Wajid Khan and Changing Political Stripes

I believe that the "effects on democracy" have often been overstated. In terms of legislation to force sitting as an independent until the next general election or to force a byelection, I think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

This is not to say I'd be happy if my MP did this. The worst recent instance by far was Emerson, but even that example does not convince me that a legislated answer to the issue is warranted.

Crossing the floor is a British parliamentary tradition and, as long as we follow that tradition, it is a perfectly "legal" move. The floor crosser is responsible to his/her electorate and that is a problem for that electorate to clarify at the next election. In my opinion, politics, for the most part, is the fine "art of opportunism" which may say rather a lot about why somebody crossed the floor. In the last two Canadian parliaments the "back room boys" have been out fishing for whoever they can catch and the name of the game is to stay in power-----opportunism or just effective tactics ?

Often voters elect politicians because of the political party they represent rather than voting for a particular person. Some constituencies have long histories of voting for a specific political party and if a representative wins the constituency nomination for that party his/her election is almost assured in most cases. To have a politican then cross the floor mid term and desert the voters who elected them is grossly inappropriate. It should not be allowed to happen!!

All parties have been implicated in such inappropriate behaviour and all are hypocritical when it happens.

There is a difference between politicians who cross the floor in order to be able to use their particular expertise and those who cross to hopefully better their own political future.

Emerson and Khan would likely fit the first group and Stronach the second.

[updated Tue Jan 16 18:36:50 EST 2007]

I do not really care if they switch but they should get approval from their voters first, and they should make sure their bill are paid up before they cross the floor or the party they switch to pays it for them. Joe P. switched in Richmond Center who I voted for as a member of the Reform Party, that is what we really need is more Reform Parties, the only problem when Joe P switched he got defeated in the Liberal nomination and we ended up with do nothing, idoit Raymond Chan at $145,000 dollars of doing nothing all day.

In truth we really have a screwed up democracy in this country anyhow, witht Governor General head of the armed forces, this Privy Council more dysfunctioinal departments you can thing of, a pathetic Public Service. Canada is really a Public Servant Nightmare, a pathetic Senate of do nothing's, and we have a new form of a National Enegry Program to fill the pockets of Parasites on the Public Purse from Quebec who have more jobs in the Public Service more than anyone other Province, not based on being qualified or by merit only if they are billingual not. This is PMO and Public Servant Dicatatorship Society, that is what Canada is!

I don't so much have a problem with floor crossing - as long as it isn't done to secure a cabinet position. I think a ban on political appointments for floor-crossers until the next election would be fantastic.

Emerson and Stronach - two bad examples of floor-crossing. Khan's defection was more a result of a Liberal leader putting his party before the country. We pay MPs to work for us - not a party(Although some of us pay for both).

I don't see a problem with floor crossing, as long as Canadians are voting in the person rather than the party during elections. I'm getting a bit tired of the "I don't know which leader I am going to vote for" during elections, given there aren't often ridings that have more than one party leader running, and there is only a handful of ridings that have any of the leaders.

I voted for the person who became the MP in my riding because of the person, and despite the party -- not because of it. I will likely vote for him again in the future, regardless of what party he is in. In fact, I would love for him to "cross the floor" to another party, but that is unlikely.

I believe that Canada is at a bit of a crossroads. Either we modernize our electoral system to use some sort of ranked ballot to get rid of vote splitting and make it easier for independents to get in (de-emphasizing parties, dis-empowering party whips, all free votes except confidence votes), or we modernize our electoral system to use proportional representation (focus on parties, PR decided by province rather than current ridings). I think our current system of first past the post, focus on parties with party whips/etc, but with allowed floor crossing, is dysfunctional.

Any party floor crosser should be up for re-election as a condition to remain in that party as an MP.

