Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[brihard]

I don't like the idea of floor crossing as a way to form a majority. IMHO this should trigger and election. Same the other way, if floor crossing caused a party to go from majority to minority it should also trigger a general election.

I'll stand by for in the flux now of:

bUt ThAts NoTb hOw oUr sYsTeM wOrKs drivel...

Let me thank you all in advance, tips.

So if, say, the CPC were governing a strong minority with 171 seats, but were down significantly in the polls, you’d want the LPC to be able to trigger an election by sending two of their own across the floor?

I don’t think you’ve thought your notion through. Pitch any such idea, give me a few minutes and I’ll think of a number of ways it would really screw things up in ways you definitely don’t intend.

Don’t forget that our constitutional system actually has nothing to say about specific parties and caucuses. That’s just the way MPs have chosen to organize themselves. Personally I think anything that makes MPs even more beholden to the whipped vote of their party leader weakens our democracy.

 

[Czech_pivo]

So if, say, the CPC were governing a strong minority with 171 seats, but were down significantly in the polls, you’d want the LPC to be able to trigger an election by sending two of their own across the floor?

I don’t think you’ve thought your notion through. Pitch any such idea, give me a few minutes and I’ll think of a number of ways it would really screw things up in ways you definitely don’t intend.

Don’t forget that our constitutional system actually has nothing to say about specific parties and caucuses. That’s just the way MPs have chosen to organize themselves. Personally I think anything that makes MPs even more beholden to the whipped vote of their party leader weakens our democracy.

Quite often MP’s in the UK vote against their own party if they feel strong enough about a particular issue and it doesn’t result in an election being called.
Maybe consideration should be considered that an MP choosing to leave their party results in that MP sitting as an independent for the remainder of that Parliament. They are free to vote whoever and with however they choose, they just can’t caucus with a party or receive funding from a party.

 

[brihard]

Quite often MP’s in the UK vote against their own party if they feel strong enough about a particular issue and it doesn’t result in an election being called.
Maybe consideration should be considered that an MP choosing to leave their party results in that MP sitting as an independent for the remainder of that Parliament. They are free to vote whoever and with however they choose, they just can’t caucus with a party or receive funding from a party.

How is that meaningfully enforceable? Caucusing with another party is a question of free association. Such a law could not possibly survive a Charter challenge.

Our constitutional balance is predicated on a partoclar group of MPs managing to maintain the confidence of the House. By convention, that does mean parties, however that’s simply because it works.

If any given MP decides to lend their vote to a particular leader or party, that’s their essential political freedom as an elected representative. The accountability mechanism is the ballot box.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So if, say, the CPC were governing a strong minority with 171 seats, but were down significantly in the polls, you’d want the LPC to be able to trigger an election by sending two of their own across the floor?

I mean floor crossers have to be accepted by the receiving partys too.

If I am the MP for my riding I cant just switch and call myself NDP because I want too.

But at the heart of the matter, yes. I don't care who the sitting Gov is. If the make up of the house changes in so much that it moves from majority to minority of vice versa it should trigger an election. That's not the house the people sent, that individual MPs playing games.

Denying the role party's play in how people vote because of some altruistic idea of what the HoC used to be, or should be, is just denying reality.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Allowing MP to cross the floor is a terrible system. Ma isn't going to "vote Conservative" as a Liberal MP. He's going to vote how the party whip tells him to.

At the way least crossing the floor should result in an automatic by-election. Prove that the constituents are really voting "for the person".

 

[Halifax Tar]

Allowing MP to cross the floor is a terrible system. Ma isn't going to "vote Conservative" as a Liberal MP. He's going to vote how the party whip tells him to.

The purists will be by soon to tell you we elect individuals not party members. Yet the vast majority of candidates run as party members, advertise as party members and even on the ballot it lists their party.

And most of those same people wouldn't vote for CPC candidate because they didn't like the current leader, it really doesn't matter if they were best candidate or not. The overwhelming VAST majority of people vote by party, like it or lump it.

I just wish people would be honest about it and not try to hide their political biases behind it.

At the way least crossing the floor should result in an automatic by-election. Prove that the constituents are really voting "for the person".

Agreed.

 

[suffolkowner]

The purists will be by soon to tell you we elect individuals not party members. Yet, the vast majority, candidates run as party members, advertise as party members and even on the ballot it lists their party.

And most of those same people wouldn't vote for CPC candidate because they didn't like the current leader, it really doesn't matter if they were best candidate or not. The overwhelming VAST majority of people vote by party, like it or lump it.



