Hey sorry. I’m trying to get this to a rule specific enough to be enforceable. I hen we talk about “crossing the floor” really we’re talking about leaving one caucus to sit with another. In and of itself that’s not a formal thing; federal law doesn’t define caucus membership.
What I believe you want to prevent is MPs who don’t faithfully represent the party whose banner they campaigned under, and you want that to go to the extent of if they step out from under that banner, they lose their seat. I’m trying to figure out how a legally enforceable rail could be written.
Nothing would stop an MP who’s a member of the Rhinocerous Party from not formally leaving that party, but nonetheless casting their vote alongside the Kangaroo Party. Rhinocerous party could of course kick them out of caucus for that… But how do you write that into being a rule where someone loses their seat in Parliament?
Losing a seat in Parliament outside of an election is deliberately very hard. Members of the House can themselves formally vote to expel a member. I don’t fully know, but suppose that would be a straight majority vote. Parliamentary privilege of a powerful and weird thing.
Could it not be as straightforward as writing a rule saying exactly that though?
"If an elected MP wants to change what party they work under, they must first vacate their seat & win the subsequent byelection."
The rule wouldn't even need to be enforced from a practical or tangible standpoint, because it would be more of a procedural matter than anything. No??
Boom! Done! <slaps my hands together, pretending I just did something that required more than moving my thumbs>
For one thing, voters don’t go to the polls trying to elect a specific composition of the HoC. They vote in 336 or so individual elections for the person or party they want to represent them. There is no way voters can choose the makeup of the House. I’m pretty sure no Liberal or Tory voter went to the polls hoping to elect a minority government for any party. I’m sure they wanted to win an stonking majority for their party. All I can do as a partisan is hope a majority of of those 336 elections are won by my party. If they don’t, well that’s democracy.
And if that representative crosses the floor? They were elected by their constituents to use their judgment on how best to represent their constituents. If the constituents don’t like their judgment or decisions, they can vote them out in the next election.
All fair points, and you are absolutely right.
Broadly speaking, at the macro level, it
iiisss democracy. If voters don't approve of that MP's choices or performance, they can always elect someone else come the next election.
But does that not seem like a dirty, or inefficient, or perhaps even dangerously lazy way for a democracy to run?
4 years is a long time. A lot can happen in 4 years. A lot of damage can be done in 4 years.
...
And you are right - every voter (for the most part) wants their preferred party to win a majority, and nobody knows what the makeup of the HoC will end up looking like once the ballots have been counted.
I
DO think that whether a party forms a majority government or not should be decided at the ballot box, by the voters -
NOT stumbled into because some nitwit decides to cross the floor less only 7 months after an election.
...
In my opinion, with the way things are currently set up, it would be
way too easy for a politician to be bribed, enticed, maybe even blackmailed into crossing the floor...and BAM!
For the next 4 years, we wouldn't really have an opposition. Meaning the government can basically do almost whatever it wants.
And
IF we end up in a situation where the government can essentially do whatever it wants, shouldn't we vote for that??
It's a bit rich for us to call ourselves a democracy when the government uses subversion & dishonesty to skirt the vote of the people and give themselves a majority.
Anyways, Cheers Guys
Happy New Years Eve!!
