Joe Rogan and Pierre Poilievre interview

[brihard]

Imagine hiring a lawyer to represent you in court only they start pursuing issues counter to your own and your only recourse is to hire different lawyer, but only after paying them for 4 years.

Lawyers have a legally recognized and defined duty to a specific individual client, who they advise, but who then instructs them.

MPs represent a constituency but at no point are elected with the expectation that they must and will adhere to a single inflexible viewpoint. With over a hundred thousand constituents per riding that’s unworkable. We choose MPs because we trust them as an individual to do the best they can for our riding in the aggregate.

I’d be ok with a high-threshold recall petition mechanism, but not automatic byelections.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I like to see a requirement that MP's have to go independent for 6 months and have to hold a referendum with the voters in their riding. Election Canada can provide the website and process to vet respondents. Questions are simple:

1. Remain independent
2. Return to the party
3. Join party X

 

[Jarnhamar]

Okay, lawyer example was flawed.

We choose MPs because we trust them as an individual to do the best they can for our riding in the aggregate.

I don't think that's what the majority of Canadians do at all. Overwhelmingly we choose based on party affiliation.

MP's can try to champion their ridings needs but at the end of the day how many MP's vote contrary to what their party tells them to do? 1%? And even then it's a one-off.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I like to see a requirement that MP's have to go independent for 6 months and have to hold a referendum with the voters in their riding. Election Canada can provide the website and process to vet respondents. Questions are simple:

1. Remain independent
2. Return to the party
3. Join party X

Except becoming an independent doesn't really matter if you've been bribed or blackmailed to cross the floor. You'll still vote for the party that pays you and carry their water. All you do is make it easier for the engineers of the plan to more vehemently deny interfering in democracy.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I like to see a requirement that MP's have to go independent for 6 months and have to hold a referendum with the voters in their riding. Election Canada can provide the website and process to vet respondents. Questions are simple:

1. Remain independent
2. Return to the party
3. Join party X

Except the cure is potentially worse than the disease.

For years here on Army.ca I have read many comments about how MPs put Party in front of Constituency. And how bad that is for democracy. And how much sway Party has and that MPs are trained seals.

Yet, an MP crossing the floor (in either direction: opposition to govt or govt to opposition), potentially could be putting constituents first and is the very definition of not being a trained seal. I say: let the constituents of the affected riding decide that for themselves at the next election if Party affiliation or voting record on the actual issues are more important to them.

By passing some sort of law requiring a byelection in the event of a floor crossing you are potentially removing a safety valve in Parliament and basically codifying that Party is more important than the individual MP (ie- you must dance with the one that brung ya). That, to me, is really dangerous. A really craven PM, because they control the timing of any by-election within a 6 month window, could weaponize this and neuter the Parliamentary Opposition.

In short, I am advocating for treating MPs and voters like adults.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Except becoming an independent doesn't really matter if you've been bribed or blackmailed to cross the floor. You'll still vote for the party that pays you and carry their water. All you do is make it easier for the engineers of the plan to more vehemently deny interfering in democracy.

True, but a referendum result where you might be forced back into the party might make people think twice about that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Except the cure is potentially worse than the disease.

For years here on Army.ca I have read many comments about how MPs put Party in front of Constituency. And how bad that is for democracy. And how much sway Party has and that MPs are trained seals.

Yet, an MP crossing the floor (in either direction: opposition to govt or govt to opposition), potentially could be putting constituents first and is the very definition of not being a trained seal. I say: let the constituents of the affected riding decide that for themselves at the next election if Party affiliation or voting record on the actual issues are more important to them.

By passing some sort of law requiring a byelection in the event of a floor crossing you are potentially removing a safety valve in Parliament and basically codifying that Party is more important than the individual MP (ie- you must dance with the one that brung ya). That, to me, is really dangerous. A really craven PM, because they control the timing of any by-election within a 6 month window, could weaponize this and neuter the Parliamentary Opposition.

In short, I am advocating for treating MPs and voters like adults.