Agreed.

it shouldnt list the party on the ballot, that was a mistake

 

[CBH99]

I don't like the idea of floor crossing as a way to form a majority. IMHO this should trigger and election. Same the other way, if floor crossing caused a party to go from majority to minority it should also trigger a general election.

I'll stand by for in the flux now of:

bUt ThAts NoTb hOw oUr sYsTeM wOrKs drivel...

Let me thank you all in advance, tips.

I agree with you 1000%

I think floor crossing should be discontinued & unallowed. Period.

If someone truly believes in another party's platform, then resign and run as a candidate for that party in the next byelection or general election.

Democracy can't work as intended if the citizenry vote for a certain person/party, and then that person/party just goes ahead and joins the very party people had voted against.

...

He betrayed his voters and supporters. It shouldn't be allowed. There should be a safeguard built into the system so that kind of betrayal isn't possible.

Canadians didn't vote for the LPC to form a majority government. And yet, despite that, the LPC may form a majority government anyway.

(I don't care how our system works or is supposed to work - there are some major f**king flaws in it that could be rectified literally tomorrow if the governing party wasn't currently benefitting so much from said flaws.)

 

[brihard]

Allowing MP to cross the floor is a terrible system. Ma isn't going to "vote Conservative" as a Liberal MP. He's going to vote how the party whip tells him to.

At the way least crossing the floor should result in an automatic by-election. Prove that the constituents are really voting "for the person".

Then they would simply resign from caucus, sit as “independents” but vote with and be invited to discussions by the other party.

I understand why some of you want what you want, but there’s just a number of legal reasons it’s a non-starter, not the least of which is the inherent breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Charter.

Our accountability mechanism for the things you’re objecting here is the next election.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Democracy can't work as intended if the citizenry vote for a certain person/party, and then that person/party just goes ahead and joins the very party people had voted against.

Exactly. The people are in change of who goes to the HoC and what party they represent.

If the MP wants to change it should be up to the people of that riding, not that individual MP.

(I don't care how our system works or is supposed to work - there are some major f**king flaws in it that could be rectified literally tomorrow if the governing party wasn't currently benefitting so much from said flaws.)

Good luck finding a party that will do anything to change a system that's worked for them in the past.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Our accountability mechanism for the things you’re objecting here is the next election.

Ok, so if the MP is no longer comfortable with the party they represent step down and restart the election cycle for that riding.

One person unilaterally deciding how their riding is represented is patently wrong and not good for Canada.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Then they would simply resign from caucus, sit as “independents” but vote with and be invited to discussions by the other party.

I understand why some of you want what you want, but there’s just a number of legal reasons it’s a non-starter, not the least of which is the inherent breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Charter.

Our accountability mechanism for the things you’re objecting here is the next election.

What do you mean by breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Charter?


Voters cast their ballots based largely on party affiliation, platform, and leadership rather than on the individual guy or girl alone. Switching parties mid mandate means a MP effectively alters the political contract under which they were elected. To me that's exercising power that was granted for a different purpose.

This concern is made worse where the MP benefited from campaign donations, volunteer labour, and party resources tied explicitly to that original affiliation.

It's not fraud in the legal sense but it can be seen as fraud in spirit. Financial and electoral support was obtained on one set of representations and then used to advance another.

Add MPs returning election donations when they cross the floor, or, transferring it to the losing party, to the list of what should happen.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Switching parties mid mandate means a MP effectively alters the political contract under which they were elected.

There is no such contract in any tangible sense. Some people vote for a member. Some vote for a leader. Some vote for a party. Some vote for a policy, or against one. Which of those should be the correct "contract"?

 

[brihard]

Ok, so if the MP is no longer comfortable with the party they represent step down and restart the election cycle for that riding.

One person unilaterally deciding how their riding is represented is patently wrong and not good for Canada.

Which then means that a party gets to hold a sword of Damocles over every MP: not just “vote as we say or you’re out of caucus”, but “vote as we say or you’re unemployed”. No thanks.

What do you mean by breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Charter?


Voters cast their ballots based largely on party affiliation, platform, and leadership rather than on the individual guy or girl alone. Switching parties mid mandate means a MP effectively alters the political contract under which they were elected. To me that's exercising power that was granted for a different purpose.

This concern is made worse where the MP benefited from campaign donations, volunteer labour, and party resources tied explicitly to that original affiliation.

It's not fraud in the legal sense but it can be seen as fraud in spirit. Financial and electoral support was obtained on one set of representations and then used to advance another.

