Can you "cross the floor" if you are a 'list MPP'?
« Yet another link | Main | It's officially one-trick pony time »
On a technical note
Comments are closed for this post.
Sponsors:
Powered by
Movable Type Personal 4.1
Movable Type Personal 4.1
Site Navigation
Search
(Powered by Google)
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 7, 2007 3:51 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Yet another link.
The next post in this blog is It's officially one-trick pony time.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (12)
An interesting question… and the answer is (probably) yes. To get re-elected, however, an MPP would have to be nominated as a list or riding candidate for the new party. It would be straightfoward enough to legislate that an MPP (list or not) would be required to sit as an independent or else resign, as has been proposed by Peter Stoffer and others at the federal level.
Posted by Josh | August 7, 2007 4:03 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 16:03
I can’t do much research on it now, but FWIW, I think the answer is “no” in New Zealand, which has a MMP-style system.
I could be offbase, but if I remember right, one or more NZ MP’s wanted to switch sides and were told that if they left their caucuses, they’d have to quit entirely and be replaced by someone else on the Party list.
Apologies to all if I have that wrong, but assuming that’s so, it leads to all sorts of interesting comparisons & possibilities if we adopt the same rules in Canada. To take one obvious example, how would a Garth situation play out if he was a party-list MP? Would the PM have the authority to kick him out of caucus if by doing so he was kicked out of the House altogether?
Posted by Jason Hickman | August 7, 2007 4:45 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 16:45
Maybe that would be a good thing— if they couldn’t cross.
Posted by SUZANNE | August 7, 2007 5:03 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 17:03
Posted by Ross Anderson | August 7, 2007 5:12 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 17:12
I agree, a very good question. My assumption would be that a list MP would be able to cross the floor, but to be re-elected, he would either have to run for a riding seat, or be placed on his new party’s list — just as he would have to do to be re-elected under the party he originally signed up with.
This is, assuming, we maintain the list system, and don’t force a change to the list-free Regional Open system for the election after MMP passes.
Posted by James Bow
|
August 7, 2007 5:29 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 17:29
Just make sure the deck chairs are folded and neatly stacked before the final plunge, ‘kay?
Posted by Anonymous | August 7, 2007 8:29 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 20:29
Unless there’s an ‘imperative mandate’ in effect, yes, you generally can.
Posted by Ben (The Tiger in Exile)
|
August 7, 2007 9:08 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 21:08
I think so. Just because you are picked via a preferencial list (according to the popular vote) doesn’t mean you aren’t still a member of a specific party.
In the end, the MPP that crossed the floor would just be reassigned to a different list come next election. I’m sure if that was the case federally, David Emerson would have a much better chance of being re-elected since he would be depending on the popular vote and not the judgement of angry partisan voters in Vancouver Kingsway.
Posted by NB Taxpayer | August 7, 2007 10:00 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 22:00
Btw, under a mixed member proportional representation [MMP] system, can a riding MPP resign his or her seat before an election is called and then run as a list candidate once the writ is officially dropped?
Posted by NB Taxpayer | August 7, 2007 10:05 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 22:05
To answer Jason Hickman, it is allowed in New Zealand and has happened.
Posted by Greg Staples | August 7, 2007 10:07 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 22:07
Well, the answer is most likely a technical yes; however, without an actual constituency, the excuse - whether true or feigned - “I was doing it to better represent my constituents” falls away, and the usual crass political opportunism becomes rapidly apparent.
Posted by Frank Cybulski | August 7, 2007 11:08 PM
Posted on August 7, 2007 23:08
Complicated.
Let’s keep in mind that the point of MMP is to represent the wishes of the population, as polled on election day. So preventing a member from switching parties if the party deviates from the platform they were elected upon, is hampering representation. Otherwise, if a member isn’t prevented from leaving because his values have changed, but his constituents’ haven’t, then is that improving representation?
Posted by Saskboy1 | August 8, 2007 2:30 AM
Posted on August 8, 2007 02:30