My idea leaves the choice in the hands of the voters and reminds the politician, that it is the voters choice. A fixed referendum question saves the costs and hassle of a byelection and gives consequence to the choice of crossing the floor. The 6 months period gives the politician the chance to convince the voters of their reason and for the system to go through the process. It will reduce the ability for the other party to "bribe" people, as they won't immediately be able to switch over and there is no guarantee that it would be successful.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yet, an MP crossing the floor (in either direction: opposition to govt or govt to opposition), potentially could be putting constituents first and is the very definition of not being a trained seal. I say: let the constituents of the affected riding decide that for themselves at the next election if Party affiliation or voting record on the actual issues are more important to them.

By passing some sort of law requiring a byelection in the event of a floor crossing you are potentially removing a safety valve in Parliament and basically codifying that Party is more important than the individual MP (ie- you must dance with the one that brung ya). That, to me, is really dangerous. A really craven PM, because they control the timing of any by-election within a 6 month window, could weaponize this and neuter the Parliamentary Opposition.

In short, I am advocating for treating MPs and voters like adults.

If MPs are supposed to represent constituents, then switching parties without asking them isn’t independence it’s changing the deal after the vote. Letting voters decide immediately (via by-election) is more democratic.

If someone says "I spoke with constituents" then a by-election would be a fair due process. That seems the fairest approach in a representative democracy.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If MPs are supposed to represent constituents, then switching parties without asking them isn’t independence it’s changing the deal after the vote. Letting voters decide immediately (via by-election) is more democratic.

If someone says "I spoke with constituents" then a by-election would be a fair due process. That seems the fairest approach in a representative democracy.

Since the last general election, did the situation change significantly?

Are there new issues facing Canada not envisioned during the last election?

Does either the PM or Opposition party leader’s performance or conduct suddenly suck so badly that an MP cannot ethically continue on that side of the house?

Tell me, if someone with the last name rhyming with “Rudeau” were Prime Minister and his MPs wanted to leak away to the opposition leading to the probable defeat of the Govt and a general election, would you still be happy with a bunch of byelections?

 

[ArmyRick]

I am going to get someone to pay for a load of beef, then when they come to pick it up, I will give them Lamb instead. I will say you choose me to be your farmer and in spite of what we agreed upon, I decided for you without discussion.

For all you closet Liberals, it is simple, you ran as candidate for X riding and you said you represent party A, then stick to it. The MP got the benefit of being elected ON THAT PARTY name.

The rest is lies you are telling yourself to make you feel less stupid.

 

[ArmyRick]

Since the last general election, did the situation change significantly?

Are there new issues facing Canada not envisioned during the last election?

Does either the PM or Opposition party leader’s performance or conduct suddenly suck so badly that an MP cannot ethically continue on that side of the house?

Tell me, if someone with the last name rhyming with “Rudeau” were Prime Minister and his MPs wanted to leak away to the opposition leading to the probable defeat of the Govt and a general election, would you still be happy with a bunch of byelections?

I was less than impressed when Leona Allesev crossed to the conservatives, I put up a FB post at the time saying it made us look immoral and sneaky. So I stand by my standards then and I still do now. I was equally unimpressed when Jennica Atwin left the greens for the liberals, I have nothing to do with those parties (I stopped voting green after 2015).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I was less than impressed when Leona Allesev crossed to the conservatives, I put up a FB post at the time saying it made us look immoral and sneaky. So I stand by my standards then and I still do now. I was equally unimpressed when Jennica Atwin left the greens for the liberals, I have nothing to do with those parties (I stopped voting green after 2015).

Good for you for at least being consistent in your position. We can disagree about whether floor crossing is good or bad, but I can totally respect that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am going to get someone to pay for a load of beef, then when they come to pick it up, I will give them Lamb instead. I will say you choose me to be your farmer and in spite of what we agreed upon, I decided for you without discussion.

For all you closet Liberals, it is simple, you ran as candidate for X riding and you said you represent party A, then stick to it. The MP got the benefit of being elected ON THAT PARTY name.

The rest is lies you are telling yourself to make you feel less stupid.

Except that is again a false anology.

Unlike you and your customer, there is no contract, real or implied, between a voter and an elected official.

