was to be a Liberal. Do I feel betrayed? No. I feel more betrayed by parties that duck out of their promises than by him. If I have a real problem, I'll vote for someone other then him at election time. After all, it's only 6 to 8 months away. As for the others who've crossed the floor, well, I can't comment. I'd love to say that they had good reason, but they were still members of their parties. They did abandon them. Sorry. That's all I have to say.