Add MPs returning election donations when they cross the floor, or, transferring it to the losing party, to the list of what should happen.

We have no law saying an MP must be part of a party. MPs have no sort of employment contract relationship with a party. A statute that effectively tied an MP’s employment to party loyalty would infringe on their right to associate freely, and their democratic rights to be in Parliament if elected. I understand the concept that in many, probably most cases people vote for an MP because they align with party preferences, but there’s nothing legally or conventionally that fixes that in place.

A law that said “if you break with your party you essentially lose your job” would be chilling on both the individual MP’s associational or expressive rights, and would trample their Charter right to be eligible for sitting in Parliament.

A system where the law forces an MP to stay with the party would GREATLY empower the party over the Member of Parliament elected by voters. It would essentially strip the MPs of their ability to vote their conscience freely.

There’s a certain amount of onus on a party leader and PM to run their parties or to govern in such a way that they retain the support of their caucus. We don’t need to give them a set of training wheels by effectively handcuffing their MPs to them.

Floor crossings are rare, but they’re an essential tool in the toolbox of accountability. And my opinion has nothing to do with which party someone is crossing from or to.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Which then means that a party gets to hold a sword of Damocles over every MP: not just “vote as we say or you’re out of caucus”, but “vote as we say or you’re unemployed”. No thanks.

That's exactly what happens now.

MPs should vote how their constituents would want to the best of their ability. They are representing the people of their riding they are not the riding themselves.

But that's not whats at play, please keep the goal posts in place.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Floor crossings are rare, but they’re an essential tool in the toolbox of accountability. And my opinion has nothing to do with which party someone is crossing from or to.

Agreed MPs aren't legally bound to a party and that conscience and associational freedom matter.

My concern is less about legality and more about democratic legitimacy. I'm confident most voters are choosing a party platform and leader. They're not choosing a free-floating individual mandate (in most cases). A mid-term floor crossing materially alters the representation constituents believed they were electing. Acknowledging MPs rights doesn't preclude recognizing that accountability can reasonably require seeking a renewed mandate when that fundamental alignment changes. See if "the people" will still vote for him.

Going back to conscience, look at Ma. One week the LPC are the worst ever and he had plenty of negative things to say about them. Not once did he criticize the CPC stance or Poilievre himself. He critd Carney though. Even the night of their XMas party he claims he was a staunch Conservative. Then the ghosts of Christmas visit him and he has an epiphany of Carney's vision and he she's the truth now.

Ma claims to be in a better position to speak on behalf of his Conservative constituency. Let's give it 6 months or a year so we can look back at Ma's voting record and see for ourselves.

 

[brihard]

That's exactly what happens now.

MPs should vote how their constituents would want to the best of their ability. They are representing the people of their riding they are not the riding themselves.

But that's not whats at play, please keep the goal posts in place.

No it’s not. If they’re kicked out of caucus they’re still MPs until the next election triggered by normal processes. There’t no increased jeopardy to their immediate financial security. I’m still replying to your original suggestion that crossing the floor should trigger an election (presumably you mean a byelection for that seat). In the vast majority of cases that would functionally guarantee the end of their time as an MP- loss of employment. I don’t want parties to be able to threaten that if someone doesn’t toe the line.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My concern is less about legality and more about democratic legitimacy.

Legality == input legitimacy. "Democratic legitimacy" == output legitimacy.

The latter can't wholly be disregarded, but it's entirely subjective.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No it’s not. If they’re kicked out of caucus they’re still MPs until the next election triggered by normal processes. There’t no increased jeopardy to their immediate financial security. I’m still replying to your original suggestion that crossing the floor should trigger an election (presumably you mean a byelection for that seat). In the vast majority of cases that would functionally guarantee the end of their time as an MP- loss of employment. I don’t want parties to be able to threaten that if someone doesn’t toe the line.

I have no issue with that. If they feel strongly enough that they no longer align with the party's banner they ran under and/or the constituents that put them in that seat then they should step down and run for a different party or step down and leave politics all together.

They aren't there for a job, they are there to represent the people of their riding.

Parties already threaten people to toe the line, its whole job of the whip.

 

[YZT580]

That's exactly what happens now.

MPs should vote how their constituents would want to the best of their ability. They are representing the people of their riding they are not the riding themselves.

But that's not whats at play, please keep the goal posts in place.

and very few of them EVER vote against the party but in line with their constituents wishes. I would prefer more free votes and not whipped ones