You also cannot know why an MP was elected. Was it party? Was it platform? Was it their good looks and charm? When 100,000 people cast individual votes in a riding, they all do so with variety of motives. Your reason for putting an X beside candidate Bloggins may differ from your next door neighbour who also selected Bloggins.

 

[ArmyRick]

Except that is again a false anology.

Unlike you and your customer, there is no contract, real or implied, between a voter and an elected official.

You also cannot know why an MP was elected. Was it party? Was it platform? Was it their good looks and charm? When 100,000 people cast individual votes in a riding, they all do so with variety of motives. Your reason for putting an X beside candidate Bloggins may differ from your next door neighbour who also selected Bloggins.

When a candidates name is on the sign with PARTY affiliation plus they are on the web site and recognized as a candidate, come on, FALSE ADVERTISING.

Your arguing semantics and going long ways to try and shape your argument.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Since the last general election, did the situation change significantly?

Are there new issues facing Canada not envisioned during the last election?

Does either the PM or Opposition party leader’s performance or conduct suddenly suck so badly that an MP cannot ethically continue on that side of the house?

I see the issue as democratic legitimacy. Voters elect MPs on a party platform at a specific time, and if an MP changes party mid-term, the most direct democratic remedy is to let constituents decide through a by-election. That doesn’t prevent MPs from acting on conscience it just ensures accountability follows the change rather than waiting years for the next general election.

Cannot ethically continue on that side? That's fine, switch sides and confirm the people still want you as their member of parliament.

Tell me, if someone with the last name rhyming with “Rudeau” were Prime Minister and his MPs wanted to leak away to the opposition leading to the probable defeat of the Govt and a general election, would you still be happy with a bunch of byelections?

Believe it or not, yes. Absolutely.

We see it with floor crossers who one day spew vitriol and the next heap praise on their new party. Automatic by elections would protect the spirit and process of representative democracy IMO.

Ridings should be able to recall their MP and call an election and a majority of them feel their MP isn't representing them.

 

[GR66]

If MPs are supposed to represent constituents, then switching parties without asking them isn’t independence it’s changing the deal after the vote. Letting voters decide immediately (via by-election) is more democratic.

If someone says "I spoke with constituents" then a by-election would be a fair due process. That seems the fairest approach in a representative democracy.

Do MP's have a pre-set opinion on every issue that gets locked in on election day? In selecting your MP are you forced to automatically support each and every policy platform of the party your candidate runs for? If your MP votes for/against something that you felt was not in line with what you thought their position was when you voted for them are they "changing the deal after the vote"? How is that any different than the MP changing the t-shirt they wear (party) in the HOC? How does changing their party affiliation in Parliament differ from changing their opinion on any other important issue they may vote on while sitting as an MP? What about the interest of your neighbours that may not have voted for their MP? Is the MP not also responsible for looking out for their best interests as well...which may differ from the interests of the leader of the party under who's banner they originally ran?

We have a Representative Democracy. We elect an individual who's judgement we trust to REPRESENT us in Parliament. This individual doesn't just represent you or I as individuals, they represent the entirety of their constituents - regardless of how they voted - based on the broad consensus of which individual they feel will best represent their collective interests in Parliament (i.e. the election).

If you are unhappy with the decisions that the representative your riding collectively selected in the last election makes while representing your riding in Parliament (be that their support/non-support for firearms regulations, support/non-support for environmental regulations, support/non-support for a particular taxation measure, support/non-support for the budget bill or support/non-support for a particular political party) then you can choose to not vote for that individual again at the next election.

If you want to restore the primacy of Parliament over the Executive then it's exactly MPs that are willing to vote against their party lines, or gasp! even change party affiliation in order to do what they feel best represents the interests of their constituents rather than just being clapping seals that blindly support what the leader of their party tells them they have to support.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do MP's have a pre-set opinion on every issue that gets locked in on election day? In selecting your MP are you forced to automatically support each and every policy platform of the party your candidate runs for? If your MP votes for/against something that you felt was not in line with what you thought their position was when you voted for them are they "changing the deal after the vote"? How is that any different than the MP changing the t-shirt they wear (party) in the HOC? How does changing their party affiliation in Parliament differ from changing their opinion on any other important issue they may vote on while sitting as an MP? What about the interest of your neighbours that may not have voted for their MP? Is the MP not also responsible for looking out for their best interests as well...which may differ from the interests of the leader of the party under who's banner they originally ran?

