[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070207" target="_blank">It\'s my party</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> February 07, 2007

Garth Turner, former Conservative Member of Parliament, has now decided he will be a Liberal Member of Parliament. Here\'s a letter I had printed in the National Post the other day in response: <br> <br>\"By my count, at least four MPs have now switched parties over the course of the last two years. If our elected officials continue to consider the will of their constituents so thoroughly irrelevant when weighed against their own political ambitions then I would suggest it is time for the government to step in and introduce some serious legal or constitutional reforms to either limit, regulate, or outlaw the practice of floor-crossing. <br> <br>But they won\'t do it of course. This cloak-and-dagger intrigue of backstabbing and power-broking is now too firmly entrenched in our nation\'s political culture. As long as it remains a weapon in the arsenal of all parties, it\'s in no one\'s interest to change the status quo.\"

[CanadianJeff]

Very well said JJ.

Frankly I think we are all sick of it.

[Dryhad]

Now my understanding of the Canadian parliament is admittedly limited, but could someone explain to me what JJ's proposed constitutional reforms could possibly accomplish? I can't imagine that any democratic constitution would force MPs to vote in line with their parties no matter what, so it will not ensure that the "will of the constituents" is carried out. All it will accomplish, as far as I understand, is give the illusion of one party being in the majority when they actually aren't.

[Psudo]

All this floor-crossing might have a silver lining. If it becomes common enough, voters will have to start considering whether their specific candidate is likely to swap parties or not and, thus, will be more inclined to vote for a person rather than a party. (J.J. mentioned that the reverse is currently true in his Canada guide.)

Unless you think voting for a party is better than voting for a person, in which case you should advocate for stricter party controls while ignoring my disappointed stare.

[WBenson]

All banning floor-crossing would accomplish would be to have people that are members of caucuses in all but name. What would stop a Conservative MP from stopping voting with them or voting with the Liberals or NDP?

[Rhoffman]

I agree that attempting ban party-switches seems fairly pointless, but having four MPs defect in just two years is practically mind-boggling to me. I can still remember when Jim Jeffords jumped the GOP ship into becoming an Independent and the controversy surrounding that decision. I could hardly imagine such a thing happening multiple times in short order.... though if memory serves, a few Democrats likewise jumped after the 1994 debacle.....

[ejacksonian]

Rhoffman wrote:

I agree that attempting ban party-switches seems fairly pointless, but having four MPs defect in just two years is practically mind-boggling to me. I can still remember when Jim Jeffords jumped the GOP ship into becoming an Independent and the controversy surrounding that decision. I could hardly imagine such a thing happening multiple times in short order.... though if memory serves, a few Democrats likewise jumped after the 1994 debacle.....

The situation is the USA is different, though; the Democrats switching side were conservative Democrats; in fact, the Republicans eventually ran out of Democrats willing to jump in conservative districts. The Republicans eventually had to run Republicans against ideologically similar Democrats. What's left of the conservative Democrats distrust the Republicans. Likewise, James Jeffords was a relatively liberal Republican compared to the rest of the Caucus when he jumped. Besides, the citizens of Vermont would have voted for James Jeffords whether he was a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

There's very few conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans left in the House or the Senate; the liberal Democrats would rather retire or lose than ever switching to the Republican Party, while the conservative Republicans would rather retire or lose than ever switch to the Democratic Party.

[Banff]

Floor crossing is Treason ...historically one of the biggest crimes there is against a country .

[ejacksonian]

Banff wrote:

Floor crossing is Treason ...historically one of the biggest crimes there is against a country .

Which country?

In any case, there's also another reason why no one changes that ofren in the House - the seats are gerrymandered. Jumping "ship" in a gerrymandered district is close as you get to political suicide in a gerrymandered district.

[Swarm]

Banff wrote:

Floor crossing is Treason ...historically one of the biggest crimes there is against a country .

Since when does changing your political party constitute a violation of your allegiance to your nation? That's some severely tortured logic.

[Banff]

Swarm wrote:

Banff wrote:

Floor crossing is Treason ...historically one of the biggest crimes there is against a country .

Since when does changing your political party constitute a violation of your allegiance to your nation? That's some severely tortured logic.[/quot

The people that voted for you as an indepedant , green , NDP , Con , Liberal etc . You are not loyal to your party neither will you be to your voters therefore aginst your country . It is impossible to have loyalty to your nation by floor crossing it's not possible in theory or practice . It's becomes a job with qualifications nothing more and zero representation especially after telling your voters to go fuck themselves . "TREASON " sorry I won't budge . They'd all be jailed , life sentence no parole if it were up to me .

[ejacksonian]

Banff wrote:

Swarm wrote:

Banff wrote:

Floor crossing is Treason ...historically one of the biggest crimes there is against a country .

Since when does changing your political party constitute a violation of your allegiance to your nation? That's some severely tortured logic.[/quot

The people that voted for you as an indepedant , green , NDP , Con , Liberal etc . You are not loyal to your party neither will you be to your voters therefore aginst your country . It is impossible to have loyalty to your nation by floor crossing it's not possible in theory or practice . It's becomes a job with qualifications nothing more and zero representation especially after telling your voters to go fuck themselves . "TREASON " sorry I won't budge . They'd all be jailed , life sentence no parole if it were up to me .

The problem isn't floor crossing; the problem is the election process. First, the person that gets the most votes wins (simple plurality). Sounds simple, doesn't it? Not quite; not especially if it's like this:

Fictional Riding/District:
Conservative: 45%
Liberal: 40%
NDP: 15%

The problem is that the Conservative wins, even though the it is quite clear the district has a left tilt. What ends up happening is the MP wants to puts finger in the air.

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.

I would recommend trying out the IRV first.

In short, the real "treason" would be the system; it needs to be fixed.

I just want to point out that parties are the most weakly institutionalized parts of government - and are SUPPOSED to be the most weakly institutionalized part of the government. However, I concede that, when people leave a certain party, they should usually leave because "the party left them" (as Ronald Reagan said) and has ideologically changed; it's also usually a faction that leaves.

However, from what JJ is saying, it sounds more like individuals, rather than a group of people, switching sides for politically personal, rather than politically ideological, reasons.

[Swarm]

Banff wrote:

The people that voted for you as an indepedant , green , NDP , Con , Liberal etc . You are not loyal to your party neither will you be to your voters therefore aginst your country . It is impossible to have loyalty to your nation by floor crossing it's not possible in theory or practice . It's becomes a job with qualifications nothing more and zero representation especially after telling your voters to go fuck themselves . "TREASON " sorry I won't budge . They'd all be jailed , life sentence no parole if it were up to me .

That's some very tortured logic, like I said. What if you are better serving your voters by changing parties? Surely that would be the exact opposite of treason? ejacksonian gave a good example.

[ColKernel]

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. Presumably if I voted for Joe Smith in my riding, I voted for him and not his party. When he crosses the floor, he's still Joe Smith, he's just wearing a different colour tie.

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

[Psudo]

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. =]