Legislating against "crossing the floor"

Alot of anger this past week over the actions of David Emerson. I can understand why Liberals would be upset, and I can understand why Conservatives would be upset. There's even an online petition being set up to encourage the Canadian Government to force Mr. Emerson to stand in a byelection. What I most enjoyed however was the day-by-day update by Mr. Garth Turner, an Ontario Conservative MP. He probably received the most publicity for his outspoken comments against Mr. Emerson's move to the Conservative government. It was even hinted that Mr. Turner might leave the Conservative party in protest. All in all, I found his blog to be quite interesting.

What interested me most of all was the growing debate over whether their should be legislation which would force anyone who switches parties to immediately have to run in a by-election in their riding. Mr. Turner is 100% in favour of this, you can read his post right here. There is some serious momentum behind this proposed law, after all, many people of all political stripes are upset with Emerson, and there is no doubt of the lingering emotions that follow the defections of Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, and Keith Martin. So with support seeming to come from all political parties, is it the right thing to do to introduce legislation effectively barring any MP from crossing the floor? I say no.

By forcing an elected official to stand for an immediate by-election in their riding, what you are effectively doing is convincing them not to switch parties at all. Why would any MP even think of crossing the floor when the repercussions would be facing an electorate when the only issue that will surface in the election is they switched parties. Not to mention how the party that the MP would switch too might not even want them, and therefore would not be willing to support them financially, and with volunteers. It would be very difficult to mount a campaign, let alone win, so why would anyone cross the floor? The answer is they wouldn't, hence, what this legislation does is ensure no one switches parties.

Is it a bad thing to ensure that floor crossing will never occur again in Canada? I say yes. What is the big wrong being committed by someone who crosses the floor to join another party? Other than hurting people's feelings, is there some key argument that can be made to explain how this is a fundamental breach of democracy? Of course there isn't. This anger emanating from the Liberal party is the same as existed from the Conservative party when Ms. Stronach defected to the Liberals, and that is people were hurt that they lost someone they considered a close friend and a member in good standing of their party. Of course it hurts when someone leaves, it hurts even more when they leave to join your bitter rival, its like if a girl-friend or boy-friend dumped you for your best friend, does it hurt? Oh yes, very much. Is it wrong? Maybe in your opinion, but the truth is that no rule was broken.

Let's break down Mr. Turner's arguments:
-"Everybody who makes up the government should be elected"- I agree, and Mr. Emerson is elected, so this point is unnecessary.

- "They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government" - This argument does not make any sense, after all, what about coalition governments? What about when the Liberals used the NDP to keep themselves in power in the last term? The people of Canada did not vote for an NDP government and yet the NDP were in a position to determine government policy. This argument is also very dangerous in that it insinuates that voters should vote for the government party if they want government representation.

-"Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it’s the other way around" - here is the core of the argument. And this statement is incorrect. You cannot pick and choose your democracy. You simply cannot say, "I like this in a democracy, but I don't like that, so lets change that." The rules of our electoral system may not be perfect, but they are better than those that anyone else has suggested to date. All MP's eventually face the people, its called an "election." To do so for the reasoning that someone disgrees with you and no longer wishes to sit in the same party is irresponsible. The second line is an extremely clever ploy to appeal to your emotion. Who doesn't read that and say "damn right, the people hold the power." Of course we hold the power, that is what democracy is all about. But remember this, we elect people to speak for us, by doing so, we give them the ability to speak for us in the best way that they know. If they believe that what they are doing is right, then I say, let them do it.

At the end of the day, when the heartbreak is over, and the hurt feelings have been mended, Mr. Emerson will again have to face the voters, it will be interesting to see what the people of Vanouver-Kingsway decide to do. I am sure many people will still be upset, which is their right, and perhaps many people will change their minds and see that he may have made the right decision after all. Maybe Mr. Emerson will be able to convince the electorate that he deserves another chance to serve them. If that happens, then not only will he need the Conservative voters, but he will also likely need many of his former Liberal voters as well. And if the people are allowed to change their support from Liberal to Conservative, MP's should be as well.