We have a Representative Democracy. We elect an individual who's judgement we trust to REPRESENT us in Parliament. This individual doesn't just represent you or I as individuals, they represent the entirety of their constituents - regardless of how they voted - based on the broad consensus of which individual they feel will best represent their collective interests in Parliament (i.e. the election).

If you are unhappy with the decisions that the representative your riding collectively selected in the last election makes while representing your riding in Parliament (be that their support/non-support for firearms regulations, support/non-support for environmental regulations, support/non-support for a particular taxation measure, support/non-support for the budget bill or support/non-support for a particular political party) then you can choose to not vote for that individual again at the next election.

If you want to restore the primacy of Parliament over the Executive then it's exactly MPs that are willing to vote against their party lines, or gasp! even change party affiliation in order to do what they feel best represents the interests of their constituents rather than just being clapping seals that blindly support what the leader of their party tells them they have to support.

MPs can vote their conscience. We know what happens when their conscience runs counter to the party. The overwhelmingly similar way MPs in a party vote isn't coincidence.

Many voters still choose MPs largely through party platforms, which is why party affiliation matters at the ballot box. If an MP changes parties mid-term, it changes the mandate they were elected on, so the most democratic remedy is letting constituents test that change at a by election rather than waiting years for the next general election.

Whats a by election cost, $2M-$3M?
A "rounding error" as people are apt to say when politician et el get caught ripping off the government. It all comes down to "prove it".

 

[GR66]

MPs can vote their conscience. We know what happens when their conscience runs counter to the party. The overwhelmingly similar way MPs in a party vote isn't coincidence.

Many voters still choose MPs largely through party platforms, which is why party affiliation matters at the ballot box. If an MP changes parties mid-term, it changes the mandate they were elected on, so the most democratic remedy is letting constituents test that change at a by election rather than waiting years for the next general election.

Whats a by election cost, $2M-$3M?
A "rounding error" as people are apt to say when politician et el get caught ripping off the government. It all comes down to "prove it".

Political parties are an artificial creation used to generally classify a broad coalition of people who in general claim to support the same general set of policies. Many people may choose to limit their political engagement to that extremely superficial level and just blindly vote for their chosen party. That however doesn't change the fact that you are voting for an INDIVIDUAL not a PARTY to represent you and your fellow constituents in Parliament.

If you are of the opinion that electing your MP should be nothing more that selecting the political party you support then save a bunch of money and get rid of the individual MPs and just have the leaders of the political parties represent the ridings that voted for their party.

In that case you can have the five party leaders sit around a dinner table and vote on the issues:

• Mark Carney gets 171 votes
• Pierre Pollievre gets 140 votes
• Avi Lewis gets 6 votes
• Elizabeth May gets 1 vote
• 3 votes still to be confirmed

If you bind your MP's to their party affiliation rather then their own conscience and free will then that is effectively what you are doing.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If you are of the opinion that electing your MP should be nothing more that selecting the political party you support then save a bunch of money and get rid of the individual MPs and just have the leaders of the political parties represent the ridings that voted for their party.

You might be on to something.

We could also have MP's run as citizens not associated to any party. They tell us their views and beliefs and we pick them based on that. Then once elected they pick the party they feel most aligns with their views.

Like a Harry Potter sorting hat of sorts.

 

[dapaterson]

You might be on to something.

We could also have MP's run as citizens not associated to any party. They tell us their views and beliefs and we pick them based on that. Then once elected they pick the party they feel most aligns with their views.

Like a Harry Potter sorting hat of sorts.

The introduction of party affiliations into federal ballots was in the mid 20th century, as I recall. Prior to that, I believe ballots would list names and occupations instead.

One stunt parties would try would be to find people with the same name as a popular candidate to confuse voters and leech off some of their support.