I think that anyone who is elected as a representative of Party X then crosses the floor to sit in Party Y is insulting the intention and the intelligence of his or her electorate. For the most part, people are elected as a representative of a particular party, not on their own personal qualities. MP's who flit from one party to another are treating the public like chumps and the political process like a game. If a people have some problem with their particular political party, let them resign or sit as an independent

FWIW. Though many Canadians, particularly those in the more anonymous urban sprawls, understand themselves to be voting for a party banner, or even a PM, the simple fact is that, under our Westminster system of government, they're not. They're voting for a representative who is affiliated with others in seeking votes, who may or may not become part of a Cabinet, and so of the government. Frankly, while I understand some people's anger over such flip-flops after the fact, they are wholly part of such a system and always have been, and have often been retrospectively endorsed by electors who do indeed identify with the member (e.g., in the cases of Brison, Stronach or Keith Martin). In a parliamentary system so over whipped as ours, and so controlled by the PMO--much has been made of Harper's control in this regard, but in this he is simply following the pattern of Canadian PMs since (at least) Trudeau--I feel it is imperative that the individual member retain this power to balk at such control, to stand up for what s/he or his/her constituents believe. Without it, they become ever more reduced to the "nobodies" Trudeau in fact took them to be.

A by-election should be called whenever an MP crosses the floor.

I am not a slave to the party system. I vote for the individual who will best represent my interests, regardless of the party. If a politician wishes to change parties he/she should first get the consent of the majority of the constituents. Only if they agree should he change.

I am not averse to a law that says he/she must sit as an independent until the next election or resign and call a by-election.

You know what the bottomline is that I'm not Voting Liberal, so they can cross the floor as many times if they want, the MP's are basically useless they do nothing for their voters when you need them, the number problem in Canada, is this lazy, disfunctional,unqualified Public Service and Foriegn Service that we have, filtering our tax dollars out to countries like China and the Philippines who leaders are corrupt to the core along with Jean Chretien who should have been put in jail 3 years ago, if it wasn't for this dysfunctional RCMP commissioner that seem to have everytime.

Hi Nic

Our political system in Canada is based on political parties. Each of these parties has an ideology that the voter associates with. In each riding members of different political stripes work extremely hard raising funds, campaigning door to door to elect their candidate because they represent their political position. If a member of parliament feels he cannot in good conscience support the position of the party he was elected with. He should resign his seat, and run in a by-election for his new party. I believe this would only be fair to the people that worked so hard to get him elected and to the people that voted for him/her because he was associated with a particular party.

If life becomes intolerable for a Member of Parliament to remain with the Party under which he/she was elected, then sit as an Independent. In the next election he/she should run in the same riding, after being nominated by the members of the newly-chosen party, and not handed a “safe seat”. Let the electors be the judge.

It makes a mockery of the voters who cast their ballots in good faith for that MP and the Party under which he/she ran. And, adding insult to injury, the riding is stuck with a Party that the majority didn't support.

Furthermore, party leaders don't display much integrity when they gloat over the acquisition of turncoats. During an election they blather on and on about “accountability”. Once safely ensconced, they flout it followed by lame justification and political spin. Leaders may talk a good line but if it’s not compliant with behaviour, they will soon lose the respect of their peers and the electorate. The foundation of leadership is credibility…credibility is doing what you said you would do. They must lead by "Setting the Example”, it’s where the backbone shows.

Poll after poll indicates that public trust in politicians is at an all-time low. In Leger Marketing’s annual survey of the most-trusted occupation, politicians were dead last at 14%. In fact, politicians have been last every year since the beginning of the survey four years ago. One need not wonder why! They talk the talk but rarely walk the walk … their hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. This jaded view would quickly change if our elected representatives showed more respect for the voting public by being truthful and principled.

Regrettably, the pursuit of power precludes principle.

Politicians would be wise to heed the counsel of Dr. John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), a Scottish mathematician, physician and satirist, who wrote “The Art of Political Lying”:

“All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies. “

Personnally, my vote reflects (a) the individual whom I believe has integrety and is honest and respectful and will well represents the views of the voters and (b) the party and it's experience, how their expectations meet mine and if I believe we need change or sustain governance. I do have to admit however, in the last Federal Election, I placed greater emphesis on B before A as the individual was unknown to me yet I felt it was overdue to see a change in the Federal Government.
I believe the majority of voters do vote for someone based on the individual and the party they represent. Therefore, keeping this short, I would think that anyone who crosses the floor or seeks to become an independent, should be re-elected in a bi-election to ensure they continue to carry the support of the voters. I feel very strongly on this opinion and believe it is the only means for voters to maintain support for any elected official.