9
NDP seeks to ban floor-crossing without constituents' consent (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/canadapolitics@lemmy.world
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 5 months ago

Floor crossing should trigger a by-election. Canada currently supports bait-and-switch by MPs who just seek power, not representation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    In a brief statement on Monday, Davies, the party's parliamentary leader, said his proposed bill would require members of Parliament who wish to join another party to first obtain consent from their constituents through a byelection or sit as an Independent until the next general election.

    Oh so it's a bill. I thought it'd be NDP policy alone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    20 comments in c/ndp@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    The problem is that the party system has made MP allegiance murky... they should ALWAYS be representing the will of the constituents over the party.

    This is why i dislike party politics making its way into municipal politics...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 8 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    Thank fuck. Like if you want to step down, there has to be a by-election to make it fair

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    I disagree. I think this increases party stranglehold on our democracy and is bad. I think we elect people to do their best to represent their constituency, and sometimes that will mean leaving their party.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (14 children)

    I understand where you are coming from, but to represent your constituents, you should be elected to so from the party you were running under. If i vote for and elected an NDP, and they crossed the floor to be a liberal, my mp would no longer be doing their best to represent me. At least give an opportunity to hold a by election

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    I think this view of parties is very common, but misguided.

    I don't like further entrenching parties in our electoral system. It's the wrong type of electoral reform.

    That said, I do see value in a mechanism to recall representatives but don't think it ought to be exclusively tied to floor crossing.

    MPs can betray their constituents in all sorts of ways, floor crossing seems pretty benign to me, because they can still advocate for their constituents in the new party, and in some ways they could be more effective.

    I did actually receive a phone survey from Don, and I don't remember if it asked about this but I'm sure if it did I hadn't thought it through enough at the time. I do really appreciate that he's trying to make decisions based on constituency feedback.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (12 children)

    If parties is the wrong kind of electoral reform in your mind, what do you think would be?

    If i voted for an NDP, MPP, specifically because I liked their party's alignment, and they went to cross the floor, the party that they are now a part of doesn't align with the core fundamentals of the NDP. The proper action would be to hold a by-election, so that the floor crosser could attempt to be elected based on the MPPs new parties views.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    If parties is the wrong kind of electoral reform in your mind, what do you think would be?

    Really good question.

    I mean the strengthening of parties within our current system is bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Would then the possibility of someone crossing the floor without s mandate from their constituents aid in strengthening a party?

    Or do you just mean parties in general are, for lack of a better term, "bad"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    A two party system is bad because it leads to very binary us vs them mentalities. The stronger parties get the faster a healthy multi-party system devolves to a two party system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Ah, OK I understand, yeah I do agree there, I think would be better balanced if the right parties didn't all merge, however. The problem we get is vote splitting with a multi party system. That being said fptp encourages a two party system. So that needs to go

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    Floor crossing is bad because MPs are whipped. If it was not for that detail, what parties you belong to would be as politically significant as which libraries you belonged to.

    "Mandate" is not a real concept in our system of government. It is merely a convention of our political culture. A person who is elected has the power. They can use that power however their conscience tells them. That is the whole basis of elected political office. Parties apply coercive pressure to people in office and influence them, but that isn't something to be encouraged. A person should ALWAYS be able to leave their party for ANY reason, without having any effect on their elected office, because otherwise it's the party that we're electing, and parties are not human beings that can hold offices with a conscience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    An NDP MP is actually supposed to represent all citizens in their riding, not just people that "voted NDP" simply because they don't know how anything works. You vote for a person to represent you, not for a party. If people don't understand that when they voted, it's on them to learn how shit works.

    Why are you only concerned about the NDP voters that ignorantly voted on party lines and not also concerned about the Liberal voters that ignorantly voted on party lines? The NDP voters are upset but the Liberal voters are happy. So it's kinda a wash in terms of party-centric representation, isn't it?

    Anyway, we shouldn't change the system to conform to how the ignorant think things should work. Vote for the candidate, not the party, because that's how it is.

    If the NDP does a supply and confidence deal that an NDP voter doesn't approve of, do they get to demand all NDP MPs have to do a by-elecetion? Or is it that the Party leadership get to do whatever the hell they want but MPs should have zero agency?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    An NDP MP is actually supposed to represent all citizens in their riding, not just people that "voted NDP" simply because they don't know how anything works.

    Yes they should represent their constituents, but they shouldn't ignore climate change because they have con voters, or ppc voters.

    You vote for a person to represent you, not for a party.

    And that person is part of a party, who has a platform.

    Why are you only concerned about the NDP voters that ignorantly voted on party lines and not also concerned about the Liberal voters that ignorantly voted on party lines?

    Why are you making stuff up about me? Lol

    Vote for the candidate, not the party, because that's how it is.

    Half right

    If the NDP does a supply and confidence deal that an NDP voter doesn't approve of, do they get to demand all NDP MPs have to do a by-elecetion? Or is it that the Party leadership get to do whatever the hell they want but MPs should have zero agency?

    False equivalence there lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    Fuck that. Parties are not moral agents. Parties cannot be held responsible for their actions. Parties are not the elected holders of office, and turning over that elected power to un-elected, unaccountable entities is fucked right the fuck up. MPs should be empowered against the dominant parties, not be made more beholden to them. WTF, NDP, you're shooting your own foot. Again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    I think it should be illegal for elected members of government to submit to whipping, exactly like it would be illegal for them to sell